Showing posts with label Biblical Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Creation. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2018

Breaking News: C.H. Spurgeon did not Compose Sacred Writ

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Research indicates, science shows (when someone uses one or both of those phrases, you know something is guaranteed to be a fact) that the English Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not write any portion of the Bible. In addition, books of his sermons cannot legitimately be considered as sacred writ.


Some people act like Charles H. Spurgeon wrote sacred text. We must compare his teachings, and that of others, with Scripture.

Someone may object, "I don't cotton to your insinuation that Spurgeon fans think that his writings are infallible!" Well, I did get your attention, didn't I? Now let this child 'spain hisself. I'm choosing Rev. Spurgeon as my first example because so many people admire him. Yes, the "Prince of Preachers" had some good things to say. Yes, professing Christians know that he didn't get a revelation brought by an angel on golden plates that is to be a third testament to the Bible. No, I do not dislike him. In fact, many people that I admire use his material. Right, Phil, Todd, Dr. Mac, Dr. James, and others?

I'm going to use something that falls into my area of study: long ages. Spurgeon rejected evolution [1 search for key word evolution], but embraced the concept that the earth is millions or billions of years old (because science says), and had some convoluted theology [2 search for key word III, the Roman numeral three]. I believe that in his day as well as now, pastors and theologians do not give a great deal of thought to how long ages and death before sin are damaging to the gospel message. This may have been the case with Charles. (Spurgeon, not Charles the Bearded Buddha of Evolution.) Apparently, his views on these subjects were not his focus, so quotes on them seem to be scarce.

People will appeal to authority as well as popularity; since many people admire Spurgeon, when his name is invoked, evangelical Christians tend to pay attention. Someone who is popular is used as "one of ours", for their views such as these sidewinders in the Old Earth camp who demonize biblical creationists [3], [4]. They use the name of Spurgeon in their efforts to bolster their compromising views. In addition, Spurgeon admirers may take his views of an old earth as authoritative, and not investigate the wealth of exegetical material for a young earth that exists today.

You look unconvinced. I have some other folks to mention, but with less detail.
  • Clive Staples (Jack) Lewis. Theistic evolutionists and old earthers think Lewis supports their views, but he actually opposed evolution [5]. Jack was a good apologist for the existence of God and refuted atheism, but he had some serious flaws in his theology.
  • Dr. William Lane Craig is devastating to atheism, but ridicules biblical creationists [6] and holds to the odd belief of Molinism [7].
  • Dr. Greg Bahnsen was also devastating to atheism and taught presuppositional apologetics. However, his views on Christian Reconstruction [7] are rejected by many other Christians. 
  • John Calvin had some involvements that are controversial, such as his dealing with Michael Servitus [8]. Someone tried to get me to reject Calvinism because of things Calvin said and did. No, I will accept or reject his teachings based on the Bible, not because of real or alleged character flaws. I heard an apologist who is a Calvinist take a call on his radio show and was challenged with a quote from John Calvin. He said that Calvin was wrong about that point. The caller was amazed that a Calvinist didn't accept everything Calvin said. I mentally applauded the apologist.
  • Martin Luther developed some unpleasant opinions about Jews later in life [9]. That is not a reason to espouse similar views about them, nor is it a valid reason to reject the entirety of his teachings.
Some folks seem to think that if Rev. Dr. Pastor Influential made a pronouncement, it must be right. That'll be the day! Spurgeon was wrong on both science and theology about the age of the earth. So is William Lane Craig. Both put man-made interpretations of science in the magisterial position above the Word of God. Similarly, we cannot accept biblical creation science because Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, David Coppedge or others say so. Whatever the subject, check your Bible and do some meaningful exegesis, old son.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Morality and Spy Stuff

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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


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

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

When is spying wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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


via GIPHY

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

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

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

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



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.



Sunday, January 1, 2017

Pondering My Legacy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We keep hearing about a "legacy" in these parts, especially when a president is ending, or has ended, a term in office. I don't rightly recollect hearing the word used until recent years, maybe with President Bill Clinton. What is a legacy? The first definition that Merriam-Webster gives involves bequeathed money or property, but that's clearly not what's being discussed. The second definition is: "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past". That's where we want to be.


Some people seek a legacy, but most of us will be forgotten. Except when we stand before Jesus Christ, then important things will be revealed.
Image credit: Morguefile /genieslot
Nobody is going to become wealthy from my financial legacy. 

