February 16, 2011

Strong Arguments for Pro-Lifers

Buona sera. I do not have much to say today —


"Aw-RIGHT!"


Cool it, Nicky.


Anyway.


I don't have much to say today because I want you to check out something very important, and I hope my pro-life friends will carve an hour out of their busy schedules to hear this podcast. Theopologetics has some very powerful stuff to explain and defend the pro-life position. It comes from a Christian perspective, but the discussion and philosophies are not just, "The Bible says..." In fact, Bible texts are not a big part of the picture.


You can listen online or download the show and listen to it on your MP3 player. Also, I hope you will forward this material to other pro-lifers so they will be better equipped to defend their positions. 


I have to say something personal. In some debates, we've been accused of appealing to emotion when we discuss the details or show pictures of aborted babies. What do people want? Of course it's an emotional issue! And as far as we're concerned, we're discussing life and defending unborn children, not blobs of tissue or that ridiculous phrase, "conceptus". We cannot act like people discussing the weather at a coffee klatch. Not when we think it's murder.

And guess what? If I'm proven wrong scientifically, I would much rather be mistaken on the side of life.

So, are  you ready to give a listen? Click here for the material.


Ironic thing: I had a duplicate of the image that I inserted, so I removed one. It was a creepy feeling when it said, "Do you wish to delete '20-week fetus'?"

February 14, 2011

Valentine Tree

Buon giorno. It's Valentine's Day, and I bet you guys wish you were me! But never mind about that now.

You know that I've gone on about how Christmas trees are being called "holiday trees" by the touchie-feelie politically correct crowd, even though it's not fooling anybody; we all know what those trees really are, and what they're for.

When I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio a few years ago, he was making "holiday tree" remarks that I thought were just great. Essentially, it ran like this: "We have our holiday tree. We keep it up all year. On President's Day, we hang dollar bills on it, and we decorate it for...", and he kept going with a few other humorous quips. I'm kind of tempted to do that myself, really do a "holiday tree" all year.

The other day, I strolled into a local eatery for a breakfast supplement. I was astonished to see this:
That's right! One lady who works there was doing a real "holiday tree". As you can see, it's decorated for Valentine's Day. She gave me permission to take a picture so I can share it with the world. This tree will remain a "holiday tree" and become decorated for other holidays as well.

I think it's hilarious.

"What's your point, Cowboy Bob?"

Point?

February 12, 2011

On the Origin of More Silliness

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." 
— Charles Darwin

In honour of Papa Darwin's birthday, my current profile icon is Piltdown Man. Remember hearing about him? He was a big deal in his day, a strong "missing link" between you and your evolutionary past. Except that he was a fraud, a fake from the gullible scientific community, and fooled people who should have known better for decades. Anyway, Darwin is that failed, backslidden theology student who gave atheism a pretense at respectability. Who needs God when we evolved over huge periods of time through the blind, gibbering mad god of Chance?

Now, the passionately religious orthodox evolutionists  deny that there is any evidence contrary to their claims, except from idiot graduates from Billy Bob's Backwoods Bible Baptist Church and Seminary and Creation Science School. Problem is, there are credentialed scientists who do disagree with evolution. And they get blackballed. You can find out about that here and here. Believe in God? Lose your job! Obviously, the pious believers in evolutionism do not believe that quote from their own founder. Where is the fair and balanced opportunity to show evidence against evolution? Academically, it's the voice of Jeff Dunham's Achmed the Dead Terrorist: "I keel you!"

"You people hate science! Evolution is a fact!"

Let me ask you a question, Skippy. How does your passionate devotion to the cup and wafer of Darwinism help you in your calculation of rocket trajectories, chemical imbalances in the brain, robotics used in war zones? No, don't bother to answer, because I already know: It doesn't help! Types like you equate practical technology with your other religion, scientism. That's the belief in science at all costs.

So, happy birthday, Darwin. See you on Judgment Day. As for the rest of you, there's still time to evaluate your fanatical devotion to the ever-changing whims of man-made "science" (read: philosophies). Your failed religion of atheism does not garner much respectability. Especially since evolutionists are abandoning orthodox Darwinism. Of course, you can continue to pretend to be not silly, despite the contrary evidence. I applaud your devotion.

January 25, 2011

Like I Said, THEY Make the Rules

The rules of the game

As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true.


‘Creationism isn’t science.’ 

‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.’ 


Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Read the rest of this article here.

January 23, 2011

Reverse Presuppositional Apologetics


Buona sera. First, a bit of business to take care of. An atheist troll keeps bugging me about the Photoshop "Crocoduck" picture that I had up for a while.

