Jesus and his Pet Dinosaur

Via LOL god.

A Fundamental Difference in Method

This cartoon from Answers in Genesis illustrates the creationist argument that science and creationism are just two different ways of interpreting evidence; that since both approaches start with ad hoc presuppositions, they are equally valid. Which is, of course, nonsense. Science makes no assumptions, it simply follows wherever the evidence leads. In reality, the difference between science and creationism is more like the cartoon below:

Creationism's Biggest Flaw

From SMBC.

Another Bizarre AiG Cartoon

Well, unlike the last AiG cartoon I posted, I can at least kind of see what they are trying to say with this, but there are so many things wrong with this diagram. First, how is evolution an opinion? It's a scientific theory that has been established as a true fact. Truth isn't a matter of opinion. Second, how on earth can homosexual behaviour stem from evolution when procreation is the driving mechanism? Same applies to abortion, if we want to evolve as a species we should be squeezing kids out left, right and centre. Third, how does believing in creation provide an answer to the meaning of life? Do any creationists reading this care to explain?

Another Bizarre Cartoon from AiG

Lamest Cartoons Ever?

These cartoons are by Daniel Nuckols, who has a whole bunch of them online. They're so bad that they're kind of fascinating. Some of them are just downright bizarre, though. Apparently, evilutionists aren't the only sinners he's slicing up with his razor-sharp satire. He seems to have something against vegetarians:


Oh, and the loch ness monster is real:

Intelligent Geography

Men from Mud

Creationism Cartoons

This site has some pretty good cartoons about creationism. Here's my favourite:


Not that you even have to read one book to be an expert on creationism, of course.

New Science Teacher