Refutation of Grade 9 Homeschool Creationist Textbook: Biology PACE 1099

A few months ago, a smart friend of mine in Louisiana sent me several pics of his home school textbooks. Thankfully he is a smart kid who saw through the lies and nonsense in these books, and thankfully he convinced his grandfather that he should not be home schooled with such nonsense and enrolled in a school. (Unfortunately, he cant even escape a overwhelming Christian bias classrooms and harsh environment from his Christian peers in a Louisiana school. Best of luck mate!)

I already posted a blog reviewing the Geology textbook, now here comes the Biology. I thought there would be a lot to cover, but thankfully, all the creationist nonsense was near the back. The book covers a fair good amount how basic biology works, they do not mix the "magic" and "pseudoscience" until near the end.

PACE 1099 covers Dinosaurs, supposed dinosaurs in the Bible, fossils and bashing evolution.

Page 28-29

Dinosaurs

“Alligators and crocodiles are very large reptiles, but some dinosaurs grew to be the worlds largest reptiles and land animals. After the first finds of some large reptile fossils, the term “dinosaur” was coined from two Greek words meaning “terrible” and “lizard.” Although we think of the larger dinosaurs, most were probably the size of a horse or smaller.”

I love it when even creationists can't agree with each other.

Dinosaurs are reptiles, dinosaurs are not reptiles.

To show you how WAY out of touch with reality some creationists are...

Now to clarify, invertebrates ARE ANIMALS. Even a child knows that.
I mean, it doesn't even take 5 seconds on Google to learn that. Even the first line on Wikipedia for Invertebrates says "Invertebrates are animals species."

“Biblical and scientific evidence seems to indicate that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Some scholars believe that two references in the Biblical book of Job refer to dinosaurs. One reference mentions the “Behemoth,” whose description fits the brachiosaur, and the other refers to “leviathan,” whose description fits the plesiosar. Job's description indicates either he personally saw these creatures or he was familiar with someone else who did see them.”

Get one thing crystal clear: there is NO scientific evidence AT ALL to indicate that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

None.

Nada.

Zilch.

Believe what you wish that certain mythical creatures mentioned in the Bible or Where the Wild Things Are lived on this Earth alongside humans. Believe what you wish, but the reality is that you are A) simply wrong and B) totally delusional.

The Bible makes references to unicorns, talking snakes, dragons, but does it mention dinosaurs?

Apparently.... no, it does not.

The Bible says Behemoth's tail "was like a cedar." The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.

Lets read Job 40 carefully and see what creature this "Behemoth" may be.

Job 40:16 - Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

(It should be noted, dinosaurs back in the day did not have navels. Dinosaurs are reptiles, that is they are egg-laying animals, did not have umbilical cords, and therefore did not have navels. )

Job 40:17 - He moveth his tail like a cedar: 

(Creationists IGNORE the swaying in which trees move. Instead they try to imply that these tails should be the size of a tree - except the Bible does not describe it that way. They also omit that the word "cedar" was sometimes used to describe the material people would use to swat flies from themselves -- and that looks exactly like an elephants tail. So the description matches an elephants tail quite well, if you take the dinosaur image out of your head.)

Job 40:17 - the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

(it should also be noted, external genitalia (especially the "stones") are typically mammalian traits and NOT VISIBLE on reptiles like dinosaurs)

Job 40:18 - His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

(the elephant is the biggest strongest animal people have ever seen in the Bronze Age)

Job 40:19 - He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

(elephants are extremely intelligent creatures, even compassionate animals.)

Job 40:20-21 - Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow...

 (the shady trees cover him with their shadows.)

Job 40:22-23 -  the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

(this verse better suits an elephant than it does any sauropod)

Job 40:24 - He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

(note that it does not say a horn on the nose that is piercing anything, this is the nose itself.)

Basically, BEHEMOTH WAS NOT A DINOSAUR. 

But what about “Leviathan”?

Just read Job 41 and look at this picture

“Fossilized tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, also give evidence that men and dinosaurs existed simultaneously. Fossilized human footprints and three-toed dinosaur tracks occur in the same rock stratum. In 1982 Dr. Carl Baugh, a Creation scientist, removed layers of rock from the riverbank and uncovered more of the human tracks. This discovery showed that they could not have been carved in stone as many evolutionists have suggested. These human footprints are five-toed with the big toe longer than the other four and have the left-right pattern of a man walking. Three fossilized dinosaur skeletons have also been uncovered along the Paluxy River.”

1. The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
   • Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
   • Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985).
   • A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).
2. Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).

“In addition to the footprints of man with dinosaurs, pictures of dinosaurs have been discovered in ancient rock carvings and paintings. A reptile that seems to be an allosaur or a tyrannosaur is etched on the walls of Rattlesnake Canyon in Colorado. African bushmen painted pictures of other dinosaurs with pictures of hippopotamus, giraffe, and elephant on the walls of a cave near Harare, Zimbabwe. Some scientists believe that these drawings made by man are proof that dinosaurs coexisted with man.”

“Chinese, Egyptian, and Irish stories of dragons may also have their roots in history as men who saw dinosaurs passed their descriptions down to later generations.”

“That dinosaurs existed with humans is an important discovery disproving evolutionists theory that dinosaurs lived 70 million years before man. God created dinosaurs on the sixth day. He created man later the same day. Fossils of dinosaurs are of those that died in the Flood. As the Floodwaters subsided, their bodies were covered in silt, fossilized, and preserved until their recent discovery.”

Page 29-Backcover

“Some scientists speculate that Noah took small or baby dinosaurs on the Ark. If dinosaurs survived the Flood, why aren't more dinosaurs alive today? The Flood made drastic changes on Earth and it's climates. Dinosaurs could not survive in the changed environment, and most species became extinct. Are dinosaurs still alive today? With some recent photographs and testimonies of those who claimed to have seen one, scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.”

“A Japanese fishing vessel brought up the decomposing body of a dinosaurlike sea creature off the coast of New Zealand. Caught at a depth of 900 feet (300 m), the creature weighed 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg), measured 32 feet (10 m) in length, and was seen and photographed by the crew members. The animal could not be matched with any living species but certainly resembles a supposedly extinct species of dinosaur.”

Actually, it was the statistical analysis of the results which gave >.96 confidence value for rejecting the null hypothesis (the specimen not being a basking shark). The amino acid sequence of composition was all but identical to elastoidin with decay accounting for the expected differences. (Source: Kuban, Gilen J., 1997. Sea monster or shark? An analysis of the supposed Plesiosaurus carcass netted in 1977. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3):16-28)

“Have you heard of the “Loch Ness Monster” in Scotland? “Nessie,” for short, has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”

The Loch Ness monster.....

Ugh...geh....oh....ow, I think I'm having a stupid-induced stroke!!!

I... just... can't think straight.

Just read this site, and learn something.

Ow, I think I'm going to need a beer or something after reviewing this. I swear, creationists are just so flippin' annoying.

“Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. Evolutionists further theorize that all this change took place gradually over millions of years. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. For the change to have taken place many transitional forms would have developed. However, no transitional fossils have been or will ever be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsman fashioned them all.”

This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis.

Dead wrong.
Check out the proof here.

For the change to have taken place many transitional forms would have developed. However, no transitional fossils have been or will ever be discovered–– What's that? I couldn't hear you over the overwhelming avalanche of transitional forms discovered by scientists, fossils that said creationist quacks said will not ever be discovered.
(Skip to 5:25 if you don't want to wait for the Avalanche of Transitional Fossils)

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140643.htm

Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsman fashioned them all.

This is such a poor Christian argument.

For all the implications of apparent design, there is never any indication of any intended goal or final product, nor any hint of infallibility on the part of the designer. In fact, so many errors of so many types are known that even if there was an unnatural architect using miraculous means instead of natural ones, then it seems that entity must either be blind and barely competent, or there are whole teams of designers working on separate lines competing against each other.

Natural selection even mimics the experiments of human designers when new technologies emerge. For example, when men first achieved powered flight, there were myriad marvelously imaginative contraptions all at once collectively trying to set the standard for what airplanes should be. Eventually, they followed a more standardized pattern as many of the fancier designs were discontinued and more functional tried-and-true contrivances remained. Significant improvements occasionally appear, but there are no more wildly diverse variants like the pioneer planes built when aviation was new and less understood.

