Archive for category Answers In Genesis
I was recently watching some Creation Adventure Team videos when I realized something-there was no way that the Garden of Eden, even if it existed, could have been perfect? Why? Because it might not have been. Confused? Let me explain:
Creationists think that the Garden of Eden was perfect, until the Serpent tempted Eve with a fruit that would make her all-knowing. Eve ate the fruit (which AiG thinks looks like a purple hand grenade, make of that what you will), and sin entered the world. But here’s the thing: creationists also think that the Garden of Eden was absolutely perfect, with no death or sadness. No death and sadness, sure, but perfection? Simply not possible, for two reasons.
- Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. To me, running around in a forest naked is NOT perfection. It’s a fever dream. You could argue that the perfection was agreed upon by God, Adam, and Eve, but that doesn’t change the fact that perfection varies from person to person. My idea of perfect is probably a lot different from yours.
- If the Bible is true, then God deliberately set up both the tree and the Serpent. Ergo, he both set his creation up for failure (not a good God) and created an opportunity for imperfection. The only way something could be absolutely perfect regardless of definition is if there was no opportunity for it to become imperfect.
Therefore, the Garden of Eden couldn’t have been perfect according to the description of the Bible. By calling the Garden of Eden perfect, while saying that there was the chance of it being imperfect, creationists have completely contradicted themselves.
It is time again for another Doodling=Intelligent Illustrator! This time around, since I don’t have much Jack Chick to go on, let’s mix it up and do a bunch of After Eden cartoons!
Yeah, AiG’s position on aliens is pretty interesting. They say that the Bible doesn’t say no, but that the search for alien life is based on an evolutionary worldview. But extraterrestrial life is almost absolute in the Milky Way, and certain in the universe. After all, we’re just one of many hundreds, thousands, even millions of planets. It’s unreasonable and illogical to think that we’re the only life out there. Intelligent life equivalent to our own? That’s also possible, but slightly less likely. In other words, AiG’s argument here is pretty hollow if you look at it from a logical standpoint.
Oh, har-de-har-har, Dan. Darwin wasn’t born agnostic, you know. In fact, he was what you might call a good Christian (if not a young earth creationist, but you never know). Charles has to be bluffing here. No kid his age would think that a birthday cake evolved. I know this is supposed to be satirical, but it somehow falls short of what counts as funny. Plus, Charles’ dad looks like he just swallowed a lemon whole.
There’s actually a perfectly reasonable explanation for increased hominid intelligence. You can find a more detailed explanation on the neat BBC show Walking with Cavemen (Warning: Naked Neanderthals!), but here it is in layman’s terms: Homo habilis, one of the first hominid species to use tools, cut open animal bones to find food. Inside, they found bone marrow, which is rich in nutrients (ick, but true). Anyway, by eating the marrow, their brains evolved to become bigger and smarter, allowing them to eventually conquer the earth. This next one is called Evidence of ?
This is stupid. Like, Chick tract meets Dr. Dino in a train wreck of bad science stupid. First of all, there is no evolutionary “evangelist”. Well, not in the literal sense. There are plenty of scientists that support and talk about evolution, but that isn’t necessarily evangelism. There are no evolution tracts (except for the parody Chick tract Who’s Your Daddy), or churches of Darwin, or even a shrine to Huxley! Besides, I can understand the television, bumper stickers, and maybe even the video games, but restaurant tray liners? Roller coasters? MUSIC VIDEOS?! Evolution is not a massive popular cultural phenomenon! Richard Dawkins doesn’t hang out with A-list celebrities!
That’s a cute cartoon, Dan, but it doesn’t check out. First of all, Earth Day mainly celebrates caring for the environment, not eliminating all references to God. I mean, from a Christian point of view, Earth Day makes sense, because you would be celebrating and caring for what you find to be God’s creation, so how is this anti-God?
