October 16, 2017

Morality and the Crowd

The source of morality is disputed among secularists, some claim that it comes from evolution, some say it is based on society, some postulate other sources. People who have a materialistic view of morality cannot have a consistent moral standard, and end up with disastrous speculations when they suppress the truth.

Riot in the Galleria, Umberto Boccioni, 1909
I reckon it should be common sense that you can't follow the crowd. (Isn't following society's dictates a form of just "following the crowd"?) I don't like crowds, you never know when they can get mean. Things get out of hand, next thing you know, the saloon's ceiling is shot full of holes, the town marshal and his buddies show up, and guys spend a few nights in lockup, even after they get sober. Individually, if you asked these rambunctious patrons about right and wrong, they'd have told you differently than what they did that night in the saloon. Those jaspers knew better than to get rowdy and do bad stuff, but they done did them things anyhow.

You may want to keep an eye out for something, that people will (as I call it) recruit others to their "cause". It's very childish, like a school child who is angry with a teacher and wants people to join in with the hate. Mayhaps they'll scrape paint off the teacher's car or something. Then they get caught, and know they did wrong. Deep inside, they know they were doing wrong all along — even the hating part.

In the US, we see the Antifa sidewinders ("anti-fascist", my joyfully bouncing buttocks, they are the ones acting like fascists and then blaming others), Black Lives Matter racists, and others recruiting for their irrational causes. On the internet, you can find atheopaths who are furious at being shown the incoherence of their views, then banned from Pages or forums, seeking others to join with the trolling of those who were "unfair" and performed "censorship" on them.

What if you were able to talk to these people one-on-one? They know what is right and wrong down deep inside (Romans. 2:15). Get people into a crowd (or the larger crowd of a society), and the actions of others, groupthink, prompt them to suppress their inner knowledge of morality and follow what everyone else is doing.
“But everybody else is doing it!” Have you ever heard or made this argument? If “everybody else is doing it,” you should be allowed to do whatever “it” is too, right? A new study revealed that “our view of what is morally right or wrong is shaped by how widespread a particular behavior is.”
To read the rest of the article, click on "Is Morality Determined by Its Popularity?"


October 7, 2017

Can Secular Science Peer Review be Repaired?

There are people who consider peer review as the gold standard in science, and it is somehow a guarantee of truth. Not hardly!

As we have seen, the secular science industry is becoming increasingly biased and involved in leftist political activism. Add to this the fact that their peer review process discriminates against creationists, has numerous retractions, passes junk (including computer-generated papers), and is pretty much a good ol' boys' club. Their image has a bad complexion, and some scientists are calling for major changes.

Secular peer review in science needs better ethics. According to atheistic standards? It will not work.
Made at Hetermeel.com, then modified with colors
Unfortunately, the sidewinders in charge want to circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. They don't want transparency and accountability. Others want to improve ethical standards. Wait, what? People who reject the Creator and his Word have no consistent moral standard are going to decide what is right and wrong? Scientists are people, complete with presuppositions, knavery, altruism, varieties of morality, and the whole shootin' match that comes with being a human living in a fallen world. Something is missing from their plan.
Peer review is under attack with new move to combat fraud and special interest through integrity and transparency. But where do those come from?
Big Science remains in crisis. Phys.org reports on a study that found “More than a quarter of biomedical scientific papers may utilise practices that distort the interpretation of results or mislead readers so that results are viewed more favourably.” That has certainly been our experience at CEH, daily watching the press releases emanating from university PR departments, where the name of the game is to make your scientist look good no matter how questionable the findings. Public acceptance of scientific claims tracks political party affiliation to a remarkable degree. Allegations of conflict of interest, peer pressure and funding bias are rife. What has happened to the presumptive authority of the science, seeking objective knowledge for its own sake?
To finish reading, click on "Big Science Struggling to Regain Credibility".
   

September 23, 2017

Bill Nye the Atheism Shill Guy Rides Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many people are baffled as to why a saddle tramp comedy actor turned children's television show host who never bothered to get an advanced science degree is considered an expert on practically everything. Bill Nye is called a "science guy", and did fairly well when he did actual science. Amazingly, his net worth is rated at 6.5 million USD, probably because atheistic propaganda pays well — just ask C. Richard Dawkins. Nye hopes to gain more from his lawsuit against Disney. Why he did not sue years ago, I have no idea. Even so, if he deserves the money, he should get it.

