Gooch's dad

I canceled my subscription to the local paper (Wisconsin State Journal) partly because of this crapola from Mr. Hart:

<a href="http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20020414.html" target="_blank">Stupid Creationist Cartoon</a>

The State Journal canceled BC a couple of years ago, and the local fundies got all upset about it, THEY threatened to cancel their subscriptions, so the paper put BC back in. GRRR.

-Kelly

Joe Nobody

I must be dense. I didn't get it. I got the dinosaur one but not the other one.

Of course, I don't think any cartoon will ever rival this as my all time favorite:

<a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp" target="_blank">http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp</a>

A former science teacher of mine in high school printed out the picture from there with this text :

"You can get out of my class! After you've apologized to everyone for your rudeness and ignorance, we MIGHT let you back in!"

He framed it and had it on display in his class.

Everything in there makes me laugh. The professor is portrayed as rude, ignorant and mean while the quiet creationist solely raises his hand. Look at the picture on the wall next to the professor in the first picture. The dismissal of gluons is hysterical!

"Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them . . . they don't exist. Its a depserate theory to explain away truth."

Of course, that is only a big vacuous assumption and this is easily demonstrated. All one has to do is replace gluon with God. The statement is meaningless in its context. It needs to be qualified.

I honestly don't remember the yellow chart from prior viewings. Anyone ever read that and recall seeing that in there? Maybe it was updated?

Joe Nobody

MrDarwin

Here's my take on it: if you don't like it, don't read it. Of course it's nonsense, but is anybody here willing to cancel their newspaper subscriptions because their local paper carries horoscopes?

(Now, if they start taking creationism seriously in their editorials, news content, or (shudder) science section, then I'd get upset!)

(I might also point out that a lightning bolt striking a swamp might actually be the precise method that God used to create man! The Genesis story isn't really very specific, except that the raw material was dust, dirt, clay, or mud--pretty much what you'd find in a swamp. )

Valentine Pontifex

The biggest problem with that particular cartoon is that it is simply not funny. I don't think it is funny to either side.

But really, it is a free country (or at least should be). I have no problem with Mr. Hart or anyone else putting in their views in their artistic efforts. Live and let live.

Joe Nobody

"""""The biggest problem with that particular cartoon is that it is simply not funny.""""""

Maybe that is why I didn't get it <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Joe Nobody

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Joe Nobody ]</p>

Daydreamer

Ever notice how the Prof. looks vaguely Jewish, the pro-evolutionists come from all sorts of backgrounds (African-American male, Caucasian female) and the creationist is you angelic looking blond Aryan?

Tells you a lot about what goes on in Chicks head, I think.

Typhon

At least BC is not as 'orrible as Family Circus.

I've been hoping for years, decades, that lightning would strike Bil Keane and put him out of our collective misery.

Not only is his comic NEVER funny (not once, not even in the wildest theory, not even compressed around the event horizon of a black hole) and NEVER will be funny, it is consistently filled with Christian pap and saccharine preaching of the worst sort.

Chick tracks are at least funny, even though they're not meant to be.

.T.

Tigermilk

Perhaps this cartoon really means - "Hey, look, this bloke dressed in skins, and is all prehistoric and stuff - he believes in creationism! Isn't that all backwards of him?"

I doubt it though

And it's still not funny if it was

DarkBronzePlant

My paper actually dropped B.C. after so many people complained about it.

It's just flat out not funny, and doesn't belong in the "funnies" section. If they put it in the "Portraits of Faith" section (which, sadly, my paper does have) or somewhere like that, fine (although I must admit I was happy to hear that it was dropped altogether.) But get it the hell out of the freakin' comics section!

Corwin

Check out the Oregonian.

BC is (as far as I know) still in the comics section.

Doonsbury? Got moved to 'opinion and editorial' some years back.