What intrigues me here is how Dan portrays the earth-in one supercontinent, like Pangea. This may be what he thinks the Garden of Eden looked like, but there’s a major flaw in this that you can find in Jerry Coyne’s awesome book, Why Evolution Is True. Assuming continental drift was the same back in the First World War (the one in this cartoon, that is), why are the continents so far apart? Maybe that was a result of the Fall, but evidently, that’s when the cartoon takes place. Please explain!
Time again for another multi-piece article! First, we’re going to discuss the counterarguments for a graveyard of Chilean whales. Next, I’m going to review the excellent evolution-themed play Inherit the Wind. We’re going to look at several dragons from around the world and compare them to dinosaurs, in order to see if they really could be evidences for creationism. I’m going to show you laughable quotes from a book on school policies, examine the new and controversial Rick Perry commercial, and finish up with a quick chat about quicksand.
Okay, first up, we have a little something from Kids Answers, in a piece called Whales in the Desert. Basically, it talks about a large group of whale fossils that have been found in Chile. That may not sound so outrageous-South America is known for its gigantic creatures-but here’s the thing: the fossils were discovered in the Atacama Desert, which is the hottest known location on earth. So, here’s the question AiG poses: how could seventy-five whales (along with a tusked dolphin that I think might also be a small whale called Odobenocetops) wind up smack dab in the middle of the hottest desert anywhere in the world? The answer for them, of course, is the global flood described in the Bible. According to them, that’s the only way you could take a large group of whales and dump ’em in the desert. Is there any other explanation? Well, yes, if you look at it logically.
First, there’s the matter of the fossils themselves. AiG claims that fossils can form quickly, and demonstrate it in a small, science fair-like experiment with no organic material at all. Riddle me this, Batman-how do you know fossils can form quickly if you don’t test it with organic material? Here’s what could prove your claim: subject a small creature (a rat or squirrel would do) to a small-scale tsunami, and have it buried under a large pile of sediment. Wait about forty days and forty nights, and then see just how fossilized your test subject is.
But, I’m getting off track, aren’t I? We know for a fact that whales travel in small pods, and that gray whales travel in masses for one of the largest migrations on earth. Isn’t it likely that prehistoric whales behaved similarly? If so, that explains why they were all there in the first place. But how did they get to the desert? Well, we can reverse engineer a global model, based on current continental drift, how the world looked back when the whales were buried. At about the time whales evolved, the Sahara desert was a salt marsh. It’s highly likely that water levels near South America were higher back then. If so, then they simply could have drowned. Easy as that.
Ah, the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Without a doubt, it was the biggest evolutionary hullabaloo until Dover/Kitzmiller, and one of the most dramatic. But the legacy stretches to the superb play Inherit The Wind, which is similar but still very different from the actual happenings. Instead of the small town of Dover, we go to the fictional little village of Hillsboro, where instead of John T. Scopes, a man named Bertram Cates has been arrested (actually not part of the punishment for teaching evolution) for teaching, of course, Darwin’s theory of evolution, instead of biblical creation as mandated by the Butler Act. Despite all of the historical inaccuracies, the play is really, really good. I mean, you can picture a troubled small town, understand the massive issues at stake, and best of all, feel the heart-pounding emotion of the Drummond-Brady standoff, which is based on a real event. In fact, I’m even considering turning the CC tagline (a Mark Twain quote) into one of the lines from that awesome argument. There’s just no other way to say it: Inherit the Wind is a truly great American play.