In the bigger scheme of things, a legacy would be something substantial that was left behind, hopefully to benefit subsequent generations. That's the key to this article. Perhaps when someone's name is mentioned, it brings to mind that certain beneficial something. Unfortunately, people have left legacies that are negative: Bill Clinton was (and is) a philanderer, B. Hussein Obama will be remembered by many as a divisive, abortion-promoting, race-baiting leftist who considers his activities mirific, Fidel Castro as a brutal, murderous dictator. And so on.

It's been said that in 200 years, we will all have been forgotten. While there's a wealth of information on the Web, all information about people is not, cannot, be there. There are records for statesmen, but Secretary of State Henry Clay is not exactly someone that is instantly remembered, nor members of his family. Who were the nurses at Hartford Hospital when it opened in 1854? What was the name of that girl that sat in the back of the classroom when you were eight years old? I saw a list of celebrities (entertainers and political leaders) that died in 2016, and I wasn't all that stirred up. In 2010, shortly after I recommitted my life to Christ, I found out that Dana Key had died, and I cried a river. The DeGarmo and Key band had impacted my life, and I still have fond memories.

Fame and memories are fickle. It's been said that the good things we do are written in water, but the bad things are carved in stone. There's some truth in that, as positive things about people, famous or not, are frequently overshadowed by bad things they've done.

Some people want fame on the Web, whether writing brilliant articles or being vituperative sidewinders who seek to save "science" from biblical creationists. Web fame is elusive. Some jasper called PewDiePie said he'd delete his YouTube account if he got 50 million followers, reached that mark, it's still there three weeks later. I'd never heard of him until the story made social media news. There are other ways of seeking prestige, but we have to admit that it will all be gone someday.

I'd like to be remembered in a positive way, but if I am, those memories will fade as well. I think of people in my past that I've hurt years ago and hope they've forgiven me. Perhaps some of the good things I've done will not be entirely forgotten. Even so, I want to make an impact on people here and now with the gospel and the truth of biblical creation. Perhaps we'll meet in Heaven and I'll find out that I helped someone.

In The Dark Knight, Alfred told Bruce Wayne, "Some men just want to watch the world burn". Guess what? It will happen according to God's plan (2 Peter 3:10-11). We are all going to stand before Jesus Christ, and the works of believers will be revealed by fire (1 Cor. 3:12-15, Rom. 14:10-11), and those who reject Jesus have a terrifying destiny (Rev. 20:11-15 and 21:8, Matt. 25:41-46). I'll never be important and have a legacy on Earth. Big deal. The important thing is to please God.


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Saying What I Believe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Once again, I was inspired to write an article by listening to a podcast. A recent episode by Matt Walsh began with some introductory remarks that fit what I'm doing. I disremember if he used these words, but essentially, he's not going to carry water for the Republican party; if someone deserves criticism, he'll give it to them. Walsh likes to say what he thinks and believes, and believes that's the right way to go.


A personal glimpse at what happens in my writing and screening processes. The main point here is that I say what I believe, and don't do creation science for its own sake.
Image credit: Morguefile / Irish_Eyes
Although I'm a cowboy at heart and tend to take quick action when I feel it's necessary, I want to say what I believe; I want to think I'm doing that very thing. My calling is biblical creation science, but I'm not carrying water for all creation science ministries, individuals involved, or each article. There are some cults out there that claim to be biblical creationists, as well as greenhorns, and even folks that are just plain nuts, so there's no reason for me to support everything.

Most of what I share on The Question Evolution Project is something I've read, watched, or heard. Sure, I occasionally share something sight unseen because I think it needs to be posted quickly, but most of those come from sources that I trust. Even so, I usually check it out if I didn't beforehand.

Over at my main site, Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman, I try much harder to read or hear the articles that I'm featuring.

"How do you listen to articles, Cowboy Bob?"

Glad you asked. I send most of the articles I come into contact with to my e-book reader using a service that converts and formats them. Since I listen to many podcasts, I add articles to the list. Occasionally, I use an online service or Balabolka freeware that converts text to speech (TTS) and produces MP3s. (Dr. James White listens to converted books this way on his long bicycle rides.) Some of the more difficult articles, I listen to more than once, and even supplement the hearing with reading.

