Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

June 23, 2020

Amazing Atheist — A Video by Ray Comfort

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Ray Comfort has been proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ for many years, and he has made a prairie schooner-full of videos of various lengths under the banner of Living Waters. Atheists like these have a great time ridiculing and misrepresenting him, but he still preaches the gospel with love and without compromise.

This article draws from the "Amazing Atheist" documentary by Ray Comfort, and a link is provided so you can see it.
Screenshot from the title section of Amazing Atheist
While many professing atheists tend to ridicule Ray's videos, some have actually watched them. He had video interviews with two of them. John has been vile and hateful, and Justin expresses disagreement but was pleasant. In the interview, both were civil and actually let him speak. Justin is one of the few atheists I've seen that can be personable, and I think I could have a discussion with him.

One of them said that a turning point for him was that he was told to believe literally everything in the Bible. Define "literally". No rational Christian believes all of the contents in an absolutely literal manner, just like people checking for the time of sunrise actually believe the sun rises. Context is key, and we are to use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

Other people and I have observed that minerals-to-mycologist evolution is foundational for atheism. Also included are the Big Bang, uniformitarian geology (so that Darwin can move in mysterious ways his wonders to perform), and other natural processes. There are many resources available for people who have honest questions, and creation science models for catastrophism fit the observed data instead of uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes over millions of years). Evolution makes atheists out of people — especially those who want to disbelieve and will not investigate further.

Evolution also helps them justify their rebellion against God because it is their creation myth. While claiming to believe in empirical science and reason, the atheists were expressing blind faith in evolution and even personifying it. The "facts" of evolution are constantly being rewritten, and we've seen many examples of fake "discoveries" as well as the exulted peer review process that have been retracted and even false. Believing in evolution is done through faith, not evidence. Doing so is neither scientific nor rational.

Even though atheism is irrational and incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience, we see many of them attempting to convert us to their fundamentally flawed worldview. Study on it a minute. Instead of respecting our views, they seek to deprive us of our beliefs and joy. Most rational people (who do not establish their identities in denying the existence of God) will be respectful of the beliefs of others. Yes, Christians will evangelize because we want to see people experience the love, forgiveness, and lordship of Jesus Christ. We also don't want to see them going to Hell in their sin. Our injunction is to be respectful.

There are professing Christians who think love means being sunshine and lollipops, coddling atheists. Like those with violent religious views, atheists see coddling in the name of love as weakness. Sometimes we have to be blunt to get their attention, which is actually the loving thing to do! Ray Comfort can be very direct but is not unkind. I challenge atheists to read his book Out of the Comfort Zone and see if any atheists have done the things he has done to help others at personal expense and risk.

This child thinks that Justin and John didn't do their homework, preferring instead to reinforce their beliefs by using talking points from various internet atheist rhetoric supply houses. I have seen many times where professing atheists prefer to delve into cherry-picked philosophies such as, "Immanuel Kant said that morality is based on reason, a categorical imperative, so moral law comes from within". A lot of chin music. You can pull on the reins and holler, "Whoa!" by asking what happens when my inner moral law differs from your moral law?

Listen up: everyone has an ultimate starting point that is not reached through empiricism. Atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists, assuming naturalism. We presuppose the Word of God, which has been confirmed time and again. There is an ultimate truth, a First Cause, a source for morality. That is God our Creator. Our faith is not blind, and those rejecting God need to repent.

I encourage you to watch the documentary, "Amazing Atheist — A Journey of Two Atheists". There are many things I said that are not covered in the video (it would probably be four hours instead of one hour in length). Mayhaps atheists could learn a little about the man they so gleefully mock, but also may learn about the gospel as well.

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.

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...

February 18, 2019

James Watson gets the Cold Springs Shoulder

James Watson had his honorary titles removed because of his racist views, yet people do not distance themselves from Darwin and evolutionary racism. The answer does not lie in political correctness trends.
Credit: RGBStock/
Tomislav Alajbeg
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because this is a caustic subject, please read carefully so you do not misunderstand the points I am making.

Does Dr. James Watson wonder why the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory took away his titles? It's elementary, Watson: racist views are not cool any longer. Statues of Confederate army leaders are being torn down because the South wanted to keep slaves; other racists are in trouble (except for Democrats in good standing, like Sen. Robert Byrd and others). If you say something that even hints at racism, you can be in a heap of trouble.

Ken Ham pointed out that if these people who are upset about racism were consistent, they would disassociate themselves from Charles Darwin, who had blatantly racist views. The Bible tells us the opposite, that there are no "races", only ethnic people groups. That's right, "race" is not a biblical position. Although racism has been with us almost from the beginning, it went full gallop with evolutionary "scientific racism". Some examples of that can still be seen today, although evolutionists try to distance themselves from it.

In reality, the political correctness movement is not only used to suppress legitimate freedom of speech as well as genuine racism, PC is selective because of the greater leftist goals. For example, science and reason clearly show that there are differences between men and women, but the secular science industry has become involved in politically leftist activism. An appeal to "scientists say" (or worse, the "scientific consensus" fallacy) can change if something is not currently accepted by the powers that be.

Tearing down statues will not change the past; we are supposed to learn from it and move forward. Removing Watson's titles as a means of punishment does not negate his co-discovery of the DNA molecule. The lab issued strong statements condemning his racist views (I think it was partly to protect themselves from subsequent repercussions). Since he is an atheist, it would not be much of a stretch for weak thinkers to try and outlaw atheism as well. Interesting that the overwhelming majority of professing atheists are white males, though.

How about a bit of rational thinking instead of "thinking" with emotions? I don't know what good removing Watson's titles can accomplish (and I have no alternative suggestions for this touchy subject), but his punishment cannot negate his scientific work. The true answer to racism is not found in political correctness trends or from social justice warriors. It is found in the Word of God.

December 5, 2018

Science Shows the Differences Between Men and Women

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some people refer to those of us who reject fish-to-fool evolution or the current version of anthropogenic climate change as "science deniers", "anti-science", and similar labels. Such claims are clearly blatant lies utilized to elicit emotional reactions for the sake of demonizing their opponents. 

It is not uncommon for advocates of evolution and climate change to misrepresent those they perceive of as enemies, even lying all the more in their straw man "arguments". Part of the problem is the all-or-nothing argumentation; we state that we appreciate real science, but they portray us as if we reject all science. You savvy? When it comes to differences between men and women, there are indeed science deniers. No, not all of science, but that which is applicable to their gender activism.

Medical science and biology affirm the differences between men and women. To ignore the facts can lead to serious health hazards.
The Happy LoversGustave Courbet, 1844
I have written about the differences between males and females (and how science confirms what the Bible says) in a previous post. Also, leftist activists in the secular science industry are denying what they are supposed to know and fueling gender confusion for a small segment of the population. (Interesting that all sorts of deviations have escalated ever since the Obergefell ruling.) For centuries, people knew that men and women are different; there are only two sexes like the Bible says (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2). Nowadays people don't know which restroom to use. Your gender is not "fluid", and if you'll permit me a moment of the reification fallacy: science does not care how you feel.

Aside from the obvious differences in strength and physique, our differences go all the way down to the cellular level — even into the DNA. Men respond to certain medications differently than women. Snoring and sleep apnea are bad for anyone, but they seem to be a greater cardiac problem for women. Both sexes have kidneys, but those of women have been complicated. Men are less likely to survive some cancers than women. There is a great deal more in the link below.

Meanwhile, leftists want to ignore the factual differences between the sexes, and political correctness can interfere with proper medical procedures. As Christians and creationists (as well as secularists who have sense) have said all along, we are different and no amount of personal preference assertion can change that. Leftists mocked Donald Trump for saying that there are only two sexes. He is right. 

To read about science between the sexes, click on "Biological Fact: Men and Women Are Different". EDIT: I also recommend "Marriage and identity crisis" Redefining marriage, gender, age and species" for additional information.

Here is a song that leftists are making noise about getting banned. Probably because it is about man and woman stuff.

October 22, 2018

Atheists Spread the Bruno Science Lie

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Seems to me that it is human nature to like to find people or read statements that agree with our existing opinions. When people deny facts in favor of their opinions (such as, "My little Johnny would never rustle cattle!" when the varmint was caught red handed), that is a problem. Changing the facts to fit an opinion or a narrative is lying, and that's a natural fact. That's a big problem. Atheists are generally known for lying, and one of their favorites lies is about "The Church hates science". In this case, the false legend built up about Giordano Bruno.

One of the falsehoods spread by atheists to demonize Christianity is that Giordano Bruno was killed because he was a scientist

Recently, a rider from the Owlhoot Trail spread a claim from atheistic dogma that Giordano Bruno "was killed by the Church for daring to believe and expand upon the heliocentric model, he dared to state that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around, and that there were more planets than just the Earth and the other Solar System based planets out there". Absolutely false. 

Click for larger
To see the atheopathy inherent in the system, click here and take a gander at the comments
Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
His remark was in response to a short video posted at The Question Evolution Project regarding falsehoods circulated about the Middle Ages. Such a claim ignores history and how universities were invented back then, plus the fact that great scientists (many of them were creationists) began important studies. Indeed, the atheopath dismissed the entirety of the video. Obviously, it contained truth that was threatening to his fundamentally flawed worldview.

Let's take that a bit further. This pusillanimous attack is used to demonize Catholicism and especially Christianity in general, and to support the presupposition that Christianity as a whole is wicked. If that's the case, then to be consistent and honorable, we must discard all of the sciences, art, and other accomplishments that began in the Middle Ages. For that matter, discard everything invented by Christians — especially creationists — because we're bad people.

Creation Ministries International touched on the Bruno thing when they were exposing the numerous falsehoods in the newer version of Cosmos. Since people like that are fond of using the genetic fallacy to avoid facing the facts, we need to go somewhere else. (I'll allow that the CMI article was not thorough on the Bruno section, but that was not their intention.) How about if we take a look at something completely different: history for atheists, written by an atheist?

Tim O'Neill makes me want to weep. He is intelligent, articulate, pleasant, and the kind of guy I'd like to hang around with. The noetic effect of sin that affects the thinking of those who reject God does not seem to have fouled him up yet. I hope and pray that he will humble himself and submit to Jesus Christ for salvation. There is still hope for that.

Mr. O'Neill points out that the claims made about Bruno were not based on historical records but (in my words) Atheistic Clearinghouses of Disinformation. The stuff is propaganda and has no  support. Bruno was not a scientist, but a mystic who happened to use science on occasion. In fact, it's clear that he was a nut.

Some angry misotheists claim that Isaac Newton was a mystic, so his biblical creation beliefs are negated. They should reject the laws of motion and his studies of gravity as well. O'Neill points out that many of the Medieval scientists had a mystical bent, but unlike Giordano Bruno, they were indeed practicing actual science. Bruno was not executed for being a scientist. He was executed for being a heretic, like other people of that time who spread wild-eyed beliefs, and opposed the political powers that be.

To see how Tim examines the history, including the culture of the time and related procedures, I strongly recommend clicking on "The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science".

September 18, 2018

The Secular Science Industry and Gender Confusion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is indeed unfortunate that people have a love-hate relationship with the secular science industry. Because of numerous errors and even outright fraud, people are getting mighty suspicious about science. However, people also tend to look to scientists as our saviors, which is a horrendous mistake because scientists are human, and have the same vices as most other folks.

Secular science joins in with political movements, even at the point of denying science itself.
Background image before added text: Pixabay / Gordon Johnson
We have seen that the secular science industry is nowhere near impartial, and they ride for the leftist brand. This includes participating in leftist activism. As time goes on, these scientists are indulging in political correctness and supporting "gender dysphoria", which is a medically dangerous practice — as well as defying science and the God who created us.

The articles linked above have some valuable information, and perhaps carry some of the urgency of what is happening. By my reckoning, people who think gender and sex are something fluid and can be decided by how someone feels on a particular day — they are mentally ill. You need the proper medication to fit your sex, whether you "feel" like an XX or an XY is irrelevant. "I'm sorry, sir, but you have vaginal warts". If biology was a personality, it clearly wouldn't care what you think about male or female. 

Since people can get in trouble for using a pronoun that the "transgender" or other type of person does not prefer (even though it would be the right one), Mr. Gordons has a suggestion, here.

Earlier, I linked to this article on science and gender confusion. It came out within a few days of Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast, The Briefing. He goes into some detail on some of the things discussed in that article, and what it all means from a Christian worldview perspective. Dr. Mohler points out that some gender confusion in children may be linked to trendiness or peer pressure! (Imagine, those same clowns who consider themselves brilliant will eat laundry detergent "pods" and pay money to unscrupulous doctors for permanent bodily mutilation.)  The first two segments were "The transgender revolution: Could ‘gender dysphoria’ actually be fueled by social contagion?" and "When an academic controversy is not merely academic: The real life implications of a controversy over scientific research and transgender youth". I hope all y'all will give it a listen or read the transcript at the September 10, 2018 podcast.

July 15, 2018

Still Waiting for that Next Ice Age

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Before I get to the subject of this article, a bit of (mostly) unrelated fun stuff. Did you know that YouTube has quite a few big-name movies and television shows? We can only guess if they reverted to public domain (some have), or the copyright owners really do not care that movies like Seven Days in May (1964, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Frederic March, Ava Gardner, and other big stars) are free to the public on YouTube. Someone mentioned a video that seemed interesting, so I tried something.

Using my Android smart phone and the YouTube app, I found the video. Then I used the connection to send it to my new friend, Roku, so I could watch it on the television device. Worked mighty fine. Apparently, since the phone and Roku are on the same WiFi network and don't have to be in the same room, the phone doesn't act like a server, so I'm not losing much battery power. When the video was over, it began to advance to the next one in the playlist on my TV. The phone app was where I had left it, and the phone was into standby, power saver, or whatever it is when it goes dark. I am not a professional, and you can try this at home.

Before the global warming/climate change propaganda, secular scientists were guaranteeing a coming ice age.
Credit for this cool picture goes to Jason VanDorsten at Freeimages
And now for our feature attraction.

Before the politically-motivated global climate change craze, replete with cherry-picked data, misrepresentation, and even fraud, the term was global warming. Some tinhorns will point to warm spells as "evidence" for it, but conveniently ignore snowfall in the Sahara Desert, as that interferes with their propaganda. Did Bill Nye have excuses for that Sahara snow thing? According to leftist Washington, DC council member Trayon White, climate change is caused by the Jews. He should get in touch with the Iranian general who also blames them, but for different reasons. No reason to dismiss the claims if they fit the narrative, right? We don't need no stinkin' reality, we got propaganda!

 Before global warming, the big scare (although less profitable for globalists and other leftists) was the coming ice age.

The difference in the two extremes of pseudoscience is a matter of degrees. 180 of them. Really? All those "facts" can change so much in such a short time? Not hardly! If I recollect rightly, global warming fanatics were embarrassed when they were reminded that the next ice age was popular in pseudoscience, so they went from calling it global warming to global climate change to hedge their bets.

Alan Landsburg was an author and movie maker with a fondness for the sensational odd stuff. He did things on ancient astronauts, the Bermuda Triangle, magic, monsters, and other things. Some of his movies began with "In Search Of..." Then he was involved in making a television series by the name, In Search Of..., narrated by Leonard Nimoy.

The video that I had fun streaming to the television was "In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age". It sounded all sciencey, with a plenty of things to scare people. Scientists said that the next ice age is coming, there is no doubt, and is already beginning. Katie, bar the door! Oh, wait. She moved to Panama or something.

Interestingly, support for the coming ice apocalypse included some of the same circular reasoning and techniques used today to frighten and tax us with global climate change. Deceived sheeple seem to be willing to pay taxes.

The unreliable ice core method calibrated by the fundamentally flawed Milankovitch Cycles made an appearance in the video. (I'll let Haywire the Stalker, uneducated as he is but still an expert in theology, astronomy, geology, biology, and everything else, well, he can refute this article — including the references.) Secular assumptions about millions of years were also prominent. There were assertions about multiple ice ages millions of years ago, but those left out the fact that secular scientists cannot account for any ice age forming and then going away, let alone, happening several times. Truth, logic, Scripture, and science indicate that there was only one Ice Age, and that was a result of the Genesis Flood.

