April 10, 2016

Manipulating Opinions in the Name of Science

Leftists celebrate and Conservatives warn against the increase in politically correct activism, especially when it infringes on personal freedoms. We read how "surveys show", but how accurate are they, really? Questions are often loaded, and the questions that are asked (as well as the people selected to participate in surveys) are frequently neglected during reporting. We should know that there are sidewinders who will selectively cite and manipulate data, but it seems that many people simply take "reporting" as unbiased and factual. Not hardly!

Researchers are using manipulative tactics to influence public opinion. This is not the way for ethical scientists to behave.
Generated at Add Letters
There are surveys and research results for many purposes, including "evidence" for evolution that conveniently leaves out pertinent data, and more. Ask your friends how many people they think are of the homosexual persuasion. Some think it's about half of the population, when the actual figure in the United States is closer to five percent or less! The inflated number perception is mainly due to activism and media presentation.

Scientists are supposed to do science stuff. Unfortunately, there are people in science professions who use their work as means of not only activism, but to manipulate public opinion. They also capitalize on the way many people think: with their emotions, and without logic.
Politically correct persuasion is at your doorstep, masquerading as a scientific survey.

Last year, Science Magazine was shamed into retracting a paper written by a LGBT activist. The activist, Michael Lacour, a doctoral candidate at UCLA, leveraged the name recognition of Donald Green, a Columbia University political scientist, as co-author. When he heard about “irregularities” in Lacour’s survey data, Green later admitted he had not adequately supervised Lacour’s work (Nature). The retraction not only put egg on the face of the AAAS (publisher of Science), but also on all the politically-correct reporters who had celebrated Lacour’s “findings.”

Lacour had hired some of his gay friends to canvass houses in a conservative area, seeing if they could persuade them to change their views about gay marriage (12/17/14). As we pointed out at the time, it wasn’t a bad paper simply because of bad record-keeping, but because the whole design of the survey was overtly biased. Lacour was on a campaign to change public attitudes about gay marriage. A neutral scientific paper should have studied the effect of surveys on both views—i.e., seeing if supporters of gay marriage could be persuaded to change their views in favor of traditional marriage. Additionally, survey takers were all hired from Lacour’s gay activist group. A scientific survey should have sought to employ helpers from both positions, or better yet, used survey takers without a strong position. Everything else about the “experiment” was flawed, too, including the lack of adequate control, the lack of objectivity. It was an exercise in advocacy, pure and simple. Science was caught with its pants down, and repented—temporarily. Nature said that the incident created “a stigma that has haunted political science”; it was a “painful episode” one would think would shame researchers from doing it again.

Now, however, the Lacour defenders are back with a vengeance, touting new “survey” methods that allegedly prove that people can be “persuaded” to moderate their positions on LGBT “rights.” Once again, the survey takers are tainted with advocacy; success is being measured by the ability to change people’s attitudes toward leftist positions, not equally toward either position on this highly controversial subject facing society. You see it right in Nature’s coverage: “Door-to-door canvassing reduces transphobia.” No conservative or supporter of traditional gender roles would use that word. Supporters of traditional sex roles are not “phobic” toward LGBT people; in many cases, they love them as individuals and support their rights just as they would for any citizen. They have strongly-held convictions, however, about sex and gender, particularly when it comes to whether men should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms if they declare themselves to feel feminine (whether sincerely or not); must the privacy of girls be sacrificed to the whims of political correctness?
To read the rest and be forewarned, click on "Scientific Brainwashing Is Back".

April 1, 2016

Why Become an Atheist?

There are several reasons people claim to be atheists, some are almost laughable, all are bad. Don't be a fool and reject God's offer of salvation.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

The Bible says you're a fool if you claim that God does not exist (Psalm 53:1 ESV). (And none of that nonsensical redefinition of atheist to "someone who lacks belief", that's not the established definition, old son. I lack belief in a universe without God.) God isn't just being insulting, but let's face it, you may be brilliant in comparison to other people, but in comparison to God, you're nothing. More than that, the word translated "fool", נָבָל, is not just lacking intelligence, but someone of low character that mocks God. 

Hold on there, Pilgrim! Don't get the bit in your teeth and think it's all right to go wild by calling every atheist you meet a fool. See the first part of the verse? Although it applies to those who deny God's existence, there are Christian fools as well! That's right. Christians profess to know God, but some think that they can get away with sin and defy him; they are saying in their hearts that there is no God. Better repent of that attitude right quick.

Back to the atheist issue. Elsewhere, I offered some opinions on why people become atheists. Some of it is "bandwagon" atheism, trying to be trendy and shock parents. Many will give the impression (or even say outright) that they spent time examining issues and searching for evidence, then intellectually decided that God does not exist. That's downright silly, because there is abundant evidence for God's existence. Further, the Bible has an explanation for the condition of the world — atheism does not have the necessary preconditions of human experience, and has a problem with morality. Some atheists are pretty doggone arrogant and seek to not only ridicule the Bible and mock Christians, but to destroy our faith so we can be as much sons of Hell as they are.

Here's one that really takes the rag off the bush. This tinhorn does not understand the history of the Big Bang, pulls that falsehood that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (Carl Sagan said, "We're all star stuff", and someone else said, "A star died so you might live", or words to that effect), uses ad hominem attacks, and so on. The best part is at the end, where he indicates that people become atheists out of spite. Right, if a Christian says something he doesn't want to hear, or he just doesn't like the Christian, then he could become an atheist and it's all your fault, you big meanie! Where I come from, people are responsible for their own choices. If a professing Christian is unkind (whether for real or because someone has a burr under his saddle and wants to find an excuse to be "offended"), choosing atheism as a punishment for God, the Christian, all Christians — wow, that's dumb. He's a fool, looking to justify his rebellion against God.

Click for larger.
What it all comes down to is that people do know that God exists (Romans 1:18-22), but suppress the truth. They need to repent while there's still time. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, to give us salvation, to reconcile us to God, and he defeated death by bodily rising from the dead on the third day. Oh, you think we are the fools because we reject atheistic "reasoning"? As the Petra song says, "I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God".

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.


Subscribe in a reader