Friday, January 1, 2021

Cowboy Casserole

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

How about a new recipe for 2021? Not that changing the calendar does anything magical and makes the awful things of 2020 go away, but it is a convenient time to start or explore new things. This here recipe is not difficult and is mighty tasty.

If you want to try an easy new recipe at the beginning of 2021, this version of Cowboy Casserole may be just what you want.

It was given to me by Charlene Osborne. I'm giving her credit because, like other recipes, people start with the basic instructions and then make adjustments as they see fit. She made it hers. That's what you'll do. 

I understand that the version Charlene encountered at first was not exactly something to send a telegram home about.

The measurements are in the US Customary System. Y'all will have to do conversions your ownselves if you want things in millimetrics.

Product names listed are because she uses them, not because either of us is being paid to promote them. You savvy that, Sam?

 

Prep time is about 15 minutes, then it bakes for 25-30 minutes.

Cowboy Casserole Ingredients:

• 1 pound of hamburger (or ground turkey burger, or bison burger)
• 28-ounce Bush's barbecue baked beans
• 1/4 cup honey barbecue sauce or regular sauce if preferred (big name or store brand, whatever)
• 1 8-oz package fresh mushroom, about 2 cups (or your preference)
• 1/2 yellow onion (or your preference)
• 8 ounce package of shredded cheese (Colby-Monterey Jack, pizza blend, or similar)
• 1 tube of rolls (8-count), Grands by Pillsbury preferred


Instructions:

• Preheat oven at 350
• Slice or chop the mushroom and onion, then sauté
• Pan-fry the burger until brown, drain
• Mix burger, beans, sauce, mushrooms, onion in 9x9 square baking dish
• Do layers: layer of the mixture, then shredded cheese on top mixture with shredded cheese on top
• Repeat layers
• Split the biscuits the long way, spread out on top, do not overlap
• You can sprinkle some garlic and onion powders on top
• Bake for 25-30 minutes — you don't want under-cooked dough, but careful not to burn it
• Take pictures and share on social media because that's why social media exists

Unless you're serving a big group, you'll have a bit left over. That's fine, cover the now-cooled dish with plastic wrap and store it in the icebox. Reheating works well in microwave-safe bowls. You'll thank me later.

She wants it!
Image made at PhotoFunia



Friday, December 25, 2020

Wishing You a Blessed Christmas!

During tumultuous times, celebrating the birth of Jesus is a stark reminder to Christians that we have hope. This hope is not based in humanity. Instead, we need to focus on how God the Son left Heaven and became the man Jesus for our salvation.

Credit: Pixabay / falco

He did not come to make everything into our best lives now. In fact, following Jesus involves sacrifice and persecution; it is not a lazy tinhorn's religion like atheism. But we are given eternal salvation, adoption as sons and daughters of the living God, purpose, victory over death, and much more.

I'm not going to take much more of your time, unless you have a hankering to see what I've done for this Christmas season. I'd be much obliged if you'd watch the "flash mob" video. Look for how people are awestruck around the 4 min. 23 sec. mark. Okay, the other posts:

Friday, December 11, 2020

The Unwarranted Thrill of Mobile Devices

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

You may have trodden this world for enough years to remember when mobile phones were a big deal. Car phones were very expensive, so one had to have enough income or a serious need to own one.

A huge amount of internet activity happens on mobile devices, but many of the apps are terrible. In addition, people have shorter attention spans.
Someone is checking me out on a tablet. Made at PhotoFunia.
Mobile phones were developed for decades, but became more accessible in the 1980s. Short talk time, big as a horse's leg, and expensive. Prices came down with technology and competition (that's what capitalism does). We graduated to cell phones. Even the most basic kinds are considered essential and many parents believe every child should have one for safety reasons.

Compare even the most basic cell phones with what you see on older shows. It's fun to watch things like the classic MacGyver or Rockford Files, and even some older movies. Especially after you just watched a modern high-tech police drama: "Sam, I got the image you sent and ran it through the database. I'm sending you his criminal record now." A few years, try to find a phone somewhere to get information.

Moving to December 2020, the smartphone carried in a pocket or purse is reputed to be more powerful than the supercomputers that put man on the moon. Want to check the weather on the other side of the planet, place an order so you can bring home supper, or see if you've had responses on social(ist) media? Fine — as long as you have an internet connection. There are literally millions of apps available for just about anything.

People have shorter attention spans nowadays (when is the last time you spent even twenty minutes reading a book?), but are locked in with constantly checking their mobile devices. Just the other day, I was driving through a parking lot of a shopping plaza. An old woman was staring at her device and stepped off the sidewalk of a store into the driving area. Never looked up and I could have hit her. Being easily distracted seems to fit in with shorter attention spans.

A bane of social media is that people don't want to read articles. We can spend hours writing them and providing documentation, then some tinhorn reads the title and maybe three sentences of introduction, then makes a comment. Many times, they make simple statements about what was written in the article, or even tell the author or whoever posted something about how wrong they are — but those things were covered in the material they didn't read.

