Monday, November 5, 2018

Ken Ham and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 11-07-2018

Somewhere around 1990 or 1991, I attended an Institute for Creation Research seminar in Schaumburg, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago). I first met Ken Ham ("on loan" from the Creation Science Foundation, if I have it right). Also, I met Drs. Henry M. and John Morris, Dr. Duane Gish, and I think a few others. Although I was not completely new to creation science and had been receiving ICR materials, this seminar made a big impression on me. Part of the reason was Ken Ham's presentations.


A couple of things I have in common with Ken Ham is that people hate us, and that we uphold the authority of the Bible.
Original image before modification courtesy of Answers in Genesis
ICR, Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Creation Today, and other biblical creation science ministries uphold the authority of Scripture, the importance of foundations, and show how real science supports the Bible. But Ken's presentations had humor and directness that impacted me. Even in the period when I rudely put God on the back burner, I still held to the fact of the authority of the Bible. I'll allow that I was irrational in that period.

After I rededicated my life to Christ, I was not going to get involved with creation science again. God had other plans, and I had access to the internet. If found that there is a wealth of creation science and apologetics materials! In my writings at Piltdown Superman, Biblical Creation and Evangelism, and other sites, I have emphasized biblical authority and proper biblical foundations. This has attracted the wrath of owlhoots that oppose authority and elevate atheistic interpretations of science into the magisterial position. Angry folks include atheists, theistic evolutionists, and other old-earth advocates who want to evosplain why I'm "wrong". It has been manifested in rancorous personal attacks, criminal cyberstalking, defamation, and in other ways.

Mr. Ham and I have that hatred in common. While he has no idea who I am and has developed a huge ministry, I am a nobody. (But I did start Question Evolution Day a few years ago.) Interesting that tinhorns want to slap leather with lil' ol' me. I suspicion that it is a sign of the end times and that hatred of Jesus and his people is on the increase, and their materialistic worldviews are threatened by the truth. Such attacks will not silence me. Obviously, Ham's ministry work is also going strong, so pettifoggery ain't frettin' him overmuch. He keeps on proclaiming real science and especially the authority of Scripture.


Image taken from the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate,
which Ken Ham and AiG make freely available.
Let me reign in here and say that I do not agree with everything Ham or AiG say. For that matter, I do not accept certain things from many ministries and teachers. They won't go away crying about it because they know some people think for themselves and differences of opinion happen. (Of course, we agree on the core values and essentials of salvation, those are not at issue.) For that matter, I would be a mite bothered if someone agreed with everything that I said as well. It has been rightly said, and I will apply it to all ministries: do not listen with an open mind on theological matters, but listen with an open Bible. You savvy that?

I wanted to share the background and current information on the occasion of this child's 59th birthday. At this point, I want to recommend an article written by the wretched Todd Friel, "Ken Ham—The Man Everyone Loves to Hate" for the 25th anniversary of Answers in Genesis. I'd be much obliged if you'd read it. Also, there's a short video below that helps drive home the point about authority. I agree with it.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Don't Let's do the Genetic Fallacy Our Ownselves

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the first fallacies used by people who need rescuing from inconvenient truths is to reject something based on its source. This is known as the genetic fallacy. Now, don't be galloping on ahead of me. It can take a mighty long time to consider the truth claims based on every source, so those can be weeded out if they have a record of biased, sensational, or just plan silly reporting. For instance, Pravda (meaning "truth") was a propaganda arm of the Soviet Union, and people both inside and outside the USSR knew there was no truth in Truth back then. Many times, people will reject something, valid or not, because they dislike the source and the content gets them angry.


Atheists and evolutionists are known for rejecting something because they do not like the sources. We must try to avoid being like them.
Credit: Unsplash / Егор Камелев
Atheists and evolutionists reject articles and videos from Christians and biblical creationists because they came from sources that they dislike. One tinhorn refused to consider secular science refuting his adoration of an interstellar asteroid (or maybe comet) because of its source, and in a way, he obtained permission from an atheist wiki to do so. That's a faulty appeal to authority, but never mind about that now. An amazing display of misotheist bigotry and the genetic fallacy can be seen in the post and comments here. The angry atheopaths were ridiculing creationists and Christians, but when challenged, were unable to demonstrate why the materials were "unscientific".

