October 22, 2017

More On Atheistic Straw Man "Reasoning"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

At first glance, this may look like a basic reaction to vindictive atheists. Nope. It's a whole heap more than that, showing how professing atheists and anti-creationists resort to contemptible methods in their efforts to silence biblical creationists.

As shown in numerous posts here, on my Piltdown Superman site, The Question Evolution Project Fazebook Page, and at numerous other sites and forums, the typical village atheist who trolls the internet demonstrates very little ability to use logic. In addition, they often seek to justify what passes as morality in their world by railing against God by using selective citation of biblical texts (that is, woefully out of context) and straw man arguments. A couple of tinhorns consistently wants to slap leather with me and "debate", but there is no sense in defending positions I don't hold. 

Background image from Clker clipart
I have long maintained that atheopaths are made stupid by their blind hatred of God and his followers. Several times, I've seen discussions that were moving along quite nicely, then quickly degenerate when professing atheists let their inner demons and hatred come out, and their reasoning became incoherent. 

Recently, I wrote an article on dreadful atheistic and anti-creationist reasoning (see "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted, Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways...") True to form, some angry atheopaths reacted, using a couple of tactics: ridicule the person instead of dealing rationally with the content, and also setting up straw man arguments. (Ironically, they proved my article to be correct.) The venom was so thick, I slipped in a puddle of it and almost fell. Well, if it was literal, it would have puddled on the floor. Anyway, the vituperative ridicule was extended to an article I posted regarding atheistic reasoning. 

Interesting, Creation Ministries International posted their article on the same day that I posted mine. I shared it to The Question Evolution Project. A furious atheopath shared my post of CMI's post to his Page for the purpose of ridicule. He commented, "So to try to rebut the claim that creationists ignore science, you post a link to an organization which outright admits to ignoring evidence that contradicts the [B]ible? Lol". He didn't like my comment on my own Page. I wrote, "An atheopath liar said...[previously quoted text]...Aside from an appeal to motive fallacy, this tinhorn lied outright about CMI. They ADMIT to "ignoring evidence that contradicts the [B]ible"? Dishonest assertion. And he thinks he's worth debating? That'll be the day! -CBB". 

He responded with a post full of ad hominem remarks and other fallacies, plus a screenshot of some of CMI's "About Us" section. This section was emphasized in his screenshot: "Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record". The sneaky atheist accused me of stupidity and lying, and he lied about CMI when he said, "...They come right out and say that they're going to ignore anything that doesn't fit what they already want to believe". They did not say this. He conveniently twisted their words (he's an atheopath, they do that, it's who they are) and set up a straw man by ignoring key words in his own quote, especially the word interpretation. Meanwhile, as this blackguard lies and misrepresents creationists, atheopaths cheer him on, applauding like palsied spider monkeys but offering nothing of substance. Just hate.

Something else I've said for a long time is that a fact is a fact, people are not disputing the existence of facts, and there is no such thing as your facts and our facts. The disagreements come from interpretations of facts. You can have a fossil and say that it's 200 million Darwin years old. I can say it was buried in the Genesis Flood a few thousand years ago. Two interpretations, the only definite fact in this scenario is the fossil. See how that works? 

Someone who was intellectually honest and not blinded by hate might want to cowboy up and examine more than just one sentence in CMI's "About Us" section. Since it's easier for rapscallions like that to ignore the truth and avoid doing their homework, guess I'll have to show why his "proof" is actually a manipulative lie. See how the word interpret(ation) is used in these examples:

Christians and especially biblical creationists should be above the accusatory nature of our detractors. See how easy it is to refute the refuters? Don't be like them. Be able to intelligently back up your claims, because we represent Christ. They represent their father down below. EDIT: He proved me right again by sharing the link to this post, ignoring the content, and reaffirming the previous lie in a comment under the post.

By the way, this guy is also angry at losing one of his many fake name troll accounts. I'm sure I'm getting the blame:

October 16, 2017

Morality and the Crowd

The source of morality is disputed among secularists, some claim that it comes from evolution, some say it is based on society, some postulate other sources. People who have a materialistic view of morality cannot have a consistent moral standard, and end up with disastrous speculations when they suppress the truth.

Riot in the Galleria, Umberto Boccioni, 1909
I reckon it should be common sense that you can't follow the crowd. (Isn't following society's dictates a form of just "following the crowd"?) I don't like crowds, you never know when they can get mean. Things get out of hand, next thing you know, the saloon's ceiling is shot full of holes, the town marshal and his buddies show up, and guys spend a few nights in lockup, even after they get sober. Individually, if you asked these rambunctious patrons about right and wrong, they'd have told you differently than what they did that night in the saloon. Those jaspers knew better than to get rowdy and do bad stuff, but they done did them things anyhow.

You may want to keep an eye out for something, that people will (as I call it) recruit others to their "cause". It's very childish, like a school child who is angry with a teacher and wants people to join in with the hate. Mayhaps they'll scrape paint off the teacher's car or something. Then they get caught, and know they did wrong. Deep inside, they know they were doing wrong all along — even the hating part.

In the US, we see the Antifa sidewinders ("anti-fascist", my joyfully bouncing buttocks, they are the ones acting like fascists and then blaming others), Black Lives Matter racists, and others recruiting for their irrational causes. On the internet, you can find atheopaths who are furious at being shown the incoherence of their views, then banned from Pages or forums, seeking others to join with the trolling of those who were "unfair" and performed "censorship" on them.

What if you were able to talk to these people one-on-one? They know what is right and wrong down deep inside (Romans. 2:15). Get people into a crowd (or the larger crowd of a society), and the actions of others, groupthink, prompt them to suppress their inner knowledge of morality and follow what everyone else is doing.
“But everybody else is doing it!” Have you ever heard or made this argument? If “everybody else is doing it,” you should be allowed to do whatever “it” is too, right? A new study revealed that “our view of what is morally right or wrong is shaped by how widespread a particular behavior is.”
To read the rest of the article, click on "Is Morality Determined by Its Popularity?"

October 7, 2017

Can Secular Science Peer Review be Repaired?

There are people who consider peer review as the gold standard in science, and it is somehow a guarantee of truth. Not hardly!

As we have seen, the secular science industry is becoming increasingly biased and involved in leftist political activism. Add to this the fact that their peer review process discriminates against creationists, has numerous retractions, passes junk (including computer-generated papers), and is pretty much a good ol' boys' club. Their image has a bad complexion, and some scientists are calling for major changes.

Secular peer review in science needs better ethics. According to atheistic standards? It will not work.
Made at Hetermeel.com, then modified with colors
Unfortunately, the sidewinders in charge want to circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. They don't want transparency and accountability. Others want to improve ethical standards. Wait, what? People who reject the Creator and his Word have no consistent moral standard are going to decide what is right and wrong? Scientists are people, complete with presuppositions, knavery, altruism, varieties of morality, and the whole shootin' match that comes with being a human living in a fallen world. Something is missing from their plan.
Peer review is under attack with new move to combat fraud and special interest through integrity and transparency. But where do those come from?
Big Science remains in crisis. Phys.org reports on a study that found “More than a quarter of biomedical scientific papers may utilise practices that distort the interpretation of results or mislead readers so that results are viewed more favourably.” That has certainly been our experience at CEH, daily watching the press releases emanating from university PR departments, where the name of the game is to make your scientist look good no matter how questionable the findings. Public acceptance of scientific claims tracks political party affiliation to a remarkable degree. Allegations of conflict of interest, peer pressure and funding bias are rife. What has happened to the presumptive authority of the science, seeking objective knowledge for its own sake?
To finish reading, click on "Big Science Struggling to Regain Credibility".

September 23, 2017

Bill Nye the Atheism Shill Guy Rides Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many people are baffled as to why a saddle tramp comedy actor turned children's television show host who never bothered to get an advanced science degree is considered an expert on practically everything. Bill Nye is called a "science guy", and did fairly well when he did actual science. Amazingly, his net worth is rated at 6.5 million USD, probably because atheistic propaganda pays well — just ask C. Richard Dawkins. Nye hopes to gain more from his lawsuit against Disney. Why he did not sue years ago, I have no idea. Even so, if he deserves the money, he should get it.

The way I see the way things happening, he became popular when he attacked biblical creationists, and especially Answers in Genesis. Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG challenged Nye to a debate (which he dodged), and he eventually settled for a debate with Ken Ham, who has a bachelor's degree in applied science. Ham also earned a Diploma of Education so he could become a science teacher way back when. (Both Nye and Ham have honorary doctorates.) Bill Nye used outdated and inaccurate science claims, and also underhanded tactics in the debate with Ken Ham. I'll allow that the debate format was poor, and gave Nye the opportunity to use elephant hurling and other fallacies. For more on that event, see "Reflections on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate". I recommend "We Have a Book for That", which shows the fundamentally flawed foundations of Nye and his secularist cohorts.

Here are some skillful edits of a Nye photo for your amusement.

Moving on...

After Bill Nye made a fool of himself in the debate with Ken Ham (with great applause from biased secularist owlhoots who are unskilled in both science and logic), he eventually went on to write a propaganda book. In addition, he gained a television show, Bill Nye Saves the World, on the pay channel called Netflix. Apparently, he wants to save the world from science and critical thinking, preferring to promote leftist and atheist views. However, his preachy demeanor is putting off his fans, and it apparently lacks actual science.

Now he has a movie? You betcha! Bill Nye: Science Guy takes shots at creation science, especially Ken Ham. Selective citing was employed, as well as blatant falsehoods and more bad science. See "Bill Nye: Science Guy or Secular Activist?" for more. By the way, ever notice that the real debate between Ham and Nye, as well as the Nye snark fest "second debate", are posted for free viewing by Answers in Genesis, but Bill's fans do not direct people to those?

People are becoming increasingly suspicious of the leftist slant of the secular science industry. Well, there's mucho dinero in evolutionary "discoveries" and conjectures presented as real science, you know. For that matter, secularists seem to applaud any  fuel for dumpster burning that attacks the Bible, such as their self-humiliating "Canaanites disprove the Bible" fiasco. Let's face it, the secular science industry is highly biased nowadays, and shills like Bill Nye are highly unlikely to be giving us the truth.

This all comes down to something that people do not want to hear: rebellion against God. That's right, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23) so they can justify denying God. If some folks are willing to graciously grant God his existence in their philosophies, then they reject the authority of his Word in their pride. It's their nature, and who they are. People must humble themselves, repent, and find out what our Creator has to say in his Word. 

September 20, 2017

Atheists Distrust Atheists — With Good Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is no secret that the public has trust issues with atheists, and also with the secular science industry. This is nothing new, and there are still laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding some elected public offices. (Ironic, most atheists erroneously claim that atheism is not a religion, but keeping them out of office violates their religious rights.) There was a time when the assertion of atheism was shocking and put people to the one making the declaration, but not so much these days. They still score low in polls.

The public distrusts atheists, and atheists distrust other atheists

People are reluctant to trust atheists. Do they ride their horses side saddle? Put their pants on both legs at once instead of one leg at a time? Steal booze from homeless winos? No more than anyone else that I'm aware. They do earn their bad reputations, however. The mass-murdering dictators of the 20th century were mostly atheists (Hitler was not an atheist, he was an occultist at best), Norwegian murderer Brevik was an atheist Darwinist, cult leader Jim Jones was an atheist, Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist and Darwinist, and there are plenty more. Internet trolling, with its inherent anonymity, shows extreme hatred of God, Christians, and especially creationists from atheists. I think they're on the web because they're unemployable, and have time on their hands. Further, there is a noticeable parallel between atheism and Satanism. No, it's not just a matter of theists hating atheists who happen to believe differently.

Respect and trust have to be earned. This one's trust and respect levels are in the negative numbers.
Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists, and they rely on atheistic presuppositions in the pursuit of evolutionary science (for example, see "The Bad Complexion of the Secular Science Industry" and "Science Needs Serious Repair"). Then, they commence to pontificating that evolution negates God, tell the lie that archaeology disproves the Bible, and so on.

Am I suggesting that all atheists are an unbridled herd of homicide, waiting to stampede to death and glory? Not hardly! Although I have never encountered an atheist that is unwilling to lie, I'll allow that many have high personal moral standards. Someone commented that he'd trust a certain atheist alone with his wife. Others have made remarks that they know atheists who are moral people, and can act morally upright in a manner that shames many professing Christians.

Atheists are none too fond of each other in the area of trust. Strange that they wouldn't trust their own kind, what with being united in hatred of God, "religion", and so on. Speaking of God, the answer for the distrust of atheists is found in the Bible. God has given us each a conscience, and the law is written on the hearts of people (Rom. 2:15). Deniers of God are actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19). Atheists know who and what they are, deep inside, and that they have a faulty moral compass. Really, it should not be surprising that they distrust each other. This is actually confirming the truth of Scripture! I'm sure that puts a burr under their collective saddles.

This article was inspired by Dr. Albert Mohler, whose name keeps cropping up in my material lately. His September 18, 2017 episode of The Briefing had him discussing articles in The Guardian and others . He also gave some Christian worldview perspective on this. You can read the transcript, download or listen to the podcast online. The part under discussion here is at the beginning, but the entire podcast is interesting and not too long. To read or listen, click on "Why atheists don’t trust other atheists and what this reveals about moral intuition".

September 19, 2017

Benjamin Franklin and Religion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here in the United States, and to some extent in other parts of the world, there has been considerable debate about the religion of the Founding Fathers. While the majority of them could be considered fundamentalist or evangelical Christians by today's standards, a few were Deists. Secularists who attempt to rewrite history somehow try to make it seem that the appearance of these Deists negated the fact that America was clearly founded on Christian principles

There are different stripes of Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, atheists, and other religions. Indeed, even within certain sects and denominations, you will find variations. This includes Deists. I've encountered deists who want to join in with misotheists in slapping leather with Christians, and others who are more moderate. Like other groups, there is no "one size fits all" for Deists.

Ben Franklin was a Deist but supported Christian values
Benjamin Franklin / Joseph Wright, 1782
Benjamin Franklin was unarguably one of the most important American founders, and was a complex individual. He was also a Deist. This Deist was good friends with one of the most important Christian leaders of their time, George Whitefield. Franklin was friendly toward Christianity, and made remarks that were friendly to it and to the Bible, yet he apparently never surrendered his life to Jesus Christ. A somewhat famous but dishonest picture of atheism "good enough for these idiots" pictures Franklin and several other people, but only one was an avowed atheist. (Atheists are not necessarily idiots, but they are fools, Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7.) I seriously doubt that Ben would be fond of today's dishonest atheists who are unskilled at rational thought

Dr. Albert Mohler has an intellectually-oriented show with a name that I think is quite good: Thinking in Public. In this episode, he interviews Professor Thomas Kidd about his book,  Benjamin Franklin: The Religious Life of a Founding Father. There are people who may be put off by the intellectual approach, but I reckon that if I understood it, most folks can.

Before I give you the link, I have to take you on a side trail. (I tend to do that frequently, don't I?) It's about intellectualism. In days of yore, there was an intellectual class in Europe that was into philosophy, the arts, and leaned to the political left (including Marxism). Another trait of the intellectuals then (and now) is fondness for theological liberalism, which disdains the authority and perspicuity of the Bible. This did harm to Christianity (as it does today), and was an influence in the Christian Fundamentalist movement. For more about this, you may want to take a gander at my article, "Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Intellectualism".

Being intelligent and seriously examining not only Scripture, but other aspects surrounding it, is definitely not unchristian. In fact, reacting against intellectual pursuits has, I believe, been detrimental to Christianity. God gave us our minds, and expects us to use them. That is why we have some brilliant theologians and Bible-believing scientists. Especially creationists. We cannot effectively refute atheism and evolutionism, nor can we defend the biblical aspects of our values, with slogans and captioned pictures alone.

Okay, I'm done with that side trail. I hope you'll spend the hour to listen to "Benjamin Franklin’s American Religion: A Conversation with Historian Thomas Kidd", which is free to download or hear online. If you prefer to read, the transcript is also available at the link. Although this phrase may be cutesy, I think it's true: they put the cookies on the bottom shelf. I like cookies.

August 26, 2017

Laws of Thermodynamics and Hate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Don't be getting ahead of me, the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially entropy) should have nothing to do with hate per se, and hate should not involve laws of science. When you get atheists wanting to slap leather with biblical creationists, however, their blind hate and seething rage prompts them to use science for leverage in their quest for the ideological supremacy of materialism and the promotion of their death cult of evolutionism.

Credit: Freeimages / Peter Skadberg
There was a recent article by Creation Ministries International where creationist engineer Colin Gibson was interviewed about his faith journey. As a child, he was not taught the Christian faith effectively. When he was confronted by evolutionary propaganda, he believed that the State school was being truthful, and rejected Christianity for the most part. Still, Gibson had "nagging doubts" about evolutionary adaptation.

