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.



Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Morality and Spy Stuff

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

What is spying? That word has various meanings depending the individual. The meaning seems to have broadened nowadays, what with advances in technology, internet usage, and all that. Generally, it is obtaining information for your own purposes through secretive means. This is often done illegally or at least without the subject's knowledge and approval. Because I work with protected information, my employer has cameras to help them ride herd on us. Although we know about them, some folks feel "spied on". It is legal.


Questions were raised about morality in the confirmation hearings for Gina Haspel
Credit: Pixabay / Free-Photos
Privacy concerns on the internet have given rise to encryption software for email and browsers, and even for files on your computer. Cyber security checks for and attempts to thwart spyware and malware that track your browser activity, and to keep hackers out of your system. Your smart TV is probably spying on you, and the makers do not have your best interests at heart. There is also industrial espionage, but that would make this article far too lengthy.

On a lower level, people snoop on others using social media. Cyberstalking is a crime, but I know of some sidewinders who justify their activities to protect "science" from the evil of biblical creation science. Yeah, makes sense to me, too. He's an example of Romans 1:24. 

When is spying wrong?

A few days ago, the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency was sworn in. Her name is Gina Haspel. While other directors have been administrators, she has experience as a spook. Makes sense to me to have someone in charge that has experience riding for the brand.

In the confirmation hearings, Haspel was questioned about her activities in "torture", which is a loaded word used to provoke negative emotions by the likes of the leftists at the New York Times. Here's an idea: look up torture methods, and compare them with waterboarding, which left the two prisoners of which she supervised alive and well. A bit damp, though.

Were her actions, and the actions of others involved, wrong? Not to this child.

When it comes to espionage, nations spying on nations (sometimes spying on allies), a passel of questions arise. They sneak, lie, steal, kill, hack into computers, and do all sorts of things to obtain information. The spies Joshua secretly sent to Jericho used stealth and deception. 

That impeccable source of information about The Circus spy stuff, James Bond movies and novels, the hero had sex with many women. In the 1965 movie Thunderball, he said, "My dear girl, don't flatter yourself. What I did this evening was for Queen and country. You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?" She didn't believe him, and neither did I. You can only suspend disbelief for a movie just so much. Even so, sex for information is a frequent occurrence in these circles.

The point remains that clandestine operations require people to break rules that the rest of us are supposed to follow.


via GIPHY

Back to Gina's interrogation. She was asked about morality, and if something was moral then, but is not moral now. This indicates what is happening in society today: subjective morality and shifting standards. When I mentioned the cyberstalker above, he believes what he is doing through stalking, harassment, defamation are good and right. Because evolution. Because atheism. Because hatred. But there is no objective moral standard in his case, nor with subjective morality in society today!

Secularists often try to find their morality not only in shifting cultural standards and arbitrary personal opinions, but in evolution. The same shifting and vague moral standards apply to espionage. We have to protect our country, and others feel they have to protect theirs — sometimes by destroying ours. I have to admit that this is a difficult area and can lead to many long discussions on moral standards. An important question is where to draw the line.

The true moral standard comes only from God our Creator, who has made himself known in his Word.

Something that has been occurring rather frequently of late is that I have been inspired to write based on material presented by Dr. Albert Mohler. I recommend this podcast, which you can download or read the transcript.



Sunday, April 1, 2018

Examining the Witnesses of the Resurrection

Using science, psychology, and years of refinement, investigators have developed some rather impressive systems at determining the truth of "Who did it" and "How it happened". This can apply to horrendous criminal cases, reasoning to a conclusion, and other applications.


From a legal perspective, the witnesses of the Resurrection are entirely reliable.
Credit: RGBStock / Robert Linder
Circumstantial evidence can only get you so far. Forensic (historical) science involves determining past events with evidence that exists in the present, so it gets mighty difficult when a significant amount of time passes. Eyewitness accounts are extremely important, and when hitched to a team with circumstantial and forensic materials, you are likely to reach a logical conclusion.

People who have watched courtroom dramas (on the screen or in person) may have encountered attorneys putting some hard questions to witnesses. This is to establish credibility or discredit the witnesses. In police matters, never let witnesses sit together. Separate them. Why? So there's less chance of them "getting their story straight", because it will take longer for legal folks to get to the truth. They can tell this when there are too many details that match exactly. Small discrepancies or disagreements actually help validate the truthfulness of the witnesses.

I have had furious atheists that have lied, misrepresented biblical creation science and people, tried to defame us with other Christians, had their logic refuted, pretended to be experts in theology, and more. They have no credibility, and thinking people do not take them (or their claims) seriously.

We have the ultimate eyewitness, because God is the guiding hand behind the men who penned Scripture (1 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Timothy 3:16). Although Adam was not there for the first days of creation, he probably wrote a manuscript that Moses used later. God directed men to write the rest of Scripture as well — including those eyewitnesses who wrote the four Gospels.

Are there discrepancies in the Gospels? Yes. People have their own minds and perceptions, and they were not always standing at the same corral gate, so to speak. This, too, lends to their credibility, and the main points that they discuss are still supported.

