Showing posts with label Question Evolution Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Question Evolution Day. Show all posts

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Conspiracy Theories, Creation, and Reason — Part 1

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

For the tenth annual Question Evolution Day, we will examine striking similarities between some outlandish conspiracy theories and evolutionary thinking. Readers of Piltdown Superman saw that evolutionists freely use logical fallacies, and these are plentiful in the most outlandish conspiracy theories.

10th annual Question Evolution Day. Many people believe conspiracy theories, quite a few of which are outlandish. We can examine poor reasoning that are common to these and evolution.
Variation based on one of the early graphics for QED
In my biblical creation science work, I've learned quite a bit about logic. I'll allow that I still have more to learn. Many aspects of logic are actually quite simple to lasso, such as basic errors in reasoning. We expect scientists to use logic and science to back up their claims, but critical thinking becomes very important when examining dubious evidence about minerals-to-miner evolution. The same can be applied to conspiracy theories.

We can be bombarded with reports about various conspiracy theories, and they crop up in all sorts of areas. It's mighty tempting to ask the people who float some of them, "Do you take drugs?" Many stories seem to be the products of bored kids in dorm rooms, but others do have a grain of truth that has been inflated. To add to the confusion, some conspiracy theories have more truth than fantasy, so people need to be wary and glean fact from fiction.

The Villains

Who are the bad guys? I reckon it depends on who is spinning the yarn. When it comes to conspiracies about who pulls the strings on governments, it is often the Freemasons. There is far too much material to cover here about their history (real or imagined), connections to Jesuits, and so on. The Freemasons do exist, though many members (my father was a Master Mason) reject it has false religion at its core. It is an old organization with rituals and such, but many people considered it just another service guild and a place to meet people. If the Freemasons are not behind shadowy secret thing, it must be...

Anunnaki image:
Wikimedia Commons / 
Cosmo Gandi
The Illuminati. Do they really exist? Again, it depends on who you ask. There was a Bavarian Illuminati group long ago, and there are others who claim to be the Illuminati since then. They were a secret guild who would infiltrate other groups, including the Freemasons, and apparently the Bavarian Freemasons had dreams of world dominance. The "okay" hand sign is one of their 666 signals — no, it means white supremacy — no, it's obscene in Brazil — no (I stand by this) it just means "okay". How about George W. Bush flashing the hand sign in front of millions of people? In reality, he was doing the "hook 'em Horns" sign, not signaling Illuminati Satanism.

Although I touched on two of the main villains, a third is fun. This sounds like something out of modern science fiction television shows, but the roots are actually quite ancient. Modern stories tell of the Anunnaki, our reptilian masters and creators from outer space who alter our DNA, and that they are behind COVID. The Anunnaki are working with the Illuminati (or even controlling them), and somehow the gray aliens are involved. You may be Anunnaki yourself. Of course, the mythologies change depending on who is telling them.

Other Oddities

Don't forget the political versions! These include the 9-11 "truthers" who believe the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, that Donald Trump will have a triumphant return because the formerly United States reverts from being a corporation to a constitutional republic, B. Hussein Obama can control the weather so he makes tornadoes happen as distractions from his failings, ad nauseum.

Flat-Earthers who believe that the United Nations, NASA, and others conspire to fool us that the world is round. Some believe Antarctica is really a wall of ice around the perimeter but is guarded so nobody finds out the truth. There are professing Christians who believe that they are the ones who believe the Bible and the rest of us are wrong — or lying.

Did you know that Australia doesn't really exist? Nobody has actually been there because planes were rerouted to other countries or stages. Guess NASA photos are doctored, huh? I didn't know about this one when I wrote my satire on how the British Isles don't exist.

There was a considerable flap about CERN and the Large Hadron Collider a spell back. Some folks thought it spelled the end of the world, even bringing in evil gods or just a salute to pagan mythologies. Those who believe such things weren't willing to consider that mayhaps it was exactly what was stated.

There are far to many to name.

Why do these things Happen?

It is easy to assume motives behind some of these, whether hoaxers who want to cause a stir, deceivers with agendas, sincere but mistaken people, hatred of well-heeled folks (ever know a poor person to give you a job?), and so on. I have an opinion that people want to feel important, so they join the "right" church denomination, believe trendy or startling things, and so on. Motives are between them and God, because we don't know what's in their hearts and minds. You savvy that, pilgrim? We can suspect, but cannot assert our opinions on these things as facts.