Review and Refutation of "God's Not Dead" film

A film came out in theaters two days ago, a Christian-oriented and funded film that turned out to be a huge Christian melodrama against colleges. I saw it in theaters, curious what arguments they would express to make the case 'God is Not Dead.' I went in there, sincerely expecting to hear something interesting and possibly new...

What the hell was I thinking?

It's a evangelic movie, claiming to be fair to both sides, except they get to choose the weakest arguments for one side and get to control this 'psuedo-reality' to make only one side look like the clear victors. Not only do they want to make the "intellectuals" look dumb, they attack the liberals, Muslims, vegetarians, colleges, and of course non-believers.

The makers and funders of this video base their motives for making this film on 50 court cases where Christian groups have battled universities over the right to assemble, disseminate literature and be officially recognized. *FACEDESK* I'm not seeing anything in here were poor Christian students are being forced to sign proclamations that "God is Dead" in Philosophy classes. So naturally, this whole video is one big melodrama based on no facts and fear.

Before going into the movie, I just want to take a moment to share something about the trailers. Two of the trailers that stuck out was Russel Crowe's “Noah” and the film “Heaven is Real.” Go figure.

I don't have to go into the Noah movie, science and history has already concluded that the Noah boat and flood story is complete fictional myth. But regarding the film “Heaven is Real” based on a book written by a guy who is convinced his son went to Heaven. The kid had a near death experience at a very young age. Later on, the kid says he recalls being over his body, seeing his mommy crying in one room, and his dad cursing God in another room. The kid says he went to Heaven, saw his sister who died in her mother's womb, and saw his grandfather (who died before he was born), as well as met a few other people.

The one thing in the trailer that made me want hit my head on the theater seat in front of me, was when daddy asks the kid if he really did see grandpa. The kid says yes. So daddy gets a picture of grandpa and shows him, but the kid says everybody is young in Heaven. So what does the dad do? Rushes through old photos, picks one of grandpa as a little boy, and shows it to his son. The kid identifies it and says “yes, that is grandpa.” WELL NO SHIT!

I mean come one! People, use your heads! Dear Pops, why didn't you use your head and pick out an old photo of a random stranger way back in the 1930's or so, and ask the kid, “hey, is this grandpa?” I'll bet you anything, with this little inkling of this thing called TESTING, I bet that this young kid would've identified that said stranger as “yes, that's grandpa.” I don't know if someone already did an investigation and critical review of this whole “Heaven is Real” story, but it seemed pretty clear to me with this “that's grandpa” scene reveals this whole thing was just the parents leading on this kid into believing he did x, y, z.

Anyway, onward to the film “God's Not Dead.”

***Note, I did not catch a lot of the names of the characters, so I will just name them by their role***

Movie Walkthrough

The movie opens in the nice morning on campus, and everybody is getting ready for the first day of school. We see the main protagonist, Josh Weaton, and his girlfriend walking across campus. I noticed that she is carrying two textbooks (Environmental Science and Calculus). They are on their way to class, but separate. Elsewhere, a Muslim girl is dropped off by her father. She is wearing a black half niqab, but takes it off once father is gone and she is on campus.

Elsewhere, a journalist wakes up late, rushes to make coffee and head out. She runs to her car, and the first thing we see from the camera angle, she has three bumper stickers which we can read clearly. They are Meat is murder, I am a humanist, and I <3 evolution.

But once we get to the car, her car window is smashed and her GPS stolen. She rushes off, calls her boyfriend at the office for directions. She is on her way to interview Willie Robertson from the tv series “Duck Dynasty.”

Back to campus, Josh walks to a long table, where college staff are assisting students getting their stuff ready. I am assuming they are getting their paper work done and their college ID cards. Doesn't matter, because as soon as the staff assisting Josh learns he is taking Philosophy 150 as an elective, the staff member notices Josh's cross. So he warns him to take another professor or another class. Josh asks why, and is told the professor and class will likely laugh and tear him apart. Says he will be entering a snake pit, it will be on par with the Roman Colosseum with lions. Josh laughts it off and decides to take the class anyway. Business is done and Josh leaves. BUT a few feet away, another student is getting help. His name is Martin and his is Chinese. All that happens is that once he hands over his papers, the staff member asks what does PRC stand for, Martin answers People's Republic of China, and cut scene.

Elsewhere, Pastor Dave picks up his African Missionary friend from the airport, takes him back to his church near the campus.

Back to class. Prof. Raddison starts class. He provides a list of names on his board. They include (from the handful I can remember) Richard Dawkins, An Rynd, Sigmund Freud, Democritus, Noam Chomsky, David Hume, and Bertard Russel. Raddison says they are all atheist. Next he explains what atheism and agnosticism is. He says that atheism means “without belief in god” and agnosticism as without knowledge about god.

Raddison dances around why they wont talk about god, mainly because is just a pointless debate because it is settled, something he says every Sophomore knows, that God is Dead. Not that he died, he never existed. Raddison then asks students to write the words God Is Dead on a piece of paper and sign it. Josh refuses.

Raddison offers a challenge: Josh must do 3 twenty minute cases to prove god or drop the class. Raddison says he will be judge if Josh proves god. Josh says let the classroom judge. Raddison agrees, but says he will be his challenger. Raddison recommends the class read Russel “Why I am Not a Christian” and Rene Descartes “Method.”

In cafeteria, Josh's girlfriend strongly recommends he does not accept the challenge. She stresses that he focus on passing the course, going to law school and following their plan for a life together.

Muslim girl overhears this because she works in the school cafeteria.

Liberal journalist meets Duck Dynasty Willie Robertson and his wife outside a church. She says she is from “New Left.”

Journalist says he expected her to be back at the house, barefooted and having another baby.

She says that he has made a business of luring out animals to maim them. Willie says they don't maim animals, they shoot to kill.

She asks if they are proud of what they kill animals. They says yes. Willie says he wont eat a live animal, claiming THAT would be cruel.

She wants to know what they think about other people being upset that they pray on every tv show. 

Willie says that if they don't like it change the channel. He says money, fame, everything is temporary but God is eternal.

Muslim girl is ready to get picked up from school. As she puts on her half niqab, a pretty girl walks by and says “Your beautiful, you should not have to hide.” Muslim says her father is very traditional.

He picks her up. he tells her it may be hard to live amongst others not like her. He says they may be happy, but they do not worship God and they do not give God the respect and praise He deserves. Says he loves her. During the whole talk, she barely ever looked at him except to say "love you too." Rather she looked watery-eyed as she looked out the window.

Josh goes to a local church. It is empty. Until Pastor Dave walks out, and they talk. Josh is wondering if he should do this or take the advice of his girlfriend and rest of his family and just stick to the plan, even though he would have to sign a paper he does not agree with. Dave talks about Matthew 10:32-33. Dave encourages Josh to do this, because Dave reckons that not a single student in that class goes to church, so this will be a great opportunity to expose Jesus to everyone. Josh concludes he is going to do this.

Next morning, Josh meets his girlfriend. He says Happy Anniversary, shows he has tickets to the same band where they met, but she notices his books and sees that he intends to do the debate. She is not pleased, walks away.

First debate

Josh starts by saying no one can disprove god. “Atheists say 'No one can prove the existence of God.' And they're right. But I say, 'No one can disprove that God exists. I see God in everything...I feel His presence everywhere... to me, I know that He exists.”

Move on to Big Bang, explains it happened billions of years ago.

Josh says that atheists claim that everything came from nothing.

Quotes a theist who says that the description of the Big Bang, that all matter was created in 3 minutes in a huge flash of light, which he thinks is parallel to Genesis “Let There Be Light.”

Then a student quotes Richard Dawkins, asking Josh where did God come from? Josh answers God did not have a beginning, then replies he would ask Dawkins “if the universe created us, who created the universe?”

And here, Raddison quotes Stephen Hawking, saying that the universe is self creating, spontaneous. Josh has no response. Smug Raddison mocks Josh “oh, you just haven't heard about it?”

