Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Smoking that Doobie, Brother

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many countries, especially on the western side of the Atlantic, have decriminalized cannabis (weed, pot, doobies, grass, smoke, reefer, whatever) and legalized it for medical use. Many places have made recreational use legal as well. Even where illegal, enforcement of laws is often sporadic.

Cannabis is becoming legal in many places. However, there are scientific and other facts that are coming out that indicate legalization is a bad idea.

And there was great rejoicing among pot smokers. In fact, here in not-all-that-far-upstate New York, cops don't care. Polly Pothead in the apartment next door was chugging away so much, the smoke could be seen not only in the hallway, but seeped into our own apartment. Police did nothing. That was before it was legal, but her usage is the same as before; smoking wacky tobaccy just wasn't important enough to enforce the law. Also, she's a terrible conversationalist.

One article I found in my research mentioned that Mary Jane was originally illegal because it is harmful. (Oh, come on! Don't get a burr under your saddle. You know it's true. People who argue for its medical and recreational use cite dubious sources almost as much as a village atheist cites other atheists that have "evidence" against creation science. If nothing else, our Creator didn't design us to inhale burning leaves.) Something that was considered harmful is now legalized because governments see money in it.

People are sold a bill of goods about how marilizing legajuana will boost the economy and provide massive tax revenues. That isn't working out nearly as well as they expected. The underground economy, like the Democrat Party, doesn't want the swamp drained. That is, dealers are used to doing sneaky stuff and not paying taxes, and it's cheaper to get it from Jake the Snake than from Ye Olde Cannabis Emporium, you savvy?

Comparisons are made between grass and alcohol, as may be expected. These are not valid, however, despite some credible points that are raised  —

I'm going to change horses in midstream. Let's see what happens. When I say smoker, I'll be referring to a cannabis user. Drinker refers to alcohol, whether, beer, wine, spirits, or whatever.

  • You can't drive stoned, Sebastian. Impaired driving is a problem whatever the cause, and crying, "But it's legal now!" won't cut it.
  • Workplaces have a right to prohibit the use of loco weed just like alcohol; you can't show up to work while stoned. I sure don't want a buzzed plumber or surgeon taking care of my needs. I lack belief that anyone else would want to pay a stoner for important work.
  • People pushing to make marijuana legal appeal to medicinal use. But like evolutionists, they acted like their approach is the only approach, citing other biased advocates for support. The formulas for recreational and medicinal usages are different.
  • Standardization of pot is a crapshoot. A drinker in the formerly United States knows that there are standards, and the alcohol content is on the label somewhere, usually hovering around five percent for beer.
  • Drinking and smoking (which includes tobacco) are bad for young people. They are still developing, and those things cause permanent damage.

On a side note, I remember being a cashier and ringing up single packs of cigarettes for fifty cents each, and $4.35 USD for a carton of ten. In many places, they are about ten dollars a pack. Most of that is taxes. I reckon that putting warning labels on the package that they're harmful to your health makes it okay to subsidize and tax something that is harmful, huh?

When I posted "Cannabis and the Christian", a surprising number of religious folks argued that they have the "right" to have it, and it should be legal. Some even had complaints that resembled the abortion proponent who says, "My body, my choice". I believe they simply wanted to get high and made excuses to be a stoner while professing to be a Christian. This is taking Christian liberty far beyond what God intended. Look up what the Bible says about drunkenness and apply the principle to pot and other mind-altering substances.

There have been many problems with legalizing marijuana. Interesting how certain scientific facts as well as other contradictions to the claims of pot advocates are in abundance, but the doobie-smoking public is unknowing or uncaring.

God created bodies for health. One should expect problems when policies compromise health for pleasure and money.

It wasn’t that long ago that marijuana (now called cannabis after its genus name Cannabis sativa) was considered bad. It was an illegal drug, considered a gateway drug to harder, more addictive drugs like heroin. Private growers reminiscent of the old “moonshiners” in the days of Prohibition made it available, and drug smugglers ensured ample supplies made it past border guards. Some argued that legalization would remove the incentives for smuggling; then governments could regulate it and tax it.