Grains of Truth

Arsenio Hall had a segment on his show about "Things that make you go, 'Hmmm'". Although I never saw it, that phrase comes to mind once in a while. There are grains of truth in many conspiracy theories that seem rational and sometimes make us wonder if there may be something to them after all. To add to the confusion, some conspiracy theories seem credible.

The Illuminati did exist, and there is even an "official" website. Freemasons are still around and have secret rituals. CERN does have some occult imagery involved. Many people think that Donald Trump can still emerge victorious, especially since evidence for massive voter fraud is evident to any rational person. (By the way, how did B. Hussein Obama, an undistinguished do-nothing community organizer, become the emperor of America? Hmmm...) The Anunnaki were gods in ancient mythologies, but this child finds it mighty difficult to take the huge conspiracy theories about them seriously.

The Logic is Lacking

There is a great deal of appeal to emotions hitched up with these speculations. People like sensational things and to feel like they have special knowledge. Something creationists keep emphasizing is the use of critical thinking, which applies in everyday areas. Asking pertinent questions is helpful, such as "How do you know?" Check the sources. A friend in an area of importance spoke to my cousin's mother-in-law on conditions of anonymity. Leftist media have people believing anonymous highly-placed officials made certain statements. We should demand more than vague assertions.

Confirmation of theories and speculations are found on obscure websites (such as those I linked above regarding the reptilian overlords) and social media. I'll allow that it can be tricky, as evolutionists misrepresent biblical creation science and the Intelligent Design community, and the media have a leftist bias. Even so, I recommend being careful with obscure sources that tell people what they want to hear. Note that when you confront a conspiracy advocate with contrary evidence about outlandish claims, the response is invariably along the lines of, "That's what they want you to think!", and that the conspiracists have the real truth.

A common error in logic is affirming the consequent, which is common among purveyors of Darwinism (see "Brain Development and Faulty Evolutionary Logic"). When something is observed, it can be couched in "See? I told you so!" terminology without regard to other facts. A Hindu works at CERN, therefore, they are attempting to contact demons. It's admittedly a weak example, but you get the idea. A part of this is presenting their explanation as the only one. This happens with evolutionists who say that because certain organisms have features in common, it proves evolution. Common features also indicate the work of a Designer who used similar methods.

"But I saw it on YouTube, Cowboy Bob!"

Yes, people can "prove" practically anything there and other places with carefully-selected material, possibly manipulated, and with tendentious evidence. For that matter, I saw a video of a "shape-shifter" where it looked like the reporter was turning into a lizard, but they cut back and she was normal again. Someone pointed out that she must have had "shape-shifting" clothing as well. This was taken as evidence that aliens live among us, but the ignored logical answer was video distortion.

Readers of Piltdown Superman have seen how interpretations of evidence are based on worldviews and assumptions. Evolutionists presuppose molecules-to-Master Mason evolution, then believe their biases are confirmed by incomplete or dubious evidence. Indeed, one of the Annunaki links above mentions a proponent of the concept using the discredited "reptile brain" of our alleged evolution for evidence! 

They have been known to ignore and even misrepresent important information. This is not in keeping with the true spirit of scientific inquiry, but the naturalism narrative is more important than facts for many people. The Anunnaki material presupposes several things, including an old earth and evolution. Worse, the Bible was twisted to "support" those space critters.

Thinking Should not be Hard

These s00per seekrit organizations supposedly cherish "secrets" that many people "know", such as hand signals. A saying attributed to Ben Franklin is that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. People are lousy at keeping secrets, especially if their consciences are operational. Study on this: to say the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, people are hiding the flat-Earth truth, fake Australia — these would depend on huge numbers of people ignoring their consciences and never coming forward to admit the cover-ups. Also, this impugns the integrity of those people, many of whom are Bible-believing Christians. All of this includes denying real evidence.

Being human (except for my reptilian ancestry), it puts a burr under my saddle when encountering 9/11 "truthers", purveyors of faked lunar landings, and other fanatics. I've banned or blocked them on social(ist) media. Other things are easier to deal with because I may not agree, they are usually not attacking the character of decent people.

