April 30, 2014

Questioning the Dubious Duties of Darwin Drones

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"But, I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind — I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly."
 "...When I read the deliberate malicious stupid relentless lying evil from hypocrite Sorensen I start to wish that hell really exists. Because he will go there if it does if he does not repent of his hatred towards all people who criticise his online aggression and arrogance whilst wearing 'Christian' ie 'Bible defending' clothing.

"The Question Evolution Project is a Cesspit of Hate as I have demonstrated many times.

"Those caught in Bob's cesspit should get out while they can if they have any sense and if they are real Christians."
An irrational Stalker, and Bill Nye Fanboi 
"...The fact you refuse to learn evolution does NOT give you the right to spread disinformation; without that disinformation being criticized. Plainly put, this article is a crock of s**t."
— from a comment left at The Question Evolution Project

EDIT: Addendum at the bottom, people ironically proving me right.

It is puzzling how evolutionists, whether they are atheist, agnostic, theistic, old earth Scripture-compromising or something else seem to feel compelled to silence the opposition. Bill Nye, evolution's poster boy, has made ridiculous statements about how evolution is essential to understanding "science", indicating that he does not understand the nature of science himself. Richard Dawkins tells his followers to ridicule Christians (so much for "tolerance" — and atheists wonder why they are disliked by so many people). Various atheist celebrities make good money at writing books ridiculing "religion" and engaging in debates.

The rank-and-file drones patrol (emphasis on "troll") the interweb on a mission to find and attack Christian content. They seek it on social media, Weblogs, merchandising sites and more, then attack us. Especially biblical creationist content. They seem to be compelled to make a variety of comments that are inane, obscene, antagonistic, laughable or any combination thereof.

PD/US Military (modified)

Why? What do they hope to accomplish?

As you can see, some are consumed with blind hate. People who run other Pages on Facebook with Christian material will comment to me that they didn't really believe how depraved these atheopaths can be until they saw it themselves. I can understand that, since my reporting (as well as linking to comments of hateful people) does not have the impact for someone who does not experiencing it for himself or herself.

So, we question why.

I do know one answer: It's a spiritual thing. They deny the existence of God and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1.18-22). People are enemies of God (Rom. 5.15, Phil. 3.18) before they are adopted as God's children through the blood of Jesus Christ (John 1.12, Gal. 4.5-6). They are doing the will of their father down below (John 8.44), and though they think they are "freethinkers" using "reason", they are actually slaves to sin and cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2.14, John 8.34, 1 Cor. 3.19-20). Sin affects the mind (Rom. 1.22.23). They hate God, the Word, humility for salvation — and us. Part of their hatred of God's people is based on the fact that we have been redeemed and represent God in the world. We stink to them (2 Cor. 2.15-16).

But another aspect of the "why" question defies reason: Why do they feel the need to protect science?


Creation science is "anti-science rhetoric" that harms the entire species according to this troll.

Whether the wandering Internet trolls or the high-profile evolutionists, they act like they're on a mission. From whom? Science itself does not need protection! What is worse, they are using bad reasoning to justify their activities, equivocating "science" with "evolution". But evolution is not science, it is speculation about the past using scientific processes to interpret things that are observed in the present. A great deal of evolutionary science is not scientific at all. Rather, it is metaphysics (especially when dealing with cosmogony). Speculations about evolution are frequently presented as scientific truth.

Many of Darwin's Drones seem to think you are stupid. Instead of letting you evaluate the evidence, you must be protected from creation science so you're not confused with facts that they do not want you to learn. They'll save you!

A tremendous irony is that many claim some kind of moral motive. We are "liars" because we disagree with evolutionary presuppositions and show their errors (which makes them furious). When we present our point of view and the facts that anti-creationist do not want you to know, they attack. Biblical creationists have the Bible as our ultimate standard of morality. They do not have an ultimate, consistent standard of morality. To say that we're evil, they are actually appealing to a higher standard — they're appealing to God and, therefore, to the biblical worldview! The meaning in their lives is based on a fundamentally flawed worldview that is irrational, incoherent and inconsistent.

Further, they feel they must eliminate biblical creation science. This is the opposite of the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Instead, science thrives on challenges; if a hypothesis or theory is found to be faulty, it is modified or even discarded. But not evolution. That stays no matter what. Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". There is a strong measure of humanistic arrogance in clinging to evolution, but it is also the spiritual problem that man is at war with God and does not wish to humble himself before the Creator.

