Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Monday, January 11, 2021

Silencing President Trump and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article is going to cover a few shocking points that should be of concern to people who value free speech. Donald Trump and I are best buddies — yeah, like he knows that I even exist. But we do have a few things in common regarding censorship.

I have said for years there are striking similarities between leftists and atheists. What is happening to Trump parallels the experiences Christians.
Made at PhotoFunia

I was riding the Fakebook trail one night in March of 2013 when I was suddenly booted. Huh? They demanded proof of my age! After complying, I was told, 

Upon investigation, we have determined that you are ineligible to use Facebook. You can view our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities at the following address: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Unfortunately, for safety and security reasons, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final.

Thanks for your understanding

Security reasons? Oh, please!

Upon searching, this has happened to other people as well. They did not receive explanations or reinstatement, either. I thought it was a fluke, so I changed the name on an auxiliary account to my real name and created a new one. Terminated again. Lather, rinse, repeat, including a name under Sorrenson Roberts.

Pay attention now: each account was used in discussions on a certain atheopathic Page, but my other accounts that have lasted for years were not used there and still exist. My reluctant conclusion (I am condensing this) is that Facebook has atheists in power, or the atheopaths on that Page knew someone in power who could silence me. My other accounts are doing fine. Interestingly, my Cowboy Bob Sorensen author Page is still standing.

By the way, apparently atheism is a religion according to Fakebook (and also in reality) and must be protected by them. Curtis was not told which of their community double-standards he violated, so it had to be religion. This has happened to others as well:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

President Donald J. Trump was deplatformed by Fakebook and Twitface. As far as leftists are concerned, he is a lame duck. But no, they want to destroy him under the excuse that he "incited violence". That's a lie. Leftists want to destroy him! This is evinced in many ways, including the attempt at another baseless impeachment.

They also want to destroy his supporters as well. Since I wrote this article (which also has supporting links), there are already reports of punishing Republicans and Conservatives. Take a look at this example of absurdity. By being a public figure who is a while male, Christian, biblical creationist, Conservative, heterosexual, I have probably made myself unemployable. Because leftist reasons and stuff.

Christians and Conservatives have been, and are being, deplatformed frequently. That's why alternatives are springing up.

There are many ways to silence an opponent. While the Biden-Harris death squads cannot come to my door and put a bullet in my head yet, leftists and other totalitarians use other things. In the past, it was to control the media and communications. Since the left controls the mainstream media, they attempt to shut down other news outlets and alternative social media, such as Parler.

In astonishing levels of incoherent "logic", feral evolutionists attacked me because of my political views. Red herring, ad hominem, straw man — I've had them all mixed together. This is because they could not refute the creation science articles that I posted.

Another tactic is infiltration, pretending to be a person or group that you hate. The monoliths that were cropping up were fun (I hope there are more in the future), but one was destroyed by a mob that, I believe, nobody in their right unbigoted mind would think is actual Trump supporters or Christians (see this clip, which is supposed to begin at 10 min. 38 sec. after you press the play button). In my own experience, atheists have pretended to be Christians and even creationists for the sake of arguing and promoting evolutionism. It's who they are and what they do, whether attacking political or Christian opponents. 

If leftists, atheists, evolutionists, and others had the truth on their side, would they need to resort to lies, fraud, violence, and silencing the opposition? Not hardly! And don't try to tell me that there is not a spiritual component to all of this: many atheists and evolutionists are leftists.

A simpler method is to simply negate what the other side has to say. "Fact checkers" have lied about the evidence. Other times, they simply appeal to someone who is popular as a false authority that agrees with their biases. Chris Plante says that the leftist media is so powerful that they can simply refuse to report on a story and pretend the truth doesn't exist.

There is something I had forgotten and received important reminders: no matter who is in authority, whether a real or illegitimate President, whether real or cheated elections, God is in ultimate authority. We must trust him. Sure, God works through people to accomplish his will, but he is ultimately in charge. All world leaders will ultimately have to stand before him, and his judgment is righteous and unfailing.

I have been saying for years that the tactics of the left bear a striking similarity to what happens to Christians and creationists by atheists and evolutionists. I know I sound like Mayor Maywho, "Did anyone listen to me? No!", but the facts are readily apparent. This should be more obvious in my planned Question Evolution Day article on February 12.

Friday, December 11, 2020

The Unwarranted Thrill of Mobile Devices

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Creation Science and the Age of the Earth

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


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

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

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

Thursday, July 11, 2019

A Bane of Social Media

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While there are several frustrating things on social media, one stands out from the herd. That is when people are compelled to comment without having read the posts or articles. The worst part is when people who post things are told they're wrong, stupid, lying, whatever, by people who have not bothered to read the material. Answers to objections and questions are often contained in the linked articles.


One problem on social media seems to stand out from the rest. A little experiment helped support my position.
Image provided by Why?Outreach
Sometimes people will read the few sentences of introduction that are placed to encourage people to read the actual article, and they seem to feel that they are well enough informed to comment. Not usually.

Now don't be disunderstanding me, most of us who make posts are not expecting everyone to read everything. Also, a stand-alone captioned picture is an invitation for comments. (People who are aware of my posts and articles may have noticed that I seldom use a question as a title in hopes that people will actually read the linked material before commenting. A question can be taken as an invitation to comment without reading.) This kind of commenting is seen throughout social media, including Fazebook, Twitface, weblogs, and more. 

In fact, I've embarrassed myself by reading something too quickly, commenting, and being informed that my query was addressed after all.



Not too long ago, I posted an article about the value of vaccinations. Many people were outraged, and I saw Proverbs 18:13 validated before my eyes. They did not want to read the material, even castigating me for writing it. Worse, there was no interest in actually reading the material that I wrote or the detailed articles that were linked. Apparently, people were locked in by their emotions and the "facts" that they already believed from anti-vaxxers and similar groups (see Proverbs 18:17).

I had a bit of an experiment a spell back. On Facebook at The Question Evolution Project, I posted an item called "Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One". We had many comments by people who were angry at atheists, but didn't notice the source: The Babylon Bee, a "Christian news satire" site.



Here is where I want to make another point. People tend to accept what they read when the material confirms their biases or assumptions without checking the source. Good satire can be hard to distinguish from actual reports, and this one about the atheist accurately described how many of them act. Some of the people commenting on the post knew that it was a parody site, but others lashed out at the "atheist" in the story. I was letting it go, but another Admin stepped in and made it clear in the comments area that the content was satire.

Care should be used when getting material from unknown sites. You can find material that "proves" ghosts, UFOs, that the Anunnaki are our ancient reptilian masters from outer space working with the Illuminati, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, atheists, geocentrists, King James Onlyists, and more. Often, the name of the site or the weblog can prompt a reader or researcher to find more reliable sources. I lack belief that sites like that consider material that does not fit their narratives. God gave us minds, and he expects us to use them.



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.