December 4, 2019

The Destructive Nature of Narcissism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is an article that I was going to write for a long time. Originally, I thought I could make it work over at Piltdown Superman and use the material in a discussion about atheists and anti-creationists, but it was not a good fit over there. This was inspired by an article that had been in my e-book reader for a long time and is linked later on.


Narcissistic types can be annoying but also dangerous in extreme cases. Secular materials can be helpful, but the real problem is spiritual.
Cropped from Echo and Narcissus by John William Waterhouse, 1903
Is it just my imagination, or are people becoming more and more self-absorbed nowadays? We hear about people who are overly fond of themselves and are often referred to as narcissistic. The word came from an ancient Greek myth where Narcissus was excessively handsome and fond of himself, then fell in love with his own reflection.

Narcissism is a personality disorder that takes many forms. The word is bandied about far too casually, describing people from world leaders to anyone else that may be disliked. As with any disorder (or even a physical illness), symptoms may vary. Most likely, we have all encountered people with some degree of narcissistic personality traits, but when it's a full-blown disorder — Katie, bar the door! Those people can be psychotics (I am using that word deliberately) and possibly dangerous in extreme cases.

The web is full of creepy people who put their wickedness on display, as well as some wonderful folks I regret not knowing in the real world. Not only do atheists frequent display narcissism, but their problem is probably compounded by autism in many cases. I know of some atheists who think that it is their duty to refute the "st00pid dumb creatards" through ridicule and misrepresentation. 

One is so narcissistic, he plays at believing God exists but has actually made an idol with which he is comfortable — which is certainly not the God of the Bible! In fact, he consigns people to Hell because they do not believe in his version of global warming, an old earth, the Big Bang, evolution, and in my case, just for existing. Narcissists will tell you how you are intellectually and/or morally inferior. When you prove your points, they deny the evidence even when it's right in front of them. Expect retaliation and childish behavior as well as further attempts at manipulation. This particular cyberstalker has stated that he intends to destroy me. That'll be the day!

Before continuing, I want to discuss the article that prompted this one. It is entirely secular, and was written for people who are in relationships with narcissists. It may be helpful to some people, and it can be helpful to view these sidewinders from a distance. (There is one strong profanity in it, but I'll allow that it's also humorously creative and descriptive.) If you want to read it, click on "20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You". Notice how narcissists try to isolate you from friends and associates, attempting to bolster their egos by having them shun you.

As usual, secular sources disregard the spiritual nature of humanity. Psychology is rooted in atheistic evolutionary approaches, so no wonder it's more like a goat rodeo than an actual science. Sure, trained counselors can give some degree of help because they know how to listen and ask probing questions. The real problem with narcissism is spiritual. In a word: sin. In another word: pride. I have encountered a couple of individuals who hate the God of the Bible and who love themselves so much, I am convinced that they are under heavy demonic influence. Narcissists despise biblical authority and the fact that they need to submit to God, not the false gods they've made.

We have to be on guard against the manipulations of narcissists. Not only can they be emotionally damaging, they try to take as much of our time as we'll allow (note how atheists and other evolutionists hound Christians and creationists). Ultimately, we need to remember that we are children of the living God, and that we can show unbelievers that they need to humble themselves and repent before Jesus.



November 18, 2019

Climate Change Activists Reject Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While the majority of climate change activists have little or no knowledge of science and "think" with their emotions, there are scientists involved. Apparently some of them are feeling lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. They have some blamestorming to do, but they're looking in the wrong direction.

Climate change alarmists are upset because we are not doing enough to save the world. Their own presuppositions and denial of truth are part of their problem.

As I pointed out in "Climate Change and Ignored Truth", secularists have a passel of presuppositions, including materialism, an old earth, evolutionism, and if there is a God, he is not in control. They appeal to emotions, not facts or logic, and trot out pawns like Greta "How Dare You!" Thunberg to throw kerosene on the fire. (Some of us don't take none too kindly to manipulation, you savvy?) We see that their predictions over the years have all failed, and some are so far away that those who made the alarmist claims will all be taking dirt naps before they can be criticized.

When people get all het up, their emotions interfere with their cognitive abilities. I have seen tinhorns who want to quirt folks into submission through ridicule and calling everyone "liars" who disagree with leftist climate change cult's views. I mentioned how these activists are lamenting that people are not doing enough to save the planet. Step back, Sally, and think about it: we've been told many times that the end is near, and we have also been told that it's already too late. So, we give leftists control of our lives, raise taxes, bring on a totalitarian state — and the world's climate will suddenly be changed and we can all sing the "Happy Happy Joy Joy" song? Not hardly!

Atheists and evolutionists pretend that there is scientific illiteracy when biblical creationists deny fish-to-fool evolution, but I lack belief that they complain about the scientific illiteracy exhibed to climate change extremists. Mayhaps it's because they're on the same materialistic team? Asking for a friend.

For that matter, there are people who may be brilliant, but when it comes to evidence for the Bible, creation, and God's existence, their minds turn to buckets of warm waste. While they use logic every day to one extent or another, it's like most logic circuits in their brains were deactivated. This hatred of God is what we read about in Romans 1:18-23; they are unrighteously suppressing the truth.

