Can you stomach a little more Jim Pinkoski? He's ranting in the comments most amusingly.

You guys LIE about Java man, you LIE about Lucy, you LIE about the horse ancestary chart, you LIE about fetuses mimicking evolution stages, you LIE about upright trees sticking through different geology layers, you LIE when you ignore the arguments about the earth's magnetic field, you LIE when you respond to the rotation of the moon orbiting the earth -- SO WHY SHOULD I EVER CONCLUDE THAT ANY OF YOU ARE ACTUALLY "RIGHT" ABOUT ANYTHING? All I see is repeated pathological LYING done by evolutionists in the evolution vs. poor old Kent Hovind's Creationism!

Those are his words, but I added the links myself—each one addresses these old creationist canards. Evolutionists are not lying; rather, the creationists are not comprehending.

His comic book flings out absurd claims at a frenetic pace, in exactly the same way. He just babbles, echoing tired old creationist stories, each of which does nothing but reflect the ignorance of these people. Here is a partial list of some of the crap he flings at the wall in the space of 15 pages. None of it sticks; I've linked to a refutation for each from the Talk.Origins archive.

• The odds of any one protein forming are 1 in 10⁴⁵⁰.
• The rate of recession of the moon.
• The thickness of moon dust.
• Shrinkage rate of the sun.
• Nearly all mutations are harmful.
• Entropy means everything is degenerating.
• There are no transitional forms.
• Punctuated equilibrium means evolution by sudden giant leaps.
• There is no geological column.
• The big bang was an explosion that could only cause chaos and disorder.
• Cavemen are merely "degenerated human beings".
• Bombardier beetles.
• Woodpeckers.
• Giraffes.
• Carbon dating is unreliable.
• Dinosaurs are dated by their position in the geological column, nothing else.

Pinkoski isn't exactly lying. He's merely pretending to a competence that he does not have, in matters that he doesn't understand at all. He's just not very bright.

When he isn't making up bogus arguments against evolution, he's inventing silly fantasies about his creation model. Pinkoski is a big fan of the pseudoscientific "vapor canopy" idea of Walt Brown, even though it doesn't make sense, wouldn't work, and is completely unsupported by the evidence.

He's inconsistent and more than a little hypocritical. Note that above he attacks the fossil record in multiple ways, but here's an interesting reversal:

FACT: The FOSSIL RECORD shows that nearly everything grew LARGER before the flood—"GIANTISM" flourished—(they've found 18 inch cockroaches, 3 ft. dragonflies, 2 ft. grasshoppers, 8 ft. beavers, 15 ft. turtles, 80 ft. sharks, etc., etc.!) ACCORDINGLY, THIS CONDITION COULD ALSO APPLY TO MANKIND!

This is one of the hallmarks of creationism, cherry-picking the data. He only accepts the scattered bits of the fossil record that fit his predetermined view. At the same time, while rejecting the reasonable, consistent, and tested interpretations of evolutionary theory, he feels free to hare off and make up any ol' bit of nonsense he wants. For example…

I gotta say, though, that that little "note" is one of my favorite bits of the book, and it tells us so much about Pinkoski's illogic. In case you can't read it, it's his supporting evidence for his claim that Adam was 15 feet tall:

NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Man, the existence of pygmies and dwarfs has nothing to do with whether men were 15 feet tall 6000 years ago, and I had to laugh out loud. It's an incredibly useful phrase that's going to come in handy.

Ever wonder how the hell a moron like George W. Bush got elected? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

How can people be so gullible to believe the nonsense peddled by the Discovery Institute? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

"Kids, go clean your rooms." "Awww, do I have to?" "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

There are more ridiculous creationist fantasies in the book, including his devil-driven dinosaur assault on Noah's Ark and some malarkey about how T. rex could breathe fire, but it's the same old evidence-free babble. Or rather, the evidence is all along the lines of, "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"