March 19, 2016

Cain's Wife, Biblical Incest, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since the Bible is not being taught very well in too many churches, one of the questions that stymies some people is, "Where did Cain get his wife in Genesis 4:16:17? After all, we only know about Cain and Abel". It's a fair question. However, atheopaths will often use this in a weird, self-refuting way that ends with, "therefore, evolution". They claim that there is no God and the Bible is false, but they selectively cite passages as if they were true to allow God to exist so they can hate him, such as in this image.

The chronology of some of the early Hebrew writings is less linear than our 21st century minds prefer. In Genesis 5:3-4, it said that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. As to when they had them, we're not told. Ultimately, its indicates that the sons and daughters married each other. After all, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Incest was expected back then.

The question of where Cain got his wife is a fair one, but atheists and evolutionists use misquote, mis-cite, and misrepresent it in a "gotcha" game. Of course, there is an answer, and it's not pleasant for them.

Centuries ago when I was in my early twenties, I saw a woman and thought, "Well, hel-lo! Ain't she a babe!" Then I was told that she was my first cousin that I hadn't seen in several years. So much for that idea! If you study on it, you'll realize that incest is not only unlawful, but morally repugnant today. We can't reasonably impose our views on the ancient people who were commanded to reproduce and marry their own kin, can we? Especially since God did not say that it was forbidden for about 2,500 years after creation (Lev. 18:6-18).

From a biblical perspective, everything was created very good (Gen 1:31). There was no genomic devolution yet. That would begin shortly afterward, when man sinned (Rom. 5:12). For that matter, when God said in Genesis 2:17, "In the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die". People have said, "Aha! God's a liar (because it's convenient for him to exist right now so I can hate him), because they didn't die! I win the Gotcha Game!" Do your homework, Hoss. The most accurate translation is, "dying you shall die", which means the process of dying had begun, not only for Adam and Eve, but all humanity.

Our genetic clocks are winding down. By the way, ever hear of mitochondrial Eve? Instead of supporting evolution, the science of genetics is supporting the Bible by indicating that humanity can be traced back to one woman. Remember, the Bible tells us that Eve became the mother of all humanity. These facts about genetics really get evolutionists on the prod!

So, incest was encouraged until it became a genetic issue, and at that time, God was likely to be putting a moral repugnance of incest in the hearts of people. Of course, there are people who rebel against God's moral and written laws, and against God himself. all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and deserve death (Rom. 6:23), but God made reconciliation and salvation possible through Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17, John 1:12).

For further reading on the incest issue by people who are far better than me, see the links above, plus:

February 12, 2016

Go to the Source

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For Question Evolution Day, I reckoned I'd point out a major bit of weirdness that anti-creation tinhorns saddle up and ride. I've seen many logical fallacies that they use, and try to not only watch my own reasoning, but encourage Christians and creationists to learn about fallacies as well. This is to keep us from getting intimidated by bullies, but also to be more accurate in our own presentations and discussion.

Atheists and other anti-creationists often attack the person that posted an article, expecting him or her to have insight into the mind of the author.

Many fallacies can be grouped together in the "red herring" category. That is, they're distractions. The ad hominem is the staple of atheists, saying things like, "You're stupid for believing in God and creation". Maybe I'm stupid, and my mother dressed me funny, too, but what does that have to do with the article's content? Another is the "straw man", where people put words in your mouth or otherwise misrepresent your position. "Hasty generalizations" are popular among atheists, where they find an article about how some pinhead refused medication because he expected God to perform a miraculous healing and he died, so the atheist uses that to say how all "religion" is bad. Yes, I've seen it.

The problem with distractions is that the thing might start regarding something a creationist posted on social media about, say, how the appendix is not a "vestigial structure", and the discussion is now about the "Ark Encounter" court battle of Answers In Genesis. The original discussion lit a shuck out of Dodge because of the distractions.