Ah, the old myth of dragons. At least, we think they’re myths. If the creationists are correct (and they rarely are when it comes to things like this), then maybe your fire-breathing favorites have some roots in the fossil record. Let’s look at a couple of examples. First, we have this dragon from the Ishtar Gate in Babylon:
Okay, at first glance, I can see where the idea that it was a dinosaur came from. From a distance, you might call this thing a sauropod, and the neck/head are slightly similar, but look at the feet. Even if you were ten meters away, you can automatically tell: those are talons. No sauropods that we know of had feet like that. Sauropods have elephant-like legs, not something that looks like it belongs on a chicken. If that wasn’t enough, the body shape is too slim and rectangular to support what we know of as a sauropod body. While I see the creationists’ point, the visual evidence is stacked against them this time around. Next, we have a cave drawing of what some are calling a pterosaur, obtained from a pretty basic website called Discovery News, which I assume isn’t affiliated with the far better Discovery Channel:
Does this bear any resemblance to known pterosaurs? Actually, you can see a few traits that are common in large pterosaurs, such as the crest, but there’s one big problem here: the wings. A) they’re barely distinguishable, and B) we know that their wings were shaped differently. Instead of curlicued things that aren’t aerodynamic in the least, we see broad, sail-like appendages. Plus, it’s entirely possible that this is a case of mistaken identity, with the Native Americans who drew this in fact seeing a bird, like a buzzard or vulture. That also explains the long legs, which we don’t tend to see a lot in big pterosaurs. Finally, we have a classic Chinese dragon.
The creationists want us to believe that this was, in fact, a dinosaur. Ahem. *cough* How unbelievably stupid is that? First, we have the length of the body. We see some dinosaurs that were really long, but none this lanky, and certainly none with splayed-out legs like we see here. Then, there’s the fact that this thing appears to have fur and facial hair! While lots of feathered dinosaurs have been found, none of them look anything like this. The most likely idea is that the people were either seeing a monitor lizard, or it was just a figment of their imaginations.
Let’s finish off this four-step article with a few quick quote dissections from a book I have read, Opposing Viewpoints: School Policies. This book tackles everything from dress codes to creationism in schools. And why not have a look at one of the quotes supporting the latter!
“Even Darwin himself purportedly no longer believed in his own theory when he died.”
I’m really going to try to keep from laughing now. The whole “Darwin rejects evolution” story is a huge myth. The perpetrator of the fairy tale, a woman named Lady Hope, never actually visited Darwin on his deathbed, according to his children. It’s just plain crazy. Another section of the article is also written by a Christian, but this is about gay/straight alliance clubs. The writer states that any self-respecting school wouldn’t allow a Marlboro/tattoo/drag racing club to exist, so why a GSA? Well, Ms. Misrepresentation, there’s a fine line between a club that basically supports human rights and a club that is obviously inappropriate. A gay/straight alliance club will not “indoctrinate” people into being homosexual. It would just show them that gay and lesbian people are humans, too. There’s nothing immoral about that.
Recently, Republican president wannabe Rick Perry aired a short commercial entitled “Strong”, in which he pretty much criticizes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, saying that there’s something wrong with the country if gays can openly serve in the military, but children can’t openly celebrate Christmas. I mean, REALLY?! Children can obviously go to church and openly celebrate Christmas, or go caroling, or any other of a number of things that count as openly celebrating the holiday. And yeah, gays can serve in the military, but there’s nothing wrong with that. Then, he goes onto say that they can’t pray in schools. And it all goes downhill from here. Here’s the thing: kids can silently pray in schools, or pray during free hours like lunch or recess, but if he means to say that we should legalize school prayer, Rick is violating the freedom of religion. If you want to have Christian prayers said openly in the classroom under the teacher’s guidance, you either have to include prayers from every other religion on earth, or you’re asking for another Engel vs. Vitale case. You’d probably get sued anyway.
Rick keeps on going, saying that he’ll end Obama’s war on religion. That’s actually not true. President Obama never attacked religion in general, or even negatively criticized any particular religion (to the best of my knowledge). All he said was “America is not a Christian nation.” Even though the U.S. was partially founded due to religious discrimination in England, immigration up till today formed what some call the great melting pot. Which is, to say, we are not just fundamentalist Christians. We’re Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, and dozens of others. Rick says that faith is what made America great, and that’s what will make her great again. Well, our freedom of religion is a really good thing, but what about our freedom of expression, or press, or speech, or assembly? Rick, being as right-wing as right-wing can get, is merely equating gay rights with being anti-Christian. That’s not true. I support gay rights, but I’m only anti-young earth creationism.