My conclusion, then is that their fighting to promote evolution and suppress alternative viewpoints has a spiritual base. Man hates God and wants to proudly cling to "wisdom" and false "science" to justify rejection of God. No wonder they hate those of us who have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Creator who became a man, died for our sins, bodily rose from the dead and offers salvation. But it comes on his terms, not ours. We must humble ourselves and receive his gift (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Darwin's Cheerleaders can actually have purpose and meaning in their lives through Christ. They can build up instead of destroy.

ADDENDUM: People were so blinded by hate, they left comments that inadvertently proved me right.
Now why do you suppose this post, which has little to no value whatsoever, shows up as "what's hot and recommended"? I'll tell you why--it's because of all the creationist drones sharing and plussing it in a concerted, preplanned effort.  If this isn't a case of a pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. But I can't say that I'm even the least bit surprised. It's a common tactic of the religious to claim the exact opposite, and to project their worst traits onto their opponents.
— Left at Google Plus. Sounds paranoid, frankly.
 Lying never works in the long run - even if you're doing it for God.
— Left at Google Plus, very helpful, makes me a better person.

It's hardly a matter of "blind hate." I'd describe it more as an informed disgust. Most atheists who bash the bible and creationism know more about the bible than many Christians do. We know all about its promotion of rape, slavery, and mass murder and find its barbaric teachings and factual inaccuracies disgusting not only on a personal level, but we feel it has held back scientific progress for centuries. The bible is a relic whose teachings should be recognized only from the standpoint of mythologies...
— Left at Google Plus, incomplete because I copied it from my e-mail notification. You get the point, though, full of prejudicial conjecture and hatred, then claiming to be smarter than all the Christians.

These comments have been deleted from the Google Plus post. Why? Because I'm not obligated to give non-thinking haters a platform for their egos and vitriol, nor do I want to waste time in a fruitless "discussion" with minds like these.



April 11, 2014

"Unbelievers" and Poison


Clinton R. Dawkins and Larry Krauss are leading militant atheists on another crusade. They have a new movie called Unbelievers. Perhaps they have to step up their efforts in spreading disinformation and stirring up emotions against that shadowy bogey man called "religion" and all its evils because they know that atheism is declining globally. Perhaps they're still upset because atheists do not score well in being liked and trusted. Perhaps the money is not rolling in as much as it used to be.

Let's back up. Atheists complain that they're not liked. Why is that? Well, from this report about the movie from a source that I trust, it's the same kind of nonsense that they inflict on people all the time anyway. I am convinced that they are not disliked because they're atheists so much as because they're obnoxious. What do they do?

  • Appeal to emotion. After all, people "think" with their emotions, and militant atheopaths manipulate people that way.
  • Misrepresentation. A straw man can fool sheeple, and modern militant atheists have warehouses full of them, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Telling stories that are untrue as well as uninformed so they can further manipulate people. "Dawkins and Krauss said so, and I believe them!"
  • Appeal to authority and double standards. When people have the unmitigated gall to question evolution, some of the Darwine drinkers will tell us that we have no business doing so because we do not have "qualifications". Yet they will listen to a theoretical physicist and a biologist as qualified authorities on matters of religion and how to run the world under the wisdom of militant, irrational atheism.
  • Other Logical fallacies. Using bad thinking like conflation, ad hominems, the aforementioned straw man and more.
  • Blatant inconsistencies. Telling people to "question everything", then atheopath drones go out and ridicule people who dare to question evolution, a foundation of the atheist religion.
  • Illegitimate activism. They pretend to be the persecuted victims and want their followers to rise up and stamp out "religion". Well, it's been tried for a long, long time. And even if it did happen, who would be building schools and hospitals? Certainly not the Dawkins Foundation.
  • Antipathy. These bullies loathe anyone who shows that atheism is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational. And I have yet to encounter an atheist that will not lie to, and about, me or other creationists.

Deceptive, manipulative and emotionally provocative things like this will only harm the already dreadful image that atheists have. They think they are highly intellectual, and then refer to reviews like this one from Answers in Genesis as "Anti-science bigotry", and claiming that "Ham and Purdom pretend to 'know' that it is all rubbish". Yeah, who is really the bigot, Poindexter? Such misrepresentation — no, let's lay it on the line — such a lie only illustrates the foolishness of the writer. Especially since Ham wasn't an author of the review.