Class ends, but outside the class, angry Raddison says to Josh “do you think you are smarter than me?” Raddison warns Josh that if he continues to be this way, Raddison will make sure Josh doesn’t get a law degree.

Josh then meets his girlfriend elsewhere on campus, she heard of what happened. They break up. Josh says that she keeps making decisions for him.

Muslim girl goes home. She is listening to Christian fundie Franklin Graham on her iPod. Her younger brother finds out, she is scared and asks him not to tell Papa.

Journalist goes to doctor. He tells her she might have cancer and will have to take an MRI and treatment immediately.

She later meets her boyfriend at dinner – I don't remember his name, but I got one for him: Asshole. Asshole says he was made partner, she tells him she has cancer. He doesn't respond. Instead, he breaks up with her, saying she should not have done this, as if she broke some contract. He is an asshole who doesn't believe in love, says relationships are just helpful to get both parties what they want. (Now you understand why I call him Asshole)

Raddison wife calls her brother, turns out it's the Asshole. She tells him to visit mom. He doesn't want to, she has dementia. Call ends, Raddison comes home. They are a couple. She is a christian, but they agree to not talk about it.

At the campus library, Josh is looking for books. He meets a fellow classmate, Martin. Martin asks Josh why he is doing this. Josh answers, “Jesus is my friend” and is sticking up for him.

Second Debate

Josh says he was not able to answer the last question from the last presentation, then brings up John Lennox, a mathematician. Lennox says Hawking's explanation for the universe creating itself is circular reasoning. Josh says “its like me saying spam is the best food in the world because no other time in history has any other food been the best.”

Raddison asks if Josh is seriously questioning the brilliance of Hawking? Josh says that he just agrees with Lennox that Hawking's logic is faulty. Josh also notes that Hawking said on page 5 that “philosophy is dead.” challenges Raddison if he is to take Hawkings word on everything, he should cancel this class.

BREAK AWAY

Pastor Dave meets Raddison's girlfriend. She is having some trouble with Raddison. Dave says that she may not have worth to other men, but at least you are worth a lot to the master of all creation, who died in pain just for her.

Back to debate.

Josh talks about “Darwinists” saying they haven't answered the origin of life. Says they speculate that lighting hit a hot soup which formed life, but says it is not that simple. Then Josh quotes Charles Darwin “nature does not jump.” Then Josh quotes Lee Strobel's 24 hour analogy. So where did life come from? Josh concludes with the story of Genesis, that every animal was created after their kind.

When everyone leaves the classroom, Raddison applauds that Josh, saying “lies, lies, and lies.”

Josh asks Raddison what happened to him? Raddison says he was 12 when his mom died of cancer. She foolishly laid there, praising the same being who was strangling her to death. Raddison notes that most atheists were once Christians, until they unveiled themselves and were no longer blind to see what the world really is. Raddison says a god who allows people to die does not deserved to be worshiped.

Elsewhere outside of class, Martin is talking to his father in Chinese. Martin mentions that they discussed God in Philosophy class. He tells his son to not go there, because someone might be listening and there was some concern for Martin's brother.

Liberal journalist learns she definitely has cancer. Back at her home, she tries to type. When she gets to the part to explain her absence, she says she will die. Then she breaks down crying in agony.

Elsewhere, Muslim father discovers that his daughter is listening to Christian material. He yells at her, and hits her twice. He yells at her in Arabic. She refused to say something in Arabic, but cries “no Papa, Jesus is my savior.” So he picks her up and throws out his daughter.

Muslims girl goes to Pastor's church. We learn she was secretly a Christian for about a year. Now she has nothing. Pastor tells her about Paul, how he had nothing and everything, but he always had Christ. Christ has seen her struggle, and will help her in her future.

Raddison's girlfriend decides to leave him. He says he will not allow it. She says it is not his choice, and leaves.

Raddison gets angry. Meets Josh on way to class, says he will now get involved in the debate.

Final Debate

Subject of Evil. Josh says there is evil because there is free will.

Raddison laughs, says next Josh will talk about moral absolutes – to which Josh jumps on and says there are moral absolutes. Makes a connection about cheating on a test. He could do it, but who says it's wrong to do it? Says atheists have no basis for morality. Josh says all discussion about right and wrong goes back to god. No morality without good. Quotes someone that says Otherwise everything is permissible. Everything is meaningless.

Things get heated. Josh begins raising his voice, saying that Raddison is demanding students not to believe. Forcing them to sign a paper that says God Is Dead. Josh says Raddison is anti-theistic.

Then Josh asks why do you hate God, even when science supports his existence?

Raddison says god took everything from him, that's why he hates god.

Josh replies, “you can't hate something that doesn't exist.”

Debate ends.

All the class stands up (except for one big guy) and they all say “God is Not Dead.” Raddison walks about of the class.

Outside class, Martin meets Josh and thanks him.

The Pastor Dave and his African missionary are about to get in a car. But before they get in, the missionary says to have faith that this car will start. They get in, and it starts.

Asshole meets his mother. Says that she is the nicest person he has ever known, and he is the meanest. He says you have prayed and believed all your life. And yet he sits there successful and healthy and she is there with dementia.

She says sometimes the Devil makes people succeed to turn people away from God. And he keeps them away until it is too late and god has shut the door.

At the Hastings Convention

Liberal woman storms into the Newsboys room. Asks for an interview.

She asks them why they sing about god and jesus as if they are real people. They answer, to them, they are indeed real people.

They ask her where does she find hope?

They guess the reason why she is there is a sign that she is hopeful.

Raddison has some change of thoughts. He tries to call his ex, but is unable. Then he learns about the Newsboys concert, and heads off thinking she will be there. Raddison rushes off to concert, but the it starts raining. At a corner, Dave and the missionary are in traffic. Raddison appears at their corner, crosses the pedestrian and gets hit by a car.

Pastor Dave and Missionary get out of their car and they rush to help him. But Raddison's ribs are broken and he will bleed internally to death.

Raddison says he does not want to die and he is scared. Dave asks him if he knows about Jesus. Raddison says he is an atheist. Dave says that god showed mercy because that car might have killed him instantly, but rather kept him alive long enough to hear about Jesus. Dave asks prof if he will "take the chance" to start again? Raddison says yes. Dave asks do you accept Jesus, to cleanse your sins. Raddison says yes then dies.

Back at concert. Everyone is singing. But before last song, a “friend” of the Newsboys Band appears on the Big Screen. It is Willie Robertson. Willie tells everyone to send a text to everyone they know. Say “God isn't Dead.” Everyone at the concert sends out a text. One reaches dead Raddison's phone (sent by his ex-girlfriend at the concert). Dave find's Raddison's phone on the street, reads it, and smiles. He hands it to the missionary. Missionary says it is a good night, even with a moment of pain, because there is much joy in Heaven.

REBUTTAL

Now you know what happens in the movie, the sewage has been spilled and someone ought to clean it up, so it might as well be me.

I already mentioned that this film was motivated by court cases of Christian students wanting to assemble and pass out literature, but not once was this the case in this melodrama film. Instead, as you read, it was giving the implication that colleges are forcing students to sign papers that says 'God is Dead' which is not the real case.

The First Debate

First thing I must address, the burden of proof. 

Typical Christian mental gymnastics where they think the "doubters" must make a case against something whose existence has never been proven to begin with. Maybe this photo will help you understand.

Next, the issue of the Big Bang. Naturally, some Christians on the "God's Not Dead" Facebook page are angry that the movie hinted the universe is older than 6,000 years old.

Regardless, the only connection Christian Josh made with the Big Bang theory and Christianity was the one part of the Big Bang that says everything expanded in a "flash of light" and therefore that must mean Genesis got it right.

Josh bashes the Big Bang as an incorrect theory because it says "something came from nothing."

The Second Debate

Next, they put Stephen Hawking on par like he is some kind of infallible Pope. "Do you seriously question the brilliance of Hawking?" Who thinks like this??? How about praising the man and talk about the FLIPPIN' LAWS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS!

For the record, John Lennox is a creationist and a mathematician, not a physicist, biologist or even a theologian! And yet, Josh uses him to criticize Hawking.

And you can tell that this video is full of crap the moment they mention "Darwinists." Only creationists use this incorrect term as a agenda-based slap against biologists.