And, just to finish this article off, let’s say a few words about quicksand. AiG has an article on their Answers Magazine site about the famous Velociraptor vs Protoceratops fossils, and attempts to debunk the various evolutionary explanations for their fossilization, eventually just sticking to their unscientific assumptions of the Flood. One of the explanations, quicksand, was supposedly debunked by the fact that the animals would have tried to get away. That may be true, but if prehistoric quicksand was anything like modern quicksand (there’s no difference between the two, but I’m just saying), the struggles of the fighters might have sunk them almost immediately. On a related note, the two other “debunked” explanations, a sandstorm and a collapsing sand dune, were put down by the fact that they couldn’t carry the moisture needed to mineralize the bones. Well, here’s my response: where do you think this photo comes from? (Besides Wikipedia)
That’s right-it came from the Italian city of Pompeii, where around 70 A.D., a volcanic eruption perfectly preserved the forms of the city’s citizens. Just like the Mongolian dinosaur fighters, these fossils are beautifully preserved. So here’s my question: did Mt. Vesuvius carry the moisture needed to fossilize these skeletons? On that note, we’re done with the article. See you around!
AiG posted their latest News to Note article today, and I intend to deal with one of the news pieces covered, and what it says about evolution. You see, a church in Kentucky recently banned interracial couples from taking part in services. Now, I don’t know about you, but that sounds pretty racist to me. I mean, just because a couple is of two different races does not violate their freedom to practice religion. There’s nothing wrong with an interracial couple being good Christians. But that’s not my point. My point is about a quote from the article:
“On the other hand, some evolutionists, including Darwin, believing human beings evolved from apelike ancestors, have thought some ‘racial’ groups are more highly evolved than others.”
How does this A) have any relevance to the issue at hand and B) make any sense? I can see where AiG gets their “racist Darwin” concept from: the full title of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species. The full title is On The Origin Of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Thank you, Wikipedia!). Whew! Kent Hovind pointed out his theory that favored races equals racism, but that’s not true. The races Darwin refers to are just different kinds of animals. In fact, if evolution is true, there’s no need for racism, because all humans are one species and there’s no superior race!
Next up, we have a piece on the ancestors of sauropods and ceratopsians. That may sound like gibberish, but they’re very real families of very popular dinosaurs. Sauropods are the long-necked herbivores that lived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and include such famous creatures as Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus. Ceratopsians are the frilled creatures from the Cretaceous, and include the hugely popular Triceratops, as well as big-skulled Torosaurus. But, if evolution is true, where did all of these guys come from? The answer is staring you right in the face.
The origins of the sauropods are perhaps best represented by the Triassic prosauropod Plateosaurus, whose image can be found below. This and the next photo were obtained via Wikipedia, which is a lot more accurate than you’d think.
As you can see, Plateosaurus has a fairly long neck, which we would expect to see in an ancestor of a sauropod. The similarities between the arms and the legs indicates that it may have been able to walk on all fours, like its Jurassic descendants. While the size is drastically different from the Jurassic Park behemoths we know and love, it’s a large step forward for this kind of creature. One species of prosauropod, Mussaurus, had babies no bigger than mice! It’s fairly easy to see how, as plants became bigger to cope with more carbon dioxide in the Mesozoic atmosphere, the animals that ate them had to grow, too. This next photo shows a dinosaur you’ve probably heard of.
Ah, yes. Protoceratops. These ancestors of the giant Triceratops are well-known finds from Mongolia. While they’re no bigger than a sheep, the ceratopsian characteristics in this fossil are easy to see. First, we have the prominent frill, which, as everybody knows, is a key component in the mental image of a Triceratops. Then we have the horn/beak formation at the mouth, which in more recent ceratopsian skeletons serves as the third horn. We’ve found multiple other specimens of “protoceratopsids”, which serve as saurian transitional forms in the ongoing search for knowledge about dinosaur evolution.