The way I see the way things happening, he became popular when he attacked biblical creationists, and especially Answers in Genesis. Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG challenged Nye to a debate (which he dodged), and he eventually settled for a debate with Ken Ham, who has a bachelor's degree in applied science. Ham also earned a Diploma of Education so he could become a science teacher way back when. (Both Nye and Ham have honorary doctorates.) Bill Nye used outdated and inaccurate science claims, and also underhanded tactics in the debate with Ken Ham. I'll allow that the debate format was poor, and gave Nye the opportunity to use elephant hurling and other fallacies. For more on that event, see "Reflections on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate". I recommend "We Have a Book for That", which shows the fundamentally flawed foundations of Nye and his secularist cohorts.

Here are some skillful edits of a Nye photo for your amusement.

Moving on...



After Bill Nye made a fool of himself in the debate with Ken Ham (with great applause from biased secularist owlhoots who are unskilled in both science and logic), he eventually went on to write a propaganda book. In addition, he gained a television show, Bill Nye Saves the World, on the pay channel called Netflix. Apparently, he wants to save the world from science and critical thinking, preferring to promote leftist and atheist views. However, his preachy demeanor is putting off his fans, and it apparently lacks actual science.

Now he has a movie? You betcha! Bill Nye: Science Guy takes shots at creation science, especially Ken Ham. Selective citing was employed, as well as blatant falsehoods and more bad science. See "Bill Nye: Science Guy or Secular Activist?" for more. By the way, ever notice that the real debate between Ham and Nye, as well as the Nye snark fest "second debate", are posted for free viewing by Answers in Genesis, but Bill's fans do not direct people to those?

People are becoming increasingly suspicious of the leftist slant of the secular science industry. Well, there's mucho dinero in evolutionary "discoveries" and conjectures presented as real science, you know. For that matter, secularists seem to applaud any  fuel for dumpster burning that attacks the Bible, such as their self-humiliating "Canaanites disprove the Bible" fiasco. Let's face it, the secular science industry is highly biased nowadays, and shills like Bill Nye are highly unlikely to be giving us the truth.

This all comes down to something that people do not want to hear: rebellion against God. That's right, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23) so they can justify denying God. If some folks are willing to graciously grant God his existence in their philosophies, then they reject the authority of his Word in their pride. It's their nature, and who they are. People must humble themselves, repent, and find out what our Creator has to say in his Word. 
 

September 20, 2017

Atheists Distrust Atheists — With Good Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is no secret that the public has trust issues with atheists, and also with the secular science industry. This is nothing new, and there are still laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding some elected public offices. (Ironic, most atheists erroneously claim that atheism is not a religion, but keeping them out of office violates their religious rights.) There was a time when the assertion of atheism was shocking and put people to the one making the declaration, but not so much these days. They still score low in polls.


The public distrusts atheists, and atheists distrust other atheists

People are reluctant to trust atheists. Do they ride their horses side saddle? Put their pants on both legs at once instead of one leg at a time? Steal booze from homeless winos? No more than anyone else that I'm aware. They do earn their bad reputations, however. The mass-murdering dictators of the 20th century were mostly atheists (Hitler was not an atheist, he was an occultist at best), Norwegian murderer Brevik was an atheist Darwinist, cult leader Jim Jones was an atheist, Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist and Darwinist, and there are plenty more. Internet trolling, with its inherent anonymity, shows extreme hatred of God, Christians, and especially creationists from atheists. I think they're on the web because they're unemployable, and have time on their hands. Further, there is a noticeable parallel between atheism and Satanism. No, it's not just a matter of theists hating atheists who happen to believe differently.

Respect and trust have to be earned. This one's trust and respect levels are in the negative numbers.
Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists, and they rely on atheistic presuppositions in the pursuit of evolutionary science (for example, see "The Bad Complexion of the Secular Science Industry" and "Science Needs Serious Repair"). Then, they commence to pontificating that evolution negates God, tell the lie that archaeology disproves the Bible, and so on.

Am I suggesting that all atheists are an unbridled herd of homicide, waiting to stampede to death and glory? Not hardly! Although I have never encountered an atheist that is unwilling to lie, I'll allow that many have high personal moral standards. Someone commented that he'd trust a certain atheist alone with his wife. Others have made remarks that they know atheists who are moral people, and can act morally upright in a manner that shames many professing Christians.

Atheists are none too fond of each other in the area of trust. Strange that they wouldn't trust their own kind, what with being united in hatred of God, "religion", and so on. Speaking of God, the answer for the distrust of atheists is found in the Bible. God has given us each a conscience, and the law is written on the hearts of people (Rom. 2:15). Deniers of God are actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19). Atheists know who and what they are, deep inside, and that they have a faulty moral compass. Really, it should not be surprising that they distrust each other. This is actually confirming the truth of Scripture! I'm sure that puts a burr under their collective saddles.

This article was inspired by Dr. Albert Mohler, whose name keeps cropping up in my material lately. His September 18, 2017 episode of The Briefing had him discussing articles in The Guardian and others . He also gave some Christian worldview perspective on this. You can read the transcript, download or listen to the podcast online. The part under discussion here is at the beginning, but the entire podcast is interesting and not too long. To read or listen, click on "Why atheists don’t trust other atheists and what this reveals about moral intuition".
  

September 19, 2017

Benjamin Franklin and Religion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here in the United States, and to some extent in other parts of the world, there has been considerable debate about the religion of the Founding Fathers. While the majority of them could be considered fundamentalist or evangelical Christians by today's standards, a few were Deists. Secularists who attempt to rewrite history somehow try to make it seem that the appearance of these Deists negated the fact that America was clearly founded on Christian principles

There are different stripes of Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, atheists, and other religions. Indeed, even within certain sects and denominations, you will find variations. This includes Deists. I've encountered deists who want to join in with misotheists in slapping leather with Christians, and others who are more moderate. Like other groups, there is no "one size fits all" for Deists.


Ben Franklin was a Deist but supported Christian values
Benjamin Franklin / Joseph Wright, 1782
Benjamin Franklin was unarguably one of the most important American founders, and was a complex individual. He was also a Deist. This Deist was good friends with one of the most important Christian leaders of their time, George Whitefield. Franklin was friendly toward Christianity, and made remarks that were friendly to it and to the Bible, yet he apparently never surrendered his life to Jesus Christ. A somewhat famous but dishonest picture of atheism "good enough for these idiots" pictures Franklin and several other people, but only one was an avowed atheist. (Atheists are not necessarily idiots, but they are fools, Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7.) I seriously doubt that Ben would be fond of today's dishonest atheists who are unskilled at rational thought

Dr. Albert Mohler has an intellectually-oriented show with a name that I think is quite good: Thinking in Public. In this episode, he interviews Professor Thomas Kidd about his book,  Benjamin Franklin: The Religious Life of a Founding Father. There are people who may be put off by the intellectual approach, but I reckon that if I understood it, most folks can.

Before I give you the link, I have to take you on a side trail. (I tend to do that frequently, don't I?) It's about intellectualism. In days of yore, there was an intellectual class in Europe that was into philosophy, the arts, and leaned to the political left (including Marxism). Another trait of the intellectuals then (and now) is fondness for theological liberalism, which disdains the authority and perspicuity of the Bible. This did harm to Christianity (as it does today), and was an influence in the Christian Fundamentalist movement. For more about this, you may want to take a gander at my article, "Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Intellectualism".

Being intelligent and seriously examining not only Scripture, but other aspects surrounding it, is definitely not unchristian. In fact, reacting against intellectual pursuits has, I believe, been detrimental to Christianity. God gave us our minds, and expects us to use them. That is why we have some brilliant theologians and Bible-believing scientists. Especially creationists. We cannot effectively refute atheism and evolutionism, nor can we defend the biblical aspects of our values, with slogans and captioned pictures alone.

Okay, I'm done with that side trail. I hope you'll spend the hour to listen to "Benjamin Franklin’s American Religion: A Conversation with Historian Thomas Kidd", which is free to download or hear online. If you prefer to read, the transcript is also available at the link. Although this phrase may be cutesy, I think it's true: they put the cookies on the bottom shelf. I like cookies.
  

