Showing posts with label Answers in Genesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Answers in Genesis. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Shining the Light on a Darwinist Deceiver

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is part 2 of Conspiracy Theories, Creation, and Reason, but takes a different approach. We saw how a number of factors contribute to the act of purveying conspiracy theories, and how there are several reasons why people believe them. Then there is the alleged creation science conspiracy.

Anti-creationist gadfly Paul Braterman wrote a hit piece on creationists. It was posted on the leftist Snopes site, who did not bother to fact check.
Credit: Unsplash / Steve Johnson
We have three articles to consider, two of which are from the same ministry. Naturally there will be some overlap, but they each offer material that comprise a larger picture.

There was a time when if someone had a question about, say, that 2002 email saying the teddy bear icon in Windows was really a virus. They could check Snopes and find out that it was a hoax, and they could search for urban legends. Unfortunately, they became heavily involved in promoting leftist political views with "fact checking", and their credibility became questionable. Snopes even attacked the parody site Babylon Bee (one of whose slogans is "fake news you can trust"). They are powerful unqualified amateurs, but pretend to be experts. 

Shouldn't fact checkers check facts on their own site, or just post something because they thought their readers would find it interesting? That is hypocritical. It happened when retired professor Paul Braterman wrote an anti-creationist hit piece that targeted several creationist organizations, emphasizing Answers in Genesis. Braterman is known for misleading rhetoric and getting his evolutionary mythology wrong (as seen in "Braterman ‘slam dunk’ flunk"), and being a gadfly. He hobnobs with professing Christians who also mount up and ride for the Darwin brand, such as the comments on this post.

It is interesting how some owlhoots are so quick to demonize biblical creationists that they do not conduct proper research. I was grouped in with Answers in Genesis by atheist Michael Zimmerman when he attacked Question Evolution Day with some very bizarre material. More recently, Phil Vischer attacked AiG. When he was shown to be disingenuous by Dr. Jason Lisle (see "False History of Creationism is Full of Beans"). Vischer then compounded his false statements, prompting follow-up articles by Lisle.

Why don't they just let us be (in their view) stupid and uninformed? In "Dr. Duane Gish and Debating Evolutionists", we saw how Darwin's disciples hammered Dr. Gish, who had a reputation for defeating his opponents in debates. Many of us see the diatribes against creationists by arrogant misotheists. Creation science really puts burrs under their saddles,

Ken Ham pointed out the hypocrisy of Snopes and some of the false statements of Braterman in his article. He referenced another article by Answers in Genesis that goes into more detail, which is linked further down in this article.

Recently, Snopes, a popular website, disseminated false information with the posting of an anti-Christian commentary with an agenda—an article which had not been fact-checked. Snopes.com posted a piece entitled “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory.” This article made many false accusations and disseminated false information about Answers in Genesis, me, and other creation-apologetics ministries.

How could a supposed fact-checking group get away with this? Easy. At the top of the article, an editor stated, “This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.” In other words, they did exactly what they tell others not to do: they published an article without fact-checking. They tried to justify posting the hostile commentary by stating it’s an article they considered (without any fact-checking for themselves) to be of interest to their readers. Obviously, to them, it’s ok to pass along information that hasn’t been fact-checked, but nobody else should dare do such a thing! What utter hypocrisy.

To read the rest of this first article, head on over to "Snopes Exposed!" That's just the beginning. I'd be much obliged if you would come back for the rest.

Readers of Piltdown Superman and other sites know that biblical creationists emphasize learning logic and critical thinking: secularists and leftists tell people what to think, while we want to help people learn how to think. Sometimes we have to confront those who want to dry gulch us and point out their viperine tactics.

What a way to begin: the title, “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory,” of a Snopes article reprinted from The Conversation is a question-begging epithet fallacy. Such an attacking title with emotive language lets us know what The Conversation’s and Snopes’ religious beliefs are up front. Our hope is to challenge their religious beliefs in this response. We are used to being hated and attacked. Jesus even said:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 NKJV)
Nevertheless, we want readers to know that we love and care for those at Snopes and The Conversation, regardless of their views against us, and would love to see them repent of their sin and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Our response is said with a caring heart, though there will be times where we will be bold.

To read the rest of this second of three, visit "Fact Checked: No Conspiracy Here (But a Lot of Fallacies There)". Be sure to come back for the final article so you can get a more complete understanding of what's happening.