Checking my website stats, more people are using the things than are using real computers. Facebook forced a bad interface on users for people who use real computers, so I spoof it with a user agent, telling it that I am using an old operating system or somesuch. That way, I can get around the defects so I can get certain things done; their apps are dreadful and seriously limited. However, spoofing won't work if I want to do other things, and I get a notice telling me to use a real computer instead. It's not just Fascistbook, either.

Something that disappeared from my previous draft is how I loathe his new interface that Blogger (owned by Google, much to my dismay) has forced on us. I tried to use their app, but when it caused an article I wrote to disappear entirely, I uninstalled that in a hurry.

With both Fazebook and Blogger, the interfaces on the web versions stink and the apps are pathetic. Yeah, I know, stinks to be me.

By the way, does anyone watch a video more than three minutes long on a mobile app? Christians, do you read even three chapters a day in your Bibles?

No, I'm not a big fan of mobile devices. I carry one for quick needs and especially for telephone use, but for serious things, I must use the computer at home, where I am writing this rant right now. If you'll excuse me, I have some reading to do.

Monday, November 9, 2020

Fake Science News of Phosphine on Venus Overturned

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

So many times, the secular science industry galloping for the fences with "news" supporting minerals-to-machinist evolution. Unfortunately, some biblical creationists are not grounded in the faith or knowledgeable about science, and they panic. "This can be refuted, right?" For example, alleged signs of life on Venus.

Remember the excitement a spell back about indications of life on Venus? While silly from the start, that research has now been shown to be faulty.
Original image before tampering from NASA / JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of contents on any of my sites or even of my existence)

Something I've cautioned many times is to take it slow and wait. Many new discoveries don't pass the smell test, and end up being discarded later. (Part of the problem there is the secular science industry's lapdog media going for the big sensational story.) Critical thinking and some rational creation science articles help, of course. Most of all, have your faith grounded in the Word, not the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, you savvy?

Elsewhere, I posted links to articles about the stench of presumed life on Venus. The hands at the Darwin Ranch were as excited as election-stealing Democrats (most of them are leftists anyway). You know how they are with circular reasoning, fundamentally flawed presuppositions, poor logic, incomplete or faulty research, and so on. From there, they foolishly extrapolate that if there's a hit of evolution, there is no God, so we're not accountable for our sinful lives.

It turns out that the research itself is what stank, not the reported phosphine. Seems that some other scientists said, "Rein in that horse, Hoss!" They examined the information and said, "Not hardly!" The report was ridiculous and the research was faulty. Yippie ky yay, secularists! For more information, see "Strong Doubts Arise About the Reported Phosphine Biosignature in the Atmosphere of Venus".

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Obey the Consensus Because Experts are Smarter than You

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We have seen numerous example of how people are unwilling, even unable, to think rationally and challenge assertions. Many are willing to follow what "scientists say", but this is often a cessation of thought. Worse is appealing to the majority — the so-called consensus.

Not only do secularists and political groups appeal to consensus in many areas, but they discourage people from thinking for themselves.
Original image: Unsplash / Jo-Anne McArthur, modified at Big Huge Labs

Let's mount up and ride to the top of yonder hill and get the bigger picture. Dr. Michael Crichton had some excellent statements about how science and consensus are mutually exclusive. While there is a consensus on many things, those things are not necessarily ironclad facts. Also, the consensus is often wrong and even biased:

  • Geocentrism (the earth stands still while the sun, moon and stars orbit it) was the prevalent view for a mighty long time
  • Things burned because they had phlogiston in them
  • Ignaz Semmelweis determined that doctors should wash their hands, but was ridiculed
  • Piltdown Man fooled the scientific establishment for over 40 years
  • The idea that birds evolved into dinosaurs is baseless conjecture, and although there is a "consensus", not all evolutionists have accepted this position
  • Lockdowns regarding the Wuhan virus were required, which was a consensus among leftists, but probably did little or nothing to contain the disease
  • Anthropogenic climate change is "settled science", so there is no reason to consider facts and arguments presented by non-leftists
Like the Piltdown Man fraud, fake science that has been disproved still makes it into the textbooks, such as Haeckel's embryo drawings. Scientists, like anyone else, have their presuppositions. Materialists presuppose deep time and evolution, then work from there. Why submit diamonds and dinosaur bones for radiocarbon dating, since there will be no trace of it left? When those and other things were finally tested, they indicated ages of far less than the dates assumed and expected by secularists.

Click to enlarge
This hatetheist dodged the point of the post,
then indulged in logical fallacies such as
invalid comparisons, conflation, appeal to motive —
and implicitly appealing to consensus
(Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)

These presuppositions lead to incomplete research, which in turn often contributes to confirmation bias. When scientists "know" and have "a consensus", they are disinclined to finish their research. They also indulge in circular reasoning by assuming what they want others to believe and then claiming that they have done so. Not hardly!

