A few tips for creationist tract makers

Now I really hate to sound like I am putting down other Christians, I'm not and try hard not to; what I am doing is helping out my fellow Christians who happen to be creationists make tracts so they'll look more credible. And one way is to mend their gospel tracts. The gospel tracts I am referring to are the ones directed at mainly atheistic evolutionists. Often they have things in them which would probably cause the audience these Christians are trying to reach to dismiss them as ingorant bible-thumping bumpkins, and that is rarely a good thing. So this is to help out those evangelical tract-makers who want to send high quality tracts to their client churches.

The one I am reviewing is from A.C.T.S. ministries and interestingly enough it is actually much better written then most creation/evolution tracks put out by Way of the Master or Living Waters ministries (Ray Comfort and Kirk Camoren's ministries) but it still has a lot of the things which I find would not impress the average biology student.

Consider the introduction;

"Please don't put this down until you have read it thoroughly. We've taken
the time to share these truths with you and ask that you keep an open mind just
as you did when embracing darwinism

Please understand that all the scientific theories about the origin of
life, as taught in the public school system, have been proven by science,
history and the fossil record to be wrong. Evolution, Big Bang and others just
don't fit.

Please, read on and we believe you will conclude that Mr. Darwin was not a
bad man, but he was very wrong"

Now whats wrong with this introduction? Two things;
1. It calls evolution "darwinism," I know this is a minor point, but most evolutionary apologists do not like this term. Darwinism is a group of ideas and notions not necessarily connected to evolution so it should not be used when referring to evolution. When a creationist says "darwinism" most evolutionists other then myself take that to mean the creationist thinks evolution is some sort of cult which its not (some evolutionists even go as far to think creationists think that they worship Darwin as their deity which unfortionately some creationists do) and the creationist is dismissed as an idiot (yes as rediculous as it sounds many evolutionary apologists do make that big of a deal about it) and being seen as bigger idiots then they are already stereotyped is the last thing creationists need.
2. Never, ever say the Big Bang talks about the origin of life. It does not, it doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe only what happened afterwards (that the universe expanded and stars and galaxies were formed, etc.). Most creationists speak of evolution as an umbrella term referring to a veriaty of naturalistic explanations concerning origins whether cosmological, biological, or geological. Most educated creationists understand that they are studied in different fields and apply to different topics but they use the word "evolution" to refer collectively to naturalistic origins scenarios. However to the evolutionists' ears this sounds like you can't tell the difference between cosmology and biology. And just from the very first few sentences of your tracts you will be dismissed as a scientific ignoramus.

In then next section they talk about transitional forms between humans and apes. The problem with the next section is that the first part is a bit of an argument from personal incredulity (I can't imagine apes evolving into humans because they're to different) you want to watch out for that one. An argument from personal incredulity is basically stating you lack the of the ability to imagine something happens proves it did not happen; it is not a good argument and simply makes you look illogical and at best, unimaginative. If you want to make anymore then a comedic impression on an evolutionist leave those arguments out.

The next is to actually research your arguments before you use them. The second point of the tract consists of them talking about how radiometric dating is false. They simply give a few examples of radiocarbon dating giving off wild results. All the of the stated examples (a freshly killed seal being dated at 1300 years old, a living mollusk being dated at 2300 years old, and a shell on a living seal being dated at 27,000 years old) even if these count they only disprove radiocarbon dating, which only is used to date thins younger then 60,000 years. It does not disprove the accuracy of Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating or other methods used to date rocks that are actually millions of years old. Also all the examples can be explain by natural processes (because of more C14 in certain deep waters sea creatures can get more C 14 then usual thus making them look much older then they actually are). I should also add radiocarbon dating has been used to date the dead sea scrolls to have been written before Jesus' time, this means that we know from comparing the dead sea scrolls to modern day bibles that Christians didn't alter the text to make it appear more consistant with the New Testament.

In their third point about the fossil record the conclude by saying most scientists have abandoned Darwin's theories. This is simply not true, and shouldn't be propogated; yes a small number of scientists do oppose Darwin but they make up less then 1% of the scientific community, thats hardly most of the scientific community. If you say this the evolutionist may think you are lying (creationists have a rather nasty stereotypical trate which is lying) and your tract will be ignored.