Our final installment discusses how Braterman confuses the Intelligent Design movement with biblical creation science (a modicum of research from the ID people would dispel that notion). He also has several logical fallacies, claiming that creationism is "hostile to science". What ineffable twaddle! Again, an honest researcher could easily find out that there are many creation-believing scientists in many fields of science — and not just creation ministries. He also tries to hoodwink us further by slipping in what appears to be an endorsement of communism, and brings up irrelevant material that should have been scrutinized by fact checkers. But he seems to be more interested in spreading evoporn than promoting truth.

To read this last article, see "Name-Calling Anti-Creationist Fails on Facts".

Sunday, April 12, 2020

Coronavirus and the Resurrection

There have been disasters, wars, famines, diseases, and all sorts of disasters that can be traced back to the first sin in Eden. This is not to downplay the suffering and death associated with COVID-19. Why is this Coronavirus such an important matter, and what does Easter have to do with it? 


The COVID-19 Coronavirus as well as other issues related to suffering and death will ultimately be removed. Death was defeated at the bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
Christ Appearing to His Disciples After the Resurrection by William Blake
Some events were sudden and then over, such as tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. Others, such as the Black Death of the 1340s, lingered on and killed millions. It is natural for people to wonder how their lives will change if they live through the circumstance. COVID-19 is something new in some ways (but the people during the Black Death probably thought the same thing), and we have had to alter our lifestyles. We do not know how long we will deal with the changes, and if there will ever be a semblance of normalcy again.

It may be hard to believe at first glance, but this is not something that God cannot handle. (It is interesting to me that people use bad things in the world as an excuse to reject God, but they never use these as evidence for the existence of Satan. Just a thought.) Actually, this virus has already been defeated. Jesus died for our sins and those who repent can have eternal life. He also defeated death at the Resurrection. If you skip ahead to the end of the Book, there were be no more pain, sickness, and death.
Sickness, death, natural disasters, and human tragedy—everywhere we look, we see death and suffering. It is part of the human condition. There is no escaping it. And during this current COVID-19 pandemic, we are hearing about it every day. As we watch the news or read online updates about coronavirus/COVID-19, we see that the infection numbers and the death counts are rising daily. Current numbers show almost 1.5 million reported cases and over 80,000 deaths. This situation is a tragedy.

The question often asked is obvious: If God is truly all-powerful and loving, why doesn’t he put an end to death and suffering? Some even ask if he is incapable, questioning his power. Others ask if he is unwilling, questioning his goodness. But both of these questions are based on a false dichotomy: goodness cannot exist apart from justice. Would we call a judge “good” if he let violent criminals go free, with no consequences? Of course not!
To read the entire article, click on "Death, Suffering, and Coronavirus".

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Creation Science and the Age of the Earth

First, a bit of behind the scenes for y'all. This site is something I registered because of sidewinders who have tried to dry gulch my name through impersonation. It also is a marker of sorts for some of my activities on teh interweb, so it's also useful. I try to post here about once a month to keep it active. But there's more in this instance.


Nice picture of Earth from Apollo 10 in 1969. The linked post on the age of the earth could not go directly onto Facebook, so here is a workaround with some background information.
Earth from Apollo 10, May 18, 1969 via NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
I wanted to post an article from Answers in Genesis about the age of the earth directly to The Question Evolution Project on Facebook. Although I often post material from AiG, this one was instantly refused for alleged violations of their "Community Standards". Science and biblical history are streng verboten in this case? Well another case, I had to do something similar, but I disremember when.

The linked post on the age of the earth could not go directly onto Facebook, so here is a workaround with some background information.
Used under Fair Use provisions
Click for larger
Posts and articles from this site, Biblical Creation and Evangelism, and Stormbringer's Thunder are supposed to automatically (eventually) post to my Cowboy Bob Page on Fazebook; they won't censor the AiG link when it's in this post. Then I can copy the link on one FB Page and schedule it to another one. I like to schedule my posts.

So, let's get to the post for which I've been doing a workaround and giving you behind the scenes information.
The question of the age of the earth has produced heated discussions on internet debate boards, TV, radio, in classrooms, and in many churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. The primary sides are
  • Young-earth proponents (biblical age of the earth and universe of about 6,000 years)
  • Old-earth proponents (secular age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years and a universe about 14 billion years old)
The difference is immense! Let’s give a little history of where these two basic calculations came from and which worldview is more reasonable.
To get on with it, click on "How Old Is the Earth?"

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.

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.



