Jack Chick’s Newsletter Explains Bad Science

Our old friend, Jack Chick, may be gone, but his website lives on. His newsletter, Battle Cry, lives on too. It’s rarely updated, and when it is, most of the content is too nonsensical even for us, but today we found a good one: How Old is the Moon? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Recent pictures of the moon’s surface have evolutionists scrambling for an explanation. High-resolution images by a lunar orbiter since 2009 show over 200 new craters on the surface.

Assuming that’s true, so what? Unlike the Earth, the Moon has no atmosphere to protect it from meteorites. Why would some new craters have “evolutionists” scrambling? Here’s why:

“Not only does this study invalidate the idea that craters only form over long eras, but the research suggests that these regular impacts could completely alter the surface of the moon within a timescale of thousands — not millions — of years,” wrote Garrett Haley on Christiannews.net.

If you care, you can read the article they’re referring to here: Evidence of a Young Moon? Study Forces Scientists to Rethink Lunar Dating Techniques. It mentions that “The largest craters they identified were about 140 feet in diameter.” That’s hardly enough to transform the surface of the Moon. Okay, let’s return to the Jack Chick newsletter:

Evidence like this continues to pile up against the “theory” of evolution, proving that the teaching of evolution is the result of bad science, not good science.

Yes, this lunar cratering is bad news for Darwin. Then we’re told:

When Darwin first proposed the “theory” of evolution, men who had rejected God were desperate to find a “natural” explanation for where we came from. They were delighted and set out to find proof of the theory. When they found none, they began to fake it. They “discovered” Piltdown man, who was concocted from a human brain case with an orangutan’s lower jaw, with filed teeth and a filled cavity. They glued moths to tree trunks for pictures that were debunked after they were used in millions of text books. They assembled “Lucy” from bones, that some believe could belong to monkeys, scattered over a mile apart.

All the evidence for evolution is bad. After that we’re given even more bad news:

So, who is evolutionist’s creator? Time! When asked how the complexity of a functioning eyeball could evolve, their only answer is “millions of years.” Yet, even their physicists admit that everything in the universe is falling apart, not getting more organized.

Right! Time can’t make an eyeball. The newsletter continues:

This kind of bad science is behind much of Satan’s lies. [Gasp!] Evidence that homosexuals are “born that way” is non existent but many have bought the lie. Bad science is also behind the effort to find other worlds inhabited by aliens who may have found the solution to the world’s ills.

Yeah — all that other worlds stuff is nonsense! Let’s read on:

Most evolutionists have chosen to believe that man came from primordial soup instead of being created by God. Some try to shoehorn God into the process but have to deny the first chapters in Genesis to do it. Bad science is also obviously in “opposition” to God when it works so hard to find another origin of the universe.

And now we come to the final paragraph:

Good science, on the other hand, has given us ways to use God’s creation to build the most prosperous nation in history. That prosperity has funded missionary efforts taking the gospel to all nations. Now the lies of evolution, Marxism, humanism, globalism and false religions have created world-wide chaos.

That’s horrible! What can we do? We’re told the answer at the very end:

The best way to find those open to the gospel in any crowd is wide seeding of gospel tracts.

Yes, of course! Keep giving out those Chick comic books. That’s the answer!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Jack Chick’s Newsletter Explains Bad Science

  1. Since 2009, there have been 65 reported meteorite falls on Earth from which recovered samples exist. That’s a not-thorough sampling of just Earth’s land surface (= ~30% of the surface). Extrapolating to the entire planet (= lots of falls into the ocean), we get 217 falls for all of Earth since 2009 (not counting the year 2009). Hmmm – seems like the lying creationists’ proposal has been falsified.

  2. Well, the moon has a large number of immensely large craters, along with the little ones captured by the lunar orbiter. If the writer is suggesting that the big ones occurred in the past few thousand years, essentially in historic times, then what happened on the earth – a much larger target – over that period.

    And why wasn’t that world-altering “rain” of terror documented in the bible or anywhere else? God would not have needed a flood to extinguish life on land if giant asteroids were impacting every few years.

    I don’t think referencing lunar cratering is a very good argument for creationists.

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    Well, the only thing the Creationists need to worry about is that the moon quite plainly demonstrates that their Creator was not very smart. Just read what the Holy Gospel has to say, right there, in the plain language of Genesis 1:3-5

    “The First Day: Light (3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

    And that’s just the way it reads, written down by Moses himself, in the plain English words of the true KJV Bible. (So there’s no need for any skeptics to be going around and doubting the True Scriptures.)

    But here’s the problem: If that God person is so almighty perfect, then how did He set it up so the Great Light, (which we call the Sun), goes around during the daytime? During the day there is plenty of light anyway, and any extra light from the Sun just goes to waste.

    Any thinking person can easily discover that it is the Lesser Light (or Moon), which takes the trouble to get up and go around during the night when the light from the moon can come in handy. Especially if the electricity happens to be off.

    Damn, any woman would have figured that out if she had just been given the chance to set up Genesis. Give up you Creationists. Hire a woman when you want to make progress.

  4. Other than modern BS artists stating so, where in their holey Book o’BS does it show Satan lying??

  5. @CP
    If you look at the sky, you see that the Moon is not always in the night sky.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    @TomS
    You are correct. But it is a mere case of “the exception makes the rule”. I have never personally looked up in the night sky and been blinded by the Sun either trying to help somebody find where they dropped their car keys, or just skulking around and being a nuisance when regular people are tying to sleep.

  7. But there is a midnight sun. Were the authors of Genesis 1 aware of that?

  8. TomS says: “If you look at the sky, you see that the Moon is not always in the night sky.”

    True, but that’s only since the sin of Adam & Eve. Originally it was different, as it says in the Good Book. Scientists who claim otherwise don’t know what they’re talking about — because they weren’t there.

  9. I guess that also explains the midnight Sun. The tilt of the Earth’s axis is obviously a consequence of the Sin. In the original created design, perfection meant that the Earth was not tilted.
    Yet, I confess to a difficulty. As we all know, the exact configuration of the Sun, Moon and Earth which makes a solar eclipse possible is one of the proofs of Intelligent Design. If the Moon is always in the night sky, there cannot be a solar eclipse.

  10. Eddie Janssen

    His Holyness: “Scientists who claim otherwise don’t know what they’re talking about — because they weren’t there.”

    I was. But I am not a scientist.

  11. TomS, you’re spouting Darwinist nonsense. If the designer — blessed be he! — wants to reveal himself with a total solar eclipse, then there will be a total solar eclipse.

  12. Of course. Thank you for setting me straight lest I slide.

  13. The moon comes out during the day to recharge it’s batteries. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be visible at night. Duh.