Final suggestion, at the end of a tract, don't immediately launch into a discussion on the ten commandments and how your going to hell and need to be saved. The evolutionist reader whether atheistic or not will take this as a scare tactic (which is especially bad if you have a really bad tract going along with it) and dismiss you as religiously motivated scaremongers. Instead I would suggest simply ending it with the suggestion of there being a God and that God possibly being the God of the bible, then directing them to a source for more information. It makes you sound less like a cult and more like an evangelist.

Now to A.C.T.S. ministries I'd like to say keep up the good work but try to do a better job with your creation/evolution tracts.

And to Way of the Master; shape up.

Solving the "Dinosaur Dilemma"

About ten days ago I read an article on my friend Elles's blog. It was titled, "A preschoolers road to unbelief." She basically told about how her preschool belief in God was shattered when she could not find out why God if he were protecting the dinosaurs why he would let them go extinct (she has more complex reasons for being an atheist now of course). Well I gave what my response would have been had she asked me at that time. She replied, and soon a conversation on dinosaurs had started. Although it shifted to why did God take a 160 million year detour in evolving mammals who would become our ancestors to make giant lizards which would die off anyway. The so called "Dinosaur Dilemma" although it borders on facetious when I think about writing an article addressing it I feel it must be addressed. She has used the dino dilemma at least two times on her blog when addressing a theistic evolutionist.





Now first of all being that I don't intend to write an essay on this topic I'll try to keep this post a s short as possible.





Now to begin, lets start with a short introduction. The proto-mammals that existed for most or all of the mesozoic era (which lasted 186 million years between 251 Mya and 65 Mya) evolved from nifty creatures known as therapsids. Therapsids were mammal -like reptiles (the earliest could have been thought of as naked lizards with no hair or scales). They were mammal-like in the sense that they show signs of lactation (feeding their children mother's milk, also paleontologists have suggested it was orignally used for keeping eggs moist). The late therapsids (such as cynodonts and theriodonts) could have been easily mistaken for mammals they had hair, lactation, as well as a near-mammalian jaw and middle ear. Also some therapsids had erect limbs. Today and back then lizards have sprawling limbs (meaning their legs are spread out from their body). Today most mammals have erect limbs (meaning their limbs are direclty below their bodies supporting them like pillars on a building).



The evolution of erect limb structure was every erratic and slow, in fact mammalian evolution was quite slow. Therapsids were the dominant terrestrial lifeform in the permian period (between about 299 Mya and 251 Mya). Then about 251 million years ago, something terrible happened.



The Permian-cretaceous mass extinction, it is not agreed on what caused the mass extinction but what did happen is that 96% of sea dwelling species and 70% of land dwelling vertebrates went extinct. It was by far the worst mass extinction earth has gone through yet. This devastated the therapsids, only theriodonts, theracophalians, and cynodonts survived. All other therapsids died out. This also led to the saurapsids gaining dominance and taking over the planet, the archosaurs who include dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs filled all the niches which the therapsids had previously filled reducing the therapsids to nocturnal insectivores who were often no larger then rats. Now interestingly enough the mass extinction and reptilian takeover aided mammalian evolution;

--since they were small they became warm-blooded so they could sustain their body heat in the cool of the night

--the development towards differentiated teeth with precise occlusion (the arches of the teeth coming together in symmetry) was given a boost because they needed to be able to catch arthropods and crush their exoskeletons.

--an acute sense of hearing and smell became more necessary so as a result the mammalian ear evolved faster then it otherwise would have.

--and the evolution of the mammalian skull was accelerated as a whole.

--Because the jawbones came together further forward on the skull this allowed for less restriction on brain siz allowing the brain to become larger.

After this one of the survivors, the cynodonts, ended up being the ancestors of all mammals today. Cynodonts survived into the mid-cretaceaous period, by the end it had all the characteristics of a mammal. The small bones which are in located in the jaw in reptiles were in its ear (as expected in mammals), it had fur, and it had more mammalian dentistry. It still layed eggs however (which monotremes, or egg-laying mammals still do). Of course this isn't the end of it. The first true mammals did not appear until 125 Mya, and when they did they were marsupials (meaning their offspring were born in pouches). now this was a step but they were not the mammals that would lead to us. The next mammals to evolve were none other then placental mammals (I'll let you guess what those are). And guess what species relevant to humans is a placental mammal; humans themselves. Placental mammals began to diversify 110 Mya splitting off into different groups, then 65 Mya something strangely wonderful happened. It is bad because it was another mass extinction; but this time dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, and pterosaurs (and pretty much anything larger then a house-cat) went extinct. This was was sadly fantastic because now the newly evolved mammals took over and ten million years later they dominated the earth. One group of these mammals inhabited the trees and developed intelligence, then 5 Mya one group broke of and became hominids which led to us (according to the evolutionary theory).