The "24-hour analogy" used here did not originate with Lee Strobel. Strobel is just a parrot puppet of the Discovery Institute. Rather, this analogy was put together by Jonathan Wells, the guy who was chosen by his church to get a degree for the sole purpose of "destroying Darwinism" (not to mention his support for AIDS Denialism).

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle" - Jonathan Wells

Basically, his argument tries to condense the timeline of Earth to a 24 hour clock. Bear in mind, this is BILLION YEARS condensed down to a 24-hour timeline. Wells tries to use these words games to make it appear that "mainstream science" says that life started in "20 hours after Earth started, there are only single celled organisms and yeast, until two minutes after the 21st hour BOOM the first animal forms appear."

Sounds sudden doesn't it? Well, until you realize that the very morphilogical specimens observed in the Cambrian are not observed today AND when you consider how long "two-minutes" is: ~10 million years with the Cambrian lasting an additional 40 million years. Doesn't sound so "sudden" how does it?

One thing that we must not in this "debate." They only focus on the timeline of life, but they never challenge the theory of evolution. There is no rebuttal to the mountains of evidence for evolution and common descent. Instead, all we are given is poetry from Josh's beloved book of a cosmic genie creating life. (and this Josh guy thinks he is good enough to become a lawyer, my ass). This is not "proof." It doesn't show anything. It holds no more weight than quoting the Rig Vedas (which predates Judaism) on how old the world is and when the animals were first formed. And just like the Jews, the Hindu's can read their own books and claim they were written by god and declare that these books are the "absolute truth."

Sorry, this does not constitute for evidence. There is no evidence anywhere that animals and life on Earth was magically created by some cosmic wizard in the sky.

We know for a fact that all life shares a common ancestor. ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, or the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, or any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution as well as directly disproving creationism. AND YET the Christians making this movie don't dare bring any of it up, they purposefully choose to select none of it and leave it all out of this movie altogether to make it look like the Christian side has a leg to stand on (which it doesn't).

The Third Debate

Evil and Free Will... oh boy, here we go.

My first thoughts when I hear this old argument, if Free Will is what caused Evil... then do Christians think that no Free Will exists in Heaven?

• If sin is a choice in heaven, you can still be immoral and harm other people. Thus making heaven an imperfect place.

• The only deterrent to evil behavior is fear of consequences and guilt. If heaven has no fear, guilt or consequences, what is stopping people from evil behavior?

• If God has the power to stop people from wanting to sin in heaven, why can’t he do it on earth? 

If God makes it impossible to sin in heaven: 

• Why not bypass earth and create all people in heaven? Does God get joy from watching people suffer? Why put his “beloved” humans on an imperfect planet? Is our existence on earth some sort of twisted game?

• If your free will taken away from you in heaven, how is that a reward? Do you become a slave with every day controlled like a mindless robot? If your free will is taken away, that makes you a prisoner.

Furthermore, this whole notion of "moral absolutes." It is very simple to prove this is nonsense: does God say that X is bad simple because he says so, or does he say X is bad simply because it's bad?

As far as morality goes, every fundamentalist needs to learn their philosophical history it was St. Thomas Aquinas that FORMED the notion of situational ethics.

It was through his writings that theism advanced philosophically in many ways (while of course he still had some nutter beliefs that we can easily find abhorrent, such as that hell still existed and was waiting for all sinners) at least he acknowledged the fact that situations can arise that can cause an action we would traditionally in a vacuum believe to be bad, all of a sudden be good.

A common example, would you lie to the Nazis about the Jews hiding in your attic, but of course the guy who summarized the very characteristics of the christian god used in philosophical arguments in favor of his existence TODAY clearly is just a relativist that wants everyone to do whatever they want.

Put in even better terms, let's say that these fundamentalist's are 100% right about god existing and there being a heaven and a hell for the sake of argument. Now what if I'm an insane person, who WANTS to go to hell? Well...it kind of follows that I should be sinning my ass off, shouldn't I? Why should I keep obeying these laws if I don't get sent to the place I want to go? Sure, I ought to obey those laws IF I want to go to heaven, IF I don't want to go to hell, IF I don't want to suffer God's punishment, but those aren't absolute normative facts. Those are situational as soon as you add in that, "You ought do X, IF Y." it becomes situational and those are the ONLY kinds of normative facts that exist. In ANY world view.

Now all of that is attacking the theistic notion of divine command theory and moral absolutism

to defend relativism, I'd have to ask why it is the case that one ought not obey the laws society gives them, even if we exist in a morally relativistic sense? Sure, I ought not obey the laws IF I want to go to jail, but again, I'd have to have my values on such a level that it doesn't even make sense. It makes total and complete sense to say, “Obey the laws of the land, because if you don't, shitty things happen to you.” And doesn't that sound familiar? "Obey the laws, or shitty things will happen to you"? Sounds like the threat of hell to me. Therefore, are Christians relativists?

Finally, this talk of "if there is no God, then everything is permissible" bullshit, as a friend of once said:

"If you don't want to be held accountable for your crimes and easily get away with it, become a Christian."

In the Christian religion, nearly all sins can be forgiven if you believe in Jesus and simply because you believe in Jesus. No matter how absurd the stories are, all you have to do is swallow whatever the priests serve or selling...and that's it! You're saved! So if you love sin, claim Jesus as your Savior. Yes there are passages in the Bible that say works are important too, but only in addition to faith. And those passages could be paraphrased as “believe what we tell you, so you will do as we say.” Submissive obedience and subservience to the priests is repeated throughout, but there are also passages (Conficians 2:8) that you are saved ONLY through your faith, not of yourselves. Meaning there is nothing you can actually do about it. Because as if says in Isiah 54:6, your good works are like filthy rags in the eyes of God. It does not matter how good or bad you are, you are not going to be held accountable for your sins. That is not what you are going to be judged on. There is only one criteria: all that matters is that you believe, and that you believe on faith (meaning that you have complete conviction without evidence). Remember, Jesus said “blessed he that has not seen and yet believed.” So morality IS NOT the issue. All that matters is whether you can believe the most outrageous claims imaginable, even from the least credible people possible, and believe it completely even when there is no good reason to believe it at all as you should. The saintly skeptic is cursed simply for being rational while the most naïve sinners can still be saved. You can break the Ten Commandments is you want to, you won't go to Hell for that. In fact, God lists hundreds of Commandments, but he won't give a damn if you break them. Leviticus 26 says that if you break God's commandments he will punish you in this life, not the next, by making your toil harder and your works fruitless. 

Believers can be as vile as they wish – it doesn't matter. Atheists can be the most moral people ever – it doesn't matter. Morality doesn't matter. Gullibility is the only criteria required for redemption. So if you love sin, and you don't want to get killed for it, just say that you believe in Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Because the only real way to piss God off is not to believe in him.

Let’s listen to Steven Pinker’s story: “As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test t 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank robbed. By noon most downtown stores had been closed because of looting. Within a few hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been et, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters…”

This Montreal strike seems to be a pretty good natural experiment to test the hypothesis that belief in God makes us good. The majority of the population of Montreal believes in God, so why didn’t the fear of God restrain them when earthly policemen were temporarily removed from the scene? Did the cynic H.L. Mencken get it right when he tartly observed: ‘People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police.’

Why Do You Hate God?

Ask any atheist this, their answer would be the same as Josh's finally response: you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Unlike Josh's claim, the sciences don't point to God's existence, as I just demonstrated.

Often times, when Atheists make that point clear, Christians and other theists still lash at them as if Atheists somewhere hidden secretly believe that there is a god and that we are just angry at him. This is absolute nonsense.

Atheists like me, view God simply as a "book character." Nothing else. And frankly, he is indeed an evil monster, and no mentally healthy or decent human being praises evil sadistic dictators in any story.

Whenever I say "I hate Voldemort" because of his reign of terror and immoral agendas, that does not mean that I secretly believe he exists. A child would understand that. And it is the same for whenever a atheist says the same towards God, he is just a evil book character.

The main beef we have is not with "God" but with the twisted individuals who worships such a monster, people who think that this evil tyrant is somehow a righteous being, and the same people who try to follow the "guide" supposedly set forth by this megalow maniac.

