Cidu Bill on Dec 6th 2008


I don ‘t get he first panel or how the second panel relates to it.

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Noah, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Zach Weiner, comic strips, comics, humor | 33 responses so far

33 Responses to “Two”

  1. Jeff Lichtman Dec 6th 2008 at 12:22 am 1

    It’s a criticism of Noah’s judgment - he decided to save pests like scorpions and tse tse flies, but he didn’t save bigfoots (bigfeet?), dragons or unicorns.

  2. Austin Dec 6th 2008 at 12:23 am 2

    Noah took scorpions and tsetse flies, but he didn’t take unicorns, dragons, or Bigmen.

  3. farmerjoe Dec 6th 2008 at 12:29 am 3

    The gag is that Noah is kind of a dork. Sure he saved all the animals from the great flood, but did he really have to save the deadly ones as well?

    In the second panel we see a sasquatch, a sea monster (loch ness monster I presume) and a unicorn, watching Noah’s ark sail off into the distance.
    Perhaps if Noah had saved two of them as well they wouldn’t be so hard to find these days.

  4. Scarlettb Dec 6th 2008 at 01:09 am 4

    Here is my question on Noah: what about fish? And ducks? I mean…you did he NEED to bring ducks on the ark? Surely the ducks would just…be a little higher up?

  5. Glenn Dec 6th 2008 at 01:54 am 5

    Looking at the state of the World lately, I think Noah`s big mistake was saving humans…

    …But I degress. Yep, Noah is a dork, saving all the pests, but leaving all the really cool animals behind (Sasquatch, Dragon and Unicorn). Mind you, there appear to be only one of each. Maybe he left them behind because they were already doomed to extinction?

  6. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 01:59 am 6

    Scarlettb, the Hebrew word commonly translated as ‘animal’ or ‘creature’ from the story of Noah only refers to land-dwelling, nostril-breathing animals. It thus does not include ticks, spiders, or even snakes. Ducks, maybe. Noah would only have needed to bring one pair of each “kind” of creature (though he brought 7 of some), thus he would have needed only two dogs, two pigs, and two cats. All the different ‘dog’ breeds, including wolves, foxes, Great Dames,and Poodles are probably all descended from one dog kind on the ark. There would have been plenty of room for any unicorns, the thing was absolutely gigantic.

  7. Karlos Dec 6th 2008 at 03:52 am 7

    Is it a Charles Addams knock-off, or a homage?

  8. CIDU Bill Dec 6th 2008 at 03:55 am 8

    Most likely neither, Karlos: Cartoonists often get similar ideas.

  9. Arvy Dec 6th 2008 at 10:54 am 9

    Shouldn’t it be “two of each kind of scorpion” or am I missing something?

  10. Powers Dec 6th 2008 at 10:59 am 10

    tofor, it’s not possible for foxes and dogs to have descended from a common ancestor in the last 4000 years.

  11. Sal Dec 6th 2008 at 11:49 am 11

    I never could understand why Noah saved those two mosquitoes. And cockaroches.Why? Ants are enough to take care of any rotten meat hanging around.Sometimes I wonder if the Bible is to be taken literaly .

  12. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 11:56 am 12

    Think about what 4000 years means in dog years, Powers. Dogs can mate as young as 6 months. That means we have potentially 8000 generations. And 4000 years is a conservative estimate for how long ago the flood was. How much change can occur in 8000 generations? Certainly even the most obscure breed could have developed in that kind of time frame.

  13. Alibey Dec 6th 2008 at 12:25 pm 13

    From Eddie Izzard,

    Noah: you two ducks, I need you to get on the ark.

    Ducks: why?

    Noah: there is going to be a huge f**k off flood.

    Ducks: and…?

    Noah: every living thing will drown.

    Ducks: right now we swim here __, when the flood comes we will swim here —.

  14. Rainey Dec 6th 2008 at 12:27 pm 14

    I could not picture the scorpions getting along with the tse tse flies. The scorpions would probably eat the tse tse flies if they could catch them.

  15. eeyore19 Dec 6th 2008 at 12:54 pm 15

    If Noah only saved two canines, wouldn’t all of the different breeds of dogs these days imply that there’s, you know…evolution?

  16. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 01:35 pm 16

    Yep. Plenty of evolution. Never seen Evolution though…

  17. Bleu Mune Dec 6th 2008 at 02:03 pm 17

    The second Sasquatch, dragon, and unicorn were killed by a scorpion sometime during the 40 days of rain, so the remaining single beasts were tossed ashore (to extinction). I guess it’s a good thing Noah kept the various poisonous snakes and insects and the carnivorous predators in check, or this would be a very different world today.

  18. Norm Dec 6th 2008 at 02:57 pm 18

    I thought this was LOL followed by Awwww.