Do you see it? Do you see the hand of God? If the permian extinction had not occurred mammal evolution would have taken much longer, or mammals may have never evolved, then humans would have never arrived. God sent the permian-cretaceous extinction event to speed up mammal evolution and then the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event to allow mammals to populate the earth and lead the way to us, then he revealed himself to us making us in his own image.

Thank God for evolution.

"10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer" answered!

One day I was perusing on the Internet and I came across this video. It is titled "ten questions every intelligent Christian must answer."



An interesting video, although I have yet to graduate High School I am still a smart student and decided to take a stab at it.



The video starts out by saying the maker of the video is assuming that the person watching is an intelligent person employed in business, economics, government services, natural sciences etc. The next statement pretty much defines how much this person knows about intelligent Christians, he says;

"I would like to talk to about a rather interesting question, have you ever
thought about using your college education to think about your faith?"

He made one major false assumption, that thinking Christians avoid thinking about their faith and are encouraged not to question it. I would like to direct this person to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which in fact tells us to test everything and not take anything in blind faith. Now the person goes on to talk about Amputees. He goes on to point out that 3 out of 4 doctors (or 75% to be exact) believe that God is doing medical miracles on earth everyday. And he also points out that Christians believe in the power of prayers.



Then he asks this question;

Why won't God heal Amputees?

Well, the answer to that question is somewhat complex, first of all he assumes that God does not cure amputees, there have been accounts though spurious of God healing people with amputated limbs. Secondly he is assuming that according to Christian theology actually states humans do deserve to have their legs grown back, and lastly he assumes that God is a divine candy machine (insert prayer and a million dollars come out!). God may have other plans for this person. Also if this person is not a Christian and doesn't believe in God then there is no reason for God to heal that person because the person doesn't even believe God can do it and neither does he want it. He states that this is a rationalization but it isn't, it is basic theology.



Also if you don't want anything to do with God and you don't give anything back and when you lose your leg you ask him to generously regrow your leg when you've ignore him all your life do you expect him to give you back your leg?



The next question is asked in the same spirit;

Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Well Because there is evil in the world, and many people are not Christian and they are not praying to ask God to help them. Also I don't think this person has heard of organizations like World Vision which are trying to feed children and the fact that the Christian Church is earnestly trying to get food, clothing, clean water, and education to them. I don't know but it seems like God is answering the prayers of those who are praying. Also the malnutrition is often because of the poor economies and poor state of many of these countries, it seems to be more our fault then God's.



Now onto the next question;

Why does God demand the deaths of so many innocent people in the bible

Um...innocent people? Lets take a quick look at the verses he cites.



Exodus 35:2 says: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."



Well first of all notice that in the New Testament Jesus abrogates this law. Also this particular regulation is only for the forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, it is not enforced afterwords.



Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.



What kind of rebellion are they talking about? They are obviously not talking about a kindergartner who will not eat his vegetables they are talking about a juvenile delinquent who deserves the death penalty, this is not killing an innocent teenager.



Leviticus 20:13 says: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



I am not ready to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is alright, my position is that it isn't right, but that does not particularly matter at this point. These were regulatory laws for Israel to keep social, moral, and economic order. If you were able to break laws and just get a slap on the wrist, more people would do it because the punishment wouldn't be so bad. If that happened there would be a break down in social order.

Also, the gay person is not innocent in this case, he has broken the law.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.



Once again the author of this video is assuming the woman is innocent, and second of all these were regulatory laws for Israel to keep order, if a woman had gotten away with a slap on the wrist other women might start to think "Oh she got away with it I could cheat on my husband too." This would cause a moral and social breakdown which would be smart to avoid.

Before he goes on he says "It doesn't make any sense doesn't it? Why would God demand the death of someone over such trivial matters?" I guess I must add that cheating on your spouse is not a "trivial matter," and neither is being a teenaged menace to society, and finally that does not matter Christ has already come now it is the age of grace.

Now to the next question;

Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense

Well, first of all, it is not a science textbook so his criticism is flawed from the start. Second of all the bible does say some things which sound scientifically accurate

Isaiah 40:22; implies earth is round because the Hebrew word for circle can be translated "sphere" (so do proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:10). Also in the same verse it implies the universe is expanding, something very few early cultures guessed.