The article linked below by Dr. Jay Wile (a former atheist) inspired this here article I wrote for y'all. There are three complaints I have. First, he didn't do what I did here by bringing in how evolutionists appeal to consensus. Second, I disagree with his statement about science correcting itself, which is not entirely accurate. Finally, he would have more impact if he was more biblical by using presuppositional apologetics. Aside from those things, I am (obviously) recommending that all y'all take a gander at it.
I have written about a couple of instances where Forbes has censored articles because they disagree with the “scientific consensus” . . . it didn’t surprise me to find that they are now actively trying to discourage people from thinking for themselves. This discouragement comes in the form of a blog article written by Dr. Ethan Siegel, who holds an earned Ph.D. in astrophysics. It is entitled, “You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science”.

Dr. Siegel believes that in order to assess any scientific statement, a person must have some expertise in the relevant field. Otherwise, the person’s “research” will only end up confirming what he or she already wants to believe. He writes:
You can finish reading by visiting "Forbes Tells You Not To Think For Yourself". You'll thank me later.

Monday, September 14, 2020

Misplaced Blame - Bad Science, not "Religion"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Misotheists are fond of blaming the Bible and Christians for what they consider "bad science" and "superstition", even though the Bible was proven right many times. For instance, someone with a contagious disease was isolated, not the entire community. George Washington bled to death because of the bad medical practice of bloodletting despite Gen. :4 and Lev. 17:14. There are other instance of bad or questionable medicine that atheists ignore in their selective citing.


Atheists excuse superstitious medical practices such as with the so-called Dancing Plague, but are quick to falsely accuse the Bible of bad teachings.
Credits: Original from Freeimages / Carol O'Driscoll, modified at PhotoFunia
A video of "paranormal" mysteries had a segment of the so-called Dancing Plague of 1518. Doing a bit of research shows that this was not an isolated incident, but there are several suggestions regarding the cause; to call it paranormal is silly. It is interesting that the diagnosis was "hot blood" and that the recommendation was that people continue to dance despite people collapsing and even dying.

For years, I have said that the Salem Witch Trials were black marks on both American history and Christianity. (Such literal witch hunts were not confined to the United States, however.) I'll allow that there was a great deal of bad religion involved and misuse of the Bible, but that does not justify a conclusion that all religion is false. Such activities are not based in Scripture or reasonable biblical teachings.

What makes the Salem situation more complicated is that the actions of so-called witnesses and victims may have had a biological basis. There is increasing evidence to consider that the ergot fungus was involved. Rye was a staple crop in that area, and ergot grew on it. People would ingest the grain and the fungus, then could have hallucinations. People with bad theology would be swept up in the hysteria and think they were doing the Lord's work.

Such forensic science is seriously limited, of course, but it does give us some things to consider. Mockers of God rush to judgement but there could be other causes. Medical superstitions that lead to death are given a pass. "Science is self-correcting!" may be claimed, but the two instances cited above had nothing whatsoever to do with science from the get-go. Such data are frequently cited by Christophobes, but like evolutionary researchers, involve incomplete research and invalid conclusions. Avoid bad teachings and lousy logic like the plague.


Thursday, August 13, 2020

Sexual Dimorphism and You

It is indeed unfortunate that science has become a tool of leftists in many areas, especially regarding sex. This is in defiance of what people have known for thousands of years: men and women are different. In recent years, people have been increasingly rebellious against God's created order.

Medical science does not care about how someone feels regarding sex and gender. This and other research shows what people have known all along.
The Happy LoversGustave Courbet, 1844
It is frustrating — even infuriating — that this recent trend of establishing genders because someone feels like it. Most people, including those in medical science, know that there are only two genders. You can tell by looking most of the time because of build, bone structure, facial characteristics, and so on. Yes, there are exceptions where a man may be more delicate and a woman can rassle a bear. Sometimes female lions have manes and males have none. But those do not negate the fact that only male and female exist. Someone may say that what they feel is all that matters. Yeah, and the mark will get you through, it's alright.

When filling out the HCFA claim  and other medical forms in these here United States, there are only the male and female options. They give neither hoot nor holler how someone feels that day. Medicines, hormones, many other factors are important based on how God made a person. Even though people can be hit with massive fines or even be fired (as well as accused of committing a hate crime), sometimes deniers of science are not making an impression on science.
Science knows nothing of make-believe genders based on how people feel. Researchers only speak of males and females.
“Sexual dimorphism” is a scientific term that describes phenotypic differences between males and females. . .  One thing is clear: scientists speak of sexual dimorphism (two forms), not trimorphism, quadrimorphism, or multi-morphism.
. . . 
Men and women, furthermore, exhibit a substantial degree of sexual dimorphism. Secondary sexual characteristics begin to become prominent after puberty. The human race has accepted this and lived with it (and has celebrated the differences) ever since creation. Nobody ever thought to question this normality until radical liberals in recent decades decided to celebrate certain individuals who are confused about their biology. Instead of helping these individuals get over their confusion and become comfortable with their sex, they are defying nature. . . 
Activists are claiming that biological sex has nothing to do with “gender” which is socially conditioned, is fluid, and can be changed at whim. It’s getting dangerous. Some government leaders are letting immature children and teenagers be given life-altering drugs and surgeries, without parental consent, that will permanently alter their bodies—decisions they may later regret.
To read the entire article, which includes examples of research that don't pay no nevermind to what made-up "gender" someone feels like on a particular day, click on "Males and Females Are Real. All Others Are Fake."