For our final article, I’d like to point out two more issues with the Flood. I already addressed three major problems with the Flood in one of my earliest articles, but I’d missed a few, so let’s have a look at them:
- Everest-sized erosion. Let’s face facts: Mount Everest is pretty dang high. It’s the tallest mountain in the world, for gosh sakes! So here’s my question: since all water on earth disperses evenly (as in, you can’t lower the level of one part of a bathtub without lowering the level of the rest), how high were the floodwaters, and if so, how thick did the rain need to be? I mean, you wouldn’t be able to breathe if sheets of water were always falling on your head? Some creationists propose that the earth was smooth, and that the Flood changed its geology. But then, that would mean the Flood would need to carve around something, right? Or else it would just cover the earth. Which brings me to point two…
- Where’d all the water go? According to the creationists, here’s the answer:
By the way, that’s one of AiG’s After Eden comics, by Dan Lietha. So, let me get this straight: God just blew the water away? The only way that would make any sense at all is if earth was as flat as the Discworld, and that isn’t likely. If the water evaporated, it would have taken a really long time for the Ark to land. This is just mounting evidence against the Flood. Keep watching Confronting Creation for a new Chick dissection!
Today, we’ll be examining a few articles from AiG’s most recent News to Note article, as well as other creationist news and classic arguments. First up is the newly discovered Australopithecus sediba, a new hominid species. Recently, an artist’s interpretation of one of the fossil’s faces was created, that portrayed the specimen (dubbed “Karabo”) with a smile on its face. AiG says that we’re jumping to conclusions, the reason being that just because an artist draws it doesn’t make it true. They’re right about this, but we know hominids are very similar to, if slightly more advanced than, modern apes, who show lots of emotion. I can attest to this, since I very recently visited the National Zoo in Washington D.C. (my hometown, as a matter of fact). The gorillas there displayed very humanlike behavior, including slapping one another (true story), and even curiosity. While they can’t exactly smile, this doesn’t mean they can’t show happiness, anger, or even just plain wonder. That makes hominids showing emotion a very likely possibility.
Another piece in the AiG article is about recent findings of Protoceratops babies in the Gobi Desert. It’s a little-known fact that Protoceratops, as well as creatures like Plateosaurus, are spectacular evidence for dinosaur evolution. Both of these species represent early stages in the development of two major dinosaur groups (for Protoceratops, it’s ceratopsians, and for Plateosaurus, it’s sauropods). But that’s not the point. The point is that AiG says that the main theory for how these dinosaurs died is that water-propelled sand buried them. According to them, that leaves two possibilities: flash floods, or the global Flood. While both could carry sand, there are alternative explanations. Let’s have a look at pop culture to find another possibility: in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, we see firsthand how devastating sandstorms can be. It’s no huge mystery that the Gobi Desert wasn’t that different from what we see today than it was in the Cretaceous, so sandstorms were likely to still exist. Therefore, here’s what might have happened: a massive sandstorm, the likes of which can suffocate living things, buries and preserves the bones of the Protoceratops babies. That also explains why we find so many well-preserved fossils from Cretaceous Mongolia.
It’s a well-known antievolution argument: the Cambrian Explosion, which produced hundreds of new species over a several million year period, is too abrupt to encompass evolution. On the contrary-it’s one of evolution’s greatest successes. During the Cambrian Explosion (which took place during the Cambrian, as you may have guessed), it’s true that many new species of trilobites and other invertebrates and fish, but that doesn’t make it evidence against evolution, despite it only taking a few million years to happen. If I do recall, if human evolution is true (and the evidence says it is), man only had a few million years to evolve from more basic species of primate. And that’s not counting that we’ve found pre-Explosion fossils that evolution predicts would exist. So is the Cambrian Explosion evidence against evolution? The overwhelming evidence says no.
On the AiG site Kids Answers, an article appeared about a new fossil species called Cronopio. What makes this fossil so unique (and just plain neat) is that it bears a distinct resemblance to the famous acorn-hunting prehistoric squirrel Scrat, of the Ice Age film series. What’s funny about this article is found in this quote from Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell:
“Cronopio just happens to have some features in common with living insect-eaters, some features in common with other fossilized extinct creatures, and enough unique features to give its discoverers the prerogative of naming it as a new species. It is not a transitional form.”