I keep mentioning how the climate change cult is primarily from leftist politics. But we need to go a bit deeper. You are highly unlikely to find people who believe in the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of the Bible to get involved in political and cultural positions that are contrary to the Word of God. Ponder that for a spell, pilgrim.

Evidence that indicates the leftist science approaches have serious flaws are ignored or refuted by the equivalent of, "That's not true! You're a liar! I am a god and I consign you to my version of Hell!" Then they label us "science deniers" (which is also hilariously fallacious) for rejecting their cultic views, play the victim card, and then scream into the wind. God is our Creator and has a plan, but materialists deny this and then wonder why they are filled with despair. The atheistic worldview only has despair to offer, and lacks the necessary preconditions of the human experience. When they say that something is right or wrong, they are denying their materialist and Darwinist presuppositions and are standing on the biblical worldview — beginning at creation.
You can do a simple act to help an environmental scientist: offer him or her a shoulder to cry on. In Science Magazine, Timothy A. C. Gordon, Andrew N. Radford, Stephen D. Simpson implored readers, “Grieving environmental scientists need support.” They’re depressed. Why? Humans are not doing enough to save the planet from climate change. Not even Darwin can help them.
. . .
Yes; the loss of ability to think coherently is becoming painfully evident. If they were consistent materialists and Darwinists (which is practically a job requirement in science these days), they would think logically, and figure that Darwin’s theory just says Stuff Happens, so tough luck. Planets come and go; life rises and goes extinct; that’s just the way of things. Nothing is good or bad. It just is.
To read the entire article, click on "Comfort Your Local Dogmatic Scientist".

ADDENDUM: I forgot about 4 John 7:14: "If anyone rejects current man-made climate change views, this is the unpardonable sin and that person is condemned to Hell." Looks like works-based salvation is real after all.


November 9, 2019

The Left Hates Us

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is not just a matter of difference of opinion on national policies, government, and so on. Leftists support all sorts of things that Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, and others promote. Instead, they advocate abortion, open borders, scaring children with climate change doomsday fake news, actively oppose Christianity, and so much more.


Leftists hate President Trump and his supporters. You do not have to like the man, but their actions to destroy him threaten the future of our country.
Made at PhotoFunia
Leftists were becoming aggressive and even violent toward Republicans and Conservatives back when George W. Bush was the American president. Campaign signs were stolen out of yards, vehicles with stickers were vandalized, people were harassed by leftist total strangers. Things settled down a bit when Caliph B. Hussein Obama was playing emperor for eight years (well, except for gender confusion and assassination of police officers, things were just wonderful with him in power).

Now that Donald J. Trump is the president, violence is astonishing to say the least. Take a gander at the news (not the fake news, they do not cover it) and you can easily read articles on people being beaten for wearing MAGA hats. Indeed, college students are afraid to admit that they're Republicans! This is from the party of "tolerance". Sure, they believe in free speech — as long as it meets their leftist political and cultural standards from the Ministry of Truth. Although leftists flat-out lie about this, there has been a coup in place to remove Trump from office right after he was elected.

When Mitt(ens) Romney was running for president, he made a good point regarding concerns that he is a Mormon: He did not define his run for office by his religion, nor was he running for pastor. Instead, he was running to be the president of all the people. Although Donald Trump has moral failings that have been brought into the spotlight through the internet (most of his indiscretions, incidentally, we accepted when he was a Democrat), he became president for all the people. This includes leftists and other poltroons who hate him.

I was not enthusiastic about voting for Trump, and chose against him in the Primary Elections. But he was a far better choice than Shrillary "Box Wine" Clinton, you betcha. Leftist news sources minimize his accomplishments (if they report on them at all), and spend more airtime and print bashing him than any other president has experienced. They hate him with a passion, even to the point of destroying our republic to have him removed from office under demonstrably false pretenses. Some tinhorns only choose leftist sources and biased reporting (such as the misrepresented transcript) so they can justify their hatred of Trump. 

They hate us. One leftist rag was furious with Bill Maher for being somewhat civil to a Republican. That's "wrong" by their "standards". Keep your ears and eyes open, and you will see leftists attacking people who support or simply voted for Trump. We are racists, homophobes (an appallingly stupid word used to provoke negative emotions), science deniers, and all sorts of other things. Unfortunately, people are unable or unwilling to use rational thought and "think" with their emotions. 

You don't have to adore Trump. He has flaws, and despite leftist falsehoods, his supporters admit that he is not a god. (Christians, it is your biblical duty to pray for him.) This attempt to stage a coup and have him removed from office is a great threat to this constitutional republic. I have two articles that I'd be much obliged if you'd read. First, Chris Stigall discusses how leftists are ramping up to attack Trump voters (I think it's an attempt to intimidate us into silence, leftist so that, you know). This is at "SNL Punts on Trump, Attacks His Voters Instead". Second, take a look at the very serious article by David P. Goldman, "It's Time for Every American Patriot to Rally Around Trump: The American Republic Is at Stake".

October 8, 2019

More Atheistic Propaganda from Dawkins

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Seems that Dr. Clinton Richard Dawkins got himself another atheopathy book on the market, which got the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod. Rusty Swingset ordered overtime at the propaganda mill with everybody on standby, and he went with another publisher.


Richard Dawkins has a new book of the same old propaganda for an incoherent worldview. He inadvertently proves God right again.
Left image credit: Wikimedia Commons / David Shankbone (CC by 3.0)
Right image credit: Imgflip and many other places on teh interweb
In a podcast of The Briefing by Dr. Richard Albert Mohler, we learned that Dawkins is inadvertently proving God right again (Romans 1:18-23). If you study on it a spell, you'll see that words like should, ought, and the like imply ethical and moral claims. According to atheism and evolutionism, we are just rearranged pond slime reacting to our chemical impulses. He has no right to criticize Christians or creationists because, in his fundamentally flawed worldview, we are born this way and cannot help it.

Actually, his rants do not contain valid logic. He tacitly admits God exists and simply gives excuses for hating God, who gave him life. Science is impossible without God, and so is logic. When atheists and evolutionists make moral claims, they are admitting that their atheistic worldview is irrational and incoherent, and are standing on the biblical worldview!

Ironically, his disciples use fallacious arguments against "religious" people making money, but this sidewinder is pulling in the grotzits from bad atheism. It pays to confirm biases and reinforce bigotry,  right, Dick?

I have a couple of things for you. First an article, "More of Dawkins’ same old tired rhetoric: Review of Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins" from Matthew Cserhati at Creation Ministries International. Next, the podcast that inspired this article. You can read the transcript, listen online, or download the MP3. Click on The Briefing, Monday, October 7, 2019. The second and third segments are what we're looking for.

September 10, 2019

Atheists and Misrepresentation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some time ago, I wrote an article about the proper use of debates, which drew heavily on what I had learned from Dr. James R. White. At this writing, he has done 169 formal debates. One thing he emphasizes is that to do this, both sides have to know what the other represents so they can discuss things properly.


Atheists and evolutionists frequently misrepresent Christians and creationists. Dr. James R. White points out some of these things. Christians need to be on guard against both receiving and giving them.
Screenshot from The Dividing Line, September 3, 2019 (linked below)
There is a section of The Dividing Line that I would like you to see. Dr. White is telling how he represents the other side correctly (at the moment, he was talking to a Mohammedan). That is an excellent set-up for the next segment where he is (if I understood this correctly) going to debate an atheist. This atheist wrote a post where he makes fifteen assertions that parts of the Bible had material that were inserted deceptively.

What he is doing (and what the Mohammedan was doing earlier) is focusing on textual variances. Christian scholars know about these things, and they are usually in footnotes of Bibles (such as, "...older manuscripts omit..." or similar). Claiming sneakiness from ancient Christians without evidence is not only illogical, it also makes him the liar. (I know of tinhorns who do the same thing: assert that someone is deceptive without offering evidence, then claiming that they "proved" someone is lying by irrationally invoking the fallacy of repeated assertion.) The atheist that White is discussing would do well to read "100 Alleged Bible Contradictions Answered" at the Domain for Truth.

Seeing this sort of thing helps Christians and especially creationists be on guard against harassment and misrepresentation by atheists and evolutionists. Also, we have to be mindful of our own approaches, avoiding "Gotcha!" tricks and so forth. We are not in this to glorify ourselves through our rhetorical skills, but to spread the truth and to glorify God.


The part I would like you to watch begins at the 25 minutes 49 seconds mark. I'm only asking a few minutes from you, from the Mohammedan and into the discussion about the atheist. You may want to watch Dr. White address each of the fifteen items, but I am not asking for that much.

ADDENDUM: Sometimes atheists pretend to be Christians, but you can tell from their misuse of the Bible and their attitudes that they are unbelievers in sheep's clothing. Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification and amusement, let me present Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker (the crowd goes wild). Hailing from London in the UK, he stalks and harasses people, especially intelligent people, who do not agree with his narrow, convoluted, bigoted views. Although he hates the God of the Bible and rejects the authority of Scripture, and he does not understand either, he uses them in his idolatrous pursuit of internet validity. He also has a habit of proving his critics right. Let's have a big round of applause for Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker:



September 1, 2019

Weasel Words and the Gay Gene Study

A recent study affirms previous results that there is no gay gene. Materialists still attempt to use genetic determinism to deny the Creator and dehumanize people.Scientific news confirmed previous scientific news. Namely, there is no such thing as a gay gene. People who claim they were "born this way" can make all kinds of explanations, but genetics is not supporting their lifestyles. The very big new study had scientists and tinhorn news reporters dealing from the bottom of the deck, however.

The saying applies here: torture the evidence enough and it'll confess to anything. This study on homosexuality was about behavior, not orientations. Conflicting items from the report were cited, but we see that many genes are associated with homosexual behavior — and with other things as well. One even is a part of the sense of smell, so that's a good indication that the results do not pass the sniff test. An important part of the research tends to be neglected by leftists: causation and correlation are two completely different things.

Materialists seek to deny that we are created by God, and are instead slaves to our biochemical impulses. Added to this is the dehumanizing aspect of genetic determinism. Environmental factors are thrown into the trail mix by leftists, but that concept is a red herring and should be examined separately. Weasel words dominate science news reporting in an effort to further leftist hijacking science for their own ends.

There are two important things for your serious consideration. The first is an article:

Largest genetic study ever done on the subject shows no conclusive evidence genes influence homosexual behavior.
There is no “gay gene,” a big new study concludes. The results of a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) study were published in Science today. Some scientists, however, continue to try to tease the data for some evidence of a predisposition to homosexual behavior.
To read the rest, click on "Homosexuals Can’t Blame Their Genes". The next item is The Briefing podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. You can listen online, download the MP3, or read the transcript of the first two segments. For this, click on "Part 1, Is Homosexuality Genetic? New Research Reveals an Old Story; Part 2, The Impulse to Ground Homosexuality in Biological Terms Is Driven By Morality, Not Just Science". Bonus article for Christians from May, 2018: "Regarding 'Sexual Orientation', Evil Desire, and the Question of Moral Neutrality".

August 26, 2019

Nuke Mars, Start a War?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article will confuse the Ministry of Truth, Fake News Division because it is a mixture of parody and real news. Old Joe Biden still has the desire to be president, but he is not showing intellectual acumen. If his errors happened to a Republican, the media would be all over it like chickens on June bugs.


Joe Biden does not show a firm grasp of reality at times. This is partly news and partly parody. Will it also be predictive?
Using a public domain photo of Joe Biden, I ran it through PhotoFunia, then added some text of my own
For example, he said that as Vice President, he met with survivors of the Parkland school shooting, which happened after he left office. Officials said he mixed up this one with another shooting.  He doesn't know when the Kennedy and King assassinations happened. Seriously, Democrats, are you so desperate to simply win an election that you want him in the most powerful position in the world?

The other real-but-looks-like-parody news is that Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, wants to launch nuclear missiles to Mars. He thinks it will help make Mars a place we can colonize, but scientists think it would be mostly pointless.

Those items were real. Here's where I get creative.
— Washington, DC, August 26, 2019

After learning of Elon Musk's desire to launch nuclear missiles to Mars, Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden was aghast.

"We're in no position to provoke the Martians. Earth barely survived Martian invasions of the past, like in 1897 and when I was a Senator in 1953". Biden is referring to the H.G. Wells novel that was serialized in 1897 and the movie starring Gene Barry that was released in 1953. When asked about the 2005 movie by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise, Biden sharply replied, "That's a movie. Do you think I'm stupid?"
I wouldn't be surprised if my parody turned out to be somewhat predictive, as the former Vice President and Senator has a tenuous grasp of reality at times. By the way, the words senile and senator have the same root.

August 12, 2019

A Look at the 4K YouTube to MP3 Downloader

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a scene in Young Frankenstein where Frederick, descendant of Victor Von Frankenstein finds a book titled How I Did It. I would like to make a video of How I Do It for some behind-the-scenes material for my work at The Question Evolution Project and the main site, Piltdown Superman, as well as some of my other sites.

One aspect of this is the posting of videos. I am reluctant to do like some other Pages and throw links at people without previewing the material. Since I have a day job doing data entry work, I do not have all that much time for watching videos and my eyes get mighty tired. Fortunately, I can listen to all sorts of audio material while working.

But what's this cowboy supposed to do with all those videos? Who wants to stare at a screen for a long interview, debate, or lecture? There are some online sites that convert them from video to MP3, but some of them no longer function and others will not convert anything of length. Then I happened across 4K Download while searching on the trail.

They have several products available, including a few methods of obtaining video and audio without installing anything. (One of these involves getting things from Instagram, but I do not have an account and no interest in getting one.) I didn't want the trouble of waiting for connections and such, so I downloaded the 4K YouTube to MP3 software. This was with great reluctance because I have been burned by free downloads in the past. However, they have not given me any problems and did not sound any alarms on my scanners.

This video-to-audio downloader is my primary tool for listening to video debates, lectures, and so forth before passing them on to other people. It seems to work quite well.

This company does something that I think is good marketing because they provide a free version as well as sell a license for all the functionality of the full version. I have been using the free version. The basic use is very simple. You can select which audio format you like and download locations as default (change them later if you wish). Head on over to the video in question, copy the link, then come back and click on the big green plus sign that says "Paste Link". It does that and begins the process. There are two passes, so don't get all excited too soon and wait for the message that it is completed before playing it.



There have been a couple of times where it has failed. Some videos just won't go. Other times I just paste again and usually get the download I'm after. They are surprisingly quick, but some of those two- or three-hour debates take a while. But that's to be expected. After I listen to the presentation, I can decide to post it, link to it, or even watch it anyway because I feel like I missed something by doing only the audio.

Also, the  4K YouTube to MP3 Downloader does more than just YouTube. I have used it for podcasts on Soundcloud as well as on other sites. If you use it, give it a try. You won't break anything, after all.

You may want to use this with a VPN. Although many lectures and such are intended to be freely available, YouTube gets on the prod about downloads. This downloader is targeted toward folks who want music and the full version will grab a full playlist. Funny that, as YouTube (owned by Google) licenses downloads for a price, but a great deal of the material on there is technically a violation of copyrights in the first place. (Mayhaps it's because a purchased download has higher quality than YouTube and such, I don't know.) I am not certain of the legalities of all this, but the 4K Download company doesn't seem to be having any problems.

Here is where I think I have to put in a caveat: I am supposed to get something for writing this here review for y'all and putting in this link (like I did earlier). It doesn't have to be a positive review, but they promised to give me a full version license for doing this. We'll see.

Anyhow, this is my primary tool for listening to videos and previewing them before I post links. Take a look-see at the company and the products in the links above and see what you think. What is Metacafe?


August 8, 2019

He is not Saying Trump Likes Nazis, but — Yes He Is Saying It

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Revised 8-10-2019

Leftists are running around saying that Donald Trump is a Nazi, calling him Hitler or fascist, saying he wants people dead, and other foul things. Hypocrites! Nazis are socialists, which is what many on the left are embracing. Try to get them to define fascist and you are unlikely to get an intelligent reply. They are like other people I could name, screaming something, no matter how stupid, just to provoke negative emotions in others.

Leftist propaganda is getting out of control. People who can spot bad reasoning can see through this kind of emotional manipulation.
Concentration camp image credit: Pixabay / Jacek Abramowicz
I keep saying that one reason I encourage spotting basic logical fallacies and engaging in critical thinking is not just for those of us who promote biblical creation science and apologetics. Rational thinking is applicable in many areas of life. Try it with politics. I've seen bad arguments on television between leftists and Conservatives and wanted to tell them both to shut up because they were doing it all wrong.

We can understand people doing the sour grape thing because Shrillary Clinton lost the election. But to fan the flames of hatred so much, even to the point of destroying the country? Leftists even want to dismantle the Constitution. Hatred begins with words, and when defamatory words by "journalists" on national television (and the world via the internet) are not only unchallenged but encouraged, we are in trouble.

Fortunately, a few sensible people are not going to put up with it and expose fools. One sidewinder on MSNBC said that August 8, which is 8-8, which is the eighth letter of the alphabet, which is H-H, which is heil Hitler, is Donald Trump's problem. But he's not saying that raising the flag back up on HH Day means Trump is a Nazi supporter, but yes, he is indeed saying that. He's manipulating you and playing with your heads. When I learned about the number eight business, I did a hurried but highly sarcastic post on Fazebook.

Here is a section of the Chris Plante Show where Derek Hunter was filling in. The part we want is at 1 hr. 39 min. 59 sec. Note that someone keeps referring to "the adversary". Who is that, people who disagree with leftists? You can click this link and it's supposed to take you right there. If you keep going, there are some excellent phone calls about not only this, but other numbers games such as Ronald Wilson Reagen =666=the Antichrist. Oh, boy. You may also like to read "8/8 = Hitler? ‘Remember, These Are the People Who Tell Us Trump Is Crazy’".

Eight is a lucky number in Chinese culture. Santa has eight tiny reindeer. There were eight people on Noah's Ark, and is also the number used to represent new beginnings in the Bible. Stop signs in the US have eight sides. Reggie Jackson played for the New York Yankees and wore number 44, which is half of 88. See a pattern here? If you do, I wonder about your mental processes.

The next day, another guest host (Steve Malzberg) filled in for Chris and briefly covered the same subject. A caller said that he knows someone who has researched Neo-Nazis and had never heard of the 8-8 as H-H thing. I did a search, but could only find assertions making the same assertions, but I did not find any links to source documents or anything authoritative. Interesting that the "sources" seemed to all be leftists. I lack belief that this 88 business is anything more than an urban legend.

July 24, 2019

Celebrating Apollo 11 Splashdown 50th Anniversary

As a child, I was excited watching the Apollo 11 events. Of course, the details are fuzzy fifty years later, but I was excited to celebrate the anniversary. There are many details that the public did not know and I learned some of these just in the past few days. This helped me appreciate the events more fully, especially the skill of the crew and all the people involved that made it all happen.


Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 splashdown. Some interesting articles are linked.
NASA image modified through FotoSketcher
Can you believe some tinhorns (often flat-earthers) think that the whole thing was a fraud? Yeah, sure, as if all those thousands of people over all those years could keep the entire Apollo program a secret! Idiots. Many of these people (including astronauts) were Christians and creationists, by the way.

As a child playing with my space toys during the flight, landing, and so on, I was impatient. There were many details involved that needed to be performed with minute precision; it wasn't like they could do the equivalent of throw a saddle on a horse and ride off. Their lives were at risk most of the mission. This was back when NASA was doing real science, and not wasting time on evolution and astrobiology (or more accurately, bioastrology).

Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner remembers those days. He has written an excellent article about the mission and other events related to it. It take it mighty kindly if you'd read "Apollo 11: 50 Years Later".


July 13, 2019

Productivity with Free Software

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although money makes the world go around (just check the tracking and advertising reports about major companies, for example) there are still some good-hearted and generous people around. Much of what gives voices to many is free or low-cost. Sometimes I return the favor by mentioning products or giving image credits, but I don't get one red grotzit for doing so.

Behind the scenes about my blogging and the free, legal use of images.
Left image: cropped from Freeimages / Leena Naidoo
The image on the right is the left image modifed with FotoSketcher
Sure, some companies and individuals will sell stuff at different levels such as the free, pay more for some features, pay a lot more for all the features. I use a wagon train-load of free materials (most notably Open Source and Freeware), but I admit that I've been burned by a few bad risks. To reduce these, I check reviews and if I download something, I can scan it with my free versions of Malwarebytes and the Avast! antivirus scanner — both of which were highly recommended.

Although it is nowhere near as effective as it should be (I believe that Google is more interested in finding ways of stuffing more money into their saddlebags that in putting quality in their services), this blogging platform is free, as are some versions of Wordpress and others. However, I pay for several domains. Some can be mighty pricey, but others are very low for an annual rate.

My most frequent weblog is Piltdown Superman. If you browse through the images, you'll see that they come from free sites where I obtained them in good faith. (I can pay for images, but they are a bit pricey for my budget.) I do some editing with Paint dot Net, which is also free. Although many free image sites do not require credit to the site and the photographers or artists, I want to help them out in some small way so I provide it. Others do require it, and I think some play a bit of a game. 

Wikimedia Commons requires credit and the Creative Commons or other license, but the US Government images that were made by employees and not licensed for the site from external sources are free and public domain. They want users to give credit and to say that the agency does not endorse the subject matter on the site. Mayhaps that's really the law, but I doubt it because they're already in the public domain by law, and other people don't follow the instructions. I'll allow that I'm partly motivated by being transparent and also by the desire to avoid antagonizing anyone in the government.

Just because an image is on the web doesn't mean it's free for everyone. In fact, it is automatically copyrighted whether it is registered or not. One sidewinder sought to humiliate me and stole one of my photos so I filed a DMCA takedown complaint. That really got him on the prod, so he uploaded a copyrighted image of an ugly alien and said it represented me. While his article was defamatory, I can do nothing about the other image per se; that's up to the movie studio — if they think it's worth the trouble. Also, I had a furious atheopath steal one of my images and post it on Facebook with a defamatory picture and called it Fair Use. That was in no wise Fair Use, but Fazebook sided with the atheist. They do that frequently, as we have seen.

There is a Fair Use policy that is used and abused, but the details are fuzzy. I don't want a courtroom battle, so I seldom invoke Fair Use if I have any doubt that I'm on solid ground. (A Fair Use disclaimer can be found on this page). Besides, other people are not likely to be financially damaged by the small, low-resolution images I use. Text on forums is public, and also screenshots of these easily fall under the Fair Use provisions.

Let's ride this trail a mite further. Original material that is under copyright can be used in a different way than Fair Use. I think some copyrights are lost because the original is scattered all over teh interwebs, such as on "meme" generators that are provided for everyone's use. (Careful, some are uploaded by individuals who have no right to make them public.) This other area is derivative.

As I understand it, if a copyrighted image has been modified a great deal, the derivative is unique and can even be copyrighted itself. The image at the top shows a free image that I modified with FotoSketcher. Maybe that is enough of a modification to be considered a derivative, but I'm on safe ground for my purposes anyway; it will appear in a new post on PDSM later.

I hope that people mildly curious about what goes on behind the scenes with my weblog work will like the article. Also, there are some links and insights that may prove useful to people. There's no need to steal, and all y'all can stay out of trouble by doing things legally. Christians take note! Do things above board so your testimony is not tarnished.

July 5, 2019

Hysteria Over Climate Change is Hysterical

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is a fact that there are noticeable similarities in the bad reasoning and worse science used by flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail conspiracies, and several other concepts that are insulting to thinking people. You can also find parallels between evolutionary thinking and global climate change alarmism. Should we laugh or cry about the climate change hysteria?

It is difficult to decide whether to laugh or cry about climate change hysteria. Here is another example of how its proponents can be galactically stupid.
Derived from an image at ESA / NASA / SOHO
Fake science "experts" have predicted the end of the world many times (especially in some sort of climate change), but though Algore and his followers then and now have been shown to be galactically wrong.  They're on the side of the angels, you know, and have to save us from ourselves. With what, denial of science, suppression of inconvenient facts, and calling our Creator a liar? Not bloody likely.

Here is a short video that I'd take mighty kindly if you'd give a listen. (Well, I have to use the video format because audio-only is not very conducive to sharing.) It will only take three minutes. Wait for it...


