Scientifically Accurate?

This is something I did in a yahoo group after reading that Donald Duck comic were being called more scientifically accurate than the superhero comics.

Scientifically accurate? Aren't these people being selective about what they're choosing to talk about in those comics? What about all the other things in those comics that do not agree with the laws of science? 

Even if you are willing to suspend disbelief in talking poultry for the length of a comic book they still have a number of problems from the standpoint of science. Here are a few things they set before us that stick in the craw of science.

Nephew Fallacy

All living things reproduce by having offspring, and not by having other living beings somehow come into being that are not directly related to anything else.

Emerald Fallacy

 There are no emeralds that big. A statue carved from jade could be mistaken for an emerald, though.

Gold Fallacy

You can't swim in gold. And there probably isn't that much gold available anywhere in the world. Gold is rare, which is why it's valuable.

Broom Fallacy

You can't actually fly on a broom.

Magicka De Spell

Recurring witch character who flies on a broom and does other impossible things. Ducks also do not have hair or breasts, not being mammals.

It's also questionable to have this emphasis on a female character being bad, while all the "good" male characters tend to avoid having anything to do with the opposite sex.

Pegasis in a character from mythology. Winged horses do not exist.

A tubful of water will not freeze just because a window is open. Incidentally, this cover was done by Walt Kelly, the creator of Pogo. 

These things aren't scientifically accurate! It's enough to make a duck sore! 

A