So anyway, my usual format at that site is Introduction/Excerpt/Link to read the rest of the article I'm featuring. Often, I supplement the item with my own thoughts, additional material, links, videos, and so on. But I don't want to give away too much information in my introductions. Sometimes, I get criticized for not backing up something I said in an introduction. Well, if'n y'all bothered to follow the link, you'd see what's going on.

Occasionally, I'll make a mistake, whether in my introduction sections or in my own articles. When I catch it, I try to fix it. (Some sidewinders will bite if I correct something, or complain if I did not correct something.) Although it's my Weblog or social media Page and I can do what I want, if something is changed or corrected after it's been out for a period of time, I think it's good to indicate that it's been edited. If it posted within a few minutes or hours, not so much. Longer periods of time, yes. Important content edits, definitely. F'rinstance, a post on human-chimpanzee genome similarities needed a big change, so I made one. I'll admit to tweaking wording when I realize I wrote something poorly, but feel no need to indicate editing.

Ever have those times that you have an inspiration and think it's going to be something great, and you lose it? I try to scratch out notes when I get an idea at the workplace, but even then, I've looked at them and drawn a blank; what in the world was I writing then? Here's an irony: I've never been able to stand South Park, don't think I've seen an entire episode, but I use "memes" from there on occasion. Like the one about the deposited money, "...aaand it's gone".



Kind of went off track and gave some "behind the scenes" material, didn't I? Still, it's about writing what I believe and what goes on in my writing processes.

People I respect and admire have written material that I dislike, have dealt with before, bring nothing new, or even disagree with. I'm not doing creation science for its own sake, and I won't turn the Pages at Facebook or Google Plus into what I call "link mills". Those guys call themselves "ministries", but they plaster any old thing up there, often quite a bit of stuff.

This brings us back to the beginning: I'll say what I believe. People will disagree, and I'll foul up on occasion or not rite goodly, but I'm striving to be intellectually honest. My purposes are to glorify God, to be obedient to his calling, and to edify the saints. And have a bit of fun now and then. Can't rightly do any of those things if I'm not presenting material that I think is false, now, can I? Not hardly!

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Errand Boy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 7-10-2016

Another installment from the "Personal Musings Department". Something that this cowboy-at-heart has in common with Dr. Who is in the 1969 episode of "The War Games", the final story for the second Doctor (Patrick Troughton). In Episode 8, Jamie McCrimmon asks why the Time Lords are angry with him. The Doctor replies, "Well, It is a fact, Jamie, that I do tend to get involved with things". Part of Jamie's reply is, "Aye, you can say that again". That seems to fit me rather well.

I want to present the truth, refute evolution, defend Christianity against heresy, and so on. Generally, I like to help people, especially in spiritual matters. People will post questions at The Question Evolution Project and occasionally on my "Public Figure" Facebook Pages. Great! Sometimes, I even know the answers myself. Other times, sorry, I just don't know. There are many resources available from people far more knowledgeable that I am, so I point to them.

Many of us who have biblical creation science ministries like to go above and beyond the usual to help people with questions. But we aren't experts in all fields. Nor are we on-call errand boys for people who do not want to do some of the work themselves.


However, there are times when it seems like some people want me to be their errand boy, and that kinda puts a burr under my saddle. This goes beyond helping someone out with a difficulty, especially since I have a full-time job and also put many hours into my creation ministry each week. Now, some people seem to have the idea that if someone has a biblical creation science ministry, he's an expert in all science matters. Not hardly! Even if I was a scientist, it would not mean that I'm qualified outside of my area of expertise. Same with other creationists. In fact, I've seen questions posted to scientists who had to defer because they had not studied on a particular topic.

One guy got all het up every time evolutionists announced "evidence", and wanted me to refute it. (I reckoned that he was afraid that something would come along and shatter his faith in God, and tried to tell him that while "evidence" changes all the time, the Christian's faith is in the unchanging Word of God.) Several things he was bothered about were addressed by creation scientists, others were rejected by evolutionists themselves. I didn't have time to chase down every story and self-train to be able to refute it. He had to learn how to stand up on his own hind legs, and see how evolutionists think, to learn how to reason through things, use available resources, remain calm, and to settle down and wait. Unfortunately, I had to cut him off.

Someone else wanted me to answer various spiritual matters. I did what I could, but when he began asking questions that were outside my realms of study, I deferred to others. Hope he wasn't angry.

