Monday, March 11, 2019

A Little Help from Science and Technology

People have hopes and dreams, but those can be shattered by accidents and other circumstances. A surgeon needs intelligence, good vision, skill, and fully functional hands and fingers to do important work. Singers need their voices. Musicians need their appendages. They also need discipline to learn and practice. There is something else that is vitally important.


I thank God that he has given many people skill to develop science and technology to help others who have needs.
Violin,  Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, 1916
That other item is talent, which is a gift of God. You can have the desire and practice, but if that talent is missing, there will not be much to show.

Rick Allen, drummer for the band Def Leppard, lost his left arm in a car crash. With the support of friends, the band, other musicians, and special equipment, he returned to drumming. We read stories and watch videos of people who have lost limbs in combat, accidents, and in other ways but are equipped to live their lives. Others are handicapped in ways that cannot be overcome yet, and they are able to survive (see my book review and recommendation of Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped). I thank God that he has given many people skill to develop science and technology to help others who have needs.

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Using Question Evolution Day to Confront Fake Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some of the advantages of Question Evolution Day are to encourage people to use and develop critical thinking skills, have a spirit of inquiry, and develop healthy skepticism regarding scientific pronouncements. (An example of this can be found in my article on how hummingbirds "evolved" at "Hummingbirds Evolving for Combat?") Secularists get so all-fired determined to convince people of their materialistic views that they get on the prod when their depradations are brought to light. This is readily apparent in the global climate change propaganda.


Rational thinking and inquiry emphasized on Question Evolution Day apply in other areas. We can spot fake science regarding alien spaceships and in climate change.
Made at Add Letters
Scientists make pronouncements when they do not have all the facts or have an adequate understanding of the topic at hand. Yes, it is the nature of science to change and develop when new information is obtained, but when it comes to subjects like origins and climate change, they present fake science with spiteful intent despite inadequate information or investigation.



Some tinhorns have made global climate change into their religion, and trying to talk sense with them is like pulling wisdom teeth from jellyfish with a frayed lariat. The same happens with Darwin's disciples who only "know" that we're wrong, and tell us so via atheistic clearinghouse propaganda sites and so forth; if you tell them something they don't have a notion to understand, these leftist apparatchiks "refute" new information with outdated agitprop — when it fits their narrative, of course.

Biblical creationists are used to reading that something "happened earlier than we thought", fossils are out of order, living critters are unchanged from their fossil counterparts after millions of Darwin years (such as mites in amber), and so on. Two things that really take the rag off the bush are the false claims that humans and chimps have greatly similar genomes, and that we have "junk" DNA from our evolutionary past. Evolution is their faith-based axiom, so they do not question it. Unfortunately, evolutionists often neglect to verify data and end up humiliating themselves.

It behooves (do people still use that word?) anyone who takes science seriously needs to slow down, ask questions, and wait for additional information. The secular science media are interested in making converts and especially making money on sensationalized but incomplete stories, so y'all need to holler, "Whoa!" when confronted by grandiose claims.


Rational thinking and inquiry emphasized on Question Evolution Day apply in other areas.

Let's ride on up this here side trail a spell. A puzzling space object called 'Oumuamua (I still think it sounds like kisses from rich people, "Good to see you, oh, mua mua!") causes some speculation, but astronomers have no real idea as to what the thing is. In a recent podcast/transcript of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discussed how Harvard astronomer Avi Selk claims that the object has extraterrestrial origins — not that he has any way of knowing that. But sometimes scientists say things they do not necessarily believe just to "put it out there". This is science, Sigmund? Dr. Mohler adds:
Not how are we supposed to square that with the claims made by scientists that they are operating on the basis of objective reason, and presumably, they would never argue for something that they do not believe? That seems completely contrary to everything the scientific establishment has been telling us about the very nature of science. We are living in an age not only of modern science, but of a worldview of scientism. How in the world can they face the rest of us if they now are admitting, in this kind of academic squabble, that at least some astrophysicists are publishing articles in journals based upon theories that they pose as if believing, but actually do not believe, as this one astrophysicist said, "just to put it out there"?
Excellent comment, and it fits with what we're examining about fake science. To hear or read this segment, it concludes this episode of The Briefing.