The key word in this quote is “just happens” (Okay, it’s two words, but who’s counting?). Elizabeth just assumes the fact that Cronopio has features of several different kinds of animals is just a coincidence. That’s illogical, because which is a better explanation for an extinct species with several different features present in other animal families-the features just happen to be there, or the animal had shared lineage with other kinds of mammals? The odds favor the latter.
For our final article, let’s discuss population control. Today, there are roughly seven billion people on earth. That’s not the issue here. The issue is how many animals there are. There are a lot of them, you can probably guess, and new species are often discovered (take the Census of Marine Life’s findings, for example). Let’s add into the organism melting pot all of the extinct species. As far as we know, there are over two hundred thousand. And that’s just scratching the surface; it’s been estimated that we only have one percent of the Cretaceous fossil record. So, there are most likely millions of extinct species that we don’t even know about. According to what creationists say, all of these animals were present in the Garden of Eden. But here’s the catch-they don’t know how big the garden was, nor where it was located. So, riddle me this, Batman-how is it humanly possible that a place we barely have any knowledge of (assuming that it even existed) could support millions upon millions of plants and animals, counting marine life? It’s a tough question, one that creationists can’t answer without just saying that God did it and everything was fine. ‘Cause that’s not science. And on that happy note, I bid you guys adieu.
Oftentimes, creationists mangle the definition of evolution to make it sound stupid (which it isn’t, not by a long shot), while other times, it’s just somebody not understanding what the theory’s about. I intend to provide you with the answers to five common misconceptions about evolution.
- Misconception: Evolution says we came from the Big Bang, out of primordial goo, and came from apes. Wow. This is so commonly used it’s frightening. In reality, though, evolution doesn’t explain how the universe came to be, ’cause that’s cosmology. It doesn’t even explain the origins of life, since natural selection assumes that animals are present, and then goes on from there. And the last bit? That’s actually not what evolution says. It says that humans and apes had a common ancestor, and that the ancestor mutated two ways: one way into modern apes, and the other into hominid species that gradually evolved into humans. Evolution by the scientific definition basically explains how life evolved and diversified to fill niches. It’s some pretty cool stuff, even if you don’t support it.
- Misconception: Evolution was Charles Darwin’s idea. Actually, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote in one of his books that he theorized that life could have evolved over millions of years. True story! But the idea of natural selection goes back all the way to the time of Aristotle, and even slightly before that. Evolution has a fascinating history that isn’t just made up of court cases, you know. Darwin really just went into much more detail, and went farther than Erasmus or Aristotle did. Though Charles is a lot catchier than Empedocles.
- Misconception: Evolution says that there is no God. Not true, since evolution doesn’t explain how the universe, Earth, or even the first life came to be. That’s explained in the first misconception. Theistic evolution, the idea that God set the ball rolling, and observed the events to follow, is entirely possible, though many ministries hate it. The point is, evolution is not necessarily atheistic, despite what the creationists say.
- Misconception: Evolution says that we gain things, not lose them. Not true at all. “Directional evolution” does not exist in the real world. If that was true, we’d all look like tanks. Evolution explains adaptions, like for instance: if you’re a fish with legs and lungs, it doesn’t make any sense for you to be floundering around in the water like that. Therefore, you might as well lose your fins. On a related note, Kent Hovind claims that there had to be a point in dinosaur-bird evolution where the form had half a wing. What use is that? I don’t know, unless you look at: flying squirrels, flying fish, and various other creatures that can glide, but still function normally. Plus, wings have many other uses, like attracting a mate, lining your nest, or just tucking your head under at night.