Note to Christians: it's all right to say, "I don't know". Sure, atheists are likely to claim it is evidence that there is no God, but they usually reject what you have to say anyway because they're not really interested in answers. (On more than one occasion, when I gave in and provided material so they didn't have to research themselves, the response I received was the equivalent of, "I don't have to read it. You're still wrong. Narf!") Also, bluffing is a way to lose someone's respect, as well as dishonoring to God.

A recent encounter really took the rag off the bush. I was asked about some extremely technical matters regarding human and ape fossils. Hey, I'm no paleoanthropologist, so I gave him suggestions for places to search and to possibly contact the scientists on staff at those sites. He wasn't happy, and sent a chart with the message, "...A.sediba is a man (erectus) or an ape (afarensis)? Have a lot of characteristics from both, you can look here and see them..." No. I replied, "That gets into far more detailed specifics than I have ever dealt with, never heard of sediba. Anthropologists dispute these things all the time, and they have little evidence to support their claims. Again, I suggest the sites I provided earlier, search them out and maybe even use the contact form to ask." He then instructed me to search on sediba. What, so I could become an expert overnight? Not happening, old son. When I deferred again, he accused me of not being interested "in this stuff". When people get pushy, they're given the left foot of good fellowship.

Both Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International have contact forms. Each one has a section that says, in essence, "If you have theological or scientific questions, please search the site before submitting your questions, as we may have already dealt with the subject. Indeed, CMI has had occasionally addressed remarks and pointed out that items had been answered. This happened in the Feedback article, "Wagging a finger at creationists", where Keaton Halley said in his response, "Our submission form asks you to search our website before submitting feedback, yet your main points have already been addressed on creation.com many times".

At the risk of overstepping my bounds, those of us with creation science ministries are willing to help when we can, but we have limits and many of us have jobs and other activities. As for me, I follow the lead of the large ministries and try to get people to think critically. Also, I think others will agree with me that people need to so some searching, especially on the big creation science ministry sites. Facebook? Lousy to search. Other sites have a search function. But even things like my "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman" have a search function as well, and from there, more often than not there are links to help out inquirers. Helpful hint: using Google, you can be specific by typing your search term followed by site:[full site name].

Many of us are willing to help by answering questions and providing resouces. As for me, I'm not an on-call errand boy for people who are unwilling to do some work themselves.


Saturday, April 16, 2016

What If I'm Right?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

No, this isn't a form of Pascal's Wager. I just got to speculating one day.

Eschatology is not my strong point. I'll hear arguments from Amillennialists and Preterists (not the hyperpreterist heretics, though) that make some good points. However, I believe that the Premillennialist pre-tribulation rapture position is the strongest. Unfortunately, there are professing Christian sanctimonious tinhorns in various camps who take the "Premillennialism is a heresy that must be refuted" view. Not interested. Some even use the appeal to motive fallacy of "Pretribs just want to escape, so they want to sit around doing nothing while they wait for Jesus to come and take them away". I don't cotton to the opposite happening, either. That's no way for Christians to act! Have rational discussions, if you please.


Last Judgement endtimes prophesies society
"The Last Judgement" by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1904
Seems like through the ages, people have been saying that civilization is going downhill, that children were more respectful, less honesty, more violence in the world, that kind of thing. Then the observation is dismissed. But I believe it's true. The world is a far more dangerous place, and it's spiraling downward. Although atheists will misrepresent and even lie outright by saying that there is no persecution of Christians, it is happening — and increasing. One small example is the way Facebook treats Christians while coddling atheists, Mohammedans, homosexuals, leftists, and so on.

Scripture tells us this would happen (Luke 6:22, Matt. 24:9, John 16:33, 1 Thess. 1:6, Heb. 10:33, 1 Peter 4:12-19, 2 Tim. 3:12). We're not hated by the world because of who we are (except obnoxious people who bring it on themselves), but because the world hates God in us. All through the Bible, believers are instructed to good to all, including our enemies (Luke 6-27-31, Gal. 6:10, Prov. 25:22, Lev. 19:34). Unbelievers do not have such instruction, and tacitly or overtly agree with Anton Lavey's Satanic command, "Let no wrong go unredressed". 

I reckon I need to say that biblical creationists are despised by not only atheists (because evolutionism is a foundation for their worldview), but also by theistic evolutionists, old Earth advocates, and other false teachers. One thing they have in common is disdain for the authority of the Word of God, so they join up in attacking us. 