Powerful special interest groups have been pushing for decriminalization first, then outright legalization next. Their success is to the point where many states have not only legalized it, but are promoting it. Users claim it is harmless and gives them pleasurable feelings. And there’s big money involved; governments enjoy the growing tax revenues.

You can read the rest of this extremely informative article by lighting up "The Bad Aftertaste of Cannabis Legalization".

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Obey the Consensus Because Experts are Smarter than You

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We have seen numerous example of how people are unwilling, even unable, to think rationally and challenge assertions. Many are willing to follow what "scientists say", but this is often a cessation of thought. Worse is appealing to the majority — the so-called consensus.

Not only do secularists and political groups appeal to consensus in many areas, but they discourage people from thinking for themselves.
Original image: Unsplash / Jo-Anne McArthur, modified at Big Huge Labs

Let's mount up and ride to the top of yonder hill and get the bigger picture. Dr. Michael Crichton had some excellent statements about how science and consensus are mutually exclusive. While there is a consensus on many things, those things are not necessarily ironclad facts. Also, the consensus is often wrong and even biased:

  • Geocentrism (the earth stands still while the sun, moon and stars orbit it) was the prevalent view for a mighty long time
  • Things burned because they had phlogiston in them
  • Ignaz Semmelweis determined that doctors should wash their hands, but was ridiculed
  • Piltdown Man fooled the scientific establishment for over 40 years
  • The idea that birds evolved into dinosaurs is baseless conjecture, and although there is a "consensus", not all evolutionists have accepted this position
  • Lockdowns regarding the Wuhan virus were required, which was a consensus among leftists, but probably did little or nothing to contain the disease
  • Anthropogenic climate change is "settled science", so there is no reason to consider facts and arguments presented by non-leftists
Like the Piltdown Man fraud, fake science that has been disproved still makes it into the textbooks, such as Haeckel's embryo drawings. Scientists, like anyone else, have their presuppositions. Materialists presuppose deep time and evolution, then work from there. Why submit diamonds and dinosaur bones for radiocarbon dating, since there will be no trace of it left? When those and other things were finally tested, they indicated ages of far less than the dates assumed and expected by secularists.

Click to enlarge
This hatetheist dodged the point of the post,
then indulged in logical fallacies such as
invalid comparisons, conflation, appeal to motive —
and implicitly appealing to consensus
(Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)

These presuppositions lead to incomplete research, which in turn often contributes to confirmation bias. When scientists "know" and have "a consensus", they are disinclined to finish their research. They also indulge in circular reasoning by assuming what they want others to believe and then claiming that they have done so. Not hardly!

The article linked below by Dr. Jay Wile (a former atheist) inspired this here article I wrote for y'all. There are three complaints I have. First, he didn't do what I did here by bringing in how evolutionists appeal to consensus. Second, I disagree with his statement about science correcting itself, which is not entirely accurate. Finally, he would have more impact if he was more biblical by using presuppositional apologetics. Aside from those things, I am (obviously) recommending that all y'all take a gander at it.
I have written about a couple of instances where Forbes has censored articles because they disagree with the “scientific consensus” . . . it didn’t surprise me to find that they are now actively trying to discourage people from thinking for themselves. This discouragement comes in the form of a blog article written by Dr. Ethan Siegel, who holds an earned Ph.D. in astrophysics. It is entitled, “You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science”.

Dr. Siegel believes that in order to assess any scientific statement, a person must have some expertise in the relevant field. Otherwise, the person’s “research” will only end up confirming what he or she already wants to believe. He writes:
You can finish reading by visiting "Forbes Tells You Not To Think For Yourself". You'll thank me later.

Monday, September 14, 2020

Misplaced Blame - Bad Science, not "Religion"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Misotheists are fond of blaming the Bible and Christians for what they consider "bad science" and "superstition", even though the Bible was proven right many times. For instance, someone with a contagious disease was isolated, not the entire community. George Washington bled to death because of the bad medical practice of bloodletting despite Gen. :4 and Lev. 17:14. There are other instance of bad or questionable medicine that atheists ignore in their selective citing.