Very easy example of the genetic fallacy
I have a specific purpose for writing this here article. As Christians, we have to be better than they are, and use logic for the glory of God. However, I have been saddened to see professing Christians rejecting something that may be beneficial to them because of their origins. Some of y'all may remember that I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian. But I learn from people on both sides of that fence, and from others that I have no idea which group, if either, they identify.

There are posts I've made from Calvinists, and people have rejected The Question Evolution Project (and maybe this child personally) because they dislike the people in the posts. That's no excuse to avoid something that may be beneficial to you, pilgrim. Check if the content is honoring to God, true, faithfully handles God's Word, and does not proclaim false teachings. (I'll allow that some in the Reformed tradition seem fond of congratulating themselves on their theology, but I am in no wise posting those things.) One hang-up I have, however, is that I will not post something from cults and false teachers, even if it's true, for fear that I may appear to be endorsing them. I have to work on getting that consistent and explainable.

So, we don't want to act like those who hate us. Use discernment, rational thought, and be Christian about something. You don't have to like it, but don't be hiding, neither. Savvy that?



Tuesday, October 2, 2018

The BBC Evolution Test Fails

For a long time, the British Broadcasting Corporation was a trusted news source, and respected around the world. It's a mix nowadays. Some news is accurate, but quite often, the BBC shows a leftist bias. 

On a side note, I was scolded by a miscreant for stating that the BBC was leftist and providing three supporting links. As expected, he retaliated. In this case, he dismissed two of the links because they were of the Daily Telegraph, a news source that is considered moderate, but he called "right wing". He ignored the content that was linked. Ironically, the third link that he ignored was indeed to a news organization with a Conservative bias.

Let's get back on the trail we were riding, shall we?


The BBC posted a propaganda quiz about evolution. Take bad logic, stir in propaganda, add some falsehoods, serve lukewarm.
Credit: Freeimages / Paul Pasieczny
The BBC wanted to give people an educational quiz. It had seven questions with only true or false answers. No multiple choice, no shades of gray, no blanks to fill in, no essays. Since some folks are resistant to materialistic evolution, the BBC placed a phone call to the propaganda mill near the Darwin Ranch for advice on how to do things.


The British Darwinists are right, and all y'all are wrong if you disagree. They'll even tell you why. It's unscientific and even has a few falsehoods (such as our alleged genetic similarities with chimpanzees), plus a heapin' helpin' of circular reasoning.




I suspicion that critical thinking is not taught very much these days because it's easier to indoctrinate people without those skills. In steps the BBC to help people think what they think should be thought.

Here are two articles about this quiz for your perusal. Naturally, there is some overlap, but both have some interesting perspectives. First, we have "Taking the BBC's Evolution Test". Next, I recommend one with justified sarcasm and different insights, "BBC Plays Misinformation Teacher about Darwinism". ADDENDUM: A criminal cyberstalker, anti-creationist bigot, and spammer wants us all to know about his brilliance, but fails miserably.



Saturday, September 15, 2018

What Will People Think of Me?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Admit it, you've had some situation where you've said or done something where you seem as smart as a fence post, then been concerned about what other people think. It could have been making a comment on social media with bad wording or you speld somethn wrong. Maybe you were stopped at a traffic light and start mining for the irritation in your nose, then another car pulls up next to you and someone in the other car is looking. Or you pay for something at the convenience store and didn't have enough money, so you had to use a different method of payment. How often do we wonder what people think of us, and imagine that they keep that memory to make chin music with someone else? Then there are times you read something in social media and assume it's about you, so you get all het up even though you're not even named.


People may think bad things about me, or talk about me, when I did something silly. So what?
Conversation, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1879
Centuries ago, I'd be cutting up as a bratty child and my mother would say, "Robert! People are looking!" I'd say, "Let 'em look!" Shoulda been backhanded for that, really. My mother was concerned about what people would think of her. It's a mother thing, I reckon. And yet, you and I get concerned about the possible thoughts of strangers.

In the above examples, so what? I suspicion that pride is the source of our discomfort. While there are times and situations where we can legitimately care about the impressions we give, there is no real reason to care about the opinions of strangers we pass long the trail. We should seek to please God, of course. I suggest that caring about the opinions of other people should be prioritized and take it as it comes. Don't make a good impression? Keep going on about your business. The opinions of strangers should be the least of your worries, you savvy?