Anyone acquainted with logic and epistemology can easily see that atheism is incoherent. It is full of arbitrary assertions (another logical fallacy) and they do not have a consistent moral foundation. Pay attention and you'll see what I mean. But don't correct them (Proverbs 9.8), they tend to justify their fallacies with more fallacies and dishonesty.

Thank God atheism and that negativity is dying. We can hope and pray that the emotionalism and flaming dishonesty of Unbelievers will not poison too many minds. Humanity's salvation cannot come through rejecting God. It can only come through Jesus Christ.

April 1, 2014

Global Atheist Holiday

Edited from a previous post.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
 (Psalm 53:1, KJV)

Here is a story that circulates on the Internet. Although it is not true (despite what your e-mail correspondent said), it is still funny.
An atheist created a case against Easter and Passover holy days.

He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays!"

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
"Court is adjourned."
I really like the Atheist International Holiday. (Have they recovered already from railing against Christmas?) I like it bunches. You betcha. Atheists gather at the Madalyn Murray O'Hair Memorial Hospital to sing some hymns, read their evolution mythology devotions from Charles Darwin, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins, followed by a video sermon by the departed (but now a believer) Christopher Hitchens (whose brother is a former atheist that became a Christian, by the way). Then, they find a Christian symbol on public land that has not been bothering anyone for decades and start picketing. Their conversation includes the alleged stupidity of Christians, deliberately misunderstanding remarks so they can accuse people of lies, distorting reality and having a grand old time that they make up as they go along.

April 1, the day atheists celebrate! How do they do it? Actually, since they have no hope, no wonder they hate Christians, who DO have hope.

Jester Stańczyk by Jan Matejko, 1862

After that, they venture to the places where Christians are ministering to destitute people and remind them that atheists are so much smarter than they are. Then, they look for other opportunities to practice their religious bigotry. Finally, they adjourn to their festively decorated homes for rum punch and to exchange gifts of brightly wrapped empty boxes while complaining about Christians and the Resurrection observances. The conclusion is to go outside, look at the night sky and chant, "It all happened by chance! We are rational!"


Actually, no wonder they hate us. There is no true joy (Rom 15.13) in their lives, nothing to celebrate (Rev. 19.9, 21.3-4). And there is no hope (Titus 2.13), only condemnation (John 3.36 ESV) in their silly pride (Job 35.12, Prov. 29.23). Too bad, really. It's their choice, but it doesn't have to be this way (John 1.12, 2 Cor. 5.17).

March 28, 2014

No True Atheist Doubts Atheism!

No True Scotsman, No True Atheist, Evil Raccoon, Atheist, Atheism, Stormbringer's Thunder, The Question Evolution Project

Atheism is in trouble. It is on the decline globally 1, 2, they are the least-liked, least trusted group 3 (but their status may have improved slightly since the surveys were taken), and they humiliate themselves and even other atheists with their antics 4. Some will whine, "We're persecuted!" Seldom true. "You hate me because I'm an atheist!" Also seldom true, but you identify with anti-Christian bigots 5, and that doesn't help you.

Atheist self-perception compared to others, Kirk Hastings
Courtesy of Kirk Hastings, used with permission

In addition, the idea of a universe that caused itself is philosophically and scientifically untenable 6, and they hate that fact.

One thing that militant atheopaths cannot tolerate is a defector, whether it is someone who leaves their religion 7, or dares to question materialism since most rely on that. Materialistic evolution is also a tenet of fundamentalist atheism 8. I've noticed that they seem to attack former atheists with amazing vitriol, almost as much as they give to biblical creationists — and there are creationists who were atheists at one time 9.

Militant atheopaths seem to get along with theistic evolutionists, and I think that is because TEs are closer to atheism than others who call themselves Christian (and I agree with some others who suspect that many TEs are actually just Deists). Next, they tolerate old-earth creationists (OECs) to some extent. But they detest young-earth creationists (YECs, also called biblical creationists), probably because we stand on the authority of the Bible and are not swayed by the ever-changing speculations of science philosophies.

