Frame 8, First and most famous?

This is actually a fairly boring frame. It makes some dubious claims, but sets up some really wild creatocrap to come. The subtle comparison between the Neanderthal skull-cap (calvaria) and Charles Darwin's dome is almost clever.

Then there is the "diabolical Beard of Evil" worn by the "professor." Compare with this bit of sillyness:

This is such a well known piece of iconography that it has it's own webpage, The Beard of Evil! OOOH Scarrrrry!!! And, like a lot of Jack Chick, it is terribly passé witnessed by this entry in the The Evil Overlord List,

I will not grow a goatee. Yes, it is true that in the old days they made you look sinister. Unfortunately, these days they only make you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.

My beard shows that I have a rugged and yet well preserved phiz. Oh, and totally trustworthy.

As I said, mostly boring. Is the 1857 Neanderthal skull cap really "The first and most famous clue to early man?" The original drawing by anatomist Hermann Schaafhausen's is below.

Chick's drawing compares well with recent photos such as this:

I personally doubt that most people would think of this as the "The first and most famous clue to early man?" But, I don't think it really matters.

So long, Frame 7

I think we have exhausted the possibilities of Frame 7 for either amusement, or edification. The Chick/Hovind claim repeated here is that basically no science, from physics to biology, has empirical support other than "micro-evolution." And in creationism's distorted reality, "micro-evolution" isn't evolution at all.

But at long last, we can leave Frame 7, and contemplate the glory of Jack and Kent's adventure in human evolution.

Up dates

I have a lot of work ahead for this definitive debunking of "Big Daddy." So it happens that science advances faster than I can expose the lies of Jack Chick, and his felon partner Kent Hovind.

In this case, I have added a citation
"From Gas to Stars Over Cosmic Time"
Mac Low Mordecai-Mark
Science 28 June 2013:
Vol. 340 no. 6140
DOI: 10.1126/science.1229229

This has been added to the debunking written months ago of "Big Daddy" lies in Frame 7.

Frame 7, Kinds of Evolution: Origin of Life

4. Organic evolution, "Life from rocks."

We do not know exactly how life originated on Earth. We do know that it happened at least once at the end of the Hadean era, or about 3.9 billion years ago.* But, recall that the creationists like Jack Chick insist that there is no evidence that this could have occurred at all. There is just a glimpse at the available evidence in my A Short Outline of the Origin of Life. The appropriate goal for a critique of "Big Daddy" is merely to show that there are no apparently insurmountable barriers to a natural origin of life as Jack Chick, and his pal Kent Hovind have set out that there is no observable evidence for any "kind of evolution," other than their mischaracterized "micro evolution."





There are bacteria which "spring from inanimate matter" all the time. At least in the sense that they require absolutely no organic form of nutrition. And we know that "organic" molecules have no particular magic. There was once the thought that the organic "stuff" of life was completely different from "inorganic" or mineral matter. This seems still to be the thought of the ignorant. Known as vitalism, this concept was shown to be false by F. Wöhler, in his 1828 synthesis of urea, a "live" compound, from inorganic stock chemicals ("ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).

Charles R. Darwin in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." A few years later in 1871, he had observed, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "

The study of the origin of life is properly called abiogenesis. As Darwin noted, it was nothing but speculation until the 1950s. Then, in 1953 a short paper by Stanley Miller published in Science magazine brought origin of life studies into actual experimental research (“A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529). What Miller had shown was that a very simple set of starting conditions, common gasses, hot water, and an electric spark would produce many of the chemicals essential to the origin of life. There were many critics, especially creationists. Miller and others repeated his experiment with different gasses, and energy sources. It was so simple to set up even high school chemistry labs could manage. Miller's last paper was published posthumously 55 years later, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" (H. James Cleaves & John H. Chalmers & Antonio Lazcano & Stanley L. Miller & Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 Orig Life Evol Biosph 38:105-115). This group at the University of California's Scripp's Institute demonstrated that under a neutral atmosphere, or even with a trace of free oxygen, ample amino acids could form in the presence of common minerals such as borax, or calcite.