Monday, December 25, 2017

Earning Gifts from Santa

The way I've always understood it, a gift is something that is freely given. If you work to receive something, it is not a gift, but earned like wages or something. Children in many parts of the world are told about a being known by many names, including Father Christmas, Sinterklaas, Saint Nicholas, Santa Claus (see the pattern on the last three names?), and others.


Credit: RGBStock / LUSI
Way back yonder, Nicholas was a godly man who was also a giver of gifts. Legends built up, and today we have a recluse who lives at the North Pole, flying around the world with in a sleigh drawn by reindeer and giving gifts to all the good little girls and boys. Probably defies the laws of physics, as this internet legend indicates.

Like many others, I believed in Santa Claus, but as I grew older, I realized that the storyline was impossible. The myth was shattered when I walked past my parents' bedroom, the door was wide open and a big box of unwrapped gifts was in the middle of the floor. If they didn't want me "snooping", they could have at least moved the box out of plain view.

I never shook the feeling that my parents lied to me, though. Many adults are telling this fable to their children, often to prompt them to "be good" so Santa will bring them presents. (It probably works for about a week before Christmas, then they're back to being their old selves again after they grab the loot.) My kids were never told the full myth, but were told about it. I disremember if we told them not to spoil it for other kids who believe in Santa, though. The reason we leveled with them about Santa is that we did not want them to associate that with the truth of God becoming flesh and taking on the form of a man, whose birth is observed on December 25 or January 6. Here is one picture mixing the Santa myth with the reality of Jesus' birth that I like very much.

There is a false salvation connection with Santa. He sees and knows every child all the time, like an omniscient god. (Someone pointed out that he shouldn't need a list to check twice if he's that all-knowing.) Kids have to earn their gifts through good behavior. Then they are not gifts, they are wages. It is very bad to associate salvation with works, because it is only through God's grace and a gift of God (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9). Don't confuse the kids, you savvy? And don't confuse yourselves, either. No religious traditions, ceremonies, chanting, "being good" or anything else can save you except repenting and trusting Christ alone for your salvation.

You want to play at the Santa game, fine. It's a cute decoration (except for the creepy ones) and ubiquitous. If you don't like it, that's fine too, but don't be going Pharisee on folks, old son. Santa is still a veiled symbol of giving, and God gave us his Son as the ultimate gift.
[A] popular song portrays the portly North-pole dwelling St. Nick as omnipresent and omniscient—he somehow knows what every child is doing everywhere in the world. Of course, those are attributes that belong to God alone.

It also urges children to “be good for goodness’ sake!” But some vague idea of “goodness’ sake” or the hope of reaping a reward from Santa (or anyone else) should never be our motivation for being good. And who defines what “good” is in this context anyway?

We should be “good”—as defined by God in his Word—because we love our Heavenly Father and do not want to sin against him, and because he has commanded us to be perfect as he is (Matthew 5:48).
To read the entire article, click on "Naughty or Nice?" Also, for more material of a biblical nature and a passel of links for further reading, click on "Christmas and Creationists".



Thursday, June 22, 2017

Brian Thomas of ICR Visits Ark Encounter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This post may put some creation science ministries on the prod, but I reckon that people expect me to be a straight shooter. My problem is that I perceive some ministries are acting like competitors instead of co-laborers. Y'all probably heard that Answers in Genesis has a replica of Noah's Ark called Ark Encounter that was built as close to biblical specifications as they could manage, but was not meant to float (the regulations involved for that aspect would be prohibitive, I expect). Eric Hovind of Creation Today was involved, but other prominent ministries have been largely silent about it. Shouldn't they be offering congratulations? Creation Ministries International has mentioned it as a side note in an article about Ark reconstructions. It will have been open for one year on July 7.


Ark Encounter Answers in Genesis
Image courtesy of Answers In Genesis
One reason that I believe other Christians and creationists should take a stand with Answers in Genesis is the attacks by secularists and atheists. They frequently lie, it's their nature, and AiG refutes a number of these specious obloquies, such as the "separation of church and state", AiG getting money, and lies about the beneficial economic impact on Kentucky. (I saw fit to include atheistic falsehoods in "Ark Encounter and Darwin's Deceivers", which was written for opening day, July 7, 2016).The Institute for Creation Research is involved with other ministries, and it is not unusual to see their writers contributing to AiG, CMI, and others. I was mighty pleased that science writer and lecturer Brian Thomas got his ownself over there and had some good things to say about it. See "Visiting the Ark Encounter" for his article.