Atheists excuse superstitious medical practices such as with the so-called Dancing Plague, but are quick to falsely accuse the Bible of bad teachings.
Credits: Original from Freeimages / Carol O'Driscoll, modified at PhotoFunia
A video of "paranormal" mysteries had a segment of the so-called Dancing Plague of 1518. Doing a bit of research shows that this was not an isolated incident, but there are several suggestions regarding the cause; to call it paranormal is silly. It is interesting that the diagnosis was "hot blood" and that the recommendation was that people continue to dance despite people collapsing and even dying.

For years, I have said that the Salem Witch Trials were black marks on both American history and Christianity. (Such literal witch hunts were not confined to the United States, however.) I'll allow that there was a great deal of bad religion involved and misuse of the Bible, but that does not justify a conclusion that all religion is false. Such activities are not based in Scripture or reasonable biblical teachings.

What makes the Salem situation more complicated is that the actions of so-called witnesses and victims may have had a biological basis. There is increasing evidence to consider that the ergot fungus was involved. Rye was a staple crop in that area, and ergot grew on it. People would ingest the grain and the fungus, then could have hallucinations. People with bad theology would be swept up in the hysteria and think they were doing the Lord's work.

Such forensic science is seriously limited, of course, but it does give us some things to consider. Mockers of God rush to judgement but there could be other causes. Medical superstitions that lead to death are given a pass. "Science is self-correcting!" may be claimed, but the two instances cited above had nothing whatsoever to do with science from the get-go. Such data are frequently cited by Christophobes, but like evolutionary researchers, involve incomplete research and invalid conclusions. Avoid bad teachings and lousy logic like the plague.


Monday, March 11, 2019

A Little Help from Science and Technology

People have hopes and dreams, but those can be shattered by accidents and other circumstances. A surgeon needs intelligence, good vision, skill, and fully functional hands and fingers to do important work. Singers need their voices. Musicians need their appendages. They also need discipline to learn and practice. There is something else that is vitally important.


I thank God that he has given many people skill to develop science and technology to help others who have needs.
Violin,  Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, 1916
That other item is talent, which is a gift of God. You can have the desire and practice, but if that talent is missing, there will not be much to show.

Rick Allen, drummer for the band Def Leppard, lost his left arm in a car crash. With the support of friends, the band, other musicians, and special equipment, he returned to drumming. We read stories and watch videos of people who have lost limbs in combat, accidents, and in other ways but are equipped to live their lives. Others are handicapped in ways that cannot be overcome yet, and they are able to survive (see my book review and recommendation of Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped). I thank God that he has given many people skill to develop science and technology to help others who have needs.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

The Mythical British Isles

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while, talk around the campfire turns away from strategies for riding herd and so forth to mythology. Some cowboys feel that they've talked wendigo or other scary native legends out, so they move on to myths of history. One that gets brought up every once in a while is the story of Great Britain. Amazingly, a few cowpokes actually believe it existed. Some self-styled intellectuals speculate that England (a part of the British Isles) exists in a parallel universe.

The story goes that the British Isles (a few big ones and about six thousand smaller islands) were a popular place for commerce and some amount of science. Sadly, the Brits rejected the true God and indulged in paganism, especially evolutionism. Their paganism, surrender to Moslem influences, atheism, and unjustified intellectual arrogance led to the utter destruction of Britain. Yep, the whole shootin' match sank beneath the waves of the Atlantic, never to be seen again.


Despite claims of believers, there is no reason to believe such a place as Great Britain ever existed.

Some people have written extensive histories of the formerly Great Britain, but many such scribblings can be found throughout literature — especially fantasies, such as Lord of the Rings and others. People have even brought up the fact that Britain is shown on maps of antiquity. Don't pay those no nevermind, since mythological Atlantis is also drawn onto maps such as this one from about 1669. Another nice detail to fill out the fictional history of Britain is the idea of Doggerland, which supposedly connected the mythical islands with the rest of Europe. To make the story more interesting, Doggerland was also submerged. Seriously, that is an excellent literary touch.

Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists perpetuate the myth that Britain not only existed, but it was great as well. Some even go as far as to try and convince others that it still exists today. They may claim, "Some people of the Isles were called Celts, and I have Celtic ancestry. I had DNA testing done. I'm also a descendant of the Canaanites." Whatever helps you sleep at night, Beauregard.