Although they hate us, atheists and other unbelievers will be in a world of hurt when the Rapture hits after the coming apostasy. We are salt and light in the world, and when we're gone, so will the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit, who is within us. It will be as in the days of Noah, "...and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5, also see Matt. 24:27-39, 2 Peter 3:3-7). Things are bad now, getting worse, and they'll become terrible. Sounds like part of the Great Tribulation to me.

In those days, there will be converts to Jesus, witnessing, persecution, angels, trumpets, opening seals, bowls of wrath, and martyrdom (Rev. 6:9-11). This will not stop the devolution of the world, then comes the final Judgement. That's going to be a busy time! The Rapture, Tribulation, the resurrection of all to be judged, where some are judged for their good works and some are judged to damnation.

I'd like to think that things I've written will give testimony to Christ after I'm gone, but let's face it, those will probably be destroyed. Registered domains will expire, and I can imagine a "politically correct" movement deleting whatever can be found on the Web that proclaims repentance and Jesus, the only way to salvation.

What if I die before the Rapture? I know for a fact that there are atheopaths who will rejoice greatly (including one who wants Hell to be real so I'll go there — amazing how someone who rejects God thinks he's an expert on the Bible, then misuses it). I've seen misotheists celebrating the deaths of Christians. Aside from that, my position is secured. Jesus was crucified for my sins and bodily rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:3-11). So I'm going to be with him.

What if you die, or are on Earth after we're gone? Without Jesus, your eternal future is dismal (Rev. Rev. 21:8, Rev. 21:27). All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve death, but God offers us the gift of life (Rom. 6:23). We can all be children of God (John 1:12-13) by grace, thorough faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Denying God's existence is irrational, as is trying to earn our way into Heaven by our works or religious ceremonies. None of us know when our last hour is happening. Being a Christian is hard work, and there are persecutions (as I've stated), so I'm not giving a silly "Accept Jesus and be happy all the time" thing. No, we need to repent of our sins and receive Jesus Christ by faith.

You may laugh and mock at this whole picture, as many do. But what if I'm right?

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Question Evolution Day and my CMI Article



by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It's kind of fun to give a bit of background information, and I believe that people like some of the personal stuff.

Whenever something is submitted for publication, it needs to meet guidelines, and is subject to editing. (Probably the only "pure" way to get your content exactly the way you wrote it is to put it on your own Weblog.) I have thousands of posts and articles on my own Weblogs, but have had only a few published by organizations. Aside from letters to newspaper editors, I think my first publication was in the May 1991 Bible-Science Newsletter (PDF scan available here), which is now Creation Moments. Surprisingly, that one was published "as is".

Other items I wrote for people that were edited, and even had some collaboration, such as at 101 Arguments. My submissions to Michigan Bicyclist Magazine in the late 1990s had a mix, some were edited, one was mostly "as is". Another printed publication was so heavily edited that I barely recognized it! Another printed publicationThere was an article that I submitted to Creation Ministries International a spell back, and it didn't fit their needs. Reading it later, I realized it was a good thing they passed on it. This time, they accepted my article. Yes, there was some editing, including improvements and some added content. I'm pleased with the final outcome. If you want to see that, click on "The Importance of Question Evolution Day — A grassroots movement that anyone can support".

So, there you have it. When you submit for publication, you need to meet guidelines, have content that they like, and you can expect editing. As for me, perhaps I'll be able to submit material for publication and actually get paid for it. But I'll still submit unpaid material for causes that I believe in.

 

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Dinosaurs in the Bible

Were there dinosaurs in the Bible? Yes. Here are some links to very interesting material.

This subject has been coming up more frequently, as far as I can tell.

Podcasts with Michael Boehm and David Harrison, "Did Dinosaurs and Man Coexist?"

Here are two posts on this that I have done that link to interesting articles:

If you go to biblical creation science sites, you can search and find more articles on them.


Thursday, July 2, 2015

Taking a Stand for Biblical Truth Regarding Same-Sex "Marriage"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In today's political climate where tolerance has been redefined to mean acceptance, it is risky to stand for biblical truth. Especially regarding homosexual lifestyles and "marriage". People can lose their social media accounts, lose friendships, lose fellowship with liberal Christians, lose their jobs, alienate family members, get sued, and, in some cases, get arrested for "hate speech". Post something some people don't like, they get "offended" and show that those who call for "tolerance" are actually intolerant hypocrites because we can't express our views.