Job 26:7 implies that earth is floating through space.

Jeremiah 33:22 says the stars are too numerous to be numbered exactly contrary to the scientific opinions of the day that there were only a few thousand stars.

Even statements in Genesis 1, such as Genesis 1:11-12 could be read to imply evolution with the statement "Let the earth bring forth" although this interpretation is somewhat unconventional.

Now to examine what he terms "nonsense;"

No the bible does not necessarily say the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in six 24 hour days. The word for day can be used to represent a long period of time and he is leaving out the fact the the date of 6,000 years is made from accumulation of the genealogies assuming there are no gaps.

The bible doesn't necessarily say there was a global flood either, the word used for mountain can mean hill, and the language used in the text can refer to a local region such as the flood plain in which Noah lived.

The story of Jonah getting swallowed by a whale was probably a miracle, there is no reason to discredit the bible on this charge.

Well about Adam being created from dust, its not nearly as ridiculous when you think of dust as coming from the soil and the fact that when an animal or human dies it is decomposed and becomes part of the soil, then the soil is used for nutrients by plants which are eaten by other animals or humans, then this animal gives birth to its offspring by using some of the food it ate. Also we are essentially made of star dust which became earth dust and then life was formed by God which led to us and so we are essentially created from dust. Either way that was probably an allegory of God creating Adam as separate from other humans (i.e. neanderthals).

He goes on to accentuate the fact that they are all nonsense. Well after looking at them closely they are not as nonsensical as they seem. Also a God might write nonsense to give us a moral or lesson, Jesus did this all the time (except they were called parables).

On to the next question;

Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

Well, was he? To me God seems to more tolerate it as a social construct, most societies were built on the backs of slaves back in those days. Its like today we have people with underpaid jobs who can barely support their families but they often form the backbone of the work force, a necessary evil in other words. the Judaeo-Christian God is a God of order and disrupting the backbone of the economy would have caused social disorder.

Also Back in those days slavery was no decided on the basis of your gender or ethnic group it was decided on whether you could pay the bills. Also In Israel slaves would be realised in the year of Jubilee unless they wanted to remain with their masters

Next question;

Why do bad things happen to good people?

This is a surprisingly basic question for being in the top ten killer questions to the Christian faith. God does not say he will shield good people from bad things. In fact many times he says the opposite and that Christians will go through trials and tribulations in which they would have to rely on him. he is also assuming that "good people" exist. The only way someone could truly be called a good person is if they were 100% flawless. They were never selfish, never greedy, never told a lie, never had lustful thoughts, was always respectful to his parents, never tried to tears someone down, never hated, was never materialistic. This person would have to be the pinnacle of perfection. This is impossible for a human being to attain on his or her own. This is a straw man argument, it does not threaten the faith at all.

next question;

Why don't Jesus' miracles give any evidence

This statement is misleading at best, there may not be evidence of every single miracle but there is a great amount of evidence that points towards Jesus being whom he claims to be, now to the next question;

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

This question is absurd, it presupposes the fact that Jesus would appear to you in the first place. It also presupposes that God is like a vending machine that will do whatever you want it to. Jesus does not appear to us because when we ask him that we don't really want him to we are simply taunting him and he asks us not to in Deuteronomy 6:16.

Also he is not going to appear to me unless it is part of his plan to redeem Mankind.

Now to the next question;

Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

I am surprised this person would bring up this centuries old misconception. Obviously the confusion comes from the Roman Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (that the bread would become Jesus' body and the wine his blood). Being protestant I do not believe in Transubstantiation. It is probably symbolic of Jesus being our strength and our hope. He did not really mean he wanted us to drink his blood or eat his body. Its also kind of amusing that even though he doesn't even think satanism is wrong he still thinks it has negative connotations, most critics of Christianity embrace the term satanic as good.

The last three questions are quite easy, now for the last killer question! The grand fanali! The final deathblow to Christianity...

Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Alright I apologize for the misleading preamble. I will give him credit for asking some pretty challenging questions but this one can be answered by simple logic ; even though they pray for God to guide the marriage, Christian couples still have free will, and God can help but only if they are willing to let him, and let him guide through their marriage. Unfortunately this does not at all challenge the question of the existence of God.

After looking at these ten questions I must say they have failed to defeat Christianity, or the idea of the existence of a loving God.

If have a response please post it in the comments and God bless.