March 11, 2015

Kent Hovind Case — Wrong on Many Levels

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Latest edit: 7-08-2015

This kind of stuff really puts a burr under my saddle. Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind was jailed on tax-related crimes. Naturally, atheopaths dance the Darwin Disco and try to use this to poke creationists in the eye. But you can't get the truth from those tinhorns. And getting the actual story requires some digging.

My own awareness of Kent Hovind is minimal. I heard some audio and saw some videos a few years ago, and thought that he was a very engaging, dynamic speaker. He stood up for the truth against arch-compromiser Hugh Ross, but has used "do not use" arguments for creation. (Although I'm biased in Hovind's favor and think he has been, and is, railroaded, I have to be honest about those shortcomings in his presentations.) Even so, he had atheists in a tizzy during debates — perhaps that is one of the main reasons they hate him so much. These days, I am familiar with and supportive of Eric Hovind's Creation Today ministry.

Was Hovind running a scam and dodging taxes, maybe "milking the system"? I don't see how any informed, intellectually honest person can reach that conclusion. Oh, sure, the Internal Revenue Service has their side of the story, but so do Kent Hovind, co-defendant Paul Hansen and their supporters. There are extremes in the story, some are typical sidewinder nonsense from anti-creationists, the other extreme sometimes presents a great deal of emotion. The antagonists won't bother to consider that he may be a prisoner of conscience who had a disagreement with the business laws and taxes. (Civil disobedience helped make Henry David Thoreau a hero to some.) Nor will they consider that violent criminals have served less time in prison than Kent Hovind already has!

Note the hypocrisy of atheist organizations who claim that they want fairness. Groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and others didn't offer a meadow muffin about Obamacare's bullying of the Catholic church, nor do they show any concern about Kent Hovind. If they were honest, they'd be involved, since government abuses of power (such as this one) can become their problem as well — but will there be anyone left to help them out? Not hardly.

One version of the Niemöller poem comes to mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
For people who want to investigate and learn more truth than they'll get from militant atheists and the government's biased side of the story, I have some materials to offer.
I hope that people will use the information instead of the anti-creationist, anti-Hovind nonsense that is prevalent. This is bigger than a disagreement between a creationist and the government, it can have repercussions that affect many people. And Christians, you'd better be praying!

February 12, 2015

Evolution, the Illuminati, and Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For Question Evolution Day, I decided to write some thoughts about the Illuminati and conspiracies. According to some people, the Illuminati is a secret organization that seeks world domination, and has a strong influence in the affairs of governments. I understand that they're also spying on individuals, and some accounts tell us that they want to take over the world for Satan. 

Yes, the Illuminati started out as a secret organization, and people link them to another secret organization, the Freemasons. They have also been allied with the Anunnaki, who are (according to some accounts) our reptilian masters from outer space who also control the world. The details are sketchy about their power and alliances, and vary greatly, some tales are extremely far-fetched.

How secret are they, then? People seem to "know" a great deal about them. They are writing Weblogs and posting in social media all over the place. When people make the devil hand signal where the index and pinkie fingers are extended, and the middle two are held down by the thumb, sometimes observes exclaim, "Aha! An Illuminati person is signaling other members!" That hand sign is popular in occult heavy metal acts (such as the late Ronnie James Dio), and is also used by supporters of the Texas Longhorns football team. I remember people accusing George W. Bush of flashing the sooper-sekrit signal. Yeah, big secret. In a press conference, a sign that many people know the secret for, in front of the press and millions of viewers — and he's known for doing it to support the Longhorns.

I reckon that I'm put off by the wild stories and conspiracy theories; there isn't a great deal of unity in them. If the Illuminati or a consortium of secret, powerful groups does exist, there's not hardly a lot I can do about it. I'm sure some people will want to convince me now.

Do you want a conspiracy theory? I'll give you one.

Today is the fourth annual Question Evolution Day. It is an event to unify people who want to speak out against evolution and affirm creation, and for people to stand for religious, intellectual, academic, speech and other basic rights. We hope that not only will biblical creationists uphold the authority of Scripture, but that people will start to critically examine evolution and see that there is precious little science in it. Conjectures, "just so stories", unfounded assertions, fraud and outright lies are used to uphold evolutionism.


It goes back to the Garden of Eden, and Satan's first lie where "you shall be like God" (Genesis 3:4-5). People use evolution to "scientifically" justify their rebellion against God, even though they know he exists (Romans 1:18-22). He's the Creator, and he makes the rules. People want to be their own gods, making their own rules and worshiping false gods, especially themselves and invoking Scientism. Evolution is a major stumbling block for people to come to salvation through Jesus Christ.