Here are a few examples I found from your average-day Christians on Facebook

A brief history lesson reveals what faith in such a being can produce: wars, crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, bastardization of science and Enlightment, and the list goes on and on. And the sad thing is, all of this still happens in the 21st century.

And to this notion that atheists only became atheists due to the loss of a loved one or something similar, let explain why this is completely wrong, but first note that the loss of a loved one is the very same reason why millions turn to religion all the time.

There are many examples, including MYSELF, where Christians became atheists without any traumatizing event or loss of a loved one. I became a Atheist in my Junior Year in High School simply starting with a simple thought about God, and from there the whole concept of God fell apart like dominos. I wasn't convinced by science to disbelieve, in fact I never understood how the hell biology or quantum physics worked until a year AFTER I discovered I was an atheist. I did not loss a loved one, I did not get dumped in a relationship, none of my family members died or moved away, I did not lose my job... absolutely nothing happened to me. The ONLY thing that made me realize there is no god was simply mere thinking.

Last comments on the Film

Regarding the Duck Dynasty crew in this movie, of course this is just a set up due to recent events. While conservatives try to defend Duck Dynasty, they try to make the appearance that they are defending "religious freedom".... but instead what they are defending is religious bigotry. Imagine your conservative politicians defending the KKK, because it is their "religious freedom" to hate gays and blacks. BUT ONE THING that all people should be aware of: Duck Dynasty are fake YUPPIES

To me, whenever someone says a 2,000 year old dead guy (whose historical existence has been put into question) is their "friend"... I think they need a huge reality check, because they are basically grown-ups with a imaginary friend.

One point I find totally ironic in this film: the Christians in this movie stress the ability to “choose.” Raddison's girlfriend says he does not get to choose whether she leaves or not. Josh points the finger at Raddison, claiming he does not allow students to choose what to believe, and instead force his anti-theism on them.

So, Christians love the ability to choose.... but does their God agree? Does God give newborn babies the choice to be born in sin? Nope. You did not eat the forbidden fruit, but you get the punishment simply for being born. Where is your choice in that matter? Did you choose to be born a “criminal”? God could've just forgiven everyone, but instead he forces the punishment on everyone and everyone who is yet to be born, robbing them of their choice.

Oh, and if you are confused who Franklin Graham is, he is the son of Christian fundamentalist Billy Graham and you can read the latest about Frank here. 

Regarding the part where Pastor Dave and his Missionary friend trying to get into a car that works. The Missionary says "have faith" that the third car they try will finally start.

SCREW THAT. You don't have faith that the car will work. You want the car to work, you need technology, or at least a well educated and respectable auto guy to fix it and get it running.

Speaking of dumping faith and trusting science (cuz it works!), how about that liberal journalist who discovered she had cancer, and got scared to the point she jumped onto the religious bandwagon. But if you don't want to die early due to cancer... PRAYER WON'T HELP A DAMN THING. Seek cancer treatments, brought to you by science!!!

And I don't know where to start with this whole "The devil makes people successful to turn them away from God." There's just no reasoning or winning when it comes to religion.

If you are a super-rich Megachurch man, you're successful because God wills it while the rest of your congregation is struggling with poverty.

But if you are some successful non-religious CEO, then the Devil got you to where you are.

The last thing I have to comment on the dying scared atheist accepting Christ at his last moments. This kinda comes to show that Christianity does not care about your past, but even if you were a bad person you can still get into Heaven on your deathbed.

Of course, they try to portray "Jesus" as the final hope after death... but it is an empty promise.

They speak of Heaven, but that is all they focus on. Imagine if Pastor Dave spoke to the dying Raddison, Dave asks Robbison if he has ever been baptized? Raddison says no, he is an atheist. Imagine in Raddison says "well, too bad for you, you will burn in Hell forever and endure unspeakable pain in a endless nightmare. You should've gotten baptized."

You would see Pastor Dave as a total Asshole, and rightly so. But why is it that people say nice things to people who tell the dying that they will go to a place - a place that's basic existence has not been proven in the first place????

It may be comforting, but to claim to know something you cannot know and do not know is ultimately a lie. 

"Would you take that chance?" Ahhh, Pascal's Wager.

BTW, what is your chances? What is the chances of Christianity being right?

This blog used simple mathematics to show the answer is practically absolute zero. Enjoy.

Refutation of Grade 9 Homeschool Creationist Textbook: World Geography PACE 1097

A few months ago, a smart friend of mine in Louisiana sent me several pics of his home school textbooks. Thankfully he is a smart kid who saw through the lies and nonsense in these books, and thankfully he convinced his grandfather that he should not be home schooled with such nonsense and enrolled in a school. (Unfortunately, he cant even escape a overwhelming Christian bias classrooms and harsh environment from his Christian peers in a Louisiana school. Best of luck mate!)

Anyway, after looking into these books, I made some notes that refuted a great deal of the material. This is the book I first examined.

PACE 1097 covers creation and the fall, the Flood, the postdiluvian earth, and seasons and climates.

There is a lot to cover, but I will only address the creationist BS parading as science.

Page 4

CREATION

"We have no way of knowing or understanding exactly what existed before God's initial creative act, because God has chosen not to reveal it to us."

So the things we don't know are simply secrets God has decided to keep for himself?

“If we wish to study the origins of our universe, the Bible is the only source of true information.”

Such a bold claim that has nothing to back it up.

In fact, we know that this claim is 100% incorrect. We know that the secrets of the universe are not hidden within the pages of an old sacred book written by superstitious men who did not know anything they were talking about. The answers to the secrets of the universe are as much as found in the pages of Genesis as they are in a Greek Mythology manuscript or on a hieroglyphic wall in Egypt.

The only way to solve the answers to the secrets of the universe is not to look down into the dusty pages of a fairy tale book, but to look UP into outer space and investigate the universe as well as the quantum world.

“Only in the first two chapters of Genesis can we find the true day-by-day description of the first week in the life of our universe.”

This is asserting that the Earth was formed within a literal, seven day, week.

The problem is, not a single scientific study has ever been produced to show the Earth is anything less than several million years old.

Nothing in these pages provide any explanations, links or sources of such studies, nor any names of scientists who have made any discoveries to back up the assertion that the Earth was formed in a week.

“Before God created Heaven and Earth, time did not exist.”

Time did not exist? And yet this same book says that God created the universe from nothing. It says that God created time itself, and time did not exist before God created time...A moment's thought is all it takes to discredit this ridiculous statement. Here is the logical counter-argument:

Premise 1) God is defined as the arbiter (creator) of all things, including time;

Premise 2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)

Premise 3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;

Premise 4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;

Premise 5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;

Premise 6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent

Conclusion) Therefore, there is no God.

In other words, if you want to create something, you must first have the thought. That thought is the structure and plan of what you want to create. Then that thought must transition into an action. That action is what sparks the creation. This idea-to-creation act requires time...but how can that be if time did not exist?

“Our finite minds cannot comprehend the concept of eternity, when time did not exist.”

So we cannot comprehend the CONCEPT of a being, and yet human believers label is attributes as: god is love; god is omniscient; god is ombibenevolent; god is mercy; and so on and so on.

Giving a incomprehensible Being characteristics... seems like a way to make stuff up as you go along.

“The next two words of Genesis 1:1 are “God created.” Man can form or make, but he cannot create. When man “creates,” he is merely organizing already existing materials into something different. When God created, He spoke into existence something whose materials had no previous existence. The Latin term ex nihilio, which means “out of nothing,” is often used to express God's method of Creation.”

"When God created, He spoke into existence something who materials had no previous existence."

Reread that sentence again.

What they are saying is that a entity spoke some words that caused everything popped into existence from nothing.

In other words: ABRACADABRA!!!

That's right. The creationists answer: MAGIC.

An incantation is a series of words used in a magic spell.

““In the beginning, God created the heaven...” Before God began His work of Creation, the term space had no meaning. God was limited in neither time nor space, for time did not exist and He was everywhere. When He created the heavens, God created a definite, limited place. As finite beings, we are both limited to time and space.”

How can some being be somewhere if there is no space?

In order to be "somewhere" there has to be space. But since these creationist authors claim that space did not exist, how can there be a somewhere to be?

