Friday, March 4, 2016

Why was I the One?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is a bit of wondering and pondering. 

Back on Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 2015), my wife and I went out for a visit. When we returned home in the afternoon, we noticed that a smoke alarm was sounding from one of the buildings in the apartment complex. We didn't pay it no nevermind, figuring that someone cooked something a mite too long or spilled gravy on a stove on this heavy cooking day.

Image credit: / Roy White
An hour or two later, it was getting dark and I realized that the alarm was still sounding, so I took a walk over to that building. People were moving in but ignoring the alarm, and I did not see any signs of fire, smoke, or other distress. Some time back, I read about a woman who had been murdered in the street and it took twenty minutes for her to die because people drew their blinds and didn't want to get involved. I had resolved not to be like that, and this was such a time. What if there really was a problem? Maybe someone had a medical problem and couldn't shut off the alarm, and was hoping for help. Maybe nothing. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if there was something tragic and I did nothing — like the other people were busy doing.

I had my cell phone, so I called the police and told them the story, emphasizing that there was no sign of fire. They told me to call 9-1-1. Well, okay. So I did that, and again emphasized that there was no sign of fire.

Minutes later, we had a passel of fire trucks and emergency vehicles, including the big truck with the ladders. Hey, I said there was no sign of fire! Oh, well. Whatever the protocol is, I don't know (and the official-type guy I e-mailed never replied). As far as I know, there was nothing to it, seemed to be a faulty alarm that went off while people were away. I was a bit nervous that I'd somehow get in trouble, but I did act in good faith and maybe the "Good Samaritan" laws would apply, so I comforted myself with that.

But why was I the one? Other people were there. I don't believe that I'm special or better than anyone else, and I don't even think it's because I'm a Christian; anyone with a conscience could have checked things out or made the call. Sooner, too.

So, I'm just left wondering about the whole thing and not congratulating myself.

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.


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.


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. 


Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Some Things I Just Can't Say

Changes in my writing over the years. There are some things I just can't say for various reasons.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Giving in to the urging of others, in late June of 2007 I began a Weblog that I called "Stormbringer's Thunder" — and wrote some pretty crummy stuff as well as some good things. Somewhere in there was "Cowboy Bob's Western Values", probably around 2010, but I deleted that. After I rededicated my life to Jesus, I made "A Soldier for Jesus". That name no longer exists, but I went with "Biblical Creation and Evangelism" later, and moved many of the articles to the new Weblog. Weak title, I know. Finally, the strongest and most consistent one, "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman" (there is no truth in goo-to-you evolution). Over the years, I've written literally thousands of posts and articles (I use both words, posts for usually shorter things where I recommend the work of smarter people, and articles for things I've written). There was a point that I went through and deleted many articles and posts (hundreds, I think), mainly from "Stormbringer's Thunder".

What if I told you that I've struggled with depression for years, and decided that medication was not helping? I stopped taking antidepressants and seeing therapists several years ago. 

When I started out, I used some bravado that was inspired by Rush Limbaugh. You know, "With half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair". Not those words, but with a fair amount of attitude. I wrote "in character" (some of the older posts have Italian slang in them). While some people have a good sense of humor, others will get all het up when someone uses bravado, and use it as a means of attacking people instead of dealing with the content. 

Nowadays, I can't say something like: It may come as a shock to you, but the mother of my kids is actually smarter than I am. With our combined DNA, if they used their minds to further creation science, anti-creationists would be seriously disadvantaged. Nope, can't say that, even though it's true.

As an aside, my readers know that I like plays on words. Fortunately, I've been able to keep away from coarse joking, tempting as it is. In fact, I've been around people who will find an excuse to turn just about anything into a crude joke, so it's become a habit to try to avoid giving people such excuses. Sorry, can't give you an example.

People seem to have a problem with someone expressing things with confidence, whether about themselves or having certainty about what is being expressed. And yet, it's acceptable to leftists and atheists when people they agree with will express something confidently or even with arrogance and condescension. Double standards.

As I've grown in my spiritual walk, I've cut way back on other things I've said, and use more care in expression. It gets difficult sometimes, because I like humor (especially plays on words and fallacies of ambiguity). Don't get me wrong, I'm open to correction when someone will offer a "You should have phrased that differently, how about..." suggestion. I'll never get things done perfectly, there's always a fault-finder available to criticize little things. Hopefully, we all grow and learn.

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.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Are We Naturally Good?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In "Is Racism in Our DNA?", I gave a resounding no to that question. Implicit is the idea that there ain't nothing in our DNA but our DNA; no spiritual values and so on. I don't reckon any goodness we have can be physically inherited in any way.

We see and hear about unspeakable evil among men, but there are also people who do heroic efforts to save others, even strangers. Sometimes these acts cost them their lives.

People who have been exposed to God and seen his goodness have rejected him and gone about their own way. After Eve's deception and Adam's agreement in taking the fruit (Gen. 3:6), their firstborn son murdered their second son (Gen. 4:8). It's safe to assume that they knew about the Garden of Eden, and how Adam and Eve walked with God for a short time (Gen. 3:8), and how their parents were disinvited from it (Gen. 3:24-25). They probably knew right where Eden was. I can imagine them looking at the angel guarding the entrance and wanting to see what was inside.

Let's ride down the trail. The Israelites had seen the power of God when they were delivered from Egypt. You'd think crossing the Red Sea would make a lasting impression (Exodus 14:21-22) as well as manna and water from the rock, but when Moses went up the mountain, the Israelites went wild and made themselves a new god (Exodus 32:4-7). That didn't set well with Yahweh and Moses (Exodus 32:30).

Are people basically good? No. In fact, people who had direct encounters with God still rebelled. And yet, people still do good deeds. What's the story?
Passage of the Jews through the Red Sea / Ivan Aivazovsky, 1891

After God judged the world and only eight people survived the Flood, (1 Peter 3:20), there was further rebellion. Noah lived a very long time, as did his sons. Their descendants most likely heard about the Flood, and why it happened. They also saw the results of the Flood all around them, but that didn't seem to make no nevermind to them (Gen. 11:4).

Further down the trail, read the book of Judges and you'll see that Israel sinned, got in trouble with the Philistines and other pagan nations, and God would deliver them. Then they'd go back to wicked ways and start the cycle again. Once they had kings to rule over them, the kings often followed Baal and other demons, and God would punish them. When they repented, God delivered them. Eventually, the sin was so great that they were captives of Babylon, and eventually Rome.

This is just a small sampling from portions of the Old Testament where people saw God's glory and rebelled. The New Testament is loaded with examples of people who saw Jesus fact to face, saw his miracles, heard his teachings, received food and healings — and rejected him.

People today encounter God in various ways, and turn their backs on the one who gives them life.

It's the nature of man to do evil (Gen. 8:21, Eph. 2:3, Psalm 14:2-3, John 8:44). We are dead (Eph. 2:1-3). Because of God's mercy, those who humble themselves and submit to God can receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:4-10, John 1:12, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). Then we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5, 1 Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30, 2 Tim. 1:14, Heb. 10:15-17, 1 John 2:27). The Holy Spirit and the written Word of God empower us to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

"Sure, Cowboy Bob, God helps Christians life a good life. What about those other folks?"

God has mercy on all (Matt. 5:45, Luke 11:11-12), so even though we are evil by nature, there is some amount of goodness by his providence. People may think they are good and compare themselves to each other (2 Cor. 10:12). I remember someone saying how good she was, saying how she didn't do this and that, she was good. I said, "Neither do dead people. Not doing things doesn't make anyone good" (or something like that, it was years ago). We may think we're good, even deserving of Heaven. Not hardly!