July 4, 2019

Liberty and Darwinism are Opposites

Since proponents of fish-to-firefighter evolution rely on a paradigm of naturalism, they have a heap of trouble explaining the experiences of life that are intangible. I heard a debate between a Christian and an atheist, and the atheist admitted that everything he knows could be wrong in his frame of empiricism. The Christian showed him that he could not account for such things as logic and his worldview is self-refuting. Even though the atheist could be wrong, his "reasoning" maintained that the Christian is also wrong. Such a worldview is unlivable, as things we experience every day, truths of life, cannot be tested and determined in a lab by material means. By what means to materialists determine the soul or free will? What or where is consciousness? They are not a part of the brain. There are some helpful links in "The Quantum Soul?"


Evolutionists cannot reconcile concepts like freedom and liberty with their materialistic worldview.
Declaration of Independence, John Trumbull, 1817-1819
Today, many Americans are celebrating Independence Day. Hopefully, we will reflect on the strong statements that were used by the Founding Fathers in this event. Darwin and his successors promoted natural selection, and had no use for things like love, compassion, human rights, liberty, and so forth. Yet we cherish such concepts, but they have no evolutionary, "scientific", or materialistic basis. In fact, they are contrary to such thinking. Our founders, and many Americans today, acknowledge that freedoms ultimately come from our Creator.

It amazes me that people hold very public protests, write letters, publish newspaper articles, and more to complain about the government. That's freedom of speech. They should learn how to use search engines and learn a bit about history, as there are countries now, and have been in the past, where such actions could get them imprisoned or killed.

We transfer power through our election processes. Other countries have violent overthrows and military actions. By the way, our government is far more stable than other countries. Do some research on how many governments Italy has had, for instance.

There are people in Britain and other places who rail against Americans as stupid and backward (even though we're the leaders in science and technology, as well as human rights). Is it because many of us reject their materialistic, Darwinian views? While many folks strive for political and other kinds of freedoms, the only true freedom is found in being reconciled with our Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

I'm sending you to an article that was published on July 4, 2018, but I did not see it until later. This post is written on August 19, 2018. It will be interesting to see that what is expressed here, and in that article, are still relevant.
The Darwinian worldview that allegedly freed people from ‘religion’ actually enslaves them to the worst kind of tyranny.

In the United States today, Americans will celebrate Independence Day with parties, barbecues, and fireworks. Hopefully mixed in with the fun is some appreciation for the founding principles of America:
  • All men are created equal
  • Human rights
  • Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
  • Liberty and justice for all
  • E pluribus unum (out of many, one)
  • In God we trust
  • The American dream
All of these ideals are profoundly anti-Darwinian. The secular worldview in vogue today, resting on Darwin’s advocacy of nature run by unguided natural processes, cannot derive any of these. In fact, the opposite is true: secularism undermines every one of these, and historically, has fought against them.
 I'd take it very kindly if you'd read the rest of this article. To do so, click on "Liberty Is an Anti-Darwinian Concept".



June 22, 2019

Modern Culture and Changing Morality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is one of those articles that will probably be outdated within days, but I am writing it because the time-sensitive examples should still be useful in support of the principles they underscore. As societies change, so do moral "standards" — unfortunately. There is an ultimate standard, but that is unwanted nowadays.


Kyle Kashuv and Lori Loughlin received harsh reprisals for their actions. The morality behind their punishments is inconsistent, showing how the morality in society keeps changing. There is an ultimate standard, but people reject it.
Credit: Unsplash / purplepic

Rescinding the Offer

Kyle Kashuv was a survivor of the Parkland school shooting by a leftist in 2018. He was admitted to Harvard, but people who disliked his pro-Second Amendment views dug up dirt on him, sent it to Harvard, and they rescinded their offer. Chris Stigall discussed this in his podcast at about the 37 minute mark. Apparently, even though Harvard, a bastion of anti-Christian and anti-Conservative thought (ironically, it was established on Christian principles) has decided that certain politically incorrect words deserve their harsh judgment.

Saying such things was not worthy of notice a few years ago. Also, most people have done something foolish in their youth. Do people change? You betcha. So do society's morals.

 

The Horror of Bribery

Speaking of colleges, Lori Loughlin was in the TV sitcom Full House and then Fuller House (on Netflix), and has starred in several movies on the Hallmark networks. She was caught in a college admissions scandal, and was fired from Fuller House and Hallmark. Interesting that this warranted such harsh reprisals, without conviction, but what is the moral standard? Where is the consistency? Not like she was a convicted axe murderer or something.


via GIPHY

When encountering atheists and such on social media and elsewhere, they get on the prod to ridicule and persecute Christians. Bigotry is acceptable against Christians and biblical creationists in modern society, and it is interesting that the accusers are using bigotry to deflect from their own. Sometimes you will hear or read that we "deserve" attacks. According to what standard? Personal whims.

It's Moral if it's Good for Us

The Company decided that they needed to step up the bullying. Mandatory overtime was implemented months ago, and with it, promises that the crisis will soon pass. (The crisis will pass when the incompetent upper management runs The Company into the ground.) A misconduct write-up? I think that is defamation toward the employee, Bubbles. Misconduct is when a chair is thrown through the window. Savvy the difference?