“'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' The word 'earth' here refers to matter that God created and would then use to for the rest of creation.”

Really? Not even going to provide any translations or anything to show why the word 'earth' refers to all matter in the universe???

Because last I checked, the Earth refers to...the Earth. A singular planet. The single small little blue-colored rock spinning around a great big ball of burning hydrogen. This planet, Earth, is a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny piece of mass, a miniscule sample of matter in a really really really really BIG universe.

Saying that this tiny planet is in comparable with the entire matter of this universe is laughably absurd.

“Today Creation scientists believe God enclosed Earth in a canopy of water vapor at Creation. This water vapor canopy made Earth like a giant greenhouse with uniform temperatures everywhere and a much greater atmospheric pressure than exists today. Many of these things that affect the geography of Earth today were not present; there were no winds, no violent weather, no deserts, and no ice caps. The canopy also provided an effective filter for harmful radiation from the sun and space so both humans and animals lived longer, healthier lives.”

NO WIND???? 

So was the sun not hitting the Earth? Was the Earth not ever spinning???

For those who need a refreshment on how wind is formed: As the sun warms the Earth's surface, the atmosphere warms too. Some parts of the Earth receive direct rays from the sun all year and are always warm. Other places receive indirect rays, so the climate is colder. Warm air, which weighs less than cold air, rises. Then cool air moves in and replaces the rising warm air. This movement of air is what makes the wind blow. 

So, there have to be no sun for there to be no wind, but if somehow we where able to have sun, and remove wind, while there still was air, then all the trees would die, and all life on the planet would cease to exist, as the wind carries carbon atoms from animals and human beings across forests, and carries oxygen from greenery to animals and humans. Human beings breathing in their own CO2, and trees breathing their own O2 would kill it all. 

These creationist authors say there were no deserts or ice caps, so they are trying to eliminate temperature difference around the globe. This means that the global climate would have at a constant everywhere. This means there cannot ever be rain, because rain causes winds.

Large areas of vegetation will die because
a) no wind to carry pollen to fertilize. Plants that are pollenized by insects and birds will thrive but only to the extent that those animals increase in population
b) no wind means no rain. Evaporation and precipitation will be localized to the immediate area of the water source.

Certain long range migratory birds will die off due to hardship in flying long distances without the help of thermals. They will evolve into localized birds (since the climate is all the same anyway) and will fight the indeginous birds for food.

Large numbers of fish species will die when ocean currents stop and water temperatures mimic atmospheric temperatures (constant). No currents, no migratory fish, no migratory fish, animals and people dependent on those fish will perish. If there are currents, wind will be caused.

Large areas of land will develop high concentrations of carbon dioxide emanating from the ground. Toxic pollutants will linger around their sources. Over abundance of oxygen created by plants will further deplete plant life and all animals dependent on them.

AND GET THIS. These creationist authors claim that "day and night" existed for many generation since Adam to Noah. In order for there to be a day and night, the Earth must be rotating in orbit on an axis (unless you are a complete idiotic Geocentrist and/or Flat Earther).

Due to Newtons law of motion and the Coriolis Effect, which is due to the rotation of the Earth in orbit, even if you exclude all the factors that contribute to a constant global climate, the force from the rotating Earth alone will cause movements in the atmosphere. The earth is a sphere that spins on an axis.  At the equator its surface speed is about 1,040 miles per hour; at 40 degrees north (and south) latitude the speed is about 600 mph, while at the poles the it is 0 mph.  This means that adjacent "slices" of the atmosphere are moving at different speeds; thus there will be shear forces between them, and these will cause movements within the atmosphere.  This is what gives rise to the Coriolis Effect, and this alone would cause winds.  In addition, the gravitational force at the equator would be acting in the same direction as the centrifugal (or centripetal) force, whereas at other latitudes these vectors would not line up, and there would be additional shear forces that would cause differential air movements. This means that there will ALWAYS have to be winds on the earth.

So, in this creationist worldview of there was "night and day" and yet had no wind is impossible.

And we are not done yet!

What about this "Water Canopy" the creationist authors spoke of? They say that the Earth was enclosed by a water canopy, forming the Earth into a greenhouse paradise. So how plausible is this water canopy?

A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling. A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy

Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's due to gravity). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.

This video will explain the effects of a water canopy on top of the atmosphere, such as the dramatic increase in PSI and the amount of water would cover the Earth when the canopy would fail.

Page 5

“Although God has no physical body, he created man with the ability to do some things that He can do. God can see, hear, smell, touch and speak, and so can man.”

Does god have a penis?

Does god have a nose?

Does god have a stomach?
Watch this video, and keep those questions in mind.

“Man is also a free moral agent who is free to make choices.”

Unless those choices don't abide by the laws of a supernatural Dictator.

“Except for the forgiveness offered to us through faith in Jesus Christ, we would all receive the consequences of our sinful actions.”

What would our consequences be without this Christ? In Judaism, we would only end up in the ground, or "Sheol." It is only several thousand years later with the inception of the christian cult is the concept of Hell created, a remodeling of the Hellenistic ideal of Hades/Tartarus. (which, btw, 2nd Peter Chapter 2 verse 4 mentions the word tartaroō (Tartaros/Tartarus)).

“Like God, man has emotions and is capable of feeling. He can love, be angry, feel compassion and experience both happiness and sorrow.”

I would recommend reading about the work "Trusting Doubt" by psychologist Valerie Tarico on why God is pathetically man-made. Her arguments on why a god should not have human emotions is quite spectacular.

“Only beings made in God's image can paint a picture...”

Oh really...

A non-human creature that can paint a picture. Does God's image involve tusks and big ears?

“Like God, man is a moral being; animals are amoral. Of all God's earthly creatures, only man can distinguish between right and wrong, form moral judgments, and follow moral ideals. Only man has a conscience.”

Animals are not amoral, this is a fact supported by science. Read a book. Try Marl Rowlands book "Can Animals be Moral?" (Oxford University Published in 2012).

Animals even grieve their dead.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200910/grief-in-animals-its-arrogant-think-were-the-only-animals-who-mourn

Page 6

“Like God, man is immortal. Although man has a definite beginning, he then lives forever. Our bodies die because of sin, but our souls live on.”

Where is the evidence that a soul exists? This book does not provide a lick of proof.

With no proof, this book's assertion that a soul exists holds as much weight as a New Age quack claiming our bodies illuminate with Auras.

“Illness and disease are unknown.”

If illness and diseases were unknown, they why were humans and countless animals born with an immune system?

Immune systems serve one purpose: to protect the body from diseases.

So what is the point of god making animals with an immune system?

There are only two conclusions,

There were indeed diseases and illnesses in pre-Flood times,

OR that god knew that man would sin long before he created man so he built humans with an immune system ahead of time. (And if this is the case, then god is evil. He knew humans would bring the Fall upon the world, and yet he created them anyway and condemn them for his mistake.)

“Imagine a place...There is no sin, no crime, no disharmony, no pain, no death.”

No death? This is just as stupid as the claim "there was no wind" in Eden.

Animals by their very nature are meant to consume and digest. That is how living organisms function. Even if an animal eats some vegetation, that said vegetation is a living organism.

How about shark babies who must eat their fellow sibling embryos to survive while in their mother's womb?

A world without death would be far from Edenic. Either there would be no possibility of new birth, in which case none of us could be alive today, or the world would become so overpopulated with living things that most people would be buried alive under others. Death is a necessary part of life.

Page 7

THE FLOOD

“According to Biblical genealogy, at least nine generations of people lived on Earth between Adam and Noah. By the time Noah became an adult, the world was filled with violent, evil people; and only he “found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Because of the unrepentant wickedness of man, God had planned to destroy “them with the Earth.””

And according to the Rig Veda, the God Brahman created the universe billions of years ago.
See, I can do it too.

Notice the one thing they don't mention to kids: Noah lived to be 900 years old. Of course they don't mention that to kids, because even kids might think that is total nonsense.

But let's get this straight: God creates an imperfect world and knows way ahead of time it will screw up. He knows that man will become (what he considers) evil, and decides to KILL THEM ALL and then repopulate Earth with the SAME STOCK of humans that pissed him off the first time.

