Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bad logic on my part. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bad logic on my part. Sort by date Show all posts

March 7, 2020

Atheistic Religious Jihad in New York

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

When I have time and my circumstances allow, I want to respond to some material about why Americans do not want an atheist as President. Briefly, atheists lie. A lot. They not only do it overtly, but through blatant misrepresentation.


The anti-Christian FFRF is defending their religion, and especially the dogma of Darwinism, by attacking a timorous school district in New York.

Perhaps this is to cover up the fact that while they profess to profess reason and tolerance, they are dreadful at utilizing either. This link is one of many possible sources. There you will notice little or no discernable logic, including a prairie schooner-full of straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, baseless assertions, hasty generalizations, and ridicule. Why do they act like ridicule will make atheism and Darwinism less false? That makes sense on their world, old son.

Dan Barker is from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and acts like he's Canis Major. He claims to be a former Christian but demonstrates little knowledge of actual theology and history. While he likes to sell his books, he gets on the prod when Godless is cited at a scholarly debate (see this video link at the 24 minute mark). He spreads falsehoods about the origin of Christianity which have been refuted by accurate sources, and not those that utilize citation of citation of citation without source material. A gifted storyteller, but his bigotry and misrepresentations can be clearly seen in the video linked above as well as in this article. I lack reasons to respect him.

I have concluded long ago that ninety-nine percent of atheists give the rest a bad name, and that activist anti-Christian groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation are weasels who hate God and persecute Christians. Ironically and despite the protestations of bigoted or misinformed atheists, it is a fact that atheism is a religion. They work to have their religion (often in the disguise of Secular Humanism) to be the religion of the land. Why do you think so many atheists are politically on the far left? If I knew what a "bottom dollar" was and had one, I'd bet that they would not support Question Evolution Day — especially the parts about freedom of speech and thought.

A cornerstone of atheism is the mythology of evolution, and they fiercely protect their dogma. This article was inspired by an article on an Intelligent Design website. As a biblical creationist, I am appreciative of how the ID movement shows scientific reasons to reject fish-to-fool evolution. Creationists use arguments showing intelligent design and irreducible, specified complexity. However, the movement itself is too limited and does not proclaim the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Even so, it reveals the blatant dishonesty of the FFRF and their blatant bullying. And they wonder why people don't trust atheists?
The bullies and censors at the Freedom from Religion Foundation have scored a point, and they are crowing about it. A biology teacher at Holland Patent High School, in Upstate New York, informed students that “evolution only goes so far.” This produced a threatening outcry from the atheist group — blasphemy against Darwin! —  that acknowledging that there is “controversy about evolution is fraught with legal peril.” The school district replied with a letter that seemed to buckle to and accept this bizarre objection.
I encourage you to read the rest of this article. You can do that by following the link to "Blasphemy Against Darwin in New York State! Atheist Group Intimidates School District". Seeing as the events are in New York, it is not all that surprising the timorous school district did not seek assistance from the American Center for Law and Justice, who have been successful in fighting back



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 Fourth John chapter seven, verse fourteen: "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.


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?


January 22, 2019

Celebrity Appeal and Propaganda

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The other day, Stormie Waters was frustrated with her gold prospecting efforts and ventured up past Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as the name implies) and up into Deception Pass. Somehow she avoided the Winkie Guards and drew near to the Darwin Ranch. Then she overheard Rusty Swingset telling the hands that they need to step up their propaganda game — using celebrities.


Atheists and evolutionists are using celebrity propaganda to manipulate people into accepting their views.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
I'll allow that we gravitate toward people who think like us (and Christians are commanded to have teaching and fellowship with other believers, but it seems that we seek out celebrity endorsements a bit less than other people.) Having someone famous who is on your side has a greater impact. You can find listings of famous atheists in history and the media, and lists of creation scientists and other scientists who disagree with Darwinism can be found. People of varied interests find influential people who share their interests.


Propaganda and Persuasion

The word propaganda is not necessarily a dirty word, but it has strong negative connotations. Advertising is a kind of propaganda to persuade people to use a product or service. Propaganda has been used during wars to help improve the morale of the populace and the military, and is used to discourage the enemy. 