Although I could not stand to watch this 15-minute video through because of even worse assumptions and incoherent presentation, some jaspers want the best of both worlds: global warming and an ice age. It's useful to watch if you want some exercises in spotting bad logic, or if you'd like to exercise your face by making incredulous expressions.

Earth has warming and cooling periods. It does that. I think that big hot ball in the sky has a big effect on the whole shootin' match, too.  Although secularists reject science and Scripture out of hand that challenges their presuppositions, there is a Creator who is in control, he has a plan that he has made known in the Bible. The global warming will happen in a big way (2 Peter 3:10).

June 5, 2018

More Leftist Activism from the Secular Science Industry

Something that I have discussed here, at Piltdown Superman, and elsewhere, is that scientists are people. They are not the unbiased seekers of knowledge and purveyors of truth that many people imagine. Instead, they have the same foibles, passions, tendencies toward avarice, altruism, and the same things that us reg'lar folk have. This includes using science for political agendas.

Credit: NPS Photo by Kristen Lalumiere
Most scientists in the secular science industry work from atheistic, naturalistic presuppositions, and are blind to their own biases. Since they believe in slime-to-sidewinder evolution, secularists tend to have a low view of humanity. They know that people have that unrealistic view of scientists as mentioned earlier, and use Scientism as a manipulative technique. After all, people "think" with their emotions instead of using reason far too often. (Why do you think people believe the fake news and "consensus science" nonsense saturating the global climate change movement?) So, they use the guise of science to foist their leftist views on the populace.

We may very well end up with an atheistic ideal of civilization before Jesus returns for the Judgement. However, don't be disunderstanding me. I am not saying that all secular scientists are evil galoots who want to make a secularistic world power, and are actively deceiving people. No, many are doing what they think is best, but their starting point is dreadfully wrong.
Many individual scientists honestly pursue truth, but the institutions of science (universities, media and lobbyists) push a unilateral anti-conservative, progressive agenda.

Name any political issue that has a conservative side and a liberal side. Without exception, you will find Big Science promoting the liberal, leftist, progressive side. Why is that? Is it because the facts always align with leftism? Look at these recent examples and decide.
To read the rest, click on "Big Science Has Become a Political Machine".

May 30, 2018

Science as a Manipulative Technique

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

First, a side note before I commence do be writing the actual article. It was eleven years ago today that I started this, my first weblog. Then, as now, it is a sort of general purpose thing. But back then, it had a great deal of political material and things that were dreadful (many of which have been removed). Although I still do some political things, I also post material on theology, refuting atheism, and some odds and ends. My main weblogs are Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman and Biblical Creation and Evangelism. Also, I've been filling in for the owner of Radaractive. Those three are the weblogs that are updated the most often. Quite a contrast from when this one started.

Atheistic interpretations of science are made into the religion of Scientism.
Credit: CSIRO / David McClenaghan (CC BY 3.0)
As I have written in several places, some folks (especially atheists) believe that "science" is something special, even deserving of special consideration and privileges. They make science into an infallible entity — a demigod — that seeks the truth. In this case, the scientists are erroneously viewed as dispassionate and honest about data. They are just as human as you and I, old son, and they operate from their own presuppositions, just like biblical creationists. 

The adoration of scientists and science itself is a de facto religion called Scientism (see "Scientism, a Religion of Atheism" and "Scientism, Heal Thyself" for more). Many atheistic adherents of Scientism try to horswoggle us by pretending to be smarter than they are (which is only smart enough to be incredibly dishonest), insisting that the Genesis Flood is fiction, biblical creationists are liars or just plain stupid, putting words in our mouths, railing against side issues ("false thesis" fallacy), and so on. They seek to silence us through ridicule and defamation since they cannot rationally deal with the topics at hand. All this because they do not really know the nature of science, and that it is a tool, not a lifestyle, nor is it to be used to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people who reject atheism and Darwinism.

We are sometimes told that creationists are wrong because you cannot question science. That'll be the day! Some of us think for ourselves instead of bowing down to the alter of atheistic interpretations of science. Critical thinking is lacking in the secular science industry and in the minds of atheopaths. It can be your friend. Get your ownselves introduced sometime. The ultimate source of truth and logic is Jesus Christ.

February 12, 2018

Genetic Tampering, Ethics, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is an important topic for any day, but even more so for Question Evolution Day. Western civilization has strong Christian roots which have, in turn, effected ethics. That is mighty helpful, since modern science was mostly founded because of the biblical worldview. Unfortunately, with postmodernism, Darwinism, and materialism galloping wild and free, ethical and moral concerns in science are fading into the background. One example is of scientists who want to keep human embryos alive even longer before killing them.

Question Evolution Day cloning genetics CRISPR editing ethics

Other countries do not have such ethical constraints from the get-go. China has been working on the CRISPR genome editing tool, and are "unfettered by rules". While we have ethical concerns, the ChiComs are materialists and force atheism on their people, so we know where their "morality" will lead. 

In addition, China is moving forward with cloning, announcing that they have successfully cloned two monkeys. The concept of cloning gets some folks on the prod, with visions of glass vats full of bubbling water and creatures in various stages of growth. It's not that easy, requiring a great deal more than test tubes and storage units. 

Although "identical" twins are not absolutely identical, they are natural clones. However, there are genetic variations that occur in cloning. If someone had the means and took a notion to clone a hero or a tyrant, when the child became an adult, he or she could have a far different personality than that of the source. Like gene editing, cloning is also an area where people have wrestled with ethical questions. At the moment, unethical secularists seem to be persuading people to their point of view.

Do we want people with a materialistic worldview in charge of such potentially beneficial or destructive ideas as cloning and genome editing? The Western world is becoming increasingly secularized, while places like China don't pay ethics no nevermind. Atheism is enforced, even though it is irrational and incoherent, and science is not possible in a consistent atheistic worldview.

Christians who believe the Bible know that we were created in God's image, and humans have value and dignity. The idea of cloning humans should be alarming to us, as well as the probabilities of increasing eugenics and abortion. Hopefully, we can present the biblical creation worldview and supporting evidence so people will begin to question evolution. They need to see that life has purpose and value, and we are not just cosmic and biological accidents. People also need to see that evidence supporting special creation and refuting evolution is largely withheld by secularists. Ultimately, we hope to see them repent and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

As usual, I have some items that I'd like to share with you. These are my main sources and inspirations for this article. First is from The Briefing Podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. Free to read the transcript, listen online or download, click here. Second, "Monkeying around with cloning". I hope you'll listen and or read them. Remember, we are created beings, not accidents of materialistic processes.

November 5, 2017

Leftist Science Industry Rejects Research On Motherhood

Science is supposed to be a search for knowledge, with scientists considering evidence, proposing hypotheses, then running them up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes them. When ideas are refuted, they accept the changes and try something else. Problem is, that scenario is fictitious. (For that matter, when people claim that "science has proved" something are showing their ignorance of the philosophy and methodology of science.) Scientists, medical doctors, and others have refuted consensus views and been resisted. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate of women giving birth could be drastically reduced with antiseptics, but he was ignored by the establishment.

Scientific research supports the bond between mothers and children, but leftists reject it
Sara and Her Mother with the Baby, Mary Cassat, 1901
Scientists and the secular scientific establishment seem to be increasingly biased nowadays, especially to viewpoints propagated by leftists. Something that is in opposition to the Bible is celebrated, even when they try to slap leather with God and shoot themselves in the foot with fake science. A report of what Bible believers already knew, that daughters need their fathers, was touted as a new scientific finding.

Erica Komisar is a Jewish psychoanalyst who works in Manhattan, New York. She presented some scientific work about the bond between mothers and children, and how it continues after birth. He research was resisted. Why? She's not a professing Christian or a biblical creationist (secularists and leftists detest us). I suspicion that this may give some doubt to the sacrament of abortion, which is sacred among leftists and other secularists. Indeed, the pseudoscience of evolution is used to give abortion is given "scientific" credence.

Dr. Albert Mohler inspired me to write the above linked post on fathers and daughters, and he put a burr under my saddle to write this post as well. Now I'm going to send you to his podcast, The Briefing, which is free to listen online, download, or read the transcript. It follows his discussion on the Manhattan terrorist attack, third item down. Look for "Inconvenient science: Secular left refuses to acknowledge research on motherhood".

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, 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. 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. 

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