Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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. 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

For a long time, the British Broadcasting Corporation was a trusted news source, and respected around the world. It's a mix nowadays. Some news is accurate, but quite often, the BBC shows a leftist bias.  On a side note, I was scolded by a miscreant for stating that the BBC was leftist and providing three supporting links . As expected, he retaliated. In this case, he dismissed two of the links because they were of the Daily Telegraph, a news source that is considered moderate, but he called "right wing". He ignored the content that was linked. Ironically, the third link that he ignored was indeed to a news organization with a Conservative bias. Let's get back on the trail we were riding, shall we? Credit: Freeimages /  Paul Pasieczny The BBC wanted to give people an educational quiz. It had seven questions with only true or false answers. No multiple choice, no shades of gray, no blanks to fill in, no essays. Since some folks are resistant to materialisti

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. 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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 9-18-2017 After I get this here article done, I am going to submit it to the Irony Board for approval. Unfortunately, the words irony, ironic and related words are greatly overused, and often incorrectly. I've been confused myself because of seeing many instances of, "This is ironic..." that may or may not have been used correctly. Seems that quite a few people are uncertain about the proper usage, and there is a site where someone can ask if something is ironic . What is the real meaning? The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as , "a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result". But irony has several meanings and applications, which includes using it as a literary device. Using this picture of iron in an article about irony is a play on words, it is not ironic. Credit: Pixabay / ptdh . I've been accused of unintended irony against myself on

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen To celebrate the fifth annual Question Evolution Day , I thought it would be helpful to revisit a logical fallacy that is often used by the Darwinistas. It should be well understood that science thrives on challenge so that a hypothesis or theory can be revised when unsupported by evidence — or discarded entirely. Unfortunately, evolutionary owlhoots often try to lock away contrary evidence, especially when it points to the Creator. Can't have that, it interferes with naturalistic presuppositions . Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave Among the logical fallacies that anti-creationists employ is the fallacy of exclusion. (For an earlier article with a funny video I did on this subject, click here .) This fallacy has variations and different names, including cherry picking, suppressed evidence, card stacking, incomplete evidence, and more. Many people believe in scum-to-scientist evolution because they are simply not given all the evidence. Making a conjec

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 ".