Now we're back to the main subject. Global cooling/warming/climate change devotees have been pronouncing end of the world scenarios for many years, and proven wrong over and over. Information that is contrary to the globalist political narrative is ignored (see "Climate Change and Evolution: Similarities in Bad Science") and even ridiculed by the climate change cultists. It is indeed unfortunate that politicians make laws based on the unquestioning acceptance of fake science. Don't get me started on the decrees of celebrities...

God has given us minds and the ability to think, and he intends us to use them. Science is supposed to be a method of processing observations and information, not a religion in and of itself. Our Creator upholds the universe, and has explained himself in the Bible. Despite the mockeries of Bill Nye and other atheopaths, it is true and we need to find out what the Master Engineer has to say. You savvy that?

I have an additional link for your consideration.
Some matters are just too complicated to know with certainty. Here’s another “whoops” moment in climate science.

Look at this headline in Nature by Fangqun Yu, analyzing a recent paper: “Atmospheric reaction networks affecting climate are more complex than was thought.” Those last two words are telling. Beware scientists who think they “now know” something. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they only “thought” they knew. They study phenomena, measure things, analyze things, and draw conclusions. An unsuspecting public or policy official trusts that scientists know what they say they know. Laws ensue that can affect nations for good or ill. Sometimes they can affect the whole world.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Global Policies Can Trust Fake Science". Don't be indoctrinated by secularists and their bad science. Thanks for reading this article, and for thinking.



Monday, January 14, 2019

Editing and Ethics

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the publishing world, nonfiction writers are expected to write accurately and document their sources. Sometimes new information is obtained or corrections need to be made. Newspapers and magazines issue corrections and retractions. In the worst case, books are recalled. Ever notice that there isn't always an explanation for a new or revised edition for a book? I reckon it's up to reviewers to find out where things are changed if the author or publisher doesn't explain things.


Making changes in weblogs can seem unethical. What are the rules?

When it comes to electronic media, it the rules seem to be different. If bloggers make changes, we can be found out. (I remember one tinhorn atheist who called me a coward for not putting my name on my site, and I told him that it was indeed there. He checked the link on the internet archive to see if I was acting like an atheist and lying about it.) Some people are criticized for making changes, even minor ones like wording and typos. Sometimes I edit within an hour or two after the thing is published without feeling guilty. When do we need to add notations?

There doesn't seem to be a rule book on this that I can find. Although I wasn't worrying on this overmuch, I did commence to pondering on it off and on. Somebody told me that it's my weblog so I can do what I want. That didn't quite strike me as ethical — at least, not when it comes to science and theology. On the other hand, things can be cluttered with numerous notations of edits.

I decided that minor corrections, including adding or deleting links, do not need notations. Things that affect the content of the piece should have some kind of note. People who read my articles and posts have probably seen those, even a note at the beginning that let the readers know that something was revised. Changing important things that are pertinent to the content without some kind of note strikes me as rather unethical. 

So that's where I stand on this. Important changes require an editing note, but the minor stuff, not so much. This cuts down on the clutter and keeps editing in balance. Sound like a good plan?

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

The Celebration of Christmas

Yes, we celebrate Christmas. No, we will not be manipulated into feeling guilty about it by Reverend Dourpuss or uninformed, legalistic Christians. Or professing atheists who pass along falsehood. Claims that Christmas is based on plagiarized pagan and mythic figures are false, pilgrim.