Part of this is when a Christian or creationist posts a link to an article and the Evo Sith demand answers from the one who posted it. In fact, they tend to expect whoever posted the thing to be an expert on all things they post (as if those making the demands were experts in those fields themselves). I didn't write the thing, sorry. Why don't you follow the link to the main article and contact the author or organization responsible? Of course, they seldom read what is posted in the first place.

By the way, many of the linked articles are written for us reg'lar folk. Critics occasionally complain about what is not included in them, as if that invalidates the whole thing. If people want the sources, they can click on the links included in such articles. For that matter, if they want the deep science (and if village evolutionists can understand them), they can subscribe to the peer-reviewed creation science journals.

Don't get me wrong, I have to answer for what I do write. Problem is, when I write posts that have the Introduction-Excerpt-Link format, statements in my introduction are usually addressed in the linked article. So, if someone is going to criticize, be sure to check out the linked article and supporting links. Much obliged.

We need to keep anti-creationists on-topic. They hate that. It also may lead to a good discussion in some cases, though. When they get to the personal attacks, blasphemies, and other things, feel free to disengage. It's not up to us to convince them of God's love and the truth of creation, we just need to present our case best that we can.

January 23, 2016

Establishing Evolutionary Religion in America

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many parts of the world are becoming increasingly secularized (which may have contributed to the recent terrorist attacks), and the United States has also been riding that same trail. The rights of Christians are coming under increasing attack by atheistic owlhoots, and secular humanism is steadily becoming established as the state religion. Know what God says about people who deny him? See Psalm 14:1.

Secular humanism is a religion by their own admission, philosophically, and by court rulings. While many atheists such as Clinton Richard Dawkins are calling this a "major victory", some dishonest atheists are still trying to change reality and deny that humanism is a religion. They accept the religion of evolutionism as foundational (but deny that evolutionism is a religious): "Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."

The world is becoming increasingly secularized, as is the United States. To further establish secular humanism as the state religion, there is an effort to declare "Darwin Day".

Atheists like Michael Zimmerman have been trying to get churches to compromise on creation. Now some federal tinhorns are attempting to establish "Darwin Day". Problem is, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly forbids the government establishing a state religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Of course, they have been establishing humanistic religion for a mighty long time now. This "all hail Darwin, blessed be!" stuff takes the rag off the bush. And this will continue as they seek to deny our Creator and enthrone man.

There is resistance. We already have Question Evolution Day happening annually on February 12, which is by and for the people. There is also Creation Sunday, which I encourage churches to be a part of. But let's turn up the heat a bit more, shall we? Americans should speak out and let legislators know that Darwin Day is unacceptable, and violating the Constitution.
Two Connecticut Congressmen have introduced Darwin Day resolutions this year. House Resolution 548 is sponsored by Rep. Jim Hines (CT-4); Senate Resolution 337 is sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D- Connecticut). It comes as no surprise that the resolutions are backed by the Secular Coalition of America and the American Humanist Association.
To read the rest, click on "Stop Darwin Day!" Also, you can become involved at the new Stop Darwin Day Facebook Page.

January 4, 2016

Being Offended, Tolerance, and Fazebook Absurdity

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

At The Question Evolution Project, one of the Admins posted a picture that went a bit viral. (Ironic, I didn't make it, and it's not the topic of the Page.) The caption was about how people in 2015 were offended at everything, and it would be great if people grew up in 2016. Many people commented with strong agreement, but some were unclear on the concept. Some were on the prod along the lines of, "You want us to be quiet about injustices and just get walked on". Oh, please.

Many of us don't cotton to having people claim to be "offended" at the drop of a hat, expecting everyone else to change their ways, speech, and thinking to coddle their egos. Some of us are offended at things and just move on, not demanding "safe places" or special legislation. A lot of this is found in an entitlement mentality, people assuming they have certain "rights" because they want to follow their own desires. Demanding political correctness and so on are actually attempts to stifle free speech. Now, don't go all Opposite Orville on me. I'm not condoning the idea of speaking freely that you're inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others (one bit of cowboy etiquette is to save your cussing so it's around horses and cattle). It's quite another to have to walk on eggshells because someone, somewhere, is looking for a chance to be "offended" and file a complaint somewhere. It's like the boy who cried, "Wolf!" All those "offended" complaints diminish the impact of important things that are worth dealing with, you savvy?