A recent book reviewing the last 58 years of abiogenesis research, and pointing out several still large gaps in our knowledge is;
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

A bit more technical is;
Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press

For some really up-to-the-minute research see;
NASA's Astrobiology Institute website
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/

* Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei 2004 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244 (online 6 December 03), Oleg Abramov, Stephen J. Mojzsis 2009 “Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment” Nature 459, 419-422 (21 May) | doi:10.1038/nature08015;

“Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension

We have seen that the origin of the elements following the Big Bang origin of the universe is neither a great mystery nor unsupported by direct scientific observation. There is still much to be learned, but we can dispense with the lie that they are without clear and obvious evidence. The energy released in the Big Bang, regardless of source, cooled and this resulted in the formation of neutrons from a quark, and gluon storm under tremendous heat and pressure. The continued cooling due to cosmic expansion provided conditions where neutrons decayed to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Protons found electrons becoming hydrogen. Accelerated protons found each other becoming helium. Neutrons continued to add themselves forming the isotopes of deuterium, and helium 3, and 4. Traces of lithium were made, but the Big Bang nucleosynthesis process was blocked at beryllium-8 due to its nearly instant self destruction back into helium.

Gravity came to be the most important force in the next step, the formation of stars. The earliest stars were mostly huge things, millions of times larger than our sun. They quickly (in universal time scales) generated the elemental nuclei up to iron’s 26 protons via the “slow” process . Again the process was blocked, but this time by the stability of the iron nucleus. That very stability, ironically, lead to the greatest explosions observed in the universe today, the super nova. Those events generated the rest of the heavy elements to uranium (and maybe higher). Once there were ample amounts of heavy elements, other more interesting things do start to appear - planets. A bright new discovery is that the early universe neutron stars generated super heavy elements. "Element abundance patterns in stars indicate fission of nuclei heavier than uranium" Science, 7 Dec 2023, Vol 382, Issue 6675, 1177-1180 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1341

2007 NASA’s Spitzer space telescope detected silica (sand) in the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A. The cyan dot just off center is the star's remnant.

This is, step by step, observed and verified scientific fact. Naturally creationists have denied it could ever be true. Any gap is clutched like a drowning man grabs at straws. One gap in our observations of ordinary r-process nucleosynthesis at atomic number 79, Gold, has just been filled. The collision of neutron stars, which are the remnants of massive star novas, provides the exact energy conditions for Gold synthesis. This has just been directly observed, and reported in, Gold is extra special fun: Neutron star collisions are a “goldmine” of heavy elements, study finds.

 And some new 2023 observations 

"Heavy element production in a compact object merger observed by JWST"
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-makes-first-detection-of-heavy-element-from-star-merger/

 

In the creationist’s freakish version of reality, planets just spring into existence by magic. For many decades, all leading creationist “thinkers” insisted that there were no planets other than those around the Earth. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was still trying to deny that science could discover extra-solar planets, or even the origin of the moon in the late 1990s. See for example his nonsense published as “The Stardust Trail.”

"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244.

The late Duane Gish claimed that the non-existence of extra-solar planets was important to Christian faith. He wrote, “Our faith is based on the certainty of eyewitness accounts, not the uncertainty of the wobble of stars.”


Science knows, and every American should know that extra-solar planets are common. Science knows, and every American should know that the nebular hypothesis as proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 has been obsolete for over a century. Its modern replacement owes a great deal to Kant, but has the major advantage of making predictive statements regarding the physical structures we can directly observe in our solar system, and around distant stars. ( The Wikipedia article on this is excellent, and I'll just refer readers there).

This does not slow down the creationists who continue to deny reality, for example: as recently as 2011, "NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis" by Brian Thomas of the ICR, "The nebular hypothesis is dead, and no other naturalistic origins scenario has fared any better. Clearly, the solar system is not a product of natural forces but of supernatural."

Two features of the modern nebular hypothesis are that there will be a circumstellar disk which will have remnants following the formation of inner planets. This is called the Kuiper Belt. It was recently determined by astronomers that Pluto was better classified as a Kuiper Belt object. There should also be an even more distant, spherical distribution of matter around a star called the Oort Cloud. These two concentrations of matter also have the interesting feature of explaining the origin, and persistence of comets. And this is why creationists hate and deny their very existence. Young Earth Creationists insist that the rather short cometary lives (hundreds to thousands to millions of years) somehow "proves" that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is why we can read such stupidity from creationists as, “This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.” “The Stardust Trail” Henry Morris.

Unfortunately for creationists, we have all the data we need. Even better, every feature of the modern Nebular Hypothesis: circumstellar disks, Kuiper Belts, and Oort Clouds, have been directly observed around other stars. And, how do we know that our solar system was built from earlier generations of stars? The most obvious way is the analysis of extra-solar dust grains still found today. There have been hundreds of scientific publications on these observations in just the last few years. Just use the Google; "extrasolar dust" is a good one. Then, "extrasolar disks" will reveal space telescope images of planet formation recorded for over a decade.