Click for larger
I know that I am taking a risk by saying that homosexuality is a sin. Despite Joel Osteen and other Rev. Dr. Feelgood preachers, Jesus never promised us an easy time of being a disciple. (I used to have a picture of Jesus with the caption, "I never said it would be easy. I only said it would be worth it". Not exactly scriptural, but still true.) On June 27 2015, I wrote an extensive article with over 30 links, and made adjustments on the 28th (plus an addendum today, July 2). It was published on Monday, June 29. This puts me on record, and also my online ministry, "The Question Evolution Project". Sure, I can lose supporters (not financial, I do not seek or accept contributions), and have other difficulties. That's the price.

Hopefully, people will use the links for research and a fuller understanding of what the Bible says about homosexuality, what God intended at creation, and that homosexual "marriage" is a misnomer. I'll say again here something I said in the article, that the Supreme Court ruling and same-sex marriage has nothing to do with "love", that's just an emotional manipulation trick. To see the links-o-riffic article, click on "Homosexual "Marriage", Creation, and the Bible".
  

Friday, June 26, 2015

Interview on "A View from the Bunker"


Maybe he's scrounging for material, but Derek Gilbert allowed me back on his show.
SCIENTISTS HAVE found–not for the first time–blood and soft tissue inside dinosaur bones. How is it that tissue that decomposes in at most 2.7 million years (when frozen) can remain fresh inside 65-75 million year old fossils?

Cowboy Bob Sorensen, creator of the Question Evolution Project, joins us to discuss the evidence (including Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones) and some of the logical fallacies of Darwinists. See Bob’s other resources at PiltdownSuperman.com.
It can be heard or downloaded at "VFTB 253: Cowboy Bob Sorensen – Dinosaur Blood".

Monday, June 1, 2015

Landing Space

The last thing I need is another Weblog, but there are several reasons for making this one. It will be a landing space for people who want to know about the various places that I write posts and articles ("Piltdown Superman" is my most active). The list of pages at the top are where I'm currently active, and I will be adding a few more, including my Christian testimony, maybe a "best of", as well as some others. This is www.cowboybobsorensen.com, and www.robertsorensen.net redirects here.

No, I don't think I look like Rembrandt's scholar.
A rather lengthy testimony will be posted at a later date, but I'll tell you a little about myself. Some people put me on their enemies lists, since I am a Bible-believing Christian, biblical ("young earth") creationist, use Scripture and science to refute evolution, have a presuppositional apologetics streak (there is no "leave the Bible out of this and use neutral ground" in me), and politically Conservative. Lots of reasons for some people to hate me.

I have a job (some people lied and said I make money doing my writing — not hardly!), and my social media policy is far stricter than my employer's policy: nobody needs to know where I work. It's best for all that way. I founded "The Question Evolution Project", so you can consider that my employer. In addition, I founded "Question Evolution Day" (annually on February 12, Darwin's birthday), which was inspired by the "Question Evolution Campaign" of Creation Ministries International.

Reckon I should tell you some terms. I've written thousands of posts and articles, and deleted quite a few on my oldest Weblog, "Stormbringer's Thunder", that were outdated, political, or just plain bad. The difference by my way of thinking is that a post is short, and often is an introduction to an article I want people to see. An article is something that I've put more effort into, and I usually put my name on it. This here thingie is a post. 

By the way, the "cowboy" moniker... Yeah, I lived out West: the west side of Michigan. No, someone commented and called me "Cowboy Bob". I thought about it, and realized that I'm a cowboy at heart; some real cowboys confirmed that. At my father's funeral, I heard some tributes being paid to him, and realized that he was a cowboy at heart as well. Anyway, this cowboy lived his first 40 years in Michigan, and now is in Kingston, New York.

A note about my graphics. Sure do wish people would pay attention, just because an image is on the Web doesn't mean that anyone can do with it what they please. However, there are numerous "free to use" and public domain images that people can find without violating copyright laws. See "Images on the Web — An Appeal to Caution". One "iffy" area for me is the use of "meme" generators. Be careful with those. Their stock items are all over the place, and seem to be fair game, but anyone can upload an image and put a caption on it, so I recommend leaving those user-added images well alone.

That's enough nattering on for now.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen