June 15, 2019

Celebrity Fight Challenge and Logic

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A passel of people are bemused by the challenge made by singer Justin Bieber to actor Tom Cruise. He wants a fight. Not a barroom brawl, but a formal Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts event. Bieber taunted that if Cruise ignores the challenge, he is a coward.


Bieber challenges Cruise to a UFC fight. Big deal. Except that there are some things to learn about logic in this.
Shane Carwin and Junior Dos Santos facing off at UFC 131
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Bad intentionz (CC by-SA 3.0)
Normally, my response would be, "That's silly. How long until it's time to clock out?" (In fact, I had to look up UFC, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a Bieber song. Saw a few movies with Cruise, though. Is it true that he does most of his own stunts?) What got my attention is the claim that if Tom ignored Justin's challenge, then Tom is a coward.


This is the kind of thing that other Christians and biblical creationists have to deal with frequently. We are bushwhacked with the obligatory ad hominems as well as straw man, red herring, and other fallacies. Here we can see both bifurcation (either you accept the challenge or you're a coward) and the appeal to motive fallacy (cowardice, in this case).

Why would Tom Cruise ignore the fight challenge from Justin Bieber?" I could give a better either/or option: either you get ready to slap leather with him, or you have other things to do. As for the claim that he's afraid, well, that's simply a childish taunt. Bieber has no way of knowing what's in Cruise's mind.

If I challenged Tom Cruise to a fight, I would be afraid that he might accept because he would clean my clock. Not a great feat because Bieber could, too.

I've had "debate" challenges that amount to, "I hate you. Come onto this forum run by atheists and other anti-creationists and debate me. But you won't because you're afraid!" (Very confused individual. He made me a BFF bracelet like Joe Biden made for B. Hussein Obama, and I understand that he keeps my picture on is icebox for his own Orwellian-style Two Minutes Hate.) I reject the challenge for many reasons, so we can dispense with the bifurcation part of his foolish challenge with other reasons:
  • I have run rings 'round him logically several times
  • His "arguments" are incoherent
  • He is a Sanballat, occasionally pretending to be reasonable but only means harm
  • My ego does not need to be bolstered in this way
  • It would not be a structured debate, but would more closely resemble a food fight
  • I have a job that takes up a lot of my time
  • Most importantly, I head up The Question Evolution Project, a biblical creation science ministry
  • His sense of humor is seriously impaired and he is probably fuming about the icebox and bracelet jokes (but the Two Minutes Hate thing may not be far off). Other than those things, he's doing fine.
Having dispensed with the bifurcation aspect, let's take a quick look at the appeal to motive part. Like Bieber, my challenger does not know what is in my mind. If I am afraid, perhaps I am afraid of causing him further humiliation. Well, it's a possibility, isn't it?


While I referenced a particularly vindictive individual in the above list, over the years I have had several who are like this. Also, I have observed or read accounts of atheists and anti-creationists on the prod. Their visceral, illogical attacks are very similar for the most part (although some try to pose as somewhat intellectual but can be dismantled). While critical thinking seems to be suppressed in modern educational systems, learning to spot simple logical fallacies is extremely helpful.

The appeal to motive fallacy is something that I loathe entirely. It is easy to find, frequently located in phrases like, "You are doing this because..." Christians and creationists, avoid this as an argument. Don't be like atheists and Darwin's disciples; we have to rise above that for the glory of God. You savvy?


June 11, 2019

Tilapia, Regeneration, and Degeneration

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When a creationist submits an article to a major creation science ministry, there is no guarantee that they will put it into their corral. I've had some rejected and a couple that were published, but only after scrutiny from a scientist and other editors.


Tilapia skin has been successfully used for healing purposes. Unfortunately, excellent medical science has also used it to corrupt our Creator's plan for men and women.
Credit: Freeimages / Alex Ringer
When submitting for publication, there are formats and guidelines to follow. One outfit edited an article of mine so much, I barely recognized it. CMI was good to me on this.

After I wrote an article for Creation Ministries International about how tilapia is not only an excellent food source but the skin is also useful to treat burn victims, there was a similar development. There was no way I was going to try to have it added to my article.

God provided us all sorts of things in nature. We can use them for food, medicinal purposes, and find other ways of using them. Like many of God's gifts and provisions, these can be corrupted by degenerate minds. Ever heard of neovaginoplasty? Well, a man wanted to be a woman, and the transsexual surgery was botched. Surgeons gave him a new vagina made from tilapia skins.

It should not be a surprise based on cultural trends. I'll allow that medical science is impressive, but science is enabling people in their rebellion against God and advancing leftist causes — especially adding to the confusion between the two sexes. We have a Creator, and he made us in his image. He also makes the rules and has defined male, female, sex, marriage, and so on. My cheer for medical science is bridled by the way it is being misused.



Click here for lyrics

May 30, 2019

Social Media Speech Police

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems a mite ironic that I began using this platform back in 2007 so I could have my say on various topic, and today I am complaining that various social media outlets are becoming more and more opposed to free speech — at least, among Christians and Conservatives.


Social media are becoming more and more heavy-handed in anti-Christian and anti-Conservative discrimination. This affects free speech itself.
Made at Atom Smasher
Facebook is frequently in the news by alternative media for discrimination and censorship. Hate speech against Jews, Christians, and Conservatives is just fine, but the sidewinders in charge will shut down Pages and accounts by people who are not atheists, anti-creationists, terrorists, socialists, and the like. Reporting those for clear violations of Fazebook's alleged Terms of Service are usually worthless. Two standards, no waiting.



Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Aside from their lackadaisical approach and blatant hypocrisy on their ToS, Fazebook removes Christians, Conservatives, and supporters of Israel (I have had posts and accounts removed, reported that my personal information was published to no avail, and know other Christians who have met the same heavy-handed censorship). Candace Owens was suspended for a non-violation, but was reinstated after a tremendous outcry. Do a search for "Diamond and Silk" who were suspended and reinstated on social media as well. Other people have not been so fortunate.

Several people were banned from Fazebook, and most of them were labeled as "right wing" (which means people that do not follow the leftist worldviews of the platform owners). Some people are saying that such activity is illegal, but I am not convinced because things like Facebook, Twitter, and others can make their own rules to some extent. It would be helpful if they admitted that Bible-believing Christians and political Conservatives are unwelcome. I have commented to FB that they are not too big to fail, and they can become as relevant tomorrow as Myspace is today.

There are alternatives to Facebook being presented such as MeWe that promise free speech, and others are also trying to make themselves known. I do not know about an alternative to Twitter, which is unfortunate because Twitter is no better than FB. Apparently, it's okay for Twitter and Fazebook to engage in bigotry and bullying because they have the political and moral high ground: leftism and secularism.

Who watches the watchers? Facebook and Twitter do not support free speech despite their claims. Their censorship is based on personal leftist preferences, not standards. Don't be disunderstanding me now, I am not supporting all forms of free speech such as racism, threats of violence, and so forth. But supporting leftist political agendas and suppressing Christian and Conservative values are hostile to a free society.

There is an article by Dr. Albert Mohler that I would like to submit for your approval. See "The New Thought Police? Facebook's Evicted Seven And The Future of Free Speech".

April 21, 2019

The Busy but Empty Tomb of Jesus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who reject the truth of the Bible resort to various rescuing devices such as saying Scripture has errors, does not mean what it says so we need help from atheistic interpretations of science, and outright ridicule. How many of these owlhoots have seriously read it?


The best-attested fact of ancient history is the empty tomb of Jesus. That first Easter morning was very busy at the empty tomb.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs
Christians frequently hear atheists refer to the Bible as "fairy tales". (One of the most absurd remarks is the claim that the Bible was written by illiterate goat herders. Not only does this reveal bigotry and prejudicial conjecture about the writers of the Bible, but it is self-refuting: how do illiterate people write books?) The fairy tale aspect is easily dismissed by comparing actual fairy tales with the Bible. You will find detailed, accurate history in the Bible and see that it reads quite differently from fairy tales.

In a similar way, myths and legends are usually vague and unbelievable; I wonder if people actually believed the tales of the Sumerian, Greek, Scandinavian, or other gods. Compare the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Genesis Flood account, for instance. Dr. Ben Scripture has a radio show and podcast where he and Scott Kump did a three-part series comparing the creation myths with the Genesis narrative, and you can easily spot the differences.

Now we come to the Easter part of this article, what with it being that time of year and all. Some of these things came to mind when I was listening to a series by Dr. John MacArthur on "The Empty Tomb" (free to download, read, or listen online). All four Gospels record the Resurrection, but have different perspectives. When investigators question witnesses, a strong indication that a story is concocted is if there are too many matching details. The Gospel writers emphasized different aspects of the Resurrection. Luke was a historian, not a witness, but he obviously conducted thorough interviews (Luke 1:1-4).

It has been stated that the Bible has the "ring of truth". That is clearly true, because we see the flaws in the followers of Jesus. He told some blunt truths and people actually turned away (John 6:66 is one example). We know about Peter's denial (Matt. 26:75), the family of Jesus thought he was plumb loco (Mark 3:21), the doubt of Thomas (John 20:24-25), and Judas' betrayal (Mark 14:44), but there are other areas where his followers were less than enthusiastic. If you were going to make up a religion, would you write in doubt and betrayal on the part of followers and other people? Me, neither.

An old effort to deny the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the claim that people went to the wrong tomb.



Let's see... we had Roman guards, the man who originally purchased it and provided it for Jesus' burial (great deal, he got the tomb back later!), the women who went there previously, and all sorts of things happening. This wrong tomb idea may have worked if there were only a few people in the early dawn, but the traffic continued. Even the Romans testified that the tomb was empty. Nobody disagreed that it was empty. Instead, they wanted to explain it away.

 Excerpted from Dr. John MacArthur's sermon, "Witnessing Women and Doubting Disciples"

Note that another ring of truth aspect is that the women were not expecting his Resurrection (John 20:2). Nobody was, even though he had told them repeatedly (Luke 18:34). God told the women through angels that Jesus had risen (Matt. 28:5-6). They were unlikely messengers, because women were not exactly held in high regard in that society.

God's Word has many authenticating factors. Jesus was crucified for our sins (Phil. 2:8, 1 Peter 2:24, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). He rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-8), and this is considered the best attested fact of ancient history. We can become children of the living God (John 1:12-13) by repenting and putting our faith in Christ alone (Luke 24:46-47). As Christians, we presuppose that the Bible is true, and it has many authenticating factors.

The tomb was empty. 

Unbelievers have to decide what they will do with Jesus, but everyone will stand before him — whether they like it or not (Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 7:9-12, Rev. 20:11-15). You're reading this, so you still have time to repent and believe the good news, pilgrim.


April 1, 2019

Atheist "Gotcha" Question: Does God Kill People?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For April 1, it is appropriate to examine how atheists try to trip up Christians with what some of us call "Gotcha!" questions and statements. Although they deny the existence of God, it is convenient for the God of the Bible to exist for them to hate him, the Bible, and his followers. They do know he exists, however, but unrighteously suppress the truth (Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:18-23).


Atheists and other unbelievers foolishly try to play "Gotcha!" games to denigrate the Bible and the character of God. One particular question about God killing people is examined.
Shattering atheism image courtesy of WHY?Outreach
Atheists are the MS-13 of rational discourse. I have seen atheistic "logic" work along the lines of, "I asked a question. The Christian could not answer it to my satisfaction. Therefore, the Bible is false and there is no God!" Mayhaps an atheist picked a professing Christian who is unskilled in apologetics or has not studied a particular question. If someone cannot answer a question it does not mean an answer is impossible, old son. I'll allow that there are some tricky areas that we struggle with, but they do not negate God's goodness or his existence. You savvy?

Many "Gotcha!" claims and questions involve efforts to discredit not only the veracity of the Bible, but the character of God. This is actually quite incoherent, similar to a child that cannot get someone to bow to his will, so he recruits others to unite in hate — but the child is still wrong. 



Dr. R. Albert Mohler has a message that deals with one of those hard questions in a straightforward way: Does God really kill people? He makes a few very important points. You can see the video or download the audio just below the video at "Does God Really Kill People?" Also for your consideration is the Veritas Domain collection of alleged contradictions that are refuted. To see those, click on "Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions". The truth is on our side, and those who engage in Olympic-style excuse making cannot change that fact. 

March 18, 2019

Climate Change and Child Sacrifice

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It appears that the most helpless among us are the way to solve problems. Namely, child sacrifice. Fertility problems? Kill the kids you have. Bad harvest? Kill some more children. Unable to control your lust? Dismember and murder the unborn children. The weather is not to your liking or it just plain scares you? See above.


Ancient Peruvians had a massive ritual child sacrifice to combat climate change. With abortions and leftist climate change hysteria, are we headed in a similar direction?
Aztec child sacrifice ritual image by Diego Duran via Wikimedia Commons
A recent discovery reveals that Peruvians were on the prod about the climate, so they sacrificed about 140 children and over 200 llamas (or alpacas, either way it was the Camels of the Western Hemisphere). Wow, that was way back before massive use of fossil fuels, aerosols, and what not. Can't blame humans for that change. Too bad that couldn't consult with Bill Nye the Leftist Guy, since he's an expert on everything including abortion and climate change.


While atheists will undoubtedly claim, "See what religion does?", atheism is responsible for more murders in human history. Also, their darkness has nothing to do with the truth of God as revealed in the Bible. It is the result of pagan rebellion against their Creator. But I digress.

Here we are in our "civilized" countries killing unwanted children and then doing the Mattress Mambo and then executing the results of our lusts. But I also wonder if fanatical climate change cultists will have us go along a similar path. Leftist tinhorn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has proposed the ridiculous Green New Deal to combat global warming, and says we should not even have children until it passes. She should go back to bar tending.

Dr. Albert Mohler has some comments that I'd like you to see in the March 14, 2019 edition of The Briefing. You can listen or read the transcript for the section, "‘We must change almost everything in our current societies’: 16-year-old Swedish girl explodes onto world stage as climate change advocate". 

Many climate change fanatics insist that their view is the only view; anyone who has contrary opinions and presents facts that are suppressed by the left are liars. Suppressing data and punishing naysayers is mighty Stalinist, pard. Here is an excerpt from the Chris Plante Show on the subject:



Additional information:


February 18, 2019

James Watson gets the Cold Springs Shoulder

James Watson had his honorary titles removed because of his racist views, yet people do not distance themselves from Darwin and evolutionary racism. The answer does not lie in political correctness trends.
Credit: RGBStock/
Tomislav Alajbeg
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because this is a caustic subject, please read carefully so you do not misunderstand the points I am making.

Does Dr. James Watson wonder why the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory took away his titles? It's elementary, Watson: racist views are not cool any longer. Statues of Confederate army leaders are being torn down because the South wanted to keep slaves; other racists are in trouble (except for Democrats in good standing, like Sen. Robert Byrd and others). If you say something that even hints at racism, you can be in a heap of trouble.

Ken Ham pointed out that if these people who are upset about racism were consistent, they would disassociate themselves from Charles Darwin, who had blatantly racist views. The Bible tells us the opposite, that there are no "races", only ethnic people groups. That's right, "race" is not a biblical position. Although racism has been with us almost from the beginning, it went full gallop with evolutionary "scientific racism". Some examples of that can still be seen today, although evolutionists try to distance themselves from it.

In reality, the political correctness movement is not only used to suppress legitimate freedom of speech as well as genuine racism, PC is selective because of the greater leftist goals. For example, science and reason clearly show that there are differences between men and women, but the secular science industry has become involved in politically leftist activism. An appeal to "scientists say" (or worse, the "scientific consensus" fallacy) can change if something is not currently accepted by the powers that be.

 
Tearing down statues will not change the past; we are supposed to learn from it and move forward. Removing Watson's titles as a means of punishment does not negate his co-discovery of the DNA molecule. The lab issued strong statements condemning his racist views (I think it was partly to protect themselves from subsequent repercussions). Since he is an atheist, it would not be much of a stretch for weak thinkers to try and outlaw atheism as well. Interesting that the overwhelming majority of professing atheists are white males, though.

How about a bit of rational thinking instead of "thinking" with emotions? I don't know what good removing Watson's titles can accomplish (and I have no alternative suggestions for this touchy subject), but his punishment cannot negate his scientific work. The true answer to racism is not found in political correctness trends or from social justice warriors. It is found in the Word of God.

Subscribe in a reader