"Kinds" of evolution, Part Deux: Cosmic nucleosynthesis of elements

The “kinds” of evolution under the last part of "Kind" #1, and "Kinds" #2, and #3 are convoluted in the minds of creationists everywhere. In fact, they are convoluted period. The questions, and answers are so complex because we have to refer back and forth between experimental laboratory results here on earth, and astronomical studies from the deepest reaches of space. And for extra fun, the different elements formed at different times under extremely different conditions. So let's look again at Big Daddy's blackboard.



The Big Bang did make nearly the universal mass of hydrogen as per "Kind 1.2." And the Big Bang also made trillions of tons of helium, and billions of tons of some other stuff (universally just trace amounts) which is the next error by Jack Chick and his science tutor Kent Hovind. Hydrogen and helium under the influence of gravity make stars. The stars make heavier elements by nuclear fusion, and to get the really heavy elements super massive stars need to go bang all by themselves in a supernova. This must happen billions on billions of times before there is even enough heavy elements to make a planet. So, the cosmic comic by Chick and Hovind fails in several ways. First, it denies reality. Second, it confused star formation and stellar nucleosynthesis with super-nova nuclear synthesis. Third, all of those processes cycled mass for billions of years before there was sufficient stuff (heavy elements) to even make a planet like Earth. I'll review this in some detail below.

Part 1.

By knowing the age and background temperature of the Universe today, we can calculate the approximate temperature at the Big Bang. This was an extraordinary 10^30 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature normal matter, baryonic matter, cannot even exist and all the physical forces with the exception of gravity are mashed into a single unified force. As the universe expanded it cooled, and below 10^28 degrees Kelvin the first ordinary matter condensed, and the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces began to separate. Atoms could not have existed yet, and didn’t emerge until the temperatures dropped to an average of around 10^6 degrees Kelvin, or about the temperature of the stars seen today. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of this era around 300 to 500 thousand years after the Big Bang. But long before this, neutrons and protons could exist, and to a limited extent interact forming nucleons.

So what were these first atomic nuclei, and how can we study them? In the 1920s, chemical elements were proven to be built from three subatomic particles, neutrons, protons and electrons. Mass is a major property of neutrons and protons, and electric charge is carried by protons (+) and electrons (-). The easiest of these particles to form, and therefore the first, is the neutron. Naked neutrons rapidly decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The simplest atom is Hydrogen with just a proton and an electron. So the early neutron decay generated the resources needed for the formation of hydrogen, and an amazing amount of neutrinos.

Adding a neutron to hydrogen generates Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Smashing two protons together with a combined energy of about 10^7 degrees overcomes the electromagnetic force, and binds then together with the strong nuclear force creating Helium. This process, called nuclear fusion, is what powers nuclear bombs, and stars. It is easier to form helium by fusing two nuclei of deuterium than by bare protons, and makes helium isotopes with mass 3, and 4. Only tiny traces of Lithium (3 protons) could have been formed just after the Big Bang and before the first stars. The next heaviest nuclei are Beryllium (4 protons, with 3 to 6 neutrons). This could not form just by the addition of protons to existing nuclei because the extremely short half life of Be-8 blocks this route, and only extremely small amounts of Be-7, and Be-9 could have formed. So, the Big Bang theory predicts that about 75% of the early mass of the universe was hydrogen, just under 25% was helium, 0.01% deuterium, and less than a millionth of one percent lithium, and beryllium.


How have we tested all this?

The development of space telescopes coupled with spectrographs allowed the direct measurement of the atomic composition of extremely distant stars, and interstellar gases. We find that the proportion of atomic nuclei is exactly as predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.



The graph above shows the theoretical abundances, and the directly observed cosmic abundances of the light elements as discovered by the NASA WMAP project. Click here for more information from NASA.

The nuclear physics is tested in accelerators. The most recent big result was from the European CERN experiments (we Americans have dropped out of “big science,” in favor of massive wars in tiny places. Many American physicists have maintained active collaborations with CERN). The CERN Large Hadron Collider smashed pairs of lead nucleons, each with an energy of 5.75 X 10^14 electron volts. The collision energies were well over 10^20 eV. This is still well below the energies of the Big Bang, but it generated quark-gluon storms similar to the post-inflation period just before the emergence of the first neutrons.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider


Part 2.

