Don't need Jack Chick. Don't read Jack Chick. And if I was inclined to read something you might classify as misleading, I'd read your posts all the time. As it happens, I'd rather read something truthful, so I pay attention to the facts. The moons of several planets in our galaxy here spin counter to the direction of the planets. If, as your big bang theory posits, a whole bunch of nothing was spinning and condensed down to a speck in the nothing, then exploded. The nothing that exploded into everything would preserve angular momentum in all that exploded from it. This is a falsifiable law. Planetary bodies are not the only things subject to this law, galaxies, stars and so on are all subject to said law. Galaxies, however, do not all spin the same direction either. Theory fall down go boom. I know it sucks for you; but, live with it. We've had to put up with it - knowing better - for as long as you have chosen to believe that "codswallop" or longer.
Feel free. You may learn something. Do a find in forum and look back a few months. :-)
As far as your position on the Big Bang? You are just a wee bit misled. Here is an excellent place to get a better understanding of the Big Bang:
1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)
===========================
Joseph Boxhorn, author of the talk-origins 'FAQ' on Speciation, makes a bold promise from the outset in his choice of title for his paper: 'Observed Instances of Speciation.' Any rational person visiting this site will naturally expect to find a list of cases where scientists, under controlled experimental conditions, have actually observed the process of speciation taking place.
However, anyone expecting to find such a list in Boxhorn's 'FAQ' is due for a major disappointment. It is true that Boxhorn does list a number of scientific observations, yet -- almost incredibly -- not a single one of these observations can be described as 'speciation' in the Darwinian sense, except by employing the kind of Double-Think used by officials at George Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
====================
Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc. To the evolutionist, microevolution is vindication for their belief in the much larger macroevolution. Their belief is that if these microevolutionary changes have enough time to accumulate, then eventually this will lead to a macroevolutionary change. And therefore, in their way of thinking, if microevolution is a well established fact, macroevolution must logically be an established fact as well.