Let's take a look at a discussion of the Gospel witnesses from a legal perspective in more detail.
The truth of the Resurrection stands or falls on the truth of the witnesses. Are they reliable? Of the New Testament writers, there are six witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if we include the apostles Peter and Paul. These people have left us writings in the form of historical documents which give us their testimony concerning the resurrection.

The question is—are these historical documents reliable? Can we trust them? One way of determining whether the documents are reliable is to put the people who wrote them through the test a good magistrate or judge would put them through. The accuracy of these witnesses depends on five things: their honesty, ability, their number and consistency of their evidence, the conformity of their testimony with our own personal experience, and lastly, the coincidence of their testimony with other circumstances and facts.
To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on " Can we believe the Gospels? — A former chief magistrate examines the witnesses to the resurrection".




Saturday, March 24, 2018

Thoughts on the Passing of Billy Graham

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On February 21, 2018, a man beloved by millions of Christians died. Billy Graham was 99 years old, and spent decades preaching the straightforward gospel. I am not going to give you a mini biography since many other people have already done that. However, I have some things to say about him. Interesting that my father, a pastor in the ever-increasingly liberal United Methodist denomination, was fond of this Baptist preacher.

Billy Graham (on the right) and his son Frankly. Billy taught the straightfoward gospel.
Franklin (left) and Billy Graham, 1995, photo by Paul Walsh
People packed out entire stadiums to see Billy Graham crusades, and many of those were supporters, some excited about his celebrity status, Christians bringing friends, the curious — and those who didn't know why, but were drawn by the Spirit of God. Although I had never attended a formal crusade, I think I was taken to see an associate of Graham, Leighton Ford. Back when I was a youngster, I was taken to see a movie from World Wide Pictures, the cinematic division of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Not sure which one it was, but I suspicion it was For Pete's Sake. That came out in 1966, so that's probably the one.

Those movies were shown in cinemas. I went forward for the invitation to receive Christ, but looking back, I think I was more interested in getting the free literature. There were lessons involved, and I had a subscription to their Decision magazine. Many years later, I was involved as a counselor of sorts to talk to people who came forward at another movie. I think it was Cry from the Mountain.

We were instructed to do something that I did not like: if people had a church background, send them to that kind of church. (One guy said, "Well, I never!" Apparently, he thought it would be a proselytizing free-for-all.) If they came from Catholic, send them there. Methodist? Back to that one. And so on. But I was more interested in sending people to Bible-believing churches instead of apostate mainstream denominations.

I think it's a no-win situation, someone is going to be upset. If Billy said, "The Roman Catholic religion does not teach the true gospel" and actively opposed them, then that huge organization would have easily been able to make trouble for his crusades, movies, and so on. I'm guessing, but perhaps he was hoping that if people knew the gospel, repented, and read the Bible, they would leave false religious systems.

Some folks called Graham a "false teacher", but those seem to come from folks who adhere to specific religious beliefs, including legalism. Where? This fiery preacher believed in the Trinity, clearly taught that Jesus is God the Son, believed in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, and held to basic Christian tenets. (I have heard the "false teacher" claim made against other people, including myself, who also hold to the truth of Scripture.) Graham's ecumenicism was unfortunate, even harmful, and angered people. I do not know what I would have done in similar situations. Also, he did not use his status for many social causes, and primarily focused on the gospel, though he did preach against Communism and racism. Graham met with many world leaders as well, and some were rather unsavory characters. It's easy to criticize him without knowing all the details, and not having any experience of being in his rather unique position.

Also, I was not happy with how he was unconcerned with the foundation of the Christian faith, which is found in Genesis and special creation. Some anti-creationists milked that view in a weak appeal to authority, using his death to advance their own agendas. Essentially, "Since the famous Billy Graham wasn't concerned about creation, then it must not be important". (Interesting that creationary organizations did not worry about his views in their tributes.) There are several teachers who are solid on Scripture but weak in that area, and there are others who hold proclaim special creation.

Views on ecumenism, creation, and so on are causes for concern, but do not negate the faith of a teacher or other individual. As I have written several times before, people often do not think about what the Bible says about origins, or the importance of Genesis. Those who have been shown the truth of biblical creation science teachings and persist in old Earth or theistic evolution, however, are actively rejecting the clear teachings of God's Word. I view theological teachings of people like that with suspicion at best.

Remember when leftists were angry because Mike Pence would not dine alone with any woman other than his wife? The reason for this is to avoid potentially compromising situations. I first heard of that from Josh McDowell. This principle is something that should not only be common sense, but was in place by Billy Graham decades ago!

His son Franklin was carrying on the work from 2001. Franklin was a prodigal son for a few years before giving his life to Christ at age 22. He is more socially and politically involved than his father.

Billy Graham taught the straightforward gospel message. He was also known as a man of integrity and high morals. When the US Congress was honoring him, viperine atheists were honoring their father down below and complaining. It's who they are and what they do.

