Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts

Thursday, April 1, 2021

Shining MORE Light on a Darwinist Deceiver

This is a sequel to a sequel. Earlier, I wrote about anti-creationist tinhorn Paul Braterman and provided links to his deceptive diatribes. We can use his attacks as examples of bigotry and bad reasoning. April 1 is a good day for this (Psalm 14:1), I reckon.

In this sequel to a sequel, we have additional thoughts about a deceptive anti-creationist and his foolish misrepresentations of creation science.
Derivative from the 1909 Rider-Waite tarot deck (public domain)
The earlier article linked above also included links to other articles on the subject, including how Snopes is biased and unqualified, and they didn't bother to "fact check" Braterman's rant on their site. Bad Paulie put burrs under a passel of saddle blankets, didn't he? If you see him, ask why, if evolution were true, would there be a need to misrepresent creationists and to abandon reason. Here, we have a short article from the Institute for Creation Research that has some thoughts worth considering. 
Paul Braterman, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Glasgow, recently claimed online that creationism “meets all the criteria” for a “conspiracy theory.” He says creationism offers “a complete parallel universe with its own organisations and rules of evidence, and [creationism] claims that the scientific establishment promoting evolution is an arrogant and morally corrupt elite.” Is this fair?

First, we should note that calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” is a quick and easy way to avoid having to deal with the intellectual arguments for his position. It is tantamount to calling him crazy. And we all know that attempting to reason with crazy people is pointless, right?

As for that last sentence, that fits well with my refusal to "debate" those with Atheism Spectrum Disorder at length. Anyway, you can read the rest of this short article at "Are Creationists Conspiracy Theorists?"

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".

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".

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.


Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Free Speech and Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Something I have noticed for a long time is that leftist harassment of their opponents and the atheistic/evolutionist attacks on biblical creationists parallel each other. In fact, these kinds of things seem to be increasing. While leftists and atheists claim to believe in free speech, they only support speech (and thought) on subjects that meet with their approval. This adds to the importance of Question Evolution Day.


The parallels between world events and attacks on creationists show a need for us to use and preserve free speech. #questionevolutionday is a part of this.


Intellectual Dishonesty 

 

Maybe it's because of global warming, but more likely it's the commitment to naturalism that prompts the hands at the Darwin Ranch (up yonder near Deception Pass) to hide the truth about evolution. Darwin's handmaidens troll teh interwebs, gleefully attacking and ridiculing believers in biblical creation as well as Christians in general. Those sidewinders are intellectually dishonest, ignoring the fact that they know God does indeed exist (Roman 1:18-23) and refusing to examine additional evidence when presented.


Image provided by Why?Outreach
I reckon that ridicule is a cheap way of silencing us when legislation is too slow and violent persecution is still illegal. If you study on it a mite, you'll see that the desired effect is to negate the opposition. Atheopaths ridicule creationists and Christians, and appeal to the pride of onlookers, such as, "You don't want to pay attention to these people because they believe ridiculous things, and us smart fellers believe in science!" Instead of seeing the bigotry and fallacies in remarks of this nature, people can bolster their egos by agreeing with fools (Psalms 14:1, Proverbs 1:8).

Startling Parallels

 

While listening to podcasts and things at the workplace, I have been amazed many times at the parallels between what creationists experience and happenings in the political realm. This section could easily become excessively long, so I will keep it to just a few examples.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi childishly tore up the printed copy of President Trump's State of the Union address. She said that she could find nothing truthful in it (which is a lie) but she also pre-ripped the speech before she had even heard it. Based on her desire for power and hatred of President Trump, she was unwilling to find anything in the speech she liked. Economic gains and record unemployment are not things that leftists cheer about because it hinders their lust for power.

Atheists and evolutionists demand evidence for God and for creation, and they want it on their terms. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine, the Creator of the Universe who was crucified for our sins and bodily arose on the third day isn't interested in your demands. He has done his part — and more. The evidence is there, and scientific evidence not only refutes evolution but also affirms special creation. For more about atheopaths rejecting evidence and being obstreperous, click on "First Degree Atheopathy".