Thursday, August 2, 2018

Not Love is Not Love

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While browsing social media, I came across the hash tag, "love is love", which was used in reference to homosexual relationships. This is nothing in which rational people can take pride. People hijacked the word "gay" as well as the rainbow (which they perverted for their own style), and are in open rebellion against God — their behavior is also unnatural. While it is irrational for atheists to wrap their identities in their rebellion against the God they pretend does not exist, it seems even more irrational for people to seek their identities in how they use their genitalia. It's mighty simplistic to write it all off as "love is love".

People are using the term "love is love". This is simplistic nonsense. We can take it to its logical conclusion.

As we have seen in the news and on the web, ever since the US Supreme Court redefined "marriage" to include same-sex relationships, there has been an increase in other deviant groups who want their sexual preferences recognized, accepted, and even celebrated. Those of us who believe in God's standards are called "haters", "homophobes" (a nonsense term, I don't phobe any homos), and other terms to provoke negative emotions. Such people indulge in bigotry while claiming to be victims, but they cannot change the truth of God's Word. You may want to read (or download the audio version) "A Journey from a Homosexual Lifestyle to Christ".

Let's see if my efforts to take "love is love" to its logical conclusion are successful:
  • A woman wants to marry a tree, and it meets her emotional and sexual needs. Love is love, even with a plant.
  • A woman married herself, and then "cheated" on her vows. Love is love, even when done solo — and then someone else joins in.
  • Pedophiles want to be called "Minor Attracted Persons" (normal people refer to this sexual abuse of children), and want to be included under the LGBT umbrella. Love is love, right, little Johnny?
  • There are reports of those who want sex with animals to have acceptance. (Do your own research, I don't want to include links; I even saw but refused to follow links to gay porn with animals.) Love is love, even with the horse you rode in on.
  • Can't forget the folks who want polyamory and polygamy, can we? Love is love is love is love (stop me when all of your "significant others" are covered) is love is love...
I lack belief that these people have real knowledge about the meaning of love. That is a gift of God, and he established how it must be used.

There are apostate "Christians" who want to be "inclusive" under the facade of "love", allowing homosexual relationships and other deviant behaviors. You're not showing God's love or truth, you're enabling them, you savvy? Not too long ago, someone wrote for the New York Times an article with false accusations about the book of Leviticus. I have two links for you about that. First, this video by Dr. James White which starts at 49 minutes, 45 seconds. Second, an insightful article by Dr. Albert Mohler, "Leviticus in The New York Times: What’s the Real Story Here?"

Love is love? Not a chance. These things have nothing to do with love.

Lust is lust. Mental illness is mental illness. Perversion is perversion. Stupid is stupid. Sin is sin. These people need to repent. There is true love, forgiveness, and acceptance in Jesus Christ. God is love, and he has made himself known in his Word.


Monday, July 9, 2018

Breaking News: C.H. Spurgeon did not Compose Sacred Writ

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Research indicates, science shows (when someone uses one or both of those phrases, you know something is guaranteed to be a fact) that the English Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not write any portion of the Bible. In addition, books of his sermons cannot legitimately be considered as sacred writ.


Some people act like Charles H. Spurgeon wrote sacred text. We must compare his teachings, and that of others, with Scripture.

Someone may object, "I don't cotton to your insinuation that Spurgeon fans think that his writings are infallible!" Well, I did get your attention, didn't I? Now let this child 'spain hisself. I'm choosing Rev. Spurgeon as my first example because so many people admire him. Yes, the "Prince of Preachers" had some good things to say. Yes, professing Christians know that he didn't get a revelation brought by an angel on golden plates that is to be a third testament to the Bible. No, I do not dislike him. In fact, many people that I admire use his material. Right, Phil, Todd, Dr. Mac, Dr. James, and others?

I'm going to use something that falls into my area of study: long ages. Spurgeon rejected evolution [1 search for key word evolution], but embraced the concept that the earth is millions or billions of years old (because science says), and had some convoluted theology [2 search for key word III, the Roman numeral three]. I believe that in his day as well as now, pastors and theologians do not give a great deal of thought to how long ages and death before sin are damaging to the gospel message. This may have been the case with Charles. (Spurgeon, not Charles the Bearded Buddha of Evolution.) Apparently, his views on these subjects were not his focus, so quotes on them seem to be scarce.