Yes, he had some failings, what with being human and all. Graham had a big job to do, and was a very public figure. There were people who detested him because he did not to things, teach, or believe their way. However, I am certain that he heard, "Well done, good and faithful servant". 

Here are some links that I thought you may find interesting, and below them is a short tribute video.



Monday, February 12, 2018

Question Evolution Day and My First Video Interview

Although it is unlikely that anyone is interested, it is kind of fun for me to give background on some things that are old hat to many people. I seldom use Skype, and installed it in the first place for a media interview — if I recollect rightly. Bryan Melugin runs the site A Bit of Orange and posts videos under that name. I had posted several of his videos and articles at The Question Evolution Project, and we had corresponded a few times.

Late in 2017, he contacted me about doing a video interview. He had done several others, and he takes them, splits them into smaller bits, does some editing, and presents them to the world. When he asked me, I was going through some rough patches and had things to deal with, so I said it would have to be later. We also had some scheduling conflicts, as both of his have jobs.




It worked out that I had Monday, January 29, 2018 off from work so I could take care of some medical stuff in the morning. (It involved fasting, which I learned later was unnecessary, but that spoils the first part of my day.) We were able to connect two hours after my appointment, and had a good discussion.

Where am I supposed to look? My video camera is attached to the top of the monitor, but I want to look at the person I'm talking to out of habit. The image you see above is similar to what I had on Skype, but reversed; Bryan was large, I was small and on the right. But there was another small video of Bryan as well, and I moved it to the top so I could look at him instead of giving the camera a Bill Nye Death Stare®.

In the past, the interviewer would tell me when we're starting to record. Bryan was recording all along, so that is why you can see me being rude by fiddling around, finding things, getting situated. You can tell later on in the video that I was aware that we were doing the thing for real, and not just setting up. Also, my usual shakiness was more pronounced because of the fasting and pre-video session hassles.

Not my best moments, and I don't know what will be included in the additional segments, but we all have to start somewhere, you savvy? Maybe Bryan will use my funny voices, including my Clint Eastwood impression, "The good and the bad left town. You got me". Or something like that. It didn't work, though, Clint was the "good", not the "ugly" in the movie. I have no illusions about myself.

We had fun and it was a good discussion — much more than he can use in the video series, I'm sure. EDIT: My articles for this year's Question Evolution Day are below.



Evolution, Discrimination, and Freedom from Thought
Genetic Tampering, Ethics, and Evolution
Ten Lies Satan Tells to Biblical Creationists
Question Evolution, Face the Fury

Monday, January 22, 2018

Mike Rowe Faces Intolerance of Opposing Views

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who watched the television show Dirty Jobs that highlighted people who perform unpleasant and often hazardous work that allow the rest of us to keep our clothes and fingernails tidy know the host Mike Rowe. (The camera crew deserves high marks for getting involved as well!) If they doin't know him from the show, they may know his voice but not his name: this former opera singer uses his fabulous voice to narrate many documentaries and such. He is a professing Christian and an outspoken political Conservative, and uses his intelligence and wit to discuss his views. Someone may say that he's not a "real" Christian because he uses the occasional profanity, but I don't have such insight into someone's soul.


Some tinhorn wanted Mike Rowe fired from "How the Universe Works" because of his personal views
Mike Rowe image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Sklmsta
I did not know that he also narrates a show called How the Universe Works, which promotes secular views on that subject, until a reader of The Question Evolution Project flagged me about a recent attempt to get him fired from that show. No, it wasn't the current trend of sexual misconduct, nor was it involving poor job performance. Rather, some tinhorn does not like his personal views. Among other things, he was called a "science doubter". Listen, people who use epithets at Christians, Conservatives, Darwin doubters, global climate change doubters things like "science doubter/denier" are liars. Such accusations are not made with evidence. Those tactics are used by people who want contrary views suppressed, as you can see by their track records.

There are several popular narrators who are involved in documentaries that do not necessarily reflect their views. I've seen material narrated both for and against the Bible done by the same narrator. Same with movies. Anthony Hopkins did an outstanding job as Paul the Apostle in the 1981 miniseries Peter and Paul, and he is not even a Christian.  Was there an objection? Hopkins also played the part of Benito Mussolini, and I don't rightly recollect hearing about protests by Italian Fascists because Hopkins was not one of their own.

The fatuous complaint against Rowe is actually quite common when atheists and evolutionists ostracize Christians and especially biblical creationists from scientific research. The claim that atheism is required to be a scientists is risible even on the surface, and has been refuted many times. Arbitrary assertions of worldviews are not facts, nor are they evidence. Evolution, climate change, and other controversial subjects are protected by secularists. The most frequent way to do this is to keep contrary views out.

To read the article about Mike Rowe and his great response to his critic, click on "Mike Rowe Destroys Woman Who Wants Him Fired For Being ‘Ultra-Right Wing Conservative’". Watch for where he calls for evidence and relevance. I suspicion that Mike would be a very good creationist if he examined the material from the sources. Also, I think I'll set up the DVR and check out his new show.