Fake Conservative Jennifer Rubin was ridiculing Trump's lawyers and saying that the Chief Justice was not a "real judge". The people she mocked were eminently qualified, but Rubin humiliated herself with her risible comments. Why were they targets of her ridicule "unqualified"? Because they were not supporting leftist causes. Similarly, leftists refuse to accept the verdict for Trump's acquittal because "it was not a fair trial". The entire impeachment was partisan, and there were no actual charges filed, but simply vague witch hunt vagaries.

There are many scientists who are creationists, both past and present. Yet atheopaths and fundamentalist evolutionists will say creationists are not "real" scientists based on worldviews, not on capabilities or credentials. Biblical creationists, like their secular counterparts, have disagreements on details of various scientific models and such, but they agree that the Bible is inerrant. Materialists despise anyone who does not hold to their narrow view, so they indulge in dismissing creationists as scientists.

Intellectually dishonest people use such manipulation to negate and silence us because they cannot deal with the facts. Ridicule is one of those methods. At the leftist CNN television show with Don Lemon, a tirade was launched against Donald Trump supporters. Apparently we're all a bunch of ignorant rubes with Southern United States accents (thereby insulting millions of Southerners), and we must think we're elite while hiding our envy for the real elite, who are leftists. Not hardly!

In the same way, misotheists attack creationists and Christians by saying that we are ignorant but they are Hanuman the Monkey God's gift to humanity. However, even a cursory knowledge of science, logical fallacies, theology, and what creationists actually believe and teach equips us to see through their foolishness and bullying tactics.

Big Differences

 

When B. Hussein Obama was elected, Republicans and Conservatives were not burning cars, smashing windows, murdering police officers, demanding censorship, and other malarkey. Don't believe me? Look these things up — but the leftist media does not deal with such things much, so you'll have to use alternative news media that tells the truth. Also, a Bernie Sanders staffer is in favor of gulags and reeducation camps. Caliph Obama had a kill list called the "disposition matrix". Worse yet, leftists use climate change hysteria so they can scare children and use them as tools:


These sidewinders are not interested in bettering their countries or the world. It's all about power and money. They are creepy as well as dangerous.


Having a Voice and Preserving our Freedoms


Having a say in important matters is no longer the realm of those who are established authors, politicians, legislators, pastors, and so on. The internet has also given a voice to the rest of us. It is important to become involved in #questionevolutionday (hashtags are important on social media), even if it is simply posting or sharing creation science material. An inquiring evolutionist may stop to consider what we have to say and question evolution, then follow the links to resources. Ultimately, they may come to faith in Jesus Christ.

We have free speech for now, but anyone who has paid attention to the media (including material on The Question Evolution Project, Piltdown Superman, Stormbringer's Thunder, and others) knows that our rights may be kicked to the curb at any time. QED is for almost everyone, and there is no financial outlay or sign-up. Since we have the freedoms, we should use them while we can. Other Christians are not so fortunate.



Monday, June 3, 2019

Having a Purpose in Life

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

You may have what you consider your purpose in life, and it varies by individuals. Some want to succeed in the business world, others want to watch the world burn. You may be a doctor, lawyer, scientist, teacher, welder, construction worker, stay-at-home-mom, or a host of other possibilities. You may be shocked — shocked I say — to learn that jobs, hobbies, and religions are not our primary sources for purposeful lives.


People with purposeful lives are supposedly healthier and happier. However, they need to be complete and have the right purpose.
Credit: Freeimages / Thad Zajdowicz
I've heard it said that men are hard-wired to get their satisfaction in life from their jobs. That doesn't happen for me since I'm just a data entry clerk, but I am able to listen to podcasts and articles to try to make myself more smarter and anthropomorphic. Some people consider it their duties to save the world from biblical creation science, Conservative politics, "infidels", and others they despise using any means necessary.

One feckless sidewinder wants to destroy creation science (and especially me, personally), but he's an uneducated bigot that isn't taken seriously. Of course, leftists and globalists (but I repeat myself) seek their life's purpose in gaining power. People are greatly mistaken in finding their purpose outside of the Creator. After all, he made us and makes the rules, so we must find out what he has to say.