Satan is the controlling force of billions of lost souls (2 Cor. 4:4). He loves evolution because it promotes his lie to Eve that people have believed for millennia afterward. So, Satan protects evolution with his Darwin Drones, stalkers, trolls, and the like. Many people are deceived by evolutionism, and fight to keep it from rational scrutiny. If it was an intellectual problem, people would be biblical creationists! But no, it is a spiritual problem.

Although there is no secret organization of evolutionists, Satan is the mastermind controlling evolution. (You'd think the Illuminati, Masons, Anunnaki, and others would be violently shutting down creation science, since it proclaims the true God of the Bible.) The conspiracy is in the unseen realm, not from flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12).

You want a conspiracy theory? I can do one for your dancing and dining pleasure. 

Satan is the mastermind. He has servants who willingly bow to him for power, money, prestige, and other promises. So, his servants organized into secret societies to fight against the truth of the gospel message, which begins in Genesis. Wait I hear someone outside better post this quic

February 2, 2015

Creation, Conservatives, and Fighting for Free Speech

If the Grinch was a leftist, he might say, "Free speech is speech I can't stand in the least!" Let's face it, political correctness is primarily an effort to suppress free speech. Who are the biggest proponents of political correctness? Liberals, of course! They resort to labeling and name-calling, especially if someone holds to traditional Christian and Conservative values. If you point out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, you're a homophobe (a meaningless term used to provoke emotion; I don't phobe homos, or heteros, for that matter). If you point out the minority-status national origin of a criminal, you're a racist. Say that there are some things women just can't do, you're a sexist. Ban an obstreperous atheopath from trampling a Christian or creationist site, you're a censor (news flash, Skippy, you were banned for being an obnoxious buffoon, not for being a threat to our beliefs, and certainly not for using logic).

Liberals rely on emotion and fear. When they have power, they use it with gusto. Post some of the aforementioned ideas on Facebook, you can get in trouble. One guy posted something in an atheist-dominated "debate" group promoting Question Evolution Day, and was promptly treated like garbage and QED was thoroughly misrepresented (atheists almost always misrepresent creationists). Then he mysteriously lost his account. However, (warning, I'm not kidding here) this obscene graphic was not removed, it does not violate the so-called standards of Facebook. And that's very, very typical of Fazebook.

There are still pockets of teh interweb where free speech still exists for Christians, creationists, and Conservatives. It is still a great equalizer, giving us regular folks a chance to express ourselves. But even that depends on various factors. We'll speak out while we still can.

Doug McBurney is a Conservative Christian who has a podcast called "The Weekly Worldview". Politically correct? Not hardly! Doug will tell you what he thinks about the news, and tell you the truth about the left. He is also a creationist who supports Question Evolution Day. He'll make you think, enrage atheists and liberals, make you laugh, he plays rock and roll to make ironic points... Check out his current podcast at "Snapshots from the Bizarro World".

January 11, 2015

The "Prove It" Fallacy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is not only very helpful to learn about informal logical fallacies, but can be fun. At least, they are for me.
Prove it!
Not only does this help you in discussions so you can see if some owlhoot is building an argument with faulty reasoning, but helps you check your own arguments so you can present present them as accurately as possible.
Back up your assertions!
The more I learn about fallacies, the more I see that not only can many of them get combined and overlap (a comment can a contain complex question, an ad hominem and a genetic fallacy all at the same time, for example).
Are you afraid to back up your claims, or just too stupid to cite something from a real source and not from creatard sites?
More than that, I keep seeing additional "fallacies" that appear to be simply made up. Someone accused me of committing a fallacy because I pointed out his own fallacies, therefore, I was "negated" and he was free to continue building his faulty arguments! Now, I can see a valid complaint when someone inaccurately accuses someone of being fallacious.
Since you're not proving anything, I guess you're not able to understand logic.
So, I'm going to make up a fallacy of my own: The "Prove It Fallacy". Although it can happen in the real world, it occurs much more frequently on the web.

Some discussions are ruined when people constantly demand that you prove everything you comment, and your can't even get to the point you want to make. I'm going to call this the "Prove It Fallacy".

There have been times when I have made comments that people enthusiastically attacked and demanded proof. I could say, "I remember reading that John Wayne left the comfort of his film crew's camp and brought food to the Mexican extras at their camp, and he also ate with them". Someone might reply, "Citation, or it never happened". Yes, there are people who demand proof for what seems like almost everything you say.

I really think that the Atheist Handbook™ forbids allowing Christians (especially creationists) to be right, so if they can't get every challenge answered, they use the argument from silence and consider their opponent to be refuted. (This is similar to "typo pouncing", where a simple mispeling is used to negate an entire discussion, or even the reject the personhood of the commenter.) Such tactics make it very difficult to have a decent exchange on teh interweb.

The more I cognate on this, I'm seeing that it may be just a sub-fallacy of an established fallacy: the red herring. It's just a means of distracting from the topic at hand, and avoiding whether or not someone has a decent argument or response.

When you think about it, you'll see that many fallacies have a measure of red herring in them: Ridicule, poisoning the well, appeal to motive, libeling someone by calling him or her a liar without evidence (making the accuser the liar), straw man, and more (you can see a corral-load of fallacies in my "Logic Lessons" series). Now, sometimes distractions and rabbit trails can be fun, but also frustrating for people who want a discussion to stay on track.

Of course, there are times when someone makes a claim that is relevant to the discussion and needs support (especially when someone makes a claim as an attempted rebuttal to someone's comment, such as, "You creationists are all liars!" — okay, back that up, Skippy). That's not my point here. I'm talking about those sidewinders who challenge so many statements that they ruin the discussion. (On a side note, there have been times where I was asked to support my claims, so I gave them a link to one of my articles. They used the genetic fallacy and rejected it out of hand because it was my work, and didn't bother to see that I documented what I had to say.) Ofttimes, they won't even bother with the support that you wasted time in tracking down and posting because they're just interested in being obstreperous.

The issuing of constant challenges indicates to me that someone isn't interested in having a rational discussion. I believe that anti-creationists and atheopaths are unwilling (and maybe even afraid) to consider reasoned arguments from Christians (especially biblical creationists). Are these people challenging you for the sake of challenging? That's up to you to decide, and to choose whether or not you're simply wasting your time.

December 14, 2014

Conflation and the War Between Science and Religion

The idea that there's a war between "science" and "religion" was laid to rest. But through the magic of conflation and dishonesty, atheists have brought that zombie back. Not so fast, we're on to your tricks!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Back when I was giving talks on creation science, I used what has become a very popular quote by an atheist:
‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. 
— G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
The way I study on it, this quote would have been mostly forgotten if biblical creationists hadn't lassoed it and kept repeating it.

"Why do you people keep repeating it, Cowboy Bob?"

Thanks for asking. We repeat it because it's right. Vituperative and biased, but right. This was back in 1979. Evolutionists and atheists have been doing a bait 'n' switch for a long time by conflating (or equivocating, even equating, almost the same thing) the words science with evolution. Particles-to-people evolution is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify an evolutionary worldview. The belief in evolution is the starting point for interpreting data.

Likewise, creation science is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify a creationist worldview. Our belief in the biblical account of creation is our starting point for interpreting data. Atheists often ridicule Christians because our foundation is different from theirs — and theirs is "right" because they said so. But we all have the same data, the same facts — there is no stacking up their facts against our facts. In fact, a fact is a fact. It's the interpretation of facts that cause the disagreements.

Evolutionists and atheists hate this truth with a passion: Creation and evolution are equally religious and equally scientific. You see, everyone has an ultimate starting point — a worldview and presuppositions. We interpret information through them. Some make science into a kind of religion (Scientism), and there is no reality that cannot be determined scientifically, This worldview is self-refuting. God's Word is the basis of the Christian's worldview (or it should be!), and the Bible is self-affirming.

Let's ride down this trail a bit more.

Atheists have insisted for a long time that there is a war between "science" and "religion". That is the opposite of the truth. Creationists put this idea six feet under long ago by pointing out that there are many creationist scientists, and there is no conflict between their faith and real science.

But atheists are trying to raise zombies. What this "war" rhetoric really means for them is that there is a war between evolution and biblical creation.Evolution and creation are historical (sometimes called origins) science, and then there is operational science, which applies to real life.

In the quote by Bozarth, he conflated "science" with "evolution" (atheists often get sneaky and also conflate "reason" with "atheism"; if you're not an atheist, you don't use reason and logic — "logic vs. creationism", for instance). Other heroes of unbelief also do this, and it is false. You do not need to believe in evolution to be a good scientist. F'rinstance, there are people working together literally doing rocket science, some are creationists, some are evolutionists, and their views of origins have no bearing on their ability to do science work. This happens in other fields as well.

However, many anti-creationists have been denying that there is a difference between historical and operational sciences:

Spot the zombie? The "war between science and religion" concept was buried by biblical creationists, but atheists dug it up and reanimated it by conflating "evolution" with "science". Again, there is a war between the truth (biblical creation science) and the lie (evolution and billions of years), but no war between science and religion/faith. Watch for this deception, it's quite common.

Evolution is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. Clinton R. Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Since evolution is scientifically and logically a pile of meadow muffins, it's no surprise that atheists play so many disingenuous word games and use logical fallacies to "protect science" (meaning, guard evolution from scrutiny).

It's sad that many Christians do not recognize the importance of our foundations in Genesis. Some atheists understand it far better than many Christians! In fact, C. Richard Dawkins states it clearly:
I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen.

— Richard Dawkins interviewed by Richard Conder on Revelation TV, Feb 2011

One of the biggest barriers for people to come to faith in Christ is evolution. When you have Christians that are reluctant to stand for the truth, are unable to answer questions about it, and also fall for the devious tricks from atheists (including conflation), there are problems. Atheists and evolutionists utterly despise those of us who take an uncompromising stance on our biblical foundations. Creation science ministries not only show evidence for creation and refute evolution, but also seek to equip Christians to present the gospel — these ministries are a resource. Are we getting ridiculed, lied about, mocked, libeled and so on? Yup. Shall we compromise? Not hardly.

December 7, 2014

Village Atheist Tricks

A simple, fair, obvious question: If atheists and anti-creation evolutionists are confident in their reasoning abilities, why do they resort to unconscionable and illegal methods to silence Christians and creationists? I reckon that the days are long gone where people could discuss matters rationally. Now, we have to deal with attacks. This fits in with the rising tide of wickedness in the world, but atheopaths are behind a lot of it. Especially on the interwebs.

Those of us with knowledge and experience can dismantle their "reasoning" and expose their logical fallacies, especially since most are based on assertions, intimidation, ridicule and outright personal attacks. Many atheists are materialists who are bowing to their religion of Scientism. Since many can't saddle up the horse of reason and learn to ride, they prefer to go in with six-guns blazing in different ways — primarily based on provoking emotional reactions.

Some resort to criminal acts like impersonation (see "Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers", an article about my own experience with The Question Evolution Project, "Faker Alert for Facebook", and something from the Intelligent Design community, "Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages", for three examples). Although they despise Intelligent Design and "theists" in general, their main venom is directed toward biblical creationists. This parody video lays out some points to consider:

I've been the recipient of several libelous pieces on atheist sites. Again, they attack the person instead of honestly addressing the subjects at hand. "Good without God"? Not hardly! These tinhorns are not interested in science or reason. Instead, these "freethinkers" are doing the bidding of their father down below, (John 8:44), and are exceptionally dishonest (1 Tim. 4:1-2). The Bible tells us that this stuff will happen (2 Tim. 3:12, Matt. 5:12).
We often get asked for our response to some atheist critique of an article we have published. For example, I have been asked to respond to an atheist ‘wiki’ website that has an article that claims to rebut my article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Correspondents have asked me to rebut the (supposed) rebuttal. 
I have replied as follows. 
I am very much aware of the wiki article; the fans of the website made it their business to make sure I knew about it (I got ~100 emails from them when it went up). It appeared that not many of them actually read my article at all carefully, or any of the linked supporting articles. The agenda of such fanatical atheists (‘new atheists’) is to ‘search and destroy’ (faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour), not to ‘seek and find’.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Responding to atheistic opposition — Underhanded tactics include attempted censorship".

December 6, 2014

That "Copies of Pagan Myths" Nonsense

One of the most annoying and tiresome attacks on Christianity is when atheists will say, "You st00pid dumb Xtians are just copying ancient pagan religions!", and then they throw some outright falsehoods that they gleaned off the interwebs. Fact check, please! But no, that requires intellectual honesty.

Wikimedia Commons / Ad Meskens

What if a pagan god showed up at your Christmas service and said that you're really celebrating his birth, and that Jesus is just a copy of pagan myths? Here are two videos. The first is a cartoon that dispenses with the myths. The second is from Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", where he deals with the Horus manure.

Start at the 18 minutes 9 seconds mark to get right to the Horus stuff:

Subscribe in a reader