  19. LostInTarnation Dec 6th 2008 at 03:34 pm 19

    @Arvy — the use of “kind” is confusing, as Mrs. Noah (whose name was never mentioned in the Bible) in this case seems to be referring to their sex rather than the common Genesis use of “kind” as similar to species or (more closely) genus. The Bible, in its childlike naivetee, would probably refer to all scorpions as one kind, giving creationists enough wiggle room to argue that evolution happens within species but does not allow for new species or genuses, etc. to evolve. Creation scientists are diligently searching for the mechanism that prevents this type of evolution even as we speak. Heh heh.

  20. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 03:51 pm 20

    Meanwhile the remaining scientists assume the mechanism that allows this evolution to occur does exist, and condemn as unscientific any who so much as question this supposition.

  21. Alexandra Erin Dec 6th 2008 at 04:08 pm 21

    @tofor: Sorry, but no such mechanism is necessary. If you build a device that’s capable of shuffling an inch forward at a time, no separate device is necessary to make it go a yard… you just wait until it’s done the thing you already know it does 36 times and you’re there.

    We’ve already spotted speciation occurring in the wild, in fish of the Amazon river that use electric fields to find members of their own species (and ignore fields belonging to other species.) The populations of single species have begun to diverge because of genetic variations in the frequency they produce and recognize. If Evolution of species is supposed to be impossible, something (the divine hand of God?) needs to reach out and stop this business before it goes any further.

    For Evolution of species to occur, on the other hand, nothing extra has to exist. Nothing has to happen that isn’t already happening. No force, no mechanism, no phenomenon except for those which “Creation scientists” already acknowledge exists. They’re saying “Okay, we believe in gravity, but we don’t believe if you drop a football off the Empire State Building it will hit the ground. Where’s the mechanism that carries it the last two inches?”

    Same mechanism that propelled it the rest of the way down. The last two inches aren’t special except for the fact that they happen to be last.

  22. Yaniv Dec 6th 2008 at 05:30 pm 22

    Alexandra, you want to argue that the fish are becoming two separate species, that’s alright. But find an argument (something more than a theory is preferable) to support the idea that all current life forms are derived from a single ocean-dwelling bacteria (one that must have spontaneously appeared), and then you’re qualifying evolution.

    I’m not arguing for creationism; I just want to point out that evolutionists behave and argue just as obliviously and ignorantly as creationists do. Trying to prove that just one of the two theories, and just THESE two theories, is the whole truth is a total load of crap. There is no room for blind faith in history and science.

  23. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 07:41 pm 23

    Alexandra, I am intrigued by your analogy of the device that can shuffle forward. Basically you are suggesting that because a rabbit can give birth to a rabbit with shorter ears, therefore it can eventually, given enough time and generations, turn into a dog. This is like assuming that if you build a device that can roll downhill it can therefore climb Mount Everest.

    In reference to the fish, part of the problem is the weakness of our current definition of species. The currently accepted definition is that if one male and one female can breed and produce fertile offspring than they are the same species. That this is weak is demonstrable by considering Lions and Tigers. According to this definition, they are the same species. In all of human history, dogs have bred and produced smaller dogs. Never has any species been known to produce anything resembling a different kind of animal. Ever.

  24. Michael Dec 6th 2008 at 10:25 pm 24

    Very succinctly put, Alexandra (although people seem to have gotten off the topic of the comic since this thread probably could have ended after Jeff’s first post).

    Anyway, I’m also with Norm that this comic was a LOL followed by an “awwww…”.

  25. tofor Dec 6th 2008 at 10:42 pm 25

    Quite right, I’m sorry. Jeff most definitely nailed the meaning.

  26. Scott Dec 6th 2008 at 11:44 pm 26

    Yaniv, the evidence for a common ancestor is in our shared DNA. I don’t recall off hand what the currently accepted ancestor is, but I recommend that you read Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestors Tale which goes right back to the beginning, and makes the uncertainties back there very clear.

    No one things a bacteria spontaneously appeared - they are much too complex and clearly the product of millions of years of evolution. The first thing was a self-replicating molecule, no doubt, which “evolved” in a sense to RNA.

    We’d be very happy to test other hypotheses about origins if anyone had any. Evolution did very well - remember Darwin knew nothing about genetics, and his guesses about how characteristics are inherited were totally wrong. Yet when we found out about how it really worked, it provided a much better mechanism than his. That’s predictive power.

    As for the cartoon, I think the irony is that Noah paid enough attention to get two varieties of nasty beasts, but forgot the unicorns, etc.

  27. Yaniv Dec 7th 2008 at 03:41 am 27

    It doesn’t “make the uncertainties clear,” it provides Dawkin’s opinion. There’s no fact, just hypothesis. To say that we’re descendant of a particular thing because of physical and biological similarities is the same as saying I’m descendant from that guy over there who happens to look similar to me and be the proper age. Is it possible? Sure. But it’s not definite, and not the most likely.

    How did the first thing get there? My point is, if you’re saying evolution is a chain of changes, something must have come first. And if something was unprecedented, it was either there from the very beginning (not an explanation I feel science would be comfortable with) or appeared from thin air (an explanation science would probably not like either). Science can trace things as far back as it wants, but bottom line is, it’ll eventually get to get to the point where something just happened for no reason, and evolution is no exception.

