February 1, 2017

Blind Bias in the Secular Science Industry

Those allegedly dispassionate scientists in the secular science industry are actually blind to their biases. They are also strongly leftist in their advocacy.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Scientists are portrayed as dispassionate, objective, and following where the evidence leads. Not hardly! They're people living in a sinful, fallen world just like the rest of us. Unfortunately, those making money in the science industry have some serious problems that stem from their materialistic worldviews and the philosophies of the age — and their political positions are on the hard left. My tax dollars at work! What follows will link you to four articles, so I hope you come back to finish reading this post.

Many of these scientists, as portrayed by their obsequious media, are the arbiters of truth. After all, they're scientists, and have the necessary tools. Their elitism shows in their blatant hatred of President Donald Trump, who has only been in office for a few days, but these yahoos have him all figured out and condemned. But that's the left, they do that. 

The leftist science industry is also very interested in education (especially evolution and global climate change), you bet your boots. They're scientists, they have the truth, and everyone else (especially Conservatives) are ideologues. But they have to convince (actually, manipulate) people with propaganda, and browbeat people they consider to be enemies. This is similar to the attitudes of people who oppose Question Evolution Day: ridicule, mockery, claiming to believe in freedom of speech as long as it meets with their approval, and so on. Typical leftists. Typical anti-creationists.

From there, they move on to a secularist jihad to fight back against the truth. Or, as they believe, against error because they have the truth. Of course, there is no reason to consider any evidence against their presuppositions and the "science" presented through poor research and circular reasoning.

Here's the first link, "Big Science Blind to Its Bias".

Now we get more involved with the political aspect of the secular science industry. They have assumed Trump is evil, as are Republicans. (I expect bias and bigotry from atheopath stalkers on the Web, but such ridiculous thinking from people who are trained and paid to think rationally is beyond the pale.) One reason to hate Trump and Pence is that they are not sheeple who follow the global warming consensus or lichen-to-leftist evolution viewpoint. They think "science" is threatened, which is based on their leftist views and on fallaciously conflating science with consensus. There is also the claim that Trump is pushing scientists to political activism. That dog won't hunt, old son. People are responsible for their own actions — at least, in the real world.

Time for the second link, "Big Science Blind to Its Political Bias". The third link ties in with it. It's a much newer post than the others, discussing leftist science resorting to fear mongering, playing the fascist card (bonus: my article on that one is here), and outright lies, click on "Big Science Goes Total Left in Opposing Trump". (Second bonus link, "The Science Industry Supports Abortion".)

The secular science industry and their feckless media are overwhelmingly materialistic, rejecting God the Creator and any evidence contrary to evolution and global warming. An aspect of their philosophy is scientism, a self-refuting view that truth comes from science. Some tinhorns go so far as to equivocate science with reason. (Then they call us "anti-science" when we have the temerity to show the flaws in their worldview.) But science can only go just so far. In fact, it is a method of interpreting observed data, and those interpretations are based on the worldview of the scientist (or anyone else, really).

Now I'll give you the final link, "Big Science Blind to Its Scientism".

What we see is consistent: leftists are blinded to the truth, oppose the truth, despise any who disagree with them, and prop themselves up at the noble elite. But they are blind fools. All of this should not be all that surprising to those of us who know the Bible. Still, it's disappointing to see people who are supposed to be (and claim to be) objective acting like angry children. At least furious leftist scientists are not smashing windows at Starbucks or burning cars. Yet.

January 21, 2017

Synchronicity in the Press? Not Hardly!

The word synchronicity originated with Carl Jung, was developed by Arthur Koestler, others have offered their views on the concept, was the title of the final studio album by The Police, the title of a 2015 science fiction movie involving time travel, and more. Pseudo-intellectual New Age and postmodern writers (their material is easily obtained on the Web) are fond of synchronicity. I don't cotton to getting into all that, and want to keep it simple: according to synchronicity, coincidences are not what they appear, and may have a sort of supernatural basis.

Is it synchronicity, collusion, or something else that media sources keep on using the same terminology?
Image credit: Pixabay / wilhei
In the early days of the George W. Bush presidency, Rush Limbaugh collected a montage of remarks from different leftists, saying that Bush lacked "gravitas". So many people from different sources all suddenly using a rather uncommon word at the same time? The same kind of happenstance has occurred many times over the years. Fascinating.

When updating my post about pinheads who refused to provide services for the Trump inauguration, I found out that Ralph Lauren received the prestige for doing Melania's dress. (Some people care about fashion stuff. I'm a "get dressed and go to work" kind of guy.) Something that caught my attention was how a passel of agencies were were using New Age spiritism lingo, saying that Melania was "channeling" Jackie Kennedy. I used Google and typed, without quotes, melania channels jackie. Give it a try.

Way back yonder, typesetting was the way books, magazines, and so forth were given words so others could read them. Lead cold type in various fonts was set, backwards, so it could be inked and printing would happen. I was a typesetter for a few years, but I reckon it was called typesetting for lack of a better word, because I didn't set lead type. Rather, the Compugraphic was a computer that connected to a big box thing which photographed each letter or symbol, and produced a sheet of camera-ready paper that needed to be taken into the darkroom for developing. The machine with the film actually shook during the process. (Developing was easy, just put it in a machine that sent it through the proper chemicals.) Now it's done by typing on my unregistered assault keyboard and I can send something electronically for printing, Web publishing, or whatever. Why did I tell you about my typesetting days? For contrast in the history of printing, and I just felt like it.

"Get on with it, Cowboy Bob!"

Yes, well, you see, I lack belief that there's any synchronicity involved. Some agencies and reporters may borrow certain words or expressions from each other, but not on this scale. It seems like typeset boilerplate terminology is issued. (We see this all the time in atheists and anti-creationists.) Collusion? Shenanigans? Could very well be happening. Original thought, not so much.

January 20, 2017

Trump Inauguration Refusers Flip Off Millions

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People are making the news by refusing to perform at any of Donald Trump's inauguration events. They'll say things like, "He's not fit to be president", and "Trump offends people". Yeah, as if Hillary Clinton was fit. Not hardly! We also see violent protests by sore losers who reject the rule of law. (One sidewinder thinks they're justified, since he's tried, sentenced, and condemned Trump in the supreme court of his opinion). But that's okay, they're leftists, so the rest of us have to be tolerant of these domestic terrorists, right?

In the time leading up to the inauguration of Donald Trump, a lot of Americans have show their shameful true colors. People refusing service are not only rejecting Trump, but millions of other people outside their elitist group.
Image credit: Michael Vadon (CC BY-SA 2.0)
What really takes the rag off the bush is when Jennifer Holliday accepted the opportunity to perform, then backed out because the LGBT "community" was "heartbroken". Why? Do none of them believe in freedom? Jenny caved in to bullying, she said about the "community", that it "...was mostly responsible for birthing my career and I am deeply indebted to you". Seriously? Only them, no straight people bought tickets to see you or had any part in launching and continuing your career, buttercup?

Well, maybe they are all shallow and vindictive, and will boycott Holliday forever because she dared to take the opportunity. Maybe, I said. Something that really amazes me is that Jenny and the others who claim a high moral ground by refusing to perform in association with Donald Trump have yet to indicate where and how Trump has said anything about harming this precious small minority "community". I guess y'all never paid attention when your parents said to stand up to bullies, huh? To be fair, she said she received death threats.

If you study on it, the violent people you hear about are not Trump supporters, they're leftists. You can bet it wasn't from Republicans that Holliday got her alleged death threats, and it wasn't a Trump supporter that set himself on fire, saying Trump is “incapable of respecting the Constitution of the United States". And Hillary respected laws? Nope.

Then there are those fashion liberals who refuse to do Melania Trump's dress. Talk about throwing away significant fame and possible future customers because they're pouting about the election results! Ralph Lauren may be the one to do it [EDIT: Lauren got the job], and he's a Clinton supporter. Isn't that they way things should be, putting aside disagreements to get the job done?

The message that Holliday , the dressmakers, and others are sending is that they are not for all the people, but only some.

In case you hadn't noticed, the popular vote was almost 50-50, but most of the electoral votes were not in elitist leftist dense urban areas (even though Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percent, but we're not a mob rule country). The electoral votes piled up in rest of the country, that area leftists call "fly over" and hold in contempt. New York, California, and other liberal centers are all that matter to other liberals. By saying you're too good to perform for Trump or perform services, you're flipping off about 63 million people that voted for him. You elitist entertainers and so on are also showing your contempt for people who voted for Clinton, but are rational enough to hope for the best and get on with their lives. Guess you leftists don't need income from the rest of us.

One good thing about the election and events leading up to today (and probably afterward) is that a lot of truth came out. We've seen B. Hussein Obama's legacy of increasing racial tensions, anti-Christian activism, how intolerant those who demand tolerance can be, the way people despise the law when it's not in their favor, skyrocketing pro-abortion activism, and more. Although Trump was not my first choice for president, I'm not sulking, and pray that he does a good job. Proud to be an American? Well, not proud of my unthinking, emotionally-driven fellow countrymen.

January 1, 2017

The Year of "STOP IT!"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People are claiming to be "offended" over inconsequential matters, and I believe they want to draw attention to themselves and try to gain power over others. It has been rightly said that these tinhorns are effectively saying, "I have no control over my emotions, so I want to make others change their lifestyles and coddle my feelings". Or words to that effect.

Time to stop coddling people who want to whine and cry over every little thing. Let's make 2017 the year of "STOP IT!"

The above image was inspired partly by Brad Stine's remarks about people saying, "Happy holidays" because they don't want to offend someone who doesn't believe in Christmas. Other holidays, people call it what it is: "Happy Valentines Day — Ooh! Do you believe in love?" 

 I reckon that some folks just look for things to cry about. One problem with this is that municipalities, courts, businesses, or whatever give credence to nonsense. For that matter, I'm offended on occasion, but I don't file complaints. (But then, it's not expedient for people to invest in the concerns of a while male heterosexual biblical creationist Christian. I was extremely offended by this satanic gingerbread Christmas house at my workplace. Didn't file a complaint, though.) The problem of honoring petty complaints is exaacerbated by the cheapening of actual reasons for offense. F'rinstance, accusations of "racism" that are nonexistent may cause people to be reluctant to believe genuine complaints. Similarly, calling people who reject evolution "science deniers" is loathsome folderol.

The title I originally wanted was, "Let's Make 2017 the Year of 'Stop It! Get Over Your Narcissism! Grow Up!'" Maybe we should tell the whiners, the delicate hothouse flower leftistss who need "safe spaces" and are too neurotic to deal with the harsh realities of life to stop it! No more coddling and validating. Leave the complaints and trauma therapy for serious concerns, you savvy?

Here's the URL if you want to use this video thingie on social media and stuff: http://gph.is/2g4qkIN and the source for the entire video clip is here.

December 28, 2016

More On Facebook Double Standards

Christians, biblical creationists, people with a Conservative bent, pro-life supporters, those of us who believe that marriage was established as between one man and one woman — Facebook detests us. Not surprising, since it's appallingly leftist and atheistic. You know the old saying, "A fish stinks from the head down", and that fits Fazebook. They say that they want people to feel safe and feel welcome, but that's a lie, plain and simple.

Facebook claims to want a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. That is false. A parody image is linked in this post.

Linked below is a parody. It was assembled from real incidents, but the reports were modified with made-up names. Still, this is how it feels for those of us who indulge in real hate speech and bigotry that Bookface approves, but are recipients of strong action when we promote our own values. For the parody image, click here.

December 23, 2016

Shooting Down Christmas

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One thing that really burns my prairie schooner is when people attack Christmas. Atheists will pass along false information about Christmas having pagan origins, and legalistic Christians who are in touch with their inner Pharisee join in the condemnation of those of us who choose to celebrate. Their claims are easily refuted, see the links at "What About Christians and Christmas?"

Many of the "reasons" given by people who attack Christmas are based on falsehoods, inaccurate history, traditions, and more. Here is some material to correct some of those misconceptions.
Assembled with elements from Clker clipart
Now, I want to emphasize that some professing Christians choose to celebrate Christmas, and a few do not. They are acting according to their consciences, and I don't want to talk them into celebrating. Those folks  respect our choice to celebrate God the Son taking on human form to redeem fallen humanity, and we let them go on about their business; that's what knowledgeable, Bible-believing Christians are supposed to do, you savvy?

Then we have the other group, which seems to be more strident every year. What shall I call those who hate Christmas and want to bully people into accepting their uninformed opinions? Christmasophobes? Their logic and arguments do not withstand scrutiny. Many of our "facts" are based on erroneous assumptions and traditions, not from history or the proper exegesis of Scripture.

Here's something that I regret was not done a month or two ago. Dr. Albert Mohler has an occasional interview podcast on an intellectual level. It has a title that I think is excellent, "Thinking in Public". I'd like to send you to this extremely informative interview with a historian, author of Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World's Most Celebrated Holiday. This book is now on my want list. I hope you'll want to listen to it. To download it, click on "The Persistence of Christmas: A Conversation with Historian Gerry Bowler". 

December 7, 2016

Election Results and Shredding the Constitution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the benefits of the 2016 American presidential election is that we have seen just how poorly leftists react to results they don't like. We have professional sidewinders [1] rioting, other people protesting the clear results of the election, evidence of Democrat voter fraud is being made more obvious that usual [2], university students needing coddling [3], and more. Calls for a lost-cause recount are giving Donald Trump move votes [4], which gives me the impression that we may never know the final tally of the popular vote.

There are cries by losing Democrats to abolish the Electoral College, and some officials say they'll go rogue. Do they want to shred the Constitution and have a banana republic?
Image credit: Freeimages / Kristen Price
One of the bigger threats to our constitutional republic is efforts to abolish the Electoral College. This system ensures that the United States doesn't have mob rule, when the heavily-populated urban areas traditionally vote Democrat and the rest of the country would be told (to quote Remo), "That's the biz, sweetheart!" Hillary Clinton lost most of the counties [5] [6], but that wouldn't matter if the election results were strictly by popular vote. No, we have the Electoral College in place with good reason [7] [8].

Those electors are chosen during the general election to cast their votes according to the wishes of the people [9] There are some in the Electoral College who plan to go rogue as "faithless electors", which would cause a constitutional crisis and bring our system of government to a screeching halt [10]. Not much chance of that happening, though. Interesting that some electors claim that they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump. One even said it would be "dishonoring to God" [11]. Listen, Skippy, you knew the possibilities when you signed on to ride for the brand. Could you honor God by voting for Hillary if the election went in her favor? Not hardly! Sounds mighty inconsistent to me.

Matteo Renzi resigned as the prime minister of Italy [12], which has had 63 governments in 70 years. Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and we've had the same Constitution since 1789. So that's 45 administrations here, and Italy has had 63 governments in a much shorter time span. If we have rebels in the Electoral College, we will not only have a constitutional crisis, but mob rule and essentially be on the level of a banana republic: violence, devious tactics, and whining decide elections, not the process that has been working for so many years. No matter what, God has ultimate control, not any politician. 

In addition to the supporting links above, I'd like to strongly recommend that you listen to the podcast or read the transcript of Dr. Albert Mohler's "The Electoral College, Federalism, and the genius of America's Constitution".

Subscribe in a reader