The Big Bang creation of atoms was limited to 75% hydrogen, just under 25% helium, 0.01% deuterium, and tiny traces of lithium, and beryllium. The physical forces were all fixed, and the weakest and most profound force was gravity. It was gravity that controlled the next stage in atom building. Hydrogen, and helium were swept together by gravity, and the density, or pressure of the gas increased. This heats the gases. The deeper the gravity well, the greater the pressure, and the greater the heating. Stars are masses of hydrogen and helium that have heated by gravitational collapse to temperatures high enough to trigger fusion. This starts at about 15 million degrees, or 1.3 thousand electron volts per nucleon resulting in the simplest fusion path of 3 hydrogen nuclei fusing into one helium. The larger the mass of gasses condensing, the faster the temperature raises and the sooner fusion begins. The heat released by hydrogen fusion is what powers a thermonuclear bomb. What keeps stars from exploding is their deep gravity well. But, the heat of fusion does act against gravity, stopping the increasing pressure from gravitational collapse.

The maximum temperature in the interior of a star depends on how much gas was available to collapse to build it. Basically, the larger the star the hotter the maximum core temperature. As the size and core temperature of a star increases, different fusion pathways from hydrogen to helium take over, and release even more energy as heat, and as neutrinos. But, there is no way to go simply from hydrogen to the heavy elements. I mentioned this earlier. What stops the reaction is the extreme instability of Berylium-8 which decays into helium in less than a trillionth of a second. This problem was solved theoretically by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. He proposed that three helium nuclei (alpha particles) could fuse essentially instantly in the core of a large enough, and hot enough star to form the stable carbon-12 nucleon (6 protons and 6 neutrons). This “triple alpha” process was shown observationally/experimentally to occur in 1957 by William A. Fowler who received the 1983 Nobel Prize for this work. In spite of the fact that this reaction is rare even under the best of conditions, nearly all the carbon, and oxygen in the universe formed this way.

© Copyright CSIRO Australia

For an excellent overview of stellar nucleosynthesis, visit the the Australia Telescope
Outreach and Education pages.

Once carbon, and oxygen are formed, other higher elements follow by the addition of more alpha particles (heliun nuclei), or protons (beta particles). There are other pathways also opened once the Be-8 barrier is overcome, particularly the formation of elements by Beta decay which removes one proton from a heavier element converting it into a lighter one. As the concentration of heavier elements increased, they also undergo fusion reactions, for example two carbon-12 nuclei fuse to make either a Neon-20 + Helium, or a Sodium-23 + Hydrogen. These are called s-reactions because they are all slow.

But another roadblock appears due to the extreme stability of the iron nucleus. Elements formed with atomic mass higher than iron are less stable, and the end result is that iron cores begin to form in massive active stars. (There are still stars today a million times larger than the sun, and these were much more common in the early universe). There is no further nuclear synthesis in the iron core, and the star acquires a stratified structure with most of the active nuclear fusion happening away from the core. This is leading to the collapse of the star, and a Super Nova.

Experimental evidence:

C. W. Cook, W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen
1957 “B12, C12, and the Red Giants” Phys. Rev. 107, 508–515

PS: On a personal note I received my first Isotope Producer License when I was about 20 years old and under the instruction of Dr. George Miller at the University of California, Irvine. I used thermal neutrons generated in a TRIGA Mark I nuclear reactor to produce radioactive isotopes. Beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a gamma ray, and the energy of the radiation indicates the mass of the nucleus. This kind of research is called Neutron Activation Analysis. It was quite new back then. Dr. Miller and I have maintained a professional relationship, and friendship for over 40 years.

Suggested reading;

Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press

Helpful websites;
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-1.htm

Now go see, “Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension"

Nazi Head Job II

I don't want to belabor the point, but the next graphic is unavoidable.

Which is Big Daddy, and which are the Nazi "Jew" head shots from 1930s and '40s propaganda? Well, I did give that away. None the less, Chick's inspiration seems quite clearly indicated. He could deny it. He could insist that he never saw these, or any similar images.

And I won't believe it.

Who are we supposed to hate and fear? The fat, screaming, bald, sweaty, sneaky, Jew professor of the Nazi propaganda. The "professor" who accidentally wandered into Jack Chick's drawing. Oh, and what is with the pince-nez glasses? They went out in the 1930s, too.

Frame 2A, Angry Hippies

The Jack Chick marketing plan dates back to the late 1960s and early '70s. The imagery in the "Big Daddy" tract reflects those days.

In the first half of Frame 2, we see how Chick manipulated common racial stereotypes, and conservative fears of "hippies," and Black radicals.

Recall the "professor" asked the class "How many of you believe in Evolution?" The majority of students do. What is more significant is how these pro-science students are illustrated. Reading from the left to right, I have highlighted the angry Black student with his shaking fist raised in the '60s Black power salute, a few "hippie" peace gestures, and those two are also making fists. Out of seven discernible faces, two are Black males, and two are women - a very dubious class composition.