When people were hired, they were told the hours of the shift they were working, with occasional overtime on weekends. People planned accordingly, getting second jobs, arranging child care, adjusting themselves to deal with medical issues, and so on. No, whatever is desired by The Company is good and right (State Department of Labor penalties and class action lawsuits against 

The Company no withstanding), and they can change the rules as they see fit. Ironically, employees were required to renew training in ethics and integrity when the leadership (I use that term loosely) is severely deficient in both. Do they seriously expect high quality data entry work from people who have eye strain, are tired, in pain, courting carpal tunnel syndrome,  resentful? I may eventually change this to actually name The Company, who has a lousy reputation on the street and online. They've worked hard to earn their bad reputation and they apparently intend to keep it.

Because She Deserved It

A black man severely beat and raped a white woman and said she deserved it because of slavery. What, she owned him? Not a chance. This was just a pathetic attempt to justify his sinful urges in his own "morality". Maybe they'll use the detestable "black rage" defense. Chris Plante discusses it for a few minutes. The player is supposed to start at the 2 hr. 38 min. 10 sec. mark, or as close as I could get it. You can locate it yourself if this doesn't work correctly.



These examples show that morality changes based on whims and political correctness, and smack of postmodern relative morality. The only true foundation is revealed in the Bible, and we can see what happens when the truth provided by the Creator is suppressed in unrighteousness. People make mistakes, and they may change. The more permanent and positive changes come from repentance and humble faith in Jesus Christ.

June 15, 2019

Celebrity Fight Challenge and Logic

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A passel of people are bemused by the challenge made by singer Justin Bieber to actor Tom Cruise. He wants a fight. Not a barroom brawl, but a formal Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts event. Bieber taunted that if Cruise ignores the challenge, he is a coward.


Bieber challenges Cruise to a UFC fight. Big deal. Except that there are some things to learn about logic in this.
Shane Carwin and Junior Dos Santos facing off at UFC 131
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Bad intentionz (CC by-SA 3.0)
Normally, my response would be, "That's silly. How long until it's time to clock out?" (In fact, I had to look up UFC, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a Bieber song. Saw a few movies with Cruise, though. Is it true that he does most of his own stunts?) What got my attention is the claim that if Tom ignored Justin's challenge, then Tom is a coward.


This is the kind of thing that other Christians and biblical creationists have to deal with frequently. We are bushwhacked with the obligatory ad hominems as well as straw man, red herring, and other fallacies. Here we can see both bifurcation (either you accept the challenge or you're a coward) and the appeal to motive fallacy (cowardice, in this case).

Why would Tom Cruise ignore the fight challenge from Justin Bieber?" I could give a better either/or option: either you get ready to slap leather with him, or you have other things to do. As for the claim that he's afraid, well, that's simply a childish taunt. Bieber has no way of knowing what's in Cruise's mind.

If I challenged Tom Cruise to a fight, I would be afraid that he might accept because he would clean my clock. Not a great feat because Bieber could, too.

I've had "debate" challenges that amount to, "I hate you. Come onto this forum run by atheists and other anti-creationists and debate me. But you won't because you're afraid!" (Very confused individual. He made me a BFF bracelet like Joe Biden made for B. Hussein Obama, and I understand that he keeps my picture on is icebox for his own Orwellian-style Two Minutes Hate.) I reject the challenge for many reasons, so we can dispense with the bifurcation part of his foolish challenge with other reasons:
  • I have run rings 'round him logically several times
  • His "arguments" are incoherent
  • He is a Sanballat, occasionally pretending to be reasonable but only means harm
  • My ego does not need to be bolstered in this way
  • It would not be a structured debate, but would more closely resemble a food fight
  • I have a job that takes up a lot of my time
  • Most importantly, I head up The Question Evolution Project, a biblical creation science ministry
  • His sense of humor is seriously impaired and he is probably fuming about the icebox and bracelet jokes (but the Two Minutes Hate thing may not be far off). Other than those things, he's doing fine.
Having dispensed with the bifurcation aspect, let's take a quick look at the appeal to motive part. Like Bieber, my challenger does not know what is in my mind. If I am afraid, perhaps I am afraid of causing him further humiliation. Well, it's a possibility, isn't it?


While I referenced a particularly vindictive individual in the above list, over the years I have had several who are like this. Also, I have observed or read accounts of atheists and anti-creationists on the prod. Their visceral, illogical attacks are very similar for the most part (although some try to pose as somewhat intellectual but can be dismantled). While critical thinking seems to be suppressed in modern educational systems, learning to spot simple logical fallacies is extremely helpful.

The appeal to motive fallacy is something that I loathe entirely. It is easy to find, frequently located in phrases like, "You are doing this because..." Christians and creationists, avoid this as an argument. Don't be like atheists and Darwin's disciples; we have to rise above that for the glory of God. You savvy?


Subscribe in a reader