The sickening and sad part of this is, Christians like to think this is a "moral" story and think it is appropriate to tell kids through stories, songs, and children cartoon videos.

Bear this is mind, God kills untold men, women, children, babies and UNBORN babies. Yes, God decided to kill the unborn because he already deemed them wicked. And ontop of that, God drowns every animal.

Isn't it any wonder that many Christians abandon Christianity. Why would you praise a God that drowns babies?

“When it [the Ark] was finished, Noah was to take his wife and three sons and their wives into the Ark. In addition, he was to take two of every “unclean” animal, and seven of every “clean” animal and every bird. Added to this was the food supply for all the people and animals on board. Some believe that the account of Noah and the Ark is just a myth for children. It seems preposterous to them that the Ark could hold so many people and animals. The Ark was not, however, a small boat. It was about 450 feet (137 m) long, 75 feet (23 m) wide, and 45 feet (14 m) high. It's volume was more than 1,500,000 cubic feet (43,000 m^3). Because it had three floors, it's area was about 101,250 square feet (9,400 m^2). In case you still don't have a mental picture of the size of the Ark, it had as much volume as 356 railroad livestock cars. (Imagine waiting at a railroad crossing for ten trains, each of which consists of 36 cars!) The Ark had about as much room as 100 average-sized houses in the United States. Certainly the Ark was large enough, with room to spare, to contain the people, animals and food that were on board during the Flood?”

You think that's impressive?

Math is a bitch ain't it.

This Creationist textbook may try to appear intelligent, using certain numbers, but without any proper comparison, they sneakily hide the obvious that their "Ark" is too small and it is completely impossible to house all the animals.

“Another problem area for many scoffers is the fact that Noah would have been unable to gather all the animals, but this was not at all difficult for him. God told Noah the animals would come him when the Ark was ready. God must have instilled within these animals a migration instinct that caused them to move to the Ark at that particular time. Because of the canopy, Earth's climate was uniform and the animals were not widely separated as they are today, so they would not have had to travel a great distance. In addition, most Christian scientists believe the land areas on Earth formed one continent, called Pangea, before the Flood. If you look at a world map, you can see that the continents look almost like the pieces of a puzzle that could have fitted together.”

All animals coming from a uniform climate strongly argues against creation. Creationism argues that features of animals are designed; for example, that the camel's desert adaptations are designed for the desert, that the mountain goat's sure-footedness is designed for mountains. (Evolution says much the same, but "designed" by natural selection.) If all animals come from the same sort of climate, there is no need for such features, so it does not make sense that they are designed.

“When “the windows of heaven were opened,” the canopy above Earth began collapsing, and the water began falling in a deluge. The falling water joined the water surging from the underground reservoirs; rivers and streams overflowed their banks; and mudslides carried away trees and other plants from hillsides."

So, the waters above the atmosphere came falling down to Earth and flooding the world.

First of all, how did that "water" not already fall due to gravity? And how did it survive the fall and not get vaporized? And even if it did make it through the atmosphere, it would be unbelievably hot, to the point Noah and the whole Ark would have been vaporized. If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling. When the canopy fell to form the Flood, everything on Earth would be POACHED.

But we are not done yet. Remember, math is a bitch. Creationists HATE math.
Consider the circumference of the Earth, and keep in mind the circumference above the atmosphere is much greater. Do the math of the amount of water there would have to be above the atmosphere, then drop all that onto the world... well, let this video walk you through it and show you how STUPID this "canopy hypothesis" really is.

"As the water began rising, the Ark floated just as God designed it to. It had no wheelhouse and no rudder; there was no way to steer the massive boat. Of course, that did not matter; the Ark was no going anywhere because it had been designed only to keep its cargo safe during the onslaught of water. Because of it's size and shape, the Ark was very stable and did not capsize, even in the stormiest weather."

Ignoring the obvious mathematical impossibilities just addressed about the Flood itself (especially the air pressure alone would kill everything), would a vessel that side MADE OF WOOD not capsize in the "stormiest weather"?

"While rain continued falling from the fractured canopy and bursting from underground, lava poured from newly formed volcanoes. The ocean floor was elevated and the continents sank. The water and sudden temperature changes caused splits to form in Earth's crust. The resulting final earthquakes produced gigantic tidal waves that surged across Earth and changed the shape of the land. The falling water combined with the gushing from inside Earth until the mountaintops were covered by at least 22 feet (6.7 m) of water."

Every mountain covered by 22 feet?
How much water would be required to cover the highest mountain by 22 feet?

Again, math is a bitch.

If creationists claim (and many do) that the Earth's mountains and continents were formed dramatically due to the Flood, they dig themselves into a deeper hole (besides the fact they never show a model to prove it).

The catastrophic formation of mountains and subsequent return of the sea into its basin would have released tremendous amounts of heat and mechanical energy, enough to boil the oceans and metamorphose the minerals in the mountains. No trace of such a catastrophe exists. Formation of mountains during the Flood does not explain why different mountains are different ages. The Appalachians are much older than the Rockies, for example, as one can immediately see just from how the two ranges are differently eroded.

ONCE AGAIN, MATH IS A BITCH!

If the geologic record was deposited IN A SINGLE YEAR, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

Magma: The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 10E24 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 10E27 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C.

In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.

Limestone formation: There are roughly 5 x 10E23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10E26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.

Meteorite impacts: Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 10E26 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]

Other: Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.

5.6 x 10^26 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 10^27 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.

Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.

"After forty days and nights, the canopy was finally depleted and the torrential rain stopped falling, but the waters “prevailed upon the Earth an hundred and fifty days.” It was nearly one year after the Flood began that the water receded enough to allow Noah and the animals to leave the Ark. During that year, the mud, slit, rocks, dead plants, animal remains, and debris settled to the bottom of the water. In the process, many sea animals and fish were caught in the silt, died, and were added to the sediment. Much of the sediment quickly solidified and became sedimentary rock. Some of the plants, animals, and sea creatures in the debris formed the fossils that are found in sedimentary rock everywhere on Earth."

"Other decaying plants and animal bodies were converted into underground deposits of coal, oil, and gas that have helped industrialize the modern world. The tremendous pressure of water that covered the Earth during the 150 days immediately after the Flood contributed to formation of these fossil fuels."

Coal is a rock consisting almost entirely of organic material. The structure of this material can be observed by looking at thin sections of coal under the microscope in either transmitted or reflected light. Coal consists of fragments of land plant material, including wood, cuticle (the waxy surface found on some leaves), sap (amber), and spores and pollen. Each of these can be present in varying degrees of degradation due to decay near the surface and "cooking" due to burial in thick sediments. The progenitor of coal is peat like that found in modern swamps and bogs (although older coals look a little different because the plants were different types). Some people have proposed coal forms from floating mats of dead plant material deposited in deep water in a short amount of time. Although not too far from the conventional explanation (dead plant material, sometimes transported), it can not explain the majority of coal deposits. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in terrestrial river floodplains. They have river channels, levees, and fossil soil horizons. Often soil horizons are found immediately below coal seams, and these are often filled with plant roots. All these structures are similar to modern peat-forming environments. The common occurrence of rooted upright trees that can not be transported (because they have delicate rootlets embedded in the sediment) is compelling evidence that most coals form near the surface in terrestrial environments (see the "polystrate trees" above). However, even more convincing is the co-occurrence of dinosaur footprints and upright trees on the top surface of several coal seams at a Cretaceous-age locality near Price, in southeast Utah.

It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Joggins, Nova Scotia). Rather than being a significant problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".

"As the waters began to recede after the Flood, greater rivers surged toward the oceans. Because much of the rock was newly formed and relatively soft sedimentary rock, these massive, forceful rivers cut huge canyons as they flowed. Evolutionists would have us believe that the formation of the Grand Canyon, for example, was accomplished by slow erosion over a period of many millions of years, but creationists believe that the enormous canyon was formed during a short period following the Flood as torrents of water flowed over the land toward the Gulf of California and the Pacific Ocean."

Page 15

Seasons and Climates

Only in the latter half of the opening of this section is smeared with Creationist nonsense.

