Skip to main content


Showing posts from February, 2016

Question Evolution Day and Evolutionists Suppressing Evidence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen To celebrate the fifth annual Question Evolution Day , I thought it would be helpful to revisit a logical fallacy that is often used by the Darwinistas. It should be well understood that science thrives on challenge so that a hypothesis or theory can be revised when unsupported by evidence — or discarded entirely. Unfortunately, evolutionary owlhoots often try to lock away contrary evidence, especially when it points to the Creator. Can't have that, it interferes with naturalistic presuppositions . Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave Among the logical fallacies that anti-creationists employ is the fallacy of exclusion. (For an earlier article with a funny video I did on this subject, click here .) This fallacy has variations and different names, including cherry picking, suppressed evidence, card stacking, incomplete evidence, and more. Many people believe in scum-to-scientist evolution because they are simply not given all the evidence. Making a conjec

Question Evolution Day and my CMI Article

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It's kind of fun to give a bit of background information, and I believe that people like some of the personal stuff. Whenever something is submitted for publication, it needs to meet guidelines, and is subject to editing. (Probably the only "pure" way to get your content exactly the way you wrote it is to put it on your own Weblog.) I have thousands of posts and articles on my own Weblogs, but have had only a few published by organizations. Aside from letters to newspaper editors, I think my first publication was in the May 1991 Bible-Science Newsletter (PDF scan available here) , which is now Creation Moments . Surprisingly, that one was published "as is". Other items I wrote for people that were edited, and even had some collaboration, such as at 101 Arguments . My submissions to Michigan Bicyclist Magazine in the late 1990s had a mix, some were edited, one was mostly "as is". Another printed publication was so he