Unfortunately, a great deal of propaganda for leftist political purposes, global climate change, evolutionism, and other things is deceptive. Misquotes are used with impunity and pertinent information is omitted in order to deceive people. I reckon that propagandists know that people are unable or unwilling to think critically, preferring to "think" with their emotions, so they swallow the lies and succumb to manipulation — all the while believing they were reaching their own conclusions through reason.

Celebrity Influence — It Should Not Matter

Really, who cares? Thinking people should not be influenced by the opinions of people in the arts. (Ever notice that movie and rock stars as well as others in arts-related fields are usually leftists and others who reject biblical authority?) Rock star Alice Cooper (Vincent Furnier) bluntly said, "f you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Like rockers, film stars are not exactly known for being experts in foreign policy, climatology, or economics. To use a phrase from Chris Plante, they "play dress up and make believe". Actors generally do not have time for more intellectual pursuits. A well-known advertisement for a cough syrup used an actor who played a doctor on a soap opera telling us to use that product, but he was not a real doctor. This was an implied appeal to authority. Just stop and think when you're influenced by that actor in the latest hit movie about comic book heroes brought to life.

Celebrities are not exactly known as role models for morality, and a presuppositional apologist would like to ask someone making declarations, "What makes this policy or person you're condemning bad (or good) according to your hedonistic worldview? What is your ultimate standard of morality?"' What we all could do (when we get a notion to using our think bones) is consider those questions ourselves when a celebrity is pontificating.

Making the Stars

While many celebrities get attention the usual way (film attendance, album sales, and so on), others have their status inflated. Atheists have their "rock stars" that owe their popularity to the web, and others are poor philosophers that sell books to other atheists who seek support for their existing anti-Christian bigotry. It baffles me why Clinton Richard Dawkins is an "expert" on religion when he is a materialistic scientist and has no formal training in theology. Celebrity atheists sell books, give lectures, and make big money hating God, though, experts or not.

Evolutionary and atheistic icons receive hero worship that is largely undeserved. Charles Darwin is touted as a "great scientist", but when we point out that his only formal education was in theology, not science, his disciples get a mite obstreperous. In the same way, Bill Nye is sought after for his views on atheism, evolutionism, and climate change. When shown that he is a former comedian that became a television actor, not a scientist, and a propagandist for leftist causes (like abortion, global warming, evolution, etc.), his admirers tend to go ballistic. Indeed, Nye used fake, outdated science and bad logic in his debate with Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis provided many articles refuting his ignorance. 


If you read about propaganda used by Nazis, Mao, the Soviet Union, and so on, you will see the cult of personality approach is used to inflate the celebrity status of those in power. People were persuaded by posters, leaflets, broadcasts, and testimonies of how wonderful their leaders were. You do want to please Our Leader, don't you? Think of how badly you would feel if you let him down, boy howdy! Fear was a big part of this because people who displeased those in power were made to go away, which also helped the propaganda.

Christians tend to get a few sensational claims from celebrities to prove their points. It puts a burr under my saddle when people misquote Uncle Albert (Einstein), for instance, when as a student he puts an atheistic teacher in his place. The account is fictional, and Einstein did not hold to any semblance of Christianity. Some of us have passed around things without checking on their validity, presumably with some sort of celebrity appeal. This only gives misotheists additional excuses to ridicule us.



The basis for our thinking is the Word of God, not sensationalism or the opinions of famous people who ride for the secularist brand. God gave us minds and expects us to use them. People are not converted to Christ through celebrities, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thinking for Ourselves

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting and even fun when a famous person shows up in the studio or at a gathering to lend support to a cause. It's even better when they have knowledge of the subject they are supporting. But be very careful about being swayed by emotional appeal. "Fiona Famousgirl supports this, so I should too because I adore Fiona". Wrong.

I may write an article on this sometime, but I believe that we are ripe for a dictatorship. Study on it a bit and see that people do not think logically, are easily manipulated by celebrities and false authority figures, and are driven by their emotions. (The Antichrist could easily harness all that, but I'm not going to turn this into an eschatology article.) What can we do?

For one thing, take Mr. Newhart's advice and stop it. Get up on the hill for the bigger picture and reason things through. Is there any reason to care what some famous person thinks about a subject, especially if they are opposed to our values? Not hardly!

This article was inspired by another that I am going to recommend. I'd be obliged if you'd read "Can evolutionists use celebrities to brainwash the public?"


September 4, 2018

Lack of Meaning in the Lives of Leftists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen


In the first season of the hardcore humanistic evolutionary show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the entity known as Q was antagonizing Captain Picard and the starship's crew. Picard misquoted Shakespeare. The misquote is not so much the issue, but Picard's attitude toward humanity:
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god. [Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2]
Q: Surely you don't really see your species like that, do you?
PICARD: I see us one day becoming that, Q.
He may as well have stamped his foot and said, "We're humanity! Don't underestimate us, because we've evolved into a great and noble species!" Wishful thinking, Cappy.

To summarize entropy in the most basic terms, everything goes from order to disorder. Devolution. I have the opinion that we are going societal entropy. If you study on it a spell, you might agree, since we can sit here and recite a passel of negative things going on. I also believe it is only by the grace of God that everything hasn't imploded.

Leftists seem to have a "purpose" in life of anger and opposition. Christians and Conservatives show a much more positive outlook.
Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kenny Holston
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Department of Defense)
Have you noticed that atheists and others who deny the authority of the Bible tend to be politically on the left? Anti-creationists such as this one seek to silence those who disagree with them through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and so on. Somehow, the political views of creationists negate whatever they have to say regarding evidence for special creation and questioning global climate change. Go to an atheist forum or social media area, and will you not only find a paucity of rational thought (such as equating all forms of "religion" in an excuse to demonize Christianity), but leftist propaganda. You will also notice an abundance of hatred for those who do not hold to their furious, irrational views.

One of the biggest problems with the anger and violence of the left is when the media ignore it. It is the rule, not the exception, to see a report that could be summed up as, "People in Venezuela are starving, and eating pink flamingos to stay alive. Now we'll spend another hour on hatred of Conservatives..." By the way, they leave out the fact that Venezuela was almost a paradise until socialists took over and ran it into the ground. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn think that it's a socialist utopia down there. Did you know that the guy who commenced to shooting Republicans was a Bernie Sanders supporter? How about how Candace Owens could not even have breakfast in peace because of fascists claiming to be anti-fascists? No, the leftist media tends to drop or even ignore stories that do not support their agenda. 

People here in the socialist republic on New York are afraid to wear Republican apparel, paste bumper stickers, and even discuss their views in public. (I have heard about this same fear in other leftist-dominated states as well.) This was going on back when George W. Bush was up for reelection, and people had their vehicles vandalized, were run off the road, and physically assaulted by leftists. I remember people claiming to be depressed and needing counseling when Bush won the election. Now it is worse, and some call it "Trump Anxiety Disorder" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Republicans did not act like this when Caliph B. Hussein Obama played emperor for eight years.



Here is some audio that supports what I've been saying. Steve Malzberg was filling in for Chris Plante, and he had some very interesting things to say. While the entire show is interesting, I'm asking you to listen to the first hour, beginning at the 7 minutes 40 seconds mark. (The "share" arrow has an option to download the show.)

I have formed an opinion from my observations that leftists, particularly those in the United States, would rather cry about their inept candidate losing because she was lousy, and to give opposition so they can bring down the government, than to work together for the benefit of the country. Atheists, anti-creationists, and leftists are very negative people. It seems that their purpose in life is to not only spread their anger, but throw tantrums and be destructive in general.

Now I have to slip in something else from Chris Plante (the man himself, not a substitute host) from August 31, 2018. Out California way and in some other areas, there's a business called In-N-Out Burger. California Democrats found out that they gave money to (gasp!) Republicans, so the call is out to boycott them! That's right, leftists, since you don't like them (never mind that they also gave money to Democrats as well), they must be punished! Cause a business with hundreds of locations to shut down, put people out of work, all because of your spite. Leftists are mentally ill. You can hear Chris's discussion of them (and Chik-Fil-A) at this link, at the 2 hr. 12 min. 47 sec. mark.

Bible-believing Christians do have a purpose in life, and it is the opposite of destruction and negativity. Of course, some who take exception to having their bad logic and bigotry exposed will have a contrary opinion, but I think the facts support this view. It is also interesting that while misotheists tend to be politically on the left, Christians tend to lean toward the right. Conservatives show that we have more purpose (and a more positive outlook) than those on the left. Captain Picard's naive view of humanity will never come to pass. Sorry, old son.
Are liberals floundering in uncertainty over the meaning of life? A new study indicates that more conservatives feel a sense of purpose than liberals.
A press release from University of Southern California (USC) gives an edge to conservatives. Knowing the overwhelmingly left-leaning atmosphere in academia, one can only imagine if the university was pleased with what psychology doctoral candidate David Newman and co-authors Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone found. “What is the meaning of life? Ask a conservative,” reporter Emily Gersena writes for a headline. “Researchers find that, even after accounting for religious belief, the association between political leanings and a sense of purpose were strong.
To read the rest and learn something, click on "Conservatives Feel More Purposeful Lives".



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).



July 3, 2018

In the Maelstrom of Twitter Atheists

A few thoughts and observations on dealing with swarms of atheists on Twitter. Lots of anger, hatred, and bigotry from them, but not so much in the way of rational thinking.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I wanted to share some observations and thoughts with y'all on being drawn into the maelstrom of disarticulated atheopathy on Twitter. Although Twitter increased its limit for texts and made some other modifications, I find it very difficult to have a decent conversation on there. Not only because of the limits, but other people tend to get involved. Don't get me started on the cesspool of YouTube comments, except that meaningful exchanges are rare.

Especially atheists, who swarm like piranhas. It's the digital version of schoolyard bullying, where they gang up to ridicule Christians and creationists. (Side note: Chris Plante dislikes the word bullying, preferring harassment and other accurate phrases. I use it because it shows the childish nature of village atheists on teh interweb.) They were as prideful and irrational as Haywire the Stalker (who has been defeated by me, and others, numerous times, but still spews venom). Since Twitter allows multiple anonymous accounts, these keyboard warriors were free to indulge in excessive profanity and persecution. Come to think of it, internet atheists like Haywire, the Twitter and YouTube blackguards, other "New Atheists" — they're the intellectual and moral equivalent of MS-13, but more feckless. Perhaps if I knew their real names, I could send each one a fruit basket. Better yet, a magnet with The Question Evolution Project on it.

Someone tagged me in a post on Twitter, and I saw that I was included in a group that had been "pegged". How nice, it looks like someone has the others and me all figured out. I gave a reply. Replies came back to me in droves — one time, I the indicator said I had 99+ notifications after a few hours. It just happened again:



It gets confusing because I'm included in exchanges that I was not a part of, and have no idea what is happening with them. However, I did grab this morning's screenshot (July 3, 2018, just after 5 AM) and put it below the video at the end of the article.

Well, I have to admit that taunted them for their bigotry and logical failings. I think some were shocked that a st00pid dumb Xtian dared to stand up to The Mighty Atheists™. Of course, I was not allowed to be "right" about anything of consequence due to their egos and fragile faith-based positions (it's who they are and what they do), but the Creator they deny knows.

As I have said somewhere, if internet atheists were stricken so they could not use logical fallacies, they would have nothing to say. To go further, if they were stricken less drastically, such as from using ad hominem attacks, the genetic fallacy, and straw men, their speech would be curtailed by three quarters. Atheism is incoherent, relying on arbitrary assertions, manipulation, bad logic, a fanatical commitment to Scientism, redefinitions (for example, it has not always been "lack of belief"), putting words in people's mouths and demanding a defense of a position not held or stated, and more. Also, the category error was there: "Prove to me empirically that God exists". What color litmus paper do I use, Skippy? 

Like Haywire the Stalker, these sidewinders have uniformity of non-thought, and a certain degree of predictability. While they have exceptional arrogance and hypocrisy, internet atheists are actually quite boring.



Something I think is a combination of the genetic fallacy and an ad hominem was to attack someone because he apparently lives in a mobile home or a trailer park. (Indeed, I played with the "Location" setting on some weblog posts and put myself in a trailer park. Someone referred to me as "trailer park boy". Good troll took the bait.) A person's domicile is not a legitimate reason to reject his views, you savvy?

You can read about some of the fallacies, many with examples, in the list of "Logic Lessons".

Anyway, I remember someone saying that, in a group setting, he would ask for one representative and deal with them one-on-one. I don't think that's possible on Twitter. Like YouTube, Twitter is mostly a waste of time. I may have to block a number of them, because my stream was so cluttered with their feculent rants, I could not see legitimate comments, questions, and responses from decent folks.

Haywire and other internet atheists need to each drink a glass of dihydrogen monoxide and settle their ownselves down.

Annotated screenshots might be helpful, but mockers will not be convinced, and others probably know what I'm talking about. Besides, it would take a passel of time, and I have creation science work to do.

I wanted to share this and perhaps let people know what they could be up against on Twitter. Internet atheists hate God and his people, and less vicious atheists don't police their own kind, saying, "Hey, that's not cool!" Ninety percent of atheists give the rest a bad name, you know. Interesting that they seek their identities and purposes in life attacking the God they claim does not exist. Read Romans 1:18-32. Note that "God gave them over", and the list of evil actions as well as the fact that they approve of others who also practice wickedness. I had some interactions, and agree with others that this is casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). They need to repent before their eternity is sealed (Heb. 9:27), but I think they, like Haywire who called God a liar, prefer to increase in hatred.





April 16, 2018

Zuckerberg, Hate Speech, and Congress


by Cowboy Bob Sorensen


Mr. Markie Goes to Congress

As you probably know, Facebook is having some difficulties. Because of the data scandals, their stock is plummeting, and people are quitting it — including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. Do some searching for "reasons to quit Facebook", and you'll see that warnings are not only sounding now, but have been for years.

He offered his standard apology, but people are not expecting much. It didn't mean much before, after all.

via GIPHY

Mark Zuckerberg had himself a little discussion with the US House and Senate. It's not just about selling information, but about discrimination, censorship, and hate speech. Fazebook has a reputation for allowing terrorist speech (here is one report), then they get on the prod and slap down non-leftists (here is an example, his campaign was "shocking and offensive"). Two black women (I know they're two black women, they keep telling us this) who go by the name of Diamond and Silk, had their Page taken down. There was a great deal of publicity, and it is back up now. Just a coincidence? No, I don't think so.

Zuckerberg said that hate speech is "linguistically nuanced". Sounds like a four-bit term, but it actually has no meaning. My take on it is that this term is like "hate speech", vague and to be manipulated for someone's convenience. In Facebook's case, censoring Christians, Israelis, and non-leftists.

Interesting that Bookface is selling information, but is not all that concerned with fake names. I've reported obviously false information, such as some jasper that had a profile icon and name that sounded like he was out of the killer robot from outer space franchise. Others were equally outrageous, even deliberately offensive to Christians and creationists. Same old story:
Thanks for your report - you did the right thing by letting us know about this. We looked over the profile you reported, and though it doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards, we understand that the profile or something they shared may still be offensive to you. We want to help you avoid things you don't want to see on Facebook.
And so on. I have also reported hardcore sex video clips, hate speech, and more. Bookface allows stuff that decent people abhor, but hypocritically bridles or bans decent people. Facebook is run by leftists, which is well known.

You know that raid on Trump's lawyer (violating attorney-client privilege)? Maybe they could have saved time by asking Markie.


I Have a Fake Name...

...and my real one (which you won't find). There is a very long story, but I'll have to tell some of it. In the midst of using the service, I was suddenly shut down. (No prior disciplinary actions against me, either, so it's not like I made one too many bad moves.) I had to prove I was old enough! What brought this on, I had no idea at the time. After showing my ID, I was still shut down. Why? They can't tell me "for security reasons". After testing with other names and where I used them (such as commenting in a certain atheopath group), I reluctantly agreed with the assessment of others: one or more angry atheists who is in power (or has friends in power) on Fazebook wanted me silenced. That's what they do when they cannot deal with logic. However, I kept The Question Evolution Project going. Atoms-to-atheopath evolution is foundational to atheism, you know.


Slapped Down for Alleged Hate Speech

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, I was logged out of Facebook by the Powers That Be. Seems that something posted at The Question Evolution Project was deemed "hate speech", and removed. It was a repost of an article called "Stopped in Time: Another Atheist Killing Spree". Let's take a gander at the notice:


Used according to  federal copyright law, Fair Use doctrine, for educational purposes (click for full size)
Let's see now... checking their rules, was it about...
  • Race? No.
  • Ethnicity? Not unless "atheist" is an ethnicity, so, no.
  • Sexual orientation? No.
  • Gender? No.
  • Disability? Aside from mental and spiritual disabilities, no.
  • Religious affiliation? Waitaminnit.
Your typical village atheist claims that atheism is a "lack of belief" in God, spirits, and the like, and not a religion, but that's all we have left. So, Fazebook is declaring atheism as a religion! Actually, despite the denials of adherents, atheism most definitely is a religion. But Bookface is unlikely to know that.

The atheopath who reported my "hate speech" later bragged about it, and blamed me that his own anti-Christian, anti-creationist Page was removed. I don't have that power, and he has done quite a few things to upset many people. 


Facebook's Future Relevance

When I responded to their replies of, "Nuh uh, nothing wrong with that obviously fake name or with the blatant anti-Christian obscenities you reported", I told them that they are not too big to fail. Facebook could become as relevant tomorrow as MySpace is today. People are leaving Fazebook for alternatives, or even nothing at all. 

I have no idea how many warnings from people and even the law that Zuckerberg and his ilk are going to ignore. If they change their ways, there is a chance to salvage Facebook. But I think the damage has been done, and they are spiraling downward.

Below is a video by Chris Plante, syndicated talk show host out of WMAL. He's my favorite commentator. This was edited for the main parts. (If you want the fun and information from the original three-hour show, complete with news and commercials, click here.) I respect Chris. I do not respect Zuckerberg or Facebook a whole lot.



February 22, 2018

Science Does Not Correct Itself

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a connotation of science where scientists gather information, make a hypothesis, test it, revise as necessary, it becomes a theory, and eventually a law. Somewhere along the line the thing gets put out to pasture if the facts are recalcitrant. Such a view is not only naïve, but ignores human nature. Scientists are human, after all. 


Scoffing at new material

One expression I have encountered when discussing the origins controversy is that "science corrects itself". Aside from the reification fallacy (science is not a living thing, but scientists may correct themselves), this has been shown to be false — often in areas of technology. Great inventors were laughed at, such as Robert Fulton and the Wright brothers. It was said that if people move too fast (aside from dangerous acceleration, change of direct, and deceleration), they would have physical problems or even die. Scoffers were silenced by results. Some people attribute this ridicule to fear of technology; fear of robots and artificial intelligence may or may not be founded. I reckon it started with the industrial revolution.


Science is does not correct itself, and scientists tend to protect the consensus
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

Phlogiston

Resistance to change has appeared in other scientific areas. People cling to the consensus; they may not want to "rock the boat". For example, scientists believed that phlogiston was the invisible ingredient that caused things to burn, and some were adhereing to it long after it was disproved.


Death in the hospital

A much more tragic insistence on consensus was with Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. Women were dying from infections in hospitals after giving birth, and he used excellent critical thinking skills to isolate the problem and present a solution. Although he did not know why having doctors and students wash in a chlorine solution helped, deaths declined markedly. His peers laughed at him, and refused to consider the results, partly because he could not show the cause. His poorly-written treatise also hurt his purpose. He died a broken man, and he was only trying to save lives. Semmelweis was later vindicated by Pasteur and Lister. See "Ignaz Semmelweis: Medical pioneer persecuted for telling the truth" for more.


Blaming the staff

As an aside, the company where I work was having problems with completing data production. The Clock Nazi was blaming the staff for not working hard enough, and for "cheating". When I tried to offer my data processing skills and asked questions, he was blaming the day shift, while the night shift was "working harder". I pointed out that all the indications were of a software problem, since there was a major change about the time the problems began (the IT people at The Company frequently foul up the system). I wanted him to consider several factors, including timing, results, what changes were made, and other things. He insisted on blaming the staff. After he was made to go away, his views continued with his successors, since they prefer to listen to people on the inside instead of listening to the people who actually do the work. We will never know if I was on the right track or not. Admittedly, this is not about science per se, put it is about logic, human nature, and especially pride.


Overpopulation

In 1968, expert on insects Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which put people into a panic. He had projections about the bleak future of mankind due to overpopulation, which were discredited. It has been said that the entire population of the world can fit into New Zealand, New York City, Texas, Alaska...depends on who you read. I'll allow that it would be a mite uncomfortable, though. (I still have a vague memory of Overpopulation, a poster from the 1970s by John Pitre. The land was full of people packed together like sardines, with no land in sight. Probably inspired by Ehrlich. It was hysterics, not reality.) I suspicion that this population excitement was based on leftist political agendas. Even though the concepts were refuted, some people still have a kind of extreme overpopulation concept today. For more about Ehrlich and his book, I recommend the first part of this podcast of The Briefing, free to listen, download, or read the transcript.

Climate changes

For a time, it was thought that the world was going to have another ice age, and that idea persisted until fairly recently. Then it became global warming. Today, we hear most often about global climate change. There are scientists who reject man-made global warming, and the climate alarmists have been show to use faulty data and outright fraud. This fearmongering is based on old Earth and evolutionary concepts, which are based on circular reasoning and preconceptions. These fears are also based on an assumption that God does not exist or is not in control of his creation. 

Climate change is a darling of secularists, leftists, and globalists, who reject rational interpretations of true data. Instead, they prefer the hype and bad information, as climate change activists play on fears and the ignorance of science. Just look at the alarm over carbon dioxide, for example. Don't these clowns know basic science, and how plants need the stuff and give us oxygen in return? 

Evolutionary consensus

I'll end with Darwin's speculations about evolution. Although scientists disagree on so many areas, and although it has been falsified many times, Darwin's true believers crank out rescuing devices left and right. Speculations are passed off as actual scientific research, and there is an overabundance of terrible science and worse logic. Even though the logical conclusion is special creation, the implication that the Creator has told us about himself in his written Word is anathema to secularists. They are proudly rebelling against God, and upholding the erroneous consensus.

In the linked article about Semmelweis, you can see this quote: "The Semmelweis reflex is the informal name coined for the tendency of people to deny new evidence or knowledge that contradicts established beliefs or their worldview. As Semmelweis experienced, long-held ideas can remain entrenched despite potent evidence to the contrary, and people can and do persecute those who challenge the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong." Some folks go haywire and cry, "Katie, bar the door! We don't like the facts!" Evolution is an effort to remove God from the equation and essentially say that we created ourselves. God asked Job if he was going to blame God for his troubles so he could justify himself (Job 40:8), and I see many atheists and evolutionists attempting to do just that.




Pride

I'd like to add another aspect.

I believe that people want to think they're special, smart, right, and so forth. People professing atheism demonize God, the Bible, Christians, creationists, and so forth in what appears to be a pitiful effort to justify their rebellion against God. Scientists refuse to relinquish the consensus in light of new information, and the public follows what "scientists say" when it is convenient. Sure, people detest admitting they're wrong, even at their eternal peril. It all comes down to pride. That was Satan's downfall, and he's been using it to appeal to humanity ever since. God hates undue pride, and we have to rely on him to keep ours in check.

While some scientists make some corrections, a consensus can be firmly entrenched, and some will not change their views because it results in boat rocking as — well as pride problems. In addition, some scientists may have political or atheistic motives to protect the consensus. Science is definitely not self-correcting. Those who know the truth have to lead the cavalry charge up the hill and present the truth.