People will appeal to authority as well as popularity; since many people admire Spurgeon, when his name is invoked, evangelical Christians tend to pay attention. Someone who is popular is used as "one of ours", for their views such as these sidewinders in the Old Earth camp who demonize biblical creationists [3], [4]. They use the name of Spurgeon in their efforts to bolster their compromising views. In addition, Spurgeon admirers may take his views of an old earth as authoritative, and not investigate the wealth of exegetical material for a young earth that exists today.

You look unconvinced. I have some other folks to mention, but with less detail.
  • Clive Staples (Jack) Lewis. Theistic evolutionists and old earthers think Lewis supports their views, but he actually opposed evolution [5]. Jack was a good apologist for the existence of God and refuted atheism, but he had some serious flaws in his theology.
  • Dr. William Lane Craig is devastating to atheism, but ridicules biblical creationists [6] and holds to the odd belief of Molinism [7].
  • Dr. Greg Bahnsen was also devastating to atheism and taught presuppositional apologetics. However, his views on Christian Reconstruction [7] are rejected by many other Christians. 
  • John Calvin had some involvements that are controversial, such as his dealing with Michael Servitus [8]. Someone tried to get me to reject Calvinism because of things Calvin said and did. No, I will accept or reject his teachings based on the Bible, not because of real or alleged character flaws. I heard an apologist who is a Calvinist take a call on his radio show and was challenged with a quote from John Calvin. He said that Calvin was wrong about that point. The caller was amazed that a Calvinist didn't accept everything Calvin said. I mentally applauded the apologist.
  • Martin Luther developed some unpleasant opinions about Jews later in life [9]. That is not a reason to espouse similar views about them, nor is it a valid reason to reject the entirety of his teachings.
Some folks seem to think that if Rev. Dr. Pastor Influential made a pronouncement, it must be right. That'll be the day! Spurgeon was wrong on both science and theology about the age of the earth. So is William Lane Craig. Both put man-made interpretations of science in the magisterial position above the Word of God. Similarly, we cannot accept biblical creation science because Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, David Coppedge or others say so. Whatever the subject, check your Bible and do some meaningful exegesis, old son.

Friday, June 1, 2018

Humor Fail

My joke in another post would have failed, so here is why

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Way back yonder, before Roku and other streaming devices, before we had the evil known as cable television, I saw an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show called "Father of the Week". It aired in 1962, so I appreciated it in syndicated reruns. Maybe I did see it on cable after all.



Rob (his character) was giving a talk to the kids about being a comedy writer. When he stumbled, the kids laughed. He pointed out that people laugh because they are surprised; something is unexpected. The old slapstick pie-in-the-face routine lost its charm long ago because it was used so much, but can be funny when it has an unexpected twist. Surprise is lost when jokes have to be explained, and they're usually not as funny.

My humor has been called "dry", and I see that this definition says that it is based on word play with a straight or "deadpan" expression. Well, some of my humor influences use plays on words. I like ambiguity in humor, but the word surely was ruined for me by the movie Airplane! Many of you will get it.

That's a problem with humor: someone will make a joke and people will not get it because of their frame of reference. This frame of reference often comes from knowledge and experience. Someone could make a joke about the recent royal wedding, and I probably wouldn't know enough about the subject to find it amusing. I could tell the same person a joke about geology and get a blank stare for my effort.

So, I had written a post on dark matter. Then I wanted to put in a joke, but it had problems. Since it would probably only be amusing to about five people, I will tell you why it fails.

First, it is based on American history and culture. There is a very old ruling that is often called the "one drop rule". That is, if someone has any trace of sub-Sahara ancestry (your white great grandfather married a black woman), then you are considered black. This is used for racism. In reality, there are ethnic groups, but not "races", as God made us all "one blood".

Second, the joke is in an article on theoretical astrophysics — at least, a portion that I kind of understand. Dark matter has never been proven to exist, only inferred by neglecting other possible explanations for what is observed.

Now for the joke fail, because I chose to lay out the background information in the last two paragraphs. Ready? The galaxy does not have enough dark matter to please secular scientists. But if it has a drop of dark matter, then the entire galaxy is dark, isn't it? Well, I hope the other parts of this article were a bit amusing and interesting.