Some people claim to be offended at every little thing. Facebook is rewarding bad behavior from leftists, atheists, and others while smacking down Christians and Conservatives. Being "offended" is becoming meaningless because so many people want to be coddled.

Atheists, leftists, and so on want to silence the opposition. If they can't do it through legislation, they'll do it through intimidation (including ridicule and straw man attacks). Facebook is famous for suppressing posts from Christians, creationists, and political Conservatives. Now, I don't reckon that the Facebook Anti-Speech Police are able to examine material from its 1-1/2 billion users, but they do tend to act on complaints from "offended" leftists and anti-Christians. I've reported material with a frog nailed to a cross, threats of violence, the Last Supper painting remade as ghouls engaged in a gore feast, blatant obscenity, racism, and more, but those did not violate their hate speech "standards". The hypocrites at Fazebook also coddle Mohammedan terrorists

When an individual or a Page gets the smackdown, the person can have the account suspended, and a Page can be taken down. But for atheopaths or leftists, ain't happening much. Those of us who stand for traditional moral values such as biblical truth regarding same-sex marriage run a risk of getting booted from Fazebook. Sure, FB has a standard, and it's a double.

There's a Page called God or Absurdity that stands up for many Christian values, and shows the dangers of several leftist philosophies. They got a time out for posting this picture (which was posted over seven months ago, has been spread around, but G or A got in trouble for it). They had seven posts removed, which you can see and read about here. Some pro-abortionist bushwhacker probably filed a complaint, and this Page was suspended for a while, as well as several Admins' accounts. Now, I don't agree with everything they hold to in their theology and have had some differences with them (if it was the cultist at Evolution is a Religion of Origins, I wouldn't have a burr under my saddle), but this is just plain wrong, old son.

God or Absurdity was removed, but is continuing at God or Absurdity Reloaded.

By the way, I think FB scopes out graphics more than articles, but that's just based on my experiences.

I'd like you to read the article on Facebook fascism at the God or Absurdity blog. Someone should tell Facebook that it's bad policy to irritate millions of people that they want to sell products to, and that tomorrow, they can become as irrelevant as MySpace is today. People have trouble growing up intellectually and emotionally when they have enablers and other people who reward their bad behavior. ADDENDUM 2-17-2016: It happened again, and worse this time. Click here to read the author's account. Addendum 3-01-2016: Click here to see how the Page was removed for criticizing the false religion of Islam.

December 6, 2015

Definition Obfuscation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For several years, I've been emphasizing how identifying logical fallacies can not only sharpen our own presentations, but help us spot deception coming from certain people. While I focus on evolution, creation science, and theology, it's easy to see how sneaky wording is used in other areas, especially those that are politically oriented.

It seems to be increasingly important to have people to define their terms, and to nail down an understanding for a discussion, debate, or reporting. That is because there is a great deal of deliberate confusion going on, especially regarding connotations of loaded words. One of my favorite examples is "fundamentalist". That word is often used as a pejorative because of the connotations of a dour legalist, and the definitions are flexible; Calvinists, Lutherans, me, others can be considered fundamentalists because we believe in the fundamentals of the faith (well, duh). Many of us don't cotton to that label because a fuller definition makes important distinctions; I'm not a Fundamentalist per se.

In discussions on evolution, definitions are very important, especially since some anti-creationist sidewinders will pull a bait 'n' switch on definitions (fallacy of equivocation). They also play other word games, and you can catch them in their double standards. We even have to define evolution so we don't talk past each other, or get manipulated by unscrupulous folks.

Leftists falsely define "assault rifles"
AR-15 rifles. Image credit: US Customs and Border Protection,
where they are falsely identified as "assault rifles".
Another example is the term "assault rifle". Leftists keep using that term, and it does not mean what they think it means. The above image was liberated from a government site that identified the guns as "assault rifles". Apparently, the CBP Public Affairs writer doesn't know what defines a real assault rifle. Or perhaps this term was intentionally used to provoke emotions? I don't reckon I know for certain. For a good article on the correct definition, see "So What Is an ‘Assault Rifle’ Really? We Look at the Definitions and How the Term Is ‘Demonized’".

What really gave me a burr under the saddle about this word usage topic again was disinformation from the leftist media about the number of "mass shootings this year". The term mass shootings is emotionally-charged, and some people have the connotation of someone going into a cinema or shopping center and killing a number of bystanders, or Mohammedan terrorists killing people. (Don't get me started on how many of those mass shootings happened in so-called "gun-free zones".) Many mass shootings are related to gang violence and various disputes, so the connotation can be misleading.

The figure about mass shootings this year (2015) was not only outrageously wrong, but the media did not bother to do any fact-checking — it came from someone on Reddit who had his own definition of "mass shooting". The Reddit version has a number of mass shootings for this year that is in excess of the number of the mass shootings according to the Congressional Research Service from 1999-2013! I recommend for your reading "The Media Keeps Saying There Have Been 355 Mass Shootings This Year. That's a Lie."

Not only do we have to be wary of what we're being told, but to keep an eye out for logical fallacies — especially manipulation through obfuscations of definitions.


November 21, 2015

Fraud on Facebook?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are many instances of outright fraud on Facebook where people have been tricked into giving important information, making bad purchases, and so on. This is not about those third-party deceptions by sidewinders. No, this is about a different area.

Hopefully, my bad experience using Facebook's "Promote Your Page" can be a caution for others.
Modified from an image on Clker clip art
In mid-November, the option was taken using Facebook's own "Promote Your Page" option to spotlight The Question Evolution Project. There were some good articles that needed exposure, and we've done these promotions before. The targeted areas were the United States, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Australia, India, and Indonesia (we do get visitors from non-English-speaking countries), and the promotion is toward people who have an interest in the topics we cover. When the Likes started pouring in, I realized that something was wrong.

At this moment, we show about 5,225 Likes from people who use some form of English as their selected language. According to the stats from Facebook, none of the new Likes came from the intended audience! All were from India and the Philippines. Wait, what? Some new Likes popped in from the usual areas, but apparently those were not from the promotion.

I was suspicious. New Likes, and no interaction: no comments, sharing of posts, clicking "Like" on a post, nothing. Also, I had shared my sorta new "Public Figure" Page to The Question Evolution Project, "Cowboy Bob Sorensen". That remained untouched, and the post about it was near the top of TQEP when a whole heap of Likes were commencing.

A message came in from Why?Outreach asking why the surge (we were over 6,000 by then), and I explained my puzzlement. He showed me an enlightening video about fraud on Facebook. We used the legitimate way of obtaining Likes, through Facebook (again, we've done it before). The illegitimate way is to purchase Likes, and "click farms" pay people a pittance to go hog wild with the Like button. Page Admins, take a look at the people who Like you. (I wonder if some of those Pages I've seen that skyrocket in Likes through promotions have a lot of fake Likes that the Admins don't even know about.) As the video below says, nobody can Like that many Pages! I've seen it, almost got a cramp in my finger scrolling down, and the Likes just kept on going!

When I shut off the advertising early, the influx of Likes plummeted.

Now, someone may ask, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Problem is, fake Likes hurt your Page. I spent parts of two days deleting hundreds of those newcomers. (They're not banned, if I got someone who really does care about the Page, they can come back easily enough.) But study on it for a spell: it's no secret that people get a bit rambunctious and Like Pages they never go back to, so the end result is the same. But I'd rather have someone click Like that way, than have a link farm giving inflated figures; these were way too many, way too quick-like.

Consequences of fake Likes on Facebook
Used with permission

Here's the tricky part. I want to say that Facebook itself is guilty of fraud, but I can't rightly do that. Maybe a third party caught wind of the promotion and notified a click farm, I dunno. Maybe Facebook is guilty, but I can't give a lick of evidence about that, so I don't dare make such an accusation. I reckon they would stay above board, though, because they don't need to do those unethical things, especially since they have such a lousy reputation for double standards, so why make things worse?

But that fact is, fake Likes happened, I can only guess why, and can't do anything about it. But Facebook lost a paying customer — fortunately I'm not out a lot of money this time. Now, I suggest you take a look at the nine-minute video below, the one that Why?Outreach showed me.

November 15, 2015

Atheists Display Galactic-Sized Ignorance in Debate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Professing atheists riding the owlhoot trail are frequently claiming to be purveyors of "science" and "reason", but often displaying an inability to understand either. People with even a rudimentary understanding of logic can see their posturing for what it is. (Even after having their fallacies pointed out, some tinhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by committing more. Some of us don't cotton to wasting our time on them.) One of their many fallacies atheists use is over-generalization, such as saying that the recent ISIS terrorist attacks on Paris are a reason to outlaw all religion. Oh, please.

There are Christians who get into battles of trying to out-evidence the other side, but those of us who use presuppositional apologetics take a different approach. One reason atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, Deists, people who claim both agnosticism and atheism in the same comment, and others detest presuppositional apologetics is that we show how their epistemologies are fundamentally flawed. Those worldviews are incoherent and self-refuting, lacking the necessary conditions of human experience that are found in the Bible. Advocates of atheism and such hate us for showing their flaws, and also for our uncompromising stance on the Bible. Yes, we do believe in using evidence, but in a presuppositional framework and not accepting the lie of "neutral ground". Unbelievers get a mite riled when we point out that they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves!

Professing atheists often claim to have superior reasoning skills. In a recent debate, their arguments shattered before their eyes.
Thanks to Why?Outreach for the background image of shattered atheism.

At the 2015 Bahnsen Conference, atheists Andrew Breeding, Sean Taylor, and Bruce Gleason debated Christians Paul Viggiano, Sye Ten Bruggencate, and Jeff Durbin. It was an interesting format, with both sides giving presentations, rebuttals, cross-examinations, and so on. Then there were audience questions.

I almost had a case of Cranial-Keyboard Embedment Syndrome early in Bruce Gleason's presentation at the beginning of the debate. He said to watch for logical fallacies, and that the Christians would be making many of them — then he commenced to committing a passel of them himself, including poisoning the well! (One reason I'm mighty skeptical of doing debates is that I call people out on their fallacies, and don't like to let someone build an argument that is faulty from the get-go.) Although the Christians were presumably knowledgeable in spotting fallacies, there was not a great deal of pointing them out.

Also, some of the professed atheists were condescending toward the Christians, and I consider that an attempt at emotional manipulation. It also has elements of poisoning the well, also. 

Let's ride way down the trail to the question and answer session at the end. One of the questions involved evolution, which is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. The atheist argued from his presuppositions, and also showed that not only does he lack understanding of natural selection, he was using a fallacious comparison. Dr. James White had some very interesting comments on this. 

Know how you go to some sites and they have so many videos embedded, the whole shootin' match slows way down? I reckon that would happen here if I embedded the two videos that are needed, so I'll link to them instead.

To see the video of Dr. White's analysis of the evolution question, click here and go to the 35 minute 20 second mark (the link is supposed to go there anyway, but I wanted to make certain that you knew). After that, he has some analysis of apostate Bart Ehrman's erroneous debate remarks. Also, you can see the video or download the audio on Dr. White's site at this link

As for the debate itself, it runs three hours all told. To watch the video, click here. For audio (embedded or for the download link), you can get that from Apologia Radio's site.

Despite all the proud strutting, assertions, bad logic, and so forth, there is still time for those professing atheists to humble themselves, repent, and seek forgiveness from Jesus Christ. He is the Creator and Redeemer they deny.

Subscribe in a reader