The target audience for Chick's cartoon are the religious right. Conservative, poorly educated Whites who are angry, and/or fearful toward college educated women, and minorities. He uses these images, and "angry hippies" as supporters for evolution.

Frame 1, the first

I am planning to work through the entirety of the infamous Jack Chick tract, "Big Daddy." The online version is organized into 21 frames which have either 1, or 2 images. Some posts will take apart just one image from a frame.

This particular tract I have taken as "cannon" was modified from the original Chick Publication for a 2000 C.E. publication with the editorial "assistance" of Kent Hovind. Hovind is the infamous young earth creationist preacher currently serving a 10 year sentence in Federal Penitentiary for 58 counts of tax fraud. More on "doctor" Hovind to follow as well. Certainly you should take a look at Chick's original "Big Daddy." We should all know exactly what sort of mind we are dealing with.

The text, supposedly said by the "professor" is, "How many of you believe in evolution?" Some have criticized this as inappropriately making evolutionary theory seem like a faith issue. This is clearly Jack Chick's intent. However, too many people do "believe" rather than "know" evolution because they have not had the opportunity to properly study evolution. In the second cartoon panel we'll see how Chick exploited racial, religious, class, and anti-intellectual bigotry to stigmatize all those who affirmed evolution.

I am forced to violate Godwin's Law in this first substantive post. But, you must go with the evidence. The "professor" is drawn remarkably similar to "Jews" in antisemitic propaganda. Compare the features of the "Professor" with the 1930s Nazi cartoon below;

Next, on the wall behind the lectern is a framed drawing of an ape eating a banana that is titled, "Our Father."

I think there are three stupid false messages in this part of the image. First, "Our Father" is an obvious "faith trigger" to any Christian suggesting that "Evilutionists" worship apes. Second, there is no suggestion in evolutionary theory that humans were directly descended from apes, in spite of the fact that we are still technically primates. There is much more to say on this that I'll save for a later post on Chick's frame numbers 11, and 12. And the last is that the banana is a modern fruit that is the result of hundreds of generations of selective breeding. But it does harken to the bullshit preaching of Ray Comfort and his Atheists Worst Nightmare. Which does also provide the opportunity to link this Youtube, or my favorite Ray Comfort piece, Christian Sex Education.

Big Daddy, Jack Chick, Frames and Copyright

I began this slightly over a year ago. I actually think that the later frames should go faster.

I have meant to do this for years. Today seems a good time to start. We are having one of our early Fall heat waves, and I cannot do much else. The following collection of posts will be dedicated to exposing the lies, and distortions made by Jack Chick about science. Particularly those in his cartoon apologetic tract, "Big Daddy." I recommend that anyone following along read the entire original cartoon first. You will notice that the "art" work is an essential part of his fraudulent presentation of biology, and academic standards. Other people have done critical studies of Chick Publication propaganda. I can specifically recommend, this one on the TalkOrigin Archive, and check out this entire debunking on Rational Wiki. "Punkerslut" had a lot to say as well. I still have a few fresh items to add to the general revulsion caused by "Big Daddy." (Some people do just laugh it away, but I am revolted).

Jack Chick tries very hard to hide his lies by threats of copyright violation. See for example this account of Chick's intimidation. The text that Chick opposed was a clearly legal satire of the original.

So that there is no possible misunderstanding here, I have significantly modified every image associated with the following posts to highlight the relevant features of my critical review (and incidentally rendering any objection by Chick Publications void). I also have the time, money and intention to counter sue Jack Chick for any harassment. I have also backed up the entire site as insurance. I recommend bookmarking Stones and Bones where I will post updates if this site is temporarily taken down by creationists.

The cartoon takes place in a college classroom, apparently at the introduction of a lesson about evolution. I will highlight the specific features of his art, and/or text that are used to misrepresent the sciences, and defame and insult scientists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mormons, homosexuals, intellectuals and others. It should be noted that the Southern Poverty Law Center has long listed Chick Publications as a hate group, and See Here Also.

We will in fact start with the copyright issue.


Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

The fourth effect tested under the Fair Use provisions of US copyright law is, “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The burden of proof rests on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses.

So, we have the following observations regarding Jack Chick, "Big Daddy" and copyright law;

1) All materials used in this website are original, or highly modified from a freely available Internet site, "Big Daddy," under permitted uses.

2) All materials derived from "Big Daddy" have been legally used for purposes of scholarly critique, criticism, and satire. This use is protected by Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107

3) There can be no "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" as all material even allegedly claimed as property by Jack Chick, or Chick Publications is already freely available- i.e. without commercial or market value.