Like other myths that seem to have a basis in history, archaeology, paleontology, archaeology, and so forth, the formerly Great Britain remains shrouded in mystery and mythology. It has been said that parts of Britain, both geological and archaeological, have been found washed up on the New Jersey shore. These have been discredited. Like evolutionism, if something has a veneer of truth and funding for scientific research, gullible people are likely to believe it.

Friday, January 1, 2016

Gender Reassignment Science Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Most people in the Western world have needed medical treatment several times in their lives, whether an ongoing condition, routine annual physical, or getting cactus spines removed when your horse bucked you off at the worst possible moment. You are given a form to fill out, and that form asks for your sex. Take a look-see at this PDF of a standard (and many times required) claim form. Right up there in box three, there are two check boxes, one for "male", and one for "female". There are no options for how you feel that day, what you claimed to be yesterday, what bathroom you feel like using, or anything like that.


The transgender-affirming crowd is not only defying common sense, but denying science. Further, they are contributing to mental illness.
Image modified from Clker clipart; people like color, you know.
People can rail against the way God made them all they want. They can take hormone supplements, undergo "gender reassignment surgery" (bodily mutilation), play with the politically correct crowd of how you feel that day, dress like the opposite gender — but you won't change the facts. You were born with certain chromosomes and DNA. To say, "Now that you got chopped up, changed your wardrobe, took chemicals, now you're a woman" is to be a science denier! Also, it's a case of suspending rational thinking. The politically correct crowd will no longer consider sexual deviation as a mental illness. Instead, they want to give coddling and "treatment", which only makes things worse and often includes sex-change regret. The politically correct thought police will probably cause me problems for speaking the truth.

New York City, that bastion of rational, conservative thought, will fine employers up to $250,000 if they deliberately use the wrong personal pronoun when referring to a trannie. That is downright insane! Aside from enabling mental illness and rampant politically correct leftism, this is bad for business. Imagine Bernie-becomes-Bonnie getting called "him", reporting the boss, the company gets fined — and goes out of business because it can't afford such a huge and ludicrous penalty.




We are in the early hours of 2016. Would you have thought such things would happen in 1996? In 2006? Or even 2015? I believe that political and cultural trends that defy our Creator and his Word are signs of the end times. Scriptures warned us that things would get mighty bad, and we're seeing it happen. About one third of the Bible is prophesy, and many prophesies have been dramatically fulfilled. No reason to think that Jesus' return is not that far away, old son. 

 

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Lying or Disagreement?

Proclaiming the gospel gains us mockers. Even more so when showing that evolutionism is false and science supports biblical creation.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Included in the Terms of Service for being a biblical creationist and going against the evolutionary consensus includes acquiring stalkers, hate mail, ridicule, libel, and more (which really stinks when those things are coming from professing Christians, but we expect that kind of activity from atheists). But hey, the Terms of Service are clear about unbelievers (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 2:3, Psalm 53:1, Rom. 1:18-22, Eph. 2:12, 2 Tim. 2:26, 1 John 5:19).

There's a principle called the "noetic effect of sin" or "noetic effect of the fall", where sin touches all aspects of someone's life, including their thought processes. Keep an eye out, there are people who can be brilliant for the most part, but when they talk about God, their reasoning is the equivalent of kicking a fresh cow pie on a hot day.

In their drive to rail against creationists or certain Christians, you can see people who are so consumed with hate that they cannot (or often, will not) distinguish between a disagreement on the interpretations of scientific evidence and an attempt to deceive. (Calling someone a "liar" without evidence, just to be contentious and manipulative makes the accuser into the liar. People who claim to love science seem to forget that little thing called evidence.) Einstein and Bohr had spirited physics discussions, but I don't recollect seeing any record of one calling the other a "liar". True science thrives on challenges to the consensus, and existing theories are strengthened or discarded (except evolution, which is a metaphysical worldview used to justify rebellion against God). Ignaz Semmelweis said that women were dying from infections after childbirth because the attendants were not washing their hands between patients. He was proven right, but the consensus view prevailed. He and others were vindicated much later, especially through the work of Joseph Lister. Science needs mavericks, not conformists.

Mockery and ridicule exist in science, but they increase when someone dares to say that the Bible has the answers. Germ-to-gunslinger evolution is false, and there is a Creator who makes the rules. It's our responsibility to get into his Word and find out what he has to say.