Evolutionists; what do you think of this webpage?

Question

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

just looking for an honest opinion/comment.

Answer 1

Ridiculous cartoon that uses outdated information and strawman arguments in order to prove a point that has no real evidence to back it up.

Just my opinion.

Answer 2

It's laughable, and all the creationist logic falls apart after the "Richard Leakey" story.

Only the rock around the specimen was dated at 212 million years old. The portion of skull was dated at 2.9 million years old.

Now, before you go off at a tangent, screeching that it's not possible for one piece of fossil evidence to be from a completely different age than it's surrounding rock, I want you to know, that 10 different samples were taken from the same area, and they all had different ages- From +- 500 000 years old to 2 640 000 years old.

Answer 3

1.) I prefer "gravitationist" if you don't mind.

2.) I am personally of the opinion that Chick Tracts make people lose IQ points.

Answer 4

reminds me of the type of comics the national front and british movement used to put out. ones that used to show why whites were the master race. when you have to stoop to that level of malicious innuendo, weakly disguised as humour then you've lost the battle

Answer 5

I can't possibly take something seriously that uses Dr Dino as a reference.

Answer 6

i think its just another attempt to stamp out something that disproves the bible.

like burning the guy who said the earth orbited the sun.

the church is really struggling to advance isnt it?

Answer 7

I read about half way down, then I got bored and decided to get my two points.

Answer 8

ok first off Evolutionist is not a word

Answer 9

I got to rudeness and ignorant and i think it's backwards

Answer 10

Do you know what a straw man is?