MythTickle by Justin Thompson

MythTickleNo Zoom

Comments (46) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. capndunzzl

    capndunzzl said, over 2 years ago

    it’s that first step that sets the whole thing in motion.

  2. Kirokithikis

    Kirokithikis said, over 2 years ago

    use those wings and fly

  3. Sisyphos

    Sisyphos said, over 2 years ago

    @Kirokithikis

    Unfortunately, Kiorkithikis, this is a tale of the time before Boody got his wings! So, it’s that first step down that counts here.
    Anyway, this seems to be a case of Myth[tickle] falling for people, to give us a chuckle.

  4. Johanan Rakkav

    Johanan Rakkav GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Justin, Justin, Justin… what are we going to do with you?! This may stand as the biggest mistake you’ve ever made in the history of your cartoonist career. You’re writing as if you haven’t the faintest idea about who believes what and why (and so far, you have at least one reader who seems about as clueless), whether there is any validity to any of those claims, or who is actually raising the skepticism and why.

    Well, part of my profession day-to-day is finding out who believes what and why about such things, when necessary. People aren’t all of a piece on any one of these issues and lumping the people and the issues together like this (even through the lips of such a total airhead as Boody) is almost criminal. I’m honestly shocked that you would stoop so low.

    It would take an essay to go through Boody’s allegations but I’ll just limit myself to two. Most people who are accused of objecting to “science” aren’t objecting to anything of the kind. They object, and rightly so, to the philosophical stances of scientism and naturalism being put forward as if they were one and the same thing, or else logically demanded by, the discipline of natural science. The truth is quite otherwise and always has been . Natural science points to intelligent design and special creation via Occam’s Razor, although not 6,000 years ago (something the Bible doesn’t say either, in fact – but you have to know Biblical Hebrew very well to demonstrate why the mistranslations exist).

    The other thing I’ll mention here has to do with radiometric dating. There are good scientific reasons to be skeptical of it and there are die-hard evolutionists as well as creationists who are so accordingly. But have you ever heard of “confirmation bias”? It’s a very real concern in the scientific community and it happens to be rampant when it comes to anything challenging the predominant worldview of scientism/naturalism/evolutionism. Even evolutionists can’t get contrarian evidence published save on rare occasions and they’re criticized even when they do.

  5. celecca

    celecca GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @Johanan Rakkav

    Just breathe… it’s a comic strip.

  6. celecca

    celecca GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    he really mythed his footing – guess he did fall for a myth

  7. pschearer

    pschearer GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @Johanan Rakkav

    Alain, you almost had me agreeing until you revealed yourself as the apologist for religious fundamentalism that you are. So how old do YOU think the earth is?


    As for those who think cartoons are just cartoons, look up “superficial” in the dictionary.

  8. Doctor Toon

    Doctor Toon GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    I love science, through it we discover some of Gods’ secrets


    How anyone can see the complexity of Creation and not believe in God is beyond me

  9. mntim

    mntim said, over 2 years ago

    I don’t read comics because I’m hoping to come across a dissertation.

  10. reverence

    reverence said, over 2 years ago

    I’m with you Celecca.
    Loving this storyline, Justin but it looks like it may be a bumpy ride…..

  11. Happyᵌ (Where did *Doh* go?)

    Happyᵌ (Where did *Doh* go?) GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    science is science.
    religion is religion.
    they are not compatible.
    one is based on faith,
    the other is based on observation.
    you can not have faith in a chemical reaction.
    you can not observe god.
    trying to insert faith into the science of repeated observation of nature and analytical deduction is like using a ouija board as an abacus.
    it wont work.

    there.
    now i will get off of my soapbox.
    and i will not get back on. (at least no today.)

  12. Habogee

    Habogee said, over 2 years ago

    @Johanan Rakkav

    Huh?

    Dave. (Vague Deist)

  13. SCAATY_423

    SCAATY_423 said, over 2 years ago

    Actually, for what it’s worth, recent public opinion surveys indicate that people who identify themselves as “conservative” do, in fact, tend to distrust science in general, and scientists and intellectuals in particular. This tendency is stronger for those self-identified conservatives with relatively less education and income.
    .
    No, I’m not making a political statement — only reporting. Make of it what you like.

  14. SCAATY_423

    SCAATY_423 said, over 2 years ago

    @Happyᵌ (Where did *Doh* go?)

    You’re right, but your conclusion is wrong. Science and religious faith are not incompatible; many thoughtful, sensible people accept both with no conflict. The reason is simply that science and religious faith address different areas of human life and experience, and neither one invalidates the other. You only have conflict when one, so to speak, tries to plant its flag on the other’s territory…which is the source of all conflicts, come to think of it.

  15. Saskfan

    Saskfan said, over 2 years ago

    @Happyᵌ (Where did *Doh* go?)

    But I have faith in science! Besides, the religion’s not complete yet; otherwise Harold Camping would have been right last year.

    TWICE.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (31).