This is basically what we have to deal with.

[Wiccan_Child]

Source: SMBC.

So please, use this comic as a litmus test for the inanity of future evolutionary criticisms: if your criticism is here, then it's nonsense.

Thank you, and God bless America.

 

[Strathos]

I've seen that before.

 

[juvenissun]

Third class argument.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Third class argument.

... what?

 

[Loudmouth]

Third class argument.

Case in point of what the opening post is talking about.

 

[OllieFranz]

Third class argument.

Please elaborate.

 

[FatBurk]

Third class argument.

Idiotic answer.

 

[Merrily]

It isn't an 'argument' as such it's a cartoon strip.
May as well have just the three frames.
Frame one an apple.
Frame two a banana.
Frame three the text...
" Compare and discuss".

Ultimately futile, but the sort of thing that might amuse the junior common room denizens in one of our recruiting 'universities'.

 

[AV1611VET]

So please, use this comic as a litmus test for the inanity of future evolutionary criticisms: if your criticism is here, then it's nonsense.

Where is the deep time in this comic strip?

It looks like the professor is comparing the French Revolution to [just after] abiogenesis.

If this is true, then there should be billions upon billions of revolutions mentioned in this strip.

The student correctly brings up "microrevolution," but is supposedly rebutted by "revolutions in the middle east."

That doesn't make sense, since revolutions in the middle east are QED to the student's point.

Here's how the conversation looks to me:

[conversation]

Teacher: So when cyanobacteria became -

Student: Excuse me, professor.

Teacher: Yes?

Student: I don't believe in macroevolution.

Student: According to my religion, life was created in its current form. If "evolution" were true, it would imply animals change over time.

* Now comes the flaw. *

Teacher: But there's so much evidence! We have fight and flight and documents from the period.

[/conversation]

Documents from the period???

You have documents from the period of cyanobacteria?

Not.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Frame two a banana.
...

(Full Disclosure: I've quote mined and taken this completely out of context... but in the name of humour ...)

Ack! Not the Atheists nightmare!

(Sorry Merrily , Mr. Comfort made me do it! )

 

[Merrily]

Eat more fruit.
It's good for you.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Eat more fruit.
It's good for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I vote peanut butter as the Atheist's Nightmare.

(Since it was done by one of my mentors. )

 

[juvenissun]

Please elaborate.

This is a typical example that an argument built upon misunderstanding right at the beginning. It started wrong. Then the rest of the arguments became disastrous.

 

[FatBurk]

(Since it was done by one of my mentors. )

I do hope you're joking, do you honestly look up to that??? person?
That man is an out and out con man, either that or he is an out and out fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a typical example that an argument built upon misunderstanding right at the beginning. It started wrong. Then the rest of the arguments became disastrous.

People put Jack Chick down, then give us stuff like this.

As the old saying goes:

Point a finger at someone, and there are three fingers pointing back.

 

[FatBurk]

This is a typical example that an argument built upon misunderstanding right at the beginning. It started wrong. Then the rest of the arguments became disastrous.

Yes just like the creationist argument, you are absolutely right.

 

[AV1611VET]

That man is an out and out con man,

Unlike one person I know here ... ahem ... at least he knows he's a man.

... either that or he is an out and out fool.

I doubt he's an atheist.

 

[AirPo]

I vote peanut butter as the Atheist's Nightmare.

(Since it was done by one of my mentors. )

I do hope you're joking, do you honestly look up to that??? person?
That man is an out and out con man, either that or he is an out and out fool.

Note to self, don't buy anything from AV.

 

[Skaloop]

This is a typical example that an argument built upon misunderstanding right at the beginning. It started wrong. Then the rest of the arguments became disastrous.

It's been said, but to say it again, it's a comic, not an argument. It contains arguments, but is not one itself.

Also, those arguments that you say are disastrous are the exact same arguments Creationists use here in regards to evolution. If they are disastrous in the comic, then they are disastrous here.