- Misconception: The lack of evidence for new genetic information forming disproves evolution. This one I found in an Answers in Genesis video, and then in the excellent book Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry A. Coyne. The argument basically says that since there is no evidence for new genetic information being added to DNA, evolution is basically refuted right then and there. But, as Coyne puts it, evolution is like an architect that can only change a house, while still making it habitable. The AiG video asks how a fish can become a frog without genetic information being added. Well, the information, rather than being added, could be changed. So, how can a fish become a frog without genetic information being added? Fins change into legs, and you lose the gills. The gill mechanisms evolve into lungs. Get the picture?
Today, let’s do something that’s kind of odd: let’s explore the world of artistic creationism. In other words, let’s look at the classic Chick tracts, Answers In Genesis cartoons, and just for the halibut, the icon of the Vision Forum. Why don’t we begin with the decent art (but strange message) of Jack Chick!
Jack Chick is, basically, a YEC (young earth creationist) who basically hates Harry Potter, Dungeons And Dragons, and anything else that sounds “satanic”. A typical Chick tract will start out with a character, preferably one that’s facing a big problem, like drugs or INTENSE OCCULT TRAINING (just wait, you’ll get it later). Sunny stuff. Then, a person butts in and shows them the way to Heaven-repenting. The main character then repents, and eventually goes to Heaven. More often than not, somebody else winds up going to… well, the other place. But some tracts make absolutely no sense whatsoever. For example, have a look at this, from the tract Dark Dungeons (this is where the occult training thing comes in). By the way, all art credits go to Jack Chick, though I got the image off the site Enter The Jabberwock (man, I love that poem!).
Okay, first of all, D&D (Dungeons And Dragons, in case you didn’t pay attention to the info above) is NOT intense occult training. Nor does it allow you to enter a witches’ coven. By the way, if you know of any real-life witches’ covens in your hometown, let me know. Second of all, last I checked, there isn’t any Diana goddess in the game, so unless Chick is trying to mangle the game, he just isn’t being accurate. But if that didn’t make sense, look at this:
Three types of transitional forms. This is even worse than the six types argument, which is really saying something. By the way, this is from the Answers in Genesis website, by Dan Lietha. All credit to him. The concept is that there are only three types of transitional fossils: the first one being disproved hominid fossils. If they’re talking about Lucy, they better have some wild evidence to prove that she’s a hoax. Creationists have claimed that since the kneecap of the fossil was found miles away, it isn’t evidence for Lucy walking upright. But that’s not true. The kneecap was in fact found in the fossil. The kneecap that the creationists claim is no evidence was from a different fossil.
The second, reptile to bird, is said to be hinted at, but with no evidence. Ahem. *cough* NO EVIDENCE?! Okay, let me set the record straight here: there are lots of fossils that show A) birds with reptilian features, B) feathered dinosaurs, or C) dinosaurs behaving in an attitude similar to modern birds. Archaeopteryx. Avimimus. Microraptor. Oviraptor. Even the super-classic Velociraptor apparently had quill knobs! No evidence? Dan Lietha, shame on you. The third one, based on numbers one and two, shows an evolutionist thinking that there might be a creator, and thus becoming a creationist. Has the mustachioed guy in the cartoon read this article? If not, I hope he does. And now, for the finale.
It’s not actually a cartoon or anything (notice how it’s clearly a staged photo, except with a sketched mountain lion), but since it’s practically the insignia of Vision Forum, a popular family ministry, I figured I’d give it a basic dissection. So, let’s begin: deep in the mountains of Cambodia… actually, it’s probably in Montana, since our two heroes are being chased by a mountain lion. Strike that from the voiceover! Anyway, to escape a vicious mountain lion, a boy (of about twelve or so) climbs up a frayed-looking rope, looking really smug, while a girl (about seven or eight) is shooting at it. Wow. You know, some of the products that Vision Forum carries are: marshmallow blasters, AK-47 inspired rubber band guns, and Taurus Airsoft Handguns. Yikes, yikes, and triple yikes. Remember how I said that Vision Forum is a family ministry? Forget that. And is that an eight-year-old girl shooting an 1872 Swiss Revolver? Quadruple yikes.