August 26, 2017

Laws of Thermodynamics and Hate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Don't be getting ahead of me, the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially entropy) should have nothing to do with hate per se, and hate should not involve laws of science. When you get atheists wanting to slap leather with biblical creationists, however, their blind hate and seething rage prompts them to use science for leverage in their quest for the ideological supremacy of materialism and the promotion of their death cult of evolutionism.


Credit: Freeimages / Peter Skadberg
There was a recent article by Creation Ministries International where creationist engineer Colin Gibson was interviewed about his faith journey. As a child, he was not taught the Christian faith effectively. When he was confronted by evolutionary propaganda, he believed that the State school was being truthful, and rejected Christianity for the most part. Still, Gibson had "nagging doubts" about evolutionary adaptation.

When he heard creationary speaker Carl Wieland give a presentation, the part about the Second Law of Thermodynamics made him sit up and take notice.
Professional engineer Colin Gibson was raised in a church where he was taught six-day creation in Sunday school but that grounding was challenged at high school when evolution and millions of years were presented as fact in his science class.
That left him confused and thinking that he must have been taught fairytales at Sunday school. Thereafter he began a slippery slide away from church but, through a remarkable chain of events, including attending an address from Creation magazine founder Carl Wieland, Colin’s thinking was turned on its head.
I'm going to do my usual thing and give you the link to keep reading, but I have more to say about atheists and hate, and some useful links on thermodynamics. The rest of the article is found at "Confronted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics — Warren Nunn chats with engineer Colin Gibson on his journey from evolution to creation". Now for the part about atheopaths and bile.

In what I call the Forum of Futility (where precious little science and logic are presented, and most people ignore the thing), a libelous criminal cyberstalker who execrates biblical creationists and people who disagree with him decided to attack the article linked above. In his quest for atheistic adoration, he reproduced a letter that he sent to CMI. He has attacked them for many years (as well as other biblical creationist individuals and organizations). Surprisingly, even after he repeatedly calls people "liars" (I'm surprised that he left "fascist" out of this particular diatribe), he received a response. In what is probably a copyright violation, he reproduced the reply but omitted the name of the sender.

This sidewinder criticized Mr. Nunn for leaving out certain remarks made by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati regarding entropy as a creationary argument. Yes, Dr. Sarfati advised creationists to leave it alone, mainly because the argument is misused. However, the article under discussion was not a treatise on science, but was a discussion of Colin Gibson's faith. The attacker used selective citing, such as ignoring the link that contains Dr. Sarfati's remark:
"I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content" (my emphasis added).
The mocker also used ad hominems, affirming the consequent, argument from silence, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies. You can see his foolishness here. Note the absence of links to material supporting his accusations. But hey, if The Mighty Atheist™ makes a claim, it must be true! Yeah, that'll be the day.

For some reason, atheists and evolutionists get the bit in their teeth about the laws of thermodynamics. Like a social media relationship status, it's complicated. Scoffers frequently disunderstand and abuse the laws of thermodynamics, but unfortunately, many Christians don't exactly have that subject lassoed and hogtied themselves. Therefore, it's a good idea to leave it alone.

I've posted about 1,730 articles on my primary site, Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman (which began in 2011), and I can only account for less than ten related to thermodynamics on there. Hundreds of posts on my other sites — sorry, searches didn't find any. Sure, I've mentioned thermodynamics, but I don't claim to be an expert in the subject. That's why this attack from a narcissistic atheopath pretending to a be a Christian is bewildering:


Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
He calls me a "coward" for not wanting to debate an anonymous liar on a subject on which I never claimed to be an expert. Hypocrite much, Buttercup? By the way, if I'm a "false teacher" like this atheopath claims, why would that be wrong in his worldview? To be consistent, he has to stand on the biblical worldview! Also, he has never provided documentation for this libelous "false teacher" assertion. I have a Statement of Faith. What's wrong with it?

I reckon there's a Law of Hate in there somewhere, that anti-creationists will resort to almost any means possible to shut down the truth of the gospel that begins in Genesis. For some reason, people like that like to (mis)use the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And such hate sends logic and reason galloping away on the dusty prairie.

In descending order of intensity: atheists, agnostics, Deists, theistic evolutionists, and old-earth creationists utterly despise biblical creationists and seek to silence us. They use ridicule, personal attacks, straw man arguments, and so on to make themselves and their spurious arguments look good (although defaming creationists does not make evolution any less false). I'm certain that one day, attacks will become physical as well as the verbal, written, legislative, and electronic kinds we deal with now. I'm willing to die for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Better men and women than me have given their all.

Now, I mentioned material on thermodynamics. Some of my own posts appear below (and a few date back to 2012), plus some others that I hope will be useful resources. Not so sure about the first couple, but I'm including them for the sake of accuracy about my claims.
I hope that the linked material as well as this here article will prove useful to y'all.

July 29, 2017

Fake Science: Canaanites and the Bible

When it comes to sensationalistic fake news that denigrates the Bible, the secular science industry is relentless. Ever see those documentaries that crop up around Christmas and Easter where producers round up unasinous liberal scholars to malign the Bible? Not only do they ignore conservative scholars and focus on the odd ones, but stories like the tomb of Jesus and so on are discredited or forgotten. This bit of disingenuous journalism is of the same pathetic caliber. But I forgot, lying is in the nature of secularist leftists.


Secular science news industry lies about Bible history and Canaanites
Mostly made at Image Chef
Those of us who actually believe the Bible and know about how it has been supported time and again through history, science, and archaeology have to endure the constant attacks on the Word of God. It's one thing to disbelieve and offer arguments or evidence as to why not, but it's another to act like an evolutionary scientist that makes up his or her own "facts", and ignores pertinent data. What really takes the rag off the bush is that these secular science sidewinders are strip mining the context and lying about the Bible so they can claim that it is not true. Worse, people believe the press and "scientists" without doing critical thinking.

These jaspers said that Canaanites are still living according to DNA research, so the Bible must be wrong. (Didn't exactly read it, didja, Poindexter?) Using their same logic, Neanderthal genes are present today, so they continue to exist as well. Yes, this passes for "reasoning" nowadays.
In a rush to discredit the Bible, certain reporters failed to research all that the Bible says about Canaanites.

The Bible says such-and-such, but what REALLY happened, according to science, is this-and-that. Reporters sometimes fill in this boilerplate with the latest published findings of science. In a recent case, Science Daily teases with a set-up about the Canaanites: “But who were they and what ultimately happened to them? Were they annihilated like the Bible says?” You know what’s coming next:
To read the rest, click on "Reporters Disparage Bible with Fake History". ADDENDUM: Creation Ministries International also posted an article, "Canaanite DNA disproves the Bible? — Or, Canaanite DNA disproves media’s ability to read the Bible".


  

July 24, 2017

Clinton Richard Dawkins "Deplatformed" in Berkeley

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist", and a passel of other flaws that make them detestable to the rest of the American population. I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic. To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him. In the formerly great Britain, other scientists also have a dim view of him. That should tell him something.


Dawkins disinvited Berkeley free speech
Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.

Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.

Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but that religion not only rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing them. Leftists have a dilemma, don't they? The leftists didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?

Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.

Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: In no wise do I approve of the full contents of each article.

July 9, 2017

Incoherent "Reasoning" from Silverman in Debate

James White shows that atheist David Silverman is incoherent

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies:

  • Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says)
  • Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience)
  • Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem remarks against Dr. White
  • Equivocation
  • For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth
  • Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe
James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies on subjective, personal preference as a basis for morality.

Some of the debate involved matters of theology. I do not get into deeper theological matters with misotheists, as they are not only opposed to such things, but cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 12:30). Dr. White discussed some theology from his Reformed perspective. Agree or disagree, Silverman was still unable to refute anything or support his own claims. However, White also managed to make the gospel message clear. Some of his detractors have said he does not do this, especially with Mohammedans, but that is easily debunked when honestly considering the source material. Here is one example (try to ignore the excessive piano music).

As I understand it, closing remarks are not the place to introduce new claims in a formal debate. David Silverman did not quite follow the debate rules in his opening statements and in several places in the course of the event. He made some interesting and unsustainable assertions about Neanderthals and the origin of religion in his conclusion. Being an atheist, he used the naturalistic evolutionary scientific principle of Making Things Up™. That fits, because his naturalistic subjective morality is inconsistent and unlivable. Perhaps that would explain the desperate-sounding "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" sounds while Dr. White was talking, as if those were "Gotcha!" moments. Silverman didn't get a gotcha, except those he inflicted on himself.

I recommend that Christians watch this video. There are two specific things I'd like you to notice. First, theology is vitally important when having a debate or a protracted discussion with an unbeliever. Many Christians try to refute evolution and atheism by posting a captioned picture. (We share many of those at The Question Evolution Project, but the posts contain links and other text because we're hoping to edify and equip Christians.) You do not have to be an expert in every aspect of theology, else there would be almost nobody talking about it. But you do need to have a good working knowledge of Christian essentials, whether debating or not.

The second thing I'd like you to notice is the importance of presuppositional apologetics. Those of us who use it are infuriating to atheists and evolutionists, since we not only believe the Bible, but we show how their worldviews do not work. The biblical worldview, beginning in Genesis, is the only one that can consistently answer the basic questions of human experience. White made it clear that Silverman's worldview is based on his biases and preferences, not on reason or reality. I frustrate Calvinists because I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian, but strongly affirm presupposition apologetics in many of my writings.

I need to add that what is seen is typical among atheists. I've heard Silverman before, and much of this was very similar to other debates. Other atheist debaters (whether anonymous keyboard warriors or others) are very much like what you will hear in this debate. They equivocate on definitions, change the subject, attack the person, misrepresent people and positions, and more. Then they consider people like Silverman to be brilliant. Not hardly! Illogical thinkers applaud each other for affirming their preconceptions.

Here's the hard part: the video is intimidating at first because it is three hours long all told. However, there are some links in the video itself where you can skip the introductory remarks, skip the debate rules, and so on. David Silverman begins, and his opening remarks start at the 13 mini. 50 sec. mark. Also, the audience questions begin at 2 hrs. 34 min. 39 sec., so the debate itself is just over two hours. So, get your chips and soda, get comfortable, and here is the video when you're ready.

July 4, 2017

Liberty or the Collective?

When individual liberties thrive, there is a sense of accountability and a sense of wanting justice. For example, in the Soviet Union, atheist Stalin pushed for the collectivization of farms, where individuals were made to be inferior through propaganda and actual coercion. Can't have peasants owning and harvesting their own land, can we? No! We must work together for the common good of the Soviet, and you will be rewarded with farm equipment. Otherwise, what little you have will be taken away. This horrible procedure led to despair, famine, cannibalism, and more. 


 “Strengthen working discipline in collective farms” USSR propaganda poster
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Totalitarian regimes emphasize the "common good" (or "greater good") of whatever those in power have decreed. People have little hope or expectation of justice. Such governments are usually riddled with corruption (the aforementioned Soviet Union was famous for corruption). Want to get something done? Have a bribe handy. 

Countries with some semblance of God-given liberty and the dignity of the individual, are much more likely to thrive. Science thrives in the proper environment, and individuals can be rewarded. They also voluntarily work for the good of the societies in which they live. Those of us in the West tend to take our freedoms for granted — until they are threatened by those who essentially want to collectivize us under totalitarianism. Then we fight to keep our liberties.
When citizens are taught that they cannot help themselves, the outcome is predictable: social breakdown and increased criminal behavior.
This headline might surprise some left-leaning, materialist philosophers in academia: “Belief in free will predicts criminal punishment support, disapproval of unethical actions.” Social scientists at the University of Minnesota surveyed 65,000 individuals from 46 countries, some with governments that respect individual liberty and some with dictatorial or corrupt governments. Here’s what they say they found:
You can find out what they found and read the rest of this article by clicking on "Freedom Exalts a Culture".
   

June 23, 2017

Clean Living and the Bible

Seems that when something is written and then shared about something beneficial in the Bible, mockers will invariably make vacuous comments about "fairy tales written by illiterate Bronze Age goat herders", and then congratulate themselves on the superior intellect of The Mighty Atheist™. If they were intellectually honest, they'd be forced to admit that there are things contained within that are helpful in many ways.

No, this post isn't exactly about morality, it's about physical cleanliness. The Bible has a lot to say, and if people paid attention, quite a few situations involving the spread of disease would have been contained. For that matter, although homosexuality is an abomination before God, it also spreads disease.

Jesus healing lepers Bible health information disease
The Healing of Ten Lepers, James Tissot, 1886-1896, Brooklyn Museum
Ever see that first Alien movie? We were saying, "Don't open the door and let the guy into the ship!" (As if anyone could hear us, obey, and we'd have watched a very short flick.) They let it in, and chaos ensued. It's a strange example, but a possible "contagion" should have been isolated. 

Scoffers like to malign the Old Testament as if God's commands to have lepers separate themselves, pottery that came in contact with infected people should be destroyed, bodily waste could not be in the camp, and other things, were not just examples of God being cranky and arbitrary. No, there were excellent reasons.

Interesting that many discoveries in medical practices (such as hand washing under running water, and containment) had their basis way back in the Old Testament. They were not discovered, they were rediscovered. Add to biblical principles the modern antiseptics and isolation, things are not quite so widespread. Our Creator and Redeemer had provisions for our physical health as well as our eternal destiny.
Old diseases that had been considered to be no longer health problems are re-emerging in importance. . . What is worse, there is no cure or vaccine for many of these deadly diseases.

On the positive side, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, provide tremendous insight and relief concerning disease prevention. Remarkably, the Pentateuch is regarded as the earliest evidence we have of sound public health and sanitary practices. These ancient writings, when used in conjunction with modern medicine, can break the mode of transmission of virtually every scourge known to humanity.

What follows is a brief summary of the biblical instructions pertaining to public health and sanitation. Bear in mind that these regulations were practiced some 3,500 years before the germ concept of disease was discovered (mainly by the creationist Louis Pasteur)!
To read the rest, click on "The First Book of Public Hygiene". 
 

June 7, 2017

Donald Trump, the Paris Accord, and Globalism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and leftists are in a frenzy. Not that it takes much to put them into a frenzy, as this lunatic comparing Trump to Kim Jong-un before the withdrawal was official aptly demonstrates. Interesting comparison, but we're not the ones calling for the punishment of global warming "deniers". If you dare to doubt the Holy Sacraments of the left, such as global warming/climate change, abortion, gun control, sexual perversion, and to some extent, evolution, you are calling down the fire. Why do you think I use an unregistered assault keyboard?

Is Trump wrong to leave the Paris Agreement only five months into his eight years of presidency? After all, we don't want the entire planet to overheat, and it would be nice if leftists stopped smashing store windows and burning dumpsters (which may contribute to global warming). There are several serious questions to consider, but we're not getting the truth from the leftist fake news media.

Images are public domain, background from the Library of Congress,
the others from Clker clipart
Actually, there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming, despite the skewed data and "consensus" non-science that gets reported. Bill Nye the Pretend Scientist in a Bow Tie has a lot to say, but gets put in his place by people who actually have knowledge about global warming. Climate change arguments cited by leftists are spurious. In fact, the "consensus" is not all that it's cracked up to be, and there are serious doubts about said consensus.

If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that global climate change hysteria is based on deep time evolutionary thinking, and that there is no God who is in control, so his promises in his written Word are meaningless. Biblical creationists know that our duty is to have good stewardship of Earth, but we are not called to cave in to globalists with a political agenda that is disguised as concern for the world. We also trust our Creator. For a serious, thoughtful, biblical, and definitely not sarcastic analysis of the Paris Agreement, I strongly recommend that you read the transcript or get the MP3 of Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast on the June 2, 2017 episode of The Briefing.



May 30, 2017

Happy Anniversary to Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is my first and longest-running weblog, and this is its tenth anniversary. It's kind of fun to look back and note the many changes. Near the beginning, I assumed a persona of an Italian tough guy, and mentioned my "crew". Several of the people were real, and some were completely made up (Tommy the Knocker comes to mind, I was thinking of the mythical creatures called tommyknockers at the moment). Then, as now, I wrote about whatever seemed interesting at the time. Many posts were written on my lunch break at the workplace. Back then, I didn't have the "Cowboy" moniker.

Credit: Clker clipart
I was writing about politics for a spell, but lost heart and interest for a couple of reasons. First, I recommitted my life to Jesus Christ, which became a priority. Second, Caliph B. Hussein Obama became the child emperor of the United States. But my interest in Christian material was rekindled, especially biblical creation science, which led to "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". I deleted a hundred or more of the posts and articles from this weblog later on.

Something that I found interesting in this journey. One is my writing style has changed (and I believe it's for the better), but I'm not trying too hard right now, this is a free-thought conversational-type piece. Lots of research for articles and posts — by the way, my distinction is that articles are original material, and posts have introductions, excerpts, and links to keep reading a featured article.

I've also learned that I don't want to trust Fair Use on images any more than I need to. Most of what I post is from sites that host free images, or public domain images (the US government has many of those). While I may have been on safe legal ground when using images, I didn't want to take chances and rode the safer trail.

Research has been very educational, and I followed many rabbit trails where one thing leads to another: I start with, say, free clipart, see a link to Fair Use, and eventually find myself reading about an old rock band I used to hear. Not so much of that when I'm under time pressure. Although my web search skills have improved, so has search engine software. I can find what I'm looking for most of the time, but some things are very difficult to locate.

Writing here was almost a daily thing, but now it's mostly an archive and maybe a bit of a journal. I'll still put things here, but it seems to have become monthly. Regular readers are pretty much gone, and that's my doing because if you don't write, they can't come over to read. Right?

May 21, 2017

Atheism, Religion, and Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There's a whole whack of supporting links and recommended resources in this article. This is not a blanket approval for everything on every site, so I reckon that people have to use their discernment when reading other material at those sites, you savvy?

To hear some professing atheists talk, they want to usher in an age of science and reason, which should be accomplished by doing away with religion and superstition. They get mighty ornery when someone points out that atheism itself is a religion, and don't even want to look at the evidence. What they are attempting to do is proselytize people into their fundamentally flawed worldview, and distance themselves from the religion moniker. The principle of "separation of church and state" that they misrepresent when bullying through litigation could backfire on the religion of atheism.

I'll allow that atheists generally do not have a formal confession of faith or attend meetings, but many find their identities in atheism, and it gives them a purpose in their lives. (Not a good purpose, since atheists are not the ones building schools and hospitals, providing relief efforts, and so on. Some may join in with helping their fellow humans, but it's obvious that Christian organizations are the ones doing the heavy lifting.) A few atheists admit that they have a religion, and a few more admit that theirs is a worldview, but most claim the disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief".

Where do professing atheists get their morality and ethics? The do not have a consistent moral standard, so they their morality comes from societal trends, arbitrary philosophies and excuses, and especially from evolution. How the failed evolutionary philosophy of "survival of the fittest" can provide anything beyond selfishness escapes me. For more on atheism, religion, evolution, and so on, see "Atheist Denies Atheism Is a Religion".

Many atheopaths simply hate the God that they pretend does not exist, and seek to make the lives of Christians miserable. Note that they do not spend much time on Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, Buddhists, the Annunaki and Nibiru, or other non-Christian religions. This is an unintentional and indirect confirmation of what the Bible says about them. More about that later.


Atheists are illogical and intellectually dishonest

Although the Mighty Atheist™ may think he has super powers, critical thinking is not his strong suit. Nor is basic human decency. Trolling, misrepresentation, straw men, ad hominem attacks, bullying, genetic fallacy, acting like the atheistic equivalent of internet MS-13 gang members, insisting that their faith in science is science, and many more instances of intolerance are found, but things that make them likeable and rational? That'll be the day! Many consistently and blatantly misrepresented our positions. 

There is an atheopath who claims to "debunk" creation science and The Question Evolution Project in particular. Like many others, he constantly misrepresents creationists. He does not read the material, insists that I debate him on his Fazebook Page, and calls me a coward for refusing to waste my time in a prolonged discussion, yet refuses to give his name. It further reduces his respectability that he is unable to recognize that through a few brief comments, I have already defeated him in logic, shown him to be dishonest, and that anti-theism presupposes theism (they rip off our worldview in order to criticize it.) He has no originality, either — confiscates other people's work for La Revolución and twists it. So anyway. Antony Flew was an atheist for years, then admitted that evidence (especially DNA) convinced him that God exists. However, he apparently never became a believer in Jesus Christ. The one I mentioned above made the following comment and lied outright about Flew's conversion