Atheists and evolutionists may tell you that evolution provides a "message of hope", but if you get up on the hill and look at it from a bigger perspective, you'll see the absurdity in such a belief. Way back when, the universe formed by chance, then stars and planets. Life itself began by chance, and then through chance, time, random processes, unexplainable forces like evolutionary "pressures", life continually advanced (defying common sense and laws of science), and here we are. Life has no meaning, your only purpose is to pass along your genes (why?), there is no Creator, no ultimate Judgment or justice. When you die, you're worm food; time and chance won't help you. Makes me want to embrace atheism spectrum disorder right this minute!

Many evangelists are in error by telling people that if they come to Jesus, life gets better. That is horribly incomplete, and backfires immediately when people think that life is fine without him. We must come to God, and we must come on his terms, with humility and submission to the authority of his Word. All are lost sinners and need to repent. Don't get me wrong, life in Jesus does give us joy and purpose, but salvation is of primary importance. Modern "gospel" messages are not interested in glorifying God and explaining sin, Hell, Heaven, repentance, and salvation.

People who do have purposeful lives are better off psychologically, it seems. But we need to ride the trail all the way to the end.
Live Science published results of a study by the Journal of the American Medical Association that confirmed longevity benefits for people who describe their life as purposeful.
. . .
The findings from a long-term study that began in 1992 and carried forward to a questionnaire in 2006, involving 7,000 people. Mortality rates of participants were studied over subsequent years. Those with low life-purpose scores were more than twice as likely to die, researchers found. The reason, they believe, is that purposeful living lowers stress hormones that lead to inflammation. “Inflammation, in turn, has been previously linked with an increase in risk of early death, according to the study.”
I'd be much obliged if you would read the entire article. Just click on "Purposefulness Promotes Health, Longevity".



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.



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.



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?



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, 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.




Monday, October 9, 2017

Blamestorming and Leftist Morality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Several things converged in my consciousness over the past several days, and I felt compelled to write about them. Someone made a post long ago suggesting new words for the times, one of which was blamestorming. (Apparently it was added to the dictionary in later years.) Essentially, blamestorming is where people try to find a way to assign blame instead of solving a problem. I believe that some jaspers will simply place blame for its own sake, often for the purpose of ridicule, and to build up their own egos at the expense of other people or concepts with which they disagree — often labeling them evil.


Ships of Columbus, Ivan Aivazovsky, 1880

Blaming Christopher Columbus

Relevant for today is the outrage from social justice warriors about Columbus Day. One particularly risible statement on the web is along the lines of, "You can celebrate Columbus Day by going to someone else's house and saying that you live there now". Some areas even wish to delete the day and pretend it doesn't exist. These ideas come from corrupted leftist viewpoints that blame Christopher Columbus for evils, real and especially imagined, happening in the United States.

Sometimes, people like that want us to "give America back to the Indians". (Which is ironic when illegal Mexicans in the Southwest demand "their" land, which their ancestors took from the indigenous peoples. Are they going to "give the land back", too? Not hardly!) Also, the natives were warring and "stealing" land from each other for centuries, so where does "give the land back" end?


Blame for the Las Vegas Murders

Leftists have been indulging in hatred for supporters of President Donald J. Trump for several months. Much of this is simply rage that a leftist did not get elected, and their tantrums included efforts to reject the US Constitution. After the murders in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, leftists were rushing to blamestorm and politicize it for their own agenda. In this case, they detest the Second Amendment and want "gun control". Hillary Clinton was in the thick of things, and managed to sober up enough to humiliate herself. Leftist talk show hosts made vapid remarks, especially Jimmy Kimmel.

Some of the mentally incompetent leftists (but I repeat myself) wanted to blame the National Rifle Association, but they didn't do their homework: the number of mass shooters (and "mass shootings" are often defined as four or more) that are card-carrying NRA members is a big, fat, zero. Some leftists are so consumed with hate, they indicated that country music patrons were probably Trump supporters. This implied that since country fans are not mindless leftists, they deserve to die! At least CBS had sense enough to fire a heartless corporate VP.