"What does it mean, Cowboy Bob?"

(sigh)
It's something that some of us who are Creationists mention. Since there are no examples of transitional forms between species in the fossil record, the crocoduck is an illustration of that point — if evolution were true, you'd see change of this nature all the time.

Can we move on, now?

Did the big words in the title scare you? Don't let them. According to Matt Slick of CARM, "A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism. This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16)." Essentially, I see it as, "Let's assume for this discussion that God exists", and build on that notion. The approach of presuppositional apologetics is used in the Bible. Theologian Cornelius Van Til helped revive the approach. Others followed, including Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Clark. There is no "one school" of presuppositional apologetics.

"That's not fair, Cowboy Bob! It's an unfair advantage!"

You think so, huh? Well, guess what? Nobody is unbiased. Yes, I've said it before, and I will keep saying it. Nobody leaves their biases or presuppositions at the door. One scientist can have a fossil of a trilobite and say, "This is a simpler life form in the geologic column. More advanced life forms evolved later." Another scientist can see the same trilobite fossil and say, "This is evidence of a global flood where billions of creatures were buried in what became rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth." Each scientist will want evidence to support his or her interpretations and presuppositions, but the only fact is that it is a trilobite fossil.

Atheists loathe the Christian approach of presuppositional apologetics. When it comes to discussing the existence of God, the validity of the Bible, ethics and morality — we are supposed to use their rules, their playing field — and their presuppositions. 

"What are the atheists' presuppositions, Cowboy Bob?"

Everything is materialistic (discernible to the five accepted senses); most things can be tested and measured. Evolution is an established fact. Any appeal to the supernatural, including God, spirits, angels &c. is streng verboten.  Also, terms must be carefully defined, because modern atheists love to twist words and definitions in their efforts to trap and mock their opponents. 

This also applies to the rules of logic, as atheists like Norman and many others like to skip over the rules of logical discussion, create their own reality (which would require the existence of Godlike powers, thus defeating their own arguments) and simply play word games instead of having a rational discussion.  One desperate move is done by atheists like Norman, who will indicate that my statements are invalid because I use Christian and Conservative sources. You really have to watch yourself with those types!

I still say that mature atheists who actually want to have a discussion should be embarrassed by the childish antics of their non-believing brethren. But never mind about that now.

However, some of us do not buy into the idea that atheists should have the monopoly and the "right" to control the discussion, make the rules and have a de facto advantage.  My belief is that atheists want to hold all the advantages, and to engage in a discussion where they have to set aside their own presuppositions is unthinkable to them. After all, their position is logically and intellectually weak, so to give up their advantages is frightening to them, capice?

January 20, 2011

Land of Imagery

Buona sera. Tough call today. Do I discuss the effects of entropy on unstable radioactive isotopes, and then move on to point out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems — or do I show another picture from Farmville?

Yeah, let's do the fun stuff.

I don't have a photo editor available at this computer, so I'll just give you some verbal discussions. This thing is full of symbolism. Perhaps people will be tempted to find some where it does not exist (there's a Cat Corral next to the villa on the left), but some things are placed for fun, or for convenience. You'll need to click on it for larger image, using your right-click and "Open in New Tab" or "Open in New Window". No, Norman. Right click. Your other right...

First, the big image: A cross. At the bottom is a gate in the hedge, and the gate is open. That means there is room for you at the foot of the cross. Near the center of the crop stuff is a lighthouse. Next to that is a sign, and my Farmville neighbors can see it, referring to Matt. 5.16 ESV: "Let your light shine before others". Near the lighthouse is the farmer character, which I call "Mini Me". He starts out there every time I go to Farmville, so he's not a part of the symbolism. Not on purpose, anyway. By one arm of the cross is a well (John 4.14). There are sheep near the cross (John 10.14-16). One of the sheep is "educated", and has a sign referring to Proverbs 1.7. Above the right arm is a fig tree, the subject of several references. At the upper left of the cross is a lamp post. Not a direct Biblical reference, but some people "get it". (Hint: "Is he safe?" Write if you really want to know.)


Outside the fence is a grove of olive trees, symbolizing Gethsemane. The ponds and things have nothing to do with symbolism. At the center of the bottom, partially obscured by the greened-out box is a schoolhouse. There's a sign next to that that says something like, "We home school. Welcome to Jesus Freak Church of Farmville".

I had big plans, wanting to put the cross in the center and do other stuff on the sides, but Mini Me would be on the cross, and that would look too tacky. So everything was thrown off. Still, I made my point. And I have some ideas to make it interesting for Resurrection Sunday...

Subscribe in a reader