Healthy skepticism is in order. For that matter, some people need to cowboy up and repent of believing foolishness that can be hurtful to others. People must use critical thinking and examine the evidence. Now my pony and I have to mount up and teleport to Area 51 because there are things to cover up.

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.



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.



Monday, February 12, 2018

Question Evolution Day and My First Video Interview

Although it is unlikely that anyone is interested, it is kind of fun for me to give background on some things that are old hat to many people. I seldom use Skype, and installed it in the first place for a media interview — if I recollect rightly. Bryan Melugin runs the site A Bit of Orange and posts videos under that name. I had posted several of his videos and articles at The Question Evolution Project, and we had corresponded a few times.

Late in 2017, he contacted me about doing a video interview. He had done several others, and he takes them, splits them into smaller bits, does some editing, and presents them to the world. When he asked me, I was going through some rough patches and had things to deal with, so I said it would have to be later. We also had some scheduling conflicts, as both of his have jobs.




It worked out that I had Monday, January 29, 2018 off from work so I could take care of some medical stuff in the morning. (It involved fasting, which I learned later was unnecessary, but that spoils the first part of my day.) We were able to connect two hours after my appointment, and had a good discussion.

Where am I supposed to look? My video camera is attached to the top of the monitor, but I want to look at the person I'm talking to out of habit. The image you see above is similar to what I had on Skype, but reversed; Bryan was large, I was small and on the right. But there was another small video of Bryan as well, and I moved it to the top so I could look at him instead of giving the camera a Bill Nye Death Stare®.

In the past, the interviewer would tell me when we're starting to record. Bryan was recording all along, so that is why you can see me being rude by fiddling around, finding things, getting situated. You can tell later on in the video that I was aware that we were doing the thing for real, and not just setting up. Also, my usual shakiness was more pronounced because of the fasting and pre-video session hassles.

Not my best moments, and I don't know what will be included in the additional segments, but we all have to start somewhere, you savvy? Maybe Bryan will use my funny voices, including my Clint Eastwood impression, "The good and the bad left town. You got me". Or something like that. It didn't work, though, Clint was the "good", not the "ugly" in the movie. I have no illusions about myself.

We had fun and it was a good discussion — much more than he can use in the video series, I'm sure. EDIT: My articles for this year's Question Evolution Day are below.



Evolution, Discrimination, and Freedom from Thought
Genetic Tampering, Ethics, and Evolution
Ten Lies Satan Tells to Biblical Creationists
Question Evolution, Face the Fury

Friday, February 12, 2016

Question Evolution Day and Evolutionists Suppressing Evidence

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 conjecture sound plausible is common in the evolutionary community (especially its press), and people get mighty surprised when creationists give them information that was withheld.

People tend to "fill in the blanks" when they do not have enough information and they have their own biases. There's a commercial in the US that shows a man talking on the telephone at 3 AM, and his wife assumes her husband is cheating on her. She filled in the blanks from limited evidence and assumptions. Believing evolutionary stories can seem reasonable, but you don't have all the evidence. This brings to mind Proverbs 18:17.

Here is a bit of humor to emphasize the point. Know any other creationist writers that have used the Three Stooges? Here's a bit of background trivia. The act began in the late 1920s, using Shemp as one of the Stooges. He left the act, and Curly took over in 1934. Curly got sick and never recovered, so Shemp came back into the act. I'll leave the rest of the history out of this, because the bit I'm focusing on is the 1949 short, Malice in the Palace, which fell into public domain. (Sony made a colorized version, which is under copyright.) We have an excellent example of people filling in the blanks. They see Larry holding a meat cleaver and carrying a dog and a cat at different times, hear chopping noises and animal yelps, and make unpleasant conclusions that seem entirely reasonable. After some further slapstick silliness, the rest of the evidence presents itself and the people abandon those conclusions.

Think you know the whole story about evolution evidence? Not hardly! That's where biblical creationists come in and give information that is withheld. Now, here's the funny Three Stooges bit, edited down from the original 15-1/2 minutes to 5-1/2 minutes. Watch them flinch during the chopping sounds. Then there's an excellent music video by ApologetiX afterward.