So, the presumed Trump-supporting evil rednecks are subhuman and have no value to leftists, it appears. However, acts of heroism during the shooting are beginning to come to light. (Most likely, this is the same mentality of the "Cajun Navy" that helped flood victims in Houston, Texas.) People were helping one another, not inquiring about ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, politics or whatever. Elitists on the left are out of touch with real people.


Blame for Loss of Abortion "Rights"

I make no apologies that I reject abortion and the ridiculous arguments: "A woman's got a right to choose", "My body, my choice", "It's just a blob of cells going through stages of evolution", and so on. These "arguments" defy logic as well as morality. The issues is convoluted because "rights" are assumed, exceeding the provisions of the law and forgetting that true rights for men and women come from our Creator, not from legislation or activist judges.

Caliph B. Hussein Obama's mandate on abortion and contraception was overturned by Trump, and at the moment, there is a possibility that a ban on abortions after the child is twenty weeks old will be enacted. I recently walked in on a break-time discussion between two female co-workers on the subject. Should have brought crying towels! Impoverished women will not learn from their mistakes, so they'll be making babies and stay on welfare forever. Oh, please! Sheeple like that are the targets of angry leftists, forming more angry leftists. Those distressed damsels believed propaganda, and were unaware of the facts.

What lessons are women actually learning right now? That it's okay to be a — I mean, to be promiscuous — and then murder an unborn child because it is inconvenient. They are not learning true morality, nor are they learning God's standard for marriage. In addition, they are learning through putrefied rhetoric that free sex with whomever you desire is acceptable. Perhaps the fear of not being able to murder an unborn child would slow down the mattress dancing. I wouldn't bet on that, though.


Blaming Me for Someone Else's Reprimands

There is a tinhorn that I call Haywire the Stalker who hates biblical creationists, and especially this hombre, with a passion. (I should add that he is passionate about supporting another pseudoscience, a kissin' cousin of evolution, and that's global climate change.) He is unable or unwilling to discern the difference between lying and disagreement or error, and any evidence presented against evolution is "lying". He seeks glory and validation on forums and on Fazebook. However, Fazebook gave him a suspension, and he is weeping that he is a victim that is persecuted for telling the "truth". No, he's a mentally unstable demoniac who got a mild slap. He sowed, now he reaps, and I ain't taking the blame. Haywire should drink a nice, tall glass of dihydrogen monoxide and settle down a bit.

Another furious atheist was upset because he broke copyright laws and was called out on it. He did this several times, and my DMCA complaints were upheld some of the time. Once, he was ranting and I did not know what he meant, but apparently a post of his that was my property was removed. He broke the law and blamed me for the consequences.

Haywire and other misotheists have an irrational hatred for God, Christians, and creationists. I have seen atheists celebrating the death of Christians (this sidewinder, for example). You think I'm exaggerating? Go to some atheist social media and see what I mean.

True Blame

All of the above examples are very complicated, I'll allow. There is a Christian teaching that is called the "total depravity of man". Don't be galloping on ahead of me, let me tell you about it. While people are inherently sinful (Psalm 53:1-3, Romans 3:23), our righteousness is worthless in comparison to God (Isaiah 64:6), as is worldly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:20). However, we can still do good things, as evidenced recently in Houston and Las Vegas (Matthew 7:9-11). We can reason, producing tremendous advances in medical science, technology, and the like, because we are created in God's image.

These are not in contradiction with Scripture, but a contrast. There is good and wisdom to be found among men, but it fails miserably when compared to the righteousness of God. The true blame for our failings is within ourselves and our rebellion against the Creator. We may consider ourselves "good", but we're not going to make it into Heaven on our own merits. No, we need to humble ourselves, repent (Luke 24:46-47, 2 Peter 3:9), and receive the gift of salvation (Romans 6:23). Then we shall be adopted as children of God (Romans 8:15, John 1:12).

Problems in America are not the fault of Christopher Columbus. They're not the fault of Trump or the NRA. They're not the fault of leftists. They're not my fault. They're not the fault of feral atheists. Finding other people to blame, especially for problems we have brought on ourselves, is worthless. Too many people are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, and the consequences that follow.



"God Help Me', by Rebecca St. James - lyrics here