Thomas Nagel dared to think beyond atheist orthodoxy and said that they had some wrong views about materialism. Instead of acting like the brilliant intellectuals that they pretend to be, they went into ridicule mode against one of their own.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel, who made a serious challenge to materialism in his book Mind and Cosmos, is still the focus of heated debate.
At a gathering of philosophers and scientists that included Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, a workshop on naturalism turned into an all-out attack on Nagel, a Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University.
Nagel’s claim that materialists’ conception of nature is wrong was too much for the workshop participants, according to Andrew Ferguson, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
In an article titled ‘The Heretic’, Ferguson discussed what happened in the workshop and also considered why Nagel’s book so angered his critics.
Follow the link to finish reading "Thomas Nagel—The atheist who dared to question materialism". There is a music "video" below for Christians. We have defected from Satan's stronghold. He and his minions are very angry indeed. The lyrics are here.



March 19, 2014

Dan Barker's Fundamentally Flawed Rationale


Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation seems like a heckuva nice guy. Unlike so many of the obstreperous atheists on the Web, he is intelligent, respectful and polite. But I am only basing this on a couple of interviews on Christian radio shows that I heard. Still, he does not have a reputation for being nasty.

The first one I heard was with Matt Slick of CARM. An attempt to schedule a debate had fallen through, so Dan was a guest in the studio with Matt. There was no specific agenda or topic. To listen to that, click here, but do not click on the "listen now" button. Instead, use the link "Carm_Podcast_2-7" to get the MP3. Also, Matt had a show where he discussed a debate he had with Barker a few years earlier, that show is here.

When hearing this show, I had feelings similar to those that Matt expressed, how so much was touched upon and a week of one-hour shows could stem from it. Barker had numerous instances of bad reasoning, word games, philosophical excuses and bad theology, so several visits would have been quite interesting.

After this, Dan Barker was on "Stand Up for the Truth" prior to a debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman of the Genesis Foundation. This was more formal, and they discussed not only his justifications for atheism, but how the Freedom from Religion Foundation conducts itself. You can listen/download here. Barker was caught in some glaring inconsistencies. Mike LeMay pointed out some of those in an article. One thing that I don't think anyone caught was how he claimed to be for everyone's religious freedom, but when Obamacare violates religious freedom, there's not a peep from FFRF. Double standard much? But the SUFT team does not let Christians off the hook because bad theology and lack of commitment (and understanding) on the part of Christian teachers that helps give us people like Dar Barker.

Somewhat related is the next interview on "Stand Up for the Truth", where Dr. Bergman is interviewed about the religion of secular humanism, Barker and other related topics. You can listen/download the Dr. Bergman discussion here.


March 8, 2014

Camels, Anti-Bible Prejudice and Media Hysteria



You'd think that National Geographic would learn about hastily publicizing bad science after the Archaeoraptor fraud. But no, they had to jump on the anti-Bible bandwagon and do what "skeptics" often do: Rush to proclaim that the Bible is wrong. In this case, the claim that the Bible is wrong about camels in the early days.



This kind of assertion has been pulled before and primarily based on incomplete evidence. In this case, the biases and assumptions are added to the façade of scientific research through carbon dating. Archaeology students in Tel Aviv did the "research". Like Bill Nye's attacks on creationists, they ignored existing research that was readily available. This story was picked up by the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis, (among others) who have provided some valuable information. Despite the efforts of "skeptics" (I put the word in quotes because so many people who call themselves "skeptics" already have their minds made up and reject any evidence that they dislike), the Bible still stands firm (Isaiah 40.8, Matthew 24.35). Perhaps if these mockers did not start from faulty presuppositions, they would not have these problems.

Let's go a step further. On Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart interviewed archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy about domesticated camels, refuting the hasty claims reported in National Geographic and other media. Click here for the page where you can download or listen live.


Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart, Bible, Archaeology, Science


February 12, 2014

Questions for Creationists on Question Evolution Day

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, God, Bible, Ian Juby, Apologetics, Creation, Creation Science, Charles Darwin, Evolution, Creationism
To celebrate the third annual Question Evolution Day, I'm going to keep this post simple. Here is a video that is just under half an hour. It's from Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", and contains information that anti-creationists ignore, ridicule, misrepresent and do whatever they can to keep people from hearing the truth and thinking for themselves. Go ahead, you know you want to watch it!


Subscribe in a reader