January 10, 2018

Archaeology Supports the Bible

People who doubt the authenticity of the Bible, whether unbelievers or liberal "Christians", will occasionally appeal to archaeology in their attempts to reject God's Word and continue riding the owlhoot trail. However, they are showing massive ignorance as well as relying on fallacious reasoning. Although the Christian's faith is based on the Word of God, there is evidence for our beliefs. Maybe I'm unusual, but I actually found the material I rounded up and presented below to be rather exciting.


Archaeology supports the Bible, history, and the Bible's authors
Credit: Pixabay / Heather Truett
Archaeology is a newer science when compared to some of the more established disciplines. The subject matter requires careful excavation of unoccupied areas. This is a huge reason that Jerusalem and other areas are left alone, as not only do people live there, but buildings are erected on much older foundations. 

When some people claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate because certain things have not been discovered by archaeologists, they are committing a passel of fallacies. For one thing, they conveniently overlook the fact that archaeologists have verified many accounts in the Bible, and other historical documents have supported it as well. Also, if something has not been found, that proves nothing and is often times a fallacious argument from silence. Two additional areas of bad reasoning to keep an eye out for include arguing from incomplete or suppressed evidence, personal preference. Gotta watch out for tricky disbelievers, they suppress the truth and try to justify their rebellion against God (Rom. 1:18-23).

Scoffers are also arguing from presuppositions; they are biased against the Bible from the get-go. Add to that some arbitrary assertions, erroneous interpretations of other historical records, and you have people acting like evolutionists — they can't find evidence because they already expect the Bible to be wrong. 

Also, a frequent trick from atheists and liberal "Christians" is to try and put Bible-believers on the defensive. This includes utilization of the genetic fallacy, rejecting material they don't cotton to. They want evidence for the Bible from outside it, showing their ignorance again of what all the Bible entails. Atheists and other unbelievers make assertions with a "prove me wrong" attitude, but we need to call them out on their fallacies and have them back up their claims — and not just with the confirmation bias of, "I found a liberal scholar who agrees with my preconceptions" kind of thing.

Another area of bad thinking I need to mention is prejudicial conjecture. That's when someone has an uninformed, biased opinion and needs to express it. Atheists do this frequently, especially about biblical creationists. 

Now we come to some things that I really hope you'll examine, and mayhaps file away for when you need information on these examples of archaeology supporting the Bible.
Was the Bible written by men who were inspired by God or was it written by men who were telling tall tales, motivational stories, or trying to deceive in order to gain something for themselves? Were the authors of the books of the Bible who they claim to be? Because if they were not then we have a problem, how did men who were either delusional or deceptive write a book that, apart from authorship, contains evidences of divine origins? That is, how did writers who were lying or deceived get the details correct? That is one overall evidence that the Bible writers were authentic.
It is not possible to actually confirm that any particular individual wrote a book of the Bible, apart from what the Bible says and what has been passed down from tradition. The same is true for all ancient manuscripts. There are no signatures to compare, no fingerprints, just copies of what they wrote that have been passed down through the centuries.  What we have now is archeological evidence and old manuscripts.
To finish reading this first article, click on "Who Wrote the Books of the Bible". Then I have some more material below.

The above article focused on the authors of the Bible, and this next one goes into some fascinating detail on locations in the Bible. It's by an archaeologist, Dr. Bryant Wood.
As our Western culture increasingly abandons all semblance of Christianity, more and more people think the Bible is just a bunch of myths. . . . The short answer is encouraging. Archaeologists have found evidence that supports the Bible, but many times the evidence is ignored because of preconceptions about the Bible’s historicity, or their dates or places are wrong for the biblical events. The longer answer is even more exciting. Any supposed contradictions turn out to be human errors, not Bible errors. Consider five of the most common examples.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Digging Past the Doubts". Also, I recommend this short article discussing the importance of how the Bible is historically accurate, and how it applies to our theology, "Genesis is both History and Theology".  



Subscribe in a reader