When he heard creationary speaker Carl Wieland give a presentation, the part about the Second Law of Thermodynamics made him sit up and take notice.
Professional engineer Colin Gibson was raised in a church where he was taught six-day creation in Sunday school but that grounding was challenged at high school when evolution and millions of years were presented as fact in his science class.
That left him confused and thinking that he must have been taught fairytales at Sunday school. Thereafter he began a slippery slide away from church but, through a remarkable chain of events, including attending an address from Creation magazine founder Carl Wieland, Colin’s thinking was turned on its head.
I'm going to do my usual thing and give you the link to keep reading, but I have more to say about atheists and hate, and some useful links on thermodynamics. The rest of the article is found at "Confronted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics — Warren Nunn chats with engineer Colin Gibson on his journey from evolution to creation". Now for the part about atheopaths and bile.

In what I call the Forum of Futility (where precious little science and logic are presented, and most people ignore the thing), a libelous criminal cyberstalker who execrates biblical creationists and people who disagree with him decided to attack the article linked above. In his quest for atheistic adoration, he reproduced a letter that he sent to CMI. He has attacked them for many years (as well as other biblical creationist individuals and organizations). Surprisingly, even after he repeatedly calls people "liars" (I'm surprised that he left "fascist" out of this particular diatribe), he received a response. In what is probably a copyright violation, he reproduced the reply but omitted the name of the sender.

This sidewinder criticized Mr. Nunn for leaving out certain remarks made by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati regarding entropy as a creationary argument. Yes, Dr. Sarfati advised creationists to leave it alone, mainly because the argument is misused. However, the article under discussion was not a treatise on science, but was a discussion of Colin Gibson's faith. The attacker used selective citing, such as ignoring the link that contains Dr. Sarfati's remark:
"I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content" (my emphasis added).
The mocker also used ad hominems, affirming the consequent, argument from silence, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies. You can see his foolishness here. Note the absence of links to material supporting his accusations. But hey, if The Mighty Atheist™ makes a claim, it must be true! Yeah, that'll be the day.

For some reason, atheists and evolutionists get the bit in their teeth about the laws of thermodynamics. Like a social media relationship status, it's complicated. Scoffers frequently disunderstand and abuse the laws of thermodynamics, but unfortunately, many Christians don't exactly have that subject lassoed and hogtied themselves. Therefore, it's a good idea to leave it alone.

I've posted about 1,730 articles on my primary site, Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman (which began in 2011), and I can only account for less than ten related to thermodynamics on there. Hundreds of posts on my other sites — sorry, searches didn't find any. Sure, I've mentioned thermodynamics, but I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. That's why this attack from a narcissistic atheopath pretending to a be a Christian is bewildering:

Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
He calls me a "coward" for not wanting to debate an anonymous liar on a subject on which I never claimed to be an expert. Hypocrite much, Buttercup? By the way, if I'm a "false teacher" like this atheopath claims, why would that be wrong in his worldview? To be consistent, he has to stand on the biblical worldview! Also, he has never provided documentation for this libelous "false teacher" assertion. I have a Statement of Faith. What's wrong with it?

I reckon there's a Law of Hate in there somewhere, that anti-creationists will resort to almost any means possible to shut down the truth of the gospel that begins in Genesis. For some reason, people like that like to (mis)use the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And such hate sends logic and reason galloping away on the dusty prairie.

In descending order of intensity: atheists, agnostics, Deists, theistic evolutionists, and old-earth creationists utterly despise biblical creationists and seek to silence us. They use ridicule, personal attacks, straw man arguments, and so on to make themselves and their spurious arguments look good (although defaming creationists does not make evolution any less false). I'm certain that one day, attacks will become physical as well as the verbal, written, legislative, and electronic kinds we deal with now. I'm willing to die for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Better men and women than me have given their all.

Now, I mentioned material on thermodynamics. Some of my own posts appear below (and a few date back to 2012), plus some others that I hope will be useful resources. Not so sure about the first couple, but I'm including them for the sake of accuracy about my claims.
I hope that the linked material as well as this here article will prove useful to y'all.

Subscribe in a reader