December 25 is the date that most professing Christians observe the birth of Jesus. Some people say it is a pagan thing to do. Such claims are uninformed at best.
Credit: Pixabay / RitaE
I'll allow that there are some errors in our traditions, such as the Magi visiting Jesus in the stable (their visit was a year or two later, and it was probably a large group, not just three). What if Christmas did have pagan associations? If that was true, then Christians who shun Christmas are inconsistent because several things we know and use today actually do have pagan origins — which are largely forgotten. Those people might want to avoid the days of the week and months of the year if they want to be consistent, for example.

December 25? I have read and some interesting arguments that insist that Jesus was indeed born on that date. Then I read others that make the case that he was born in late spring or early autumn. Maybe since we're unsure of the exact date, we should forget the whole thing? Don't be ridiculous!


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Whenever Jesus was born and split history, people choose to observe December 25 (some using January 6) for the date of their observances. No, the Bible does not command it. Nor does the Bible forbid it. (For that matter, we see in John 10:22-23 that Jesus celebrated a non-commanded holiday.) If someone chooses to avoid celebrating, that is up to him or her, and nobody has any right to indulge in condemnation. Conversely, they have no right to condemn our liberty in Christ.

I'm going to wish you a happy Christmas, and continue celebrating the birth of God the Son, Jesus, our Creator and Redeemer. 

To read an interesting article on this subject, click on "Celebrating Christmas?" You may also like, "Is Christmas a Pagan Holiday?" There is also a humorous but informative short video below.



Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Inner Survival Alarms

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We all have various reactions to different kinds of alarms, whether conditioned, learned, or provided by the Master Engineer. Some reactions may be a combination of inner and learned, such as reaching for a gun or freezing in place at hearing a growl in the dark. When the smoke alarm goes off, we take some kind of action. Sirens from emergency vehicles prompt us to locate the sources and get out of the way. We several built-in alarms.


Last night could have been my last night. The Master Engineer has given us inner survival alarms, one of which prompted me to stay alive.
Credit: Morguefile / Stuart Whitmore
Something goes bang, you look in the direction of the sound. Hearing a strange noise at night can wake many people up so they can check it out or call the police. One time, I sat upright in bed because I had stopped breathing and disremembered to continue, but that passed. Smelling smoke, with or without an audible alarm, can get you moving. Taking hold of a hot pan sends a very fast message in your system to let go in a hurry. 

Animals have inner alarms too, of course. Sometimes I worry that Basement Cat will smother herself in her fur because of an awkward sleeping position, but her breathing warning will kick in. 

I had something different happen that set off an inner alarm.

This is a tricky situation as far as wording is concerned, trying to strike a balance between including relevant information and omitting details that would be unpleasant. I also don't want to sound overly dramatic, but what happened could have made me ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

Last night (Tuesday the 18th) was a vexation. Something went on with my stomach that hasn't happened for a long time, and my night episode may have been the worst. Feeling a bit queasy at bed time, I took a couple of antacids before hitting the hay. Suddenly, I was awake and choking, having vomited in my sleep (sorry, can't find a better way to put it). There wasn't much, but I had inhaled it. That inner alert mechanism had me waking up and standing almost instantly, and I went into the bathroom to cough and gag. I had to do some very slow, controlled inhalations so I could cough out the stuff. The whole situation lasted a spell until it was under control and I was breathing again. Sure, I'm ready to go to be with Jesus, but who wants to die that way?

I've had acid reflux incidents at night before and thought this was possibly the most severe episode. However, my wife had some bad stomach feelings Tuesday night as well. Both of us had some, uh, symptoms that lasted into this morning, so we think there was something wrong with supper. It's been almost 24 hours, and I'm still not quite right, plus exhaustion from having my sleep interrupted and being unable to get comfortable while propped up. I regretted leaving the workplace early but it was necessary. (Having a good reputation for attendance helps, they know I'm not being cavalier about going home sick.) Near-exhaustion and stomach problems are an unpleasant combination, plain and simple.

Although my demise was possible, I don't think it was likely. But I thank God that he not only gave me (and us) those inner survival alarms, he has granted me more time in life to continue serving him.


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.

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?