"A study of geography must include a study of seasons and climates, for these factors both have their effect on, and are affected by, the geography of any region. To understand seasons and climates, we must understand the movement of the Earth in space. As it travels through space, Earth is rotating in a counter-clockwise, west-to-east direction with a surface speed of 1,040 miles (1,674 km) per hour. Even at that speed, it takes a full twenty-four hours for Earth to make one complete rotation. Earth's rotation is truly amazing. What force propels Earth? Who set the speed so that there is perfect balance between Earth's gravity and the centrifugal force created by Earth's rotation? If Earth were to spin a little faster, we might all be thrown into space, and if the rotation stopped, we would either have daylight or darkness all the time. Only God the Creator could have planned and established such a perfect system!"

Once again, the mindset that the Earth was made specifically for humans, getting everything completely backwards.
Earth and it's speed was not "set" for humans and life in general. Rather, life in general is adapted to the speed of the Earth.

"God once stopped the rotation of the Earth to show His power. In the Bible, we read in Joshua chapter ten that God extended the daylight hours to give the Israelites time to defeat the Amorites. The Bible states, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." God must have stopped Earth's rotation to give His people the additional daylight needed to defeat their enemies."

I try to understand how creationists expect to be taken serious, even by children, when they talk about this.

Remember, just a moment ago, they said "if Earth were to spin faster, we might all be thrown into space." Well, how about if the Earth completely stopped? Ever been in a car that was going over 70 mph, and then it suddenly just stopped? What happens? You fly forward, and if you are not wearing a seat-belt, you will hit your head on the dashboard.

Likewise, since the Earth is spinning at 1,040 MILES PER HOUR, and the Earth suddenly STOPPED spinning on it's axis... imagine that catastrophic results! Due to momentum, everything would fly off at 1,040 mph. People would either be crushed, entire mountains across the globe would fly off into space, the entire continents would topple all over one another, and the Earth shriveled to a cinder.

All these things would have to happen according to the natural laws of physics. These Creationist authors are once again AT WAR WITH COPERNICUS AND SCIENCE in general. Here they are, claiming the absolute impossible happened to defend their faith, and in so doing spit on the work and discoveries of great astronomers.

Page 25

A Challenge

"Along with the privileged of living on Earth, God has given man a tremendous responsibility. The first man, Adam, was instructed to subdue Earth and have dominion over all other creatures living here. During the short time we have lived on God's Earth, we must  nurture it as if it were our own. Plants, animals, water, land, and hidden resources are ours to enjoy, develop and improve; they are not ours to waste or destroy."

Notice that nowhere in that intro says that man must "preserve" Earth's resources, or give the option that we just don't have to use certain resources. Saying "[Earth's resources] are not ours to waste" seems to imply that we should not let all the uranium of the world go to waste, so lets dig it all up and through it into a nuclear reactor. Or, lets drill and suck up all the oil in the world and burn it all. Or, lets unleash all our fisheries and capture all the fish in the oceans until there is no more fish left.

"When we study our universe, we become convinced that it's very orderliness points to a Being Who created it. The cycles of nature, the complexity of the forces which keep the planets in their proper orbit, even the veins carrying nourishment in an oak leaf are convincing evidence that an Intelligent Being is responsible for it all. The wonders and order in the universe and the laws by which it is sustained presuppose an infinite intelligence. That Intelligence is God."

Nothing in the study of our universe points to "orderliness" or a "intelligence" or "creator." Pretty much every point made in this creationist textbook is easily demolished by High School mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for a global flood, among many other creationist stories.

"We believe that God created Heaven and Earth in the beginning of time. We accept this by faith. We also believe in the catastrophic Flood that covered the entire Earth and completely changed Earth's geography. We base our belief on both the evidences we see in our universe and on the fact that God has recorded these facts in His Word."

And as this review has demonstrated, the creationists beliefs for a global catastrophic flood is based on anything but evidence. Not even physics and mathematics supports creationism.

Claiming that the claim "God recorded these facts in His word" is evidence is completely wrong. One can apply the same argument to the Koran or Rig Veda. Hindu's have and do call the word of the Bhagita Vita is the "absolute truth" written by god, and it completely contradicts the stories of Christian creationism.

"As an evolutionist observes the laws and process that govern our Earth today, he is blind to the evidence of a divine Creator. He denies proof of Creation and a worldwide, catastrophic Flood. Instead, he accepts uniformitarianism, the principle that laws and processes operate essentially today as they always have. He does not believe that fossils, fossil fuels, and the Grand Canyon were all formed during the year of the Flood. Instead, he believes these things took millions, or even billions, of years, because he believes that's how much time they would take today. He believes that, since light travels through space at a speed of 186,000 miles (300,000 km) per second today, it has always done so. If, based on these calculations, a star is two billion light years away, it has taken two billion years for the light from the star to reach Earth, and therefore that star has existed and has been giving off light two billion years ago. A belief in uniformity removes the necessity for a belief in God, the Creator of the universe. It also removes the necessity for a belief in the intervention of a supernatural God in natural processes."

There is nothing to be "blind" from something that is not there or ever was. All Creationists have relied on has been special pleading, huge stretches and many times outright falsehoods and lying.

There is no "proof" of Creation or a worldwide Flood anywhere.

And here is a special part. The Creationist slams scientists for believing the natural laws of physics "operate essentially today as they always have." This means, the creationists insist that the natural laws were different in the past - yet they do not point out exactly when this was or how it happened.

But lets take a look at this for a second, and address the creationist argument that natural laws were not always the same as they were in the past, and squeeze that into the time frame of a 6,000 year old Earth.

And...say it with me know... MATH IS A BITCH

Let's measure radioactivity in a "6,000 year old Earth" model. How much would the "natural laws" have to change in the past to fit this model????

Thanks to student of astrophysics, who goes by the alias King Crocoduck, demonstrated using mathematics the change in radioactivity required to fit the 6,000 year old Earth model. And the math shows the following:

The radioactive decay of uranium on Earth would have to be sped up dramatically. How dramatic? The radioactive decay would have to be increased 760,000 times more, which means this would release 8.5 times MORE radiation than the nuclear accident of Fukishima did in total, EVERY square mile on planet Earth, EVERY SECOND for the past 6,000 years. And that is being generous, and only focusing on Uranium over the rest of other molecules.

Since this has NEVER occurred, we can conclude that the creationist model is mind-numbingly and HILARIOUSLY incorrect. 

But it gets even worse. In order to believe Creationism, not only do you have to deny general mathematics, chemistry, geology... but even gravity.

"After the eruption of Mount St. Helens, some evolutionists were forced to reconsider their views. During a short period of time, many changes occurred that evolutionists had believed would take millions of years. If an isolated volcanic eruption can cause these changes, imagine what a worldwide catastrophic Flood did!"

Nothing about the incident of Mount St. Helens challenged the scientific community in any field.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

"The evolutionist criticizes the creationist for accepting the Biblical account of Creation. He recognizes that the creationist accepts this account by faith. The evolutionist does not realize the he also accepts his theories on faith; he cannot prove them by scientific demonstration, and he is dishonest when he claims they are science. His theory is a belief of faith that cannot be proven by scientific methods."

Simple and direct flat-out lying.

Science is not based on "faith."The theory of evolution is based entirely on facts and evidence. These include: ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, or the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, nor any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution as well as directly disproving creationism.

These are not things "believed" rather, contrary to the lies of this creationist textbook, all of these evidences CAN and HAVE been proven by scientific methods. They have been observed, tested, repeated, and proven.

It is a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidential support or scientific validity and no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria of being a theory. Despite the fact that creationists will lie about everything that proves the theory of evolution, evolution is supported by actual evidence and therefore the theory is a matter of knowledge rather than mere belief.

"God gave man, that includes you, the responsibility of caring for the world and its natural resources. If you are to be an effective caretaker of your planet, you should know as much as possible about it. Part of that knowledge must include a study of geography."

A good start to being an effective caregiver of the planet will include preserving the knowledge of humankind, the one thing that differentiates us from the rest of the species. The human mind and the ability to reason. It is a gift to humans that has made us walk on the moon and discover the secrets of the universe.

Care giving for the planet is vitally important, but we cannot and must not do so by forsaking reason and the human thinking mind.