  28. Blork Dec 7th 2008 at 10:00 am 28

    Yaniv, you’re using the common creationist trick of conflating the scientific meaning of the word theory (i.e. a testable model consistent with all available evidence) with the colloquial meaning of the word (”wild guess”, basically). Evolution is a “theory” in the same sense as the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease transmission or the heliocentric theory of the solar system. There are no doubt refinements to be made, but that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry is about as well-established as you can get outside of pure mathematics, the evidence is a hell of a lot more than “say[ing] that we’re descendant of a particular thing because of physical and biological similarities”.

    As for the origins of life, first of all that’s abiogenesis, not evolution which specifically relates to what happens when life is already there. Finding out the truth in this case is extremely difficult - we’re talking about a single event about 3 and a half billion years ago that probably wasn’t particularly dramatic at the time - but there are plausible models and no, none of them involve either the first cell always having been there or just appearing from thin air.

  29. Bleu Mune Dec 7th 2008 at 12:58 pm 29

    OK, who dragged the old Creationism vs. Evolution argument into this and ruined everything? As human beings with relatively tiny brains (compared with the entire universe), we each have a very limited realm of knowledge and a tiny viewpoint of the world, and our beliefs are firmly entrenched into our brains and hearts based on our experiences and our faith. And I don’t necessarily mean faith in a religious way, but as in, “Faith is to commit oneself to act based on sufficient experience to warrant belief, but without absolute proof.” Faith is what causes you to get out of bed in the morning - and the opposite of faith is not just disbelief, but despair. Everyone - even atheists - has faith of some sort, even if it’s just that the sun will rise tomorrow, that they will get paid if they go to work, or that things will always go badly for them.

    Anyway… to try to argue with someone else with the intent of changing their minds regarding their beliefs, faith, or view of the universe is just futile, and just makes my head hurt. Do we really expect the other person to blurt out, “Wow, you and Darwin are right!”?

  30. Winter Wallaby Dec 7th 2008 at 02:43 pm 30

    Yaniv, you’re correct that science doesn’t currently have a well-tested explanation for how life started (which, as Blork points out, is not abiogenesis, not evolution). But so what? Science doesn’t claim to know how everything works. It’s a method for figuring out how things work. If every time we didn’t know how something happened, we threw up our hands and said “so it must be God,” we’d still be cowering from the wrath of Zeus every time lightning struck.

    Yaniv, as Blork points out, the definition of “theory” differs quite a bit in ordinary usage, and in science. Evolution is a scientific theory, in the good sense of theory—it’s a set of falsifiable hypotheses, that have been tested and modified over time in response to the results of experiments and observations. Furthermore, it’s passed so many tests over the last century, that’s it’s one of the really rock-solid, undisputable theories in science, up there with Newton’s theory of gravity. Creationism is not even a weak scientific theory, because it’s not science—it doesn’t make testable predictions, and creation scientists have done nothing but come up with (bad) explanations to confirm what they already believed. Bleu Mune, only one of these methods based on faith. The beauty of the scientific method is you don’t have to take things on faith; you just test them.

    But this is a comic blog, so let’s try to stay on topic. Here’s a helpful comic.

  31. Sam Arpens Dec 10th 2008 at 01:50 pm 31

    Not to beat a dead horse here, but I want to point out a huge flaw in the logic of the anti-evolutionists here: you seem to be saying that since evolution can’t explain every last detail and fill in every gap that it is therefore unproven and not to be taken seriously. And while evolutionary scientists will admit that they haven’t filled in every last gap, they don’t need to to disprove Creationism.

    There is enough evidence in the fossil record, geographic record and so forth to make the claim that all animals were spontaneously created 6,000 years ago and haven’t ever changed factually inaccurate.

    If you don’t want to accept Evolution until every last detail is in, I guess that’s your prerogative. But this suggests you’re willing to accept any scientific theory on the matter, and if that’s the case, then you can’t possibly still believe in Creationism because it simply doesn’t stand up to any scientific scrutiny.

    So just say what you really think, which is that the Bible told you to believe something so you do, and everything else be damned.

  32. crickets Dec 19th 2008 at 03:55 am 32

    1: name all the differences between a rabbit and a dog

    2: let them happen one at a time

    -ears get shorter (already admitted)
    -numerous but finite changes in bone structure (no harder than ears)
    -changes to digestive tract
    -etc etc

    3: blam, rabbits to dogs. and no, rabbits did not evolve from dogs and no one is claiming that, they both evolved from a previously existing mammalian ancestor.

    why are the ears a ‘downhill’ change and all the other necessary changes ‘uphill’ ?

  33. Cheddar. Jun 12th 2009 at 02:03 pm 33

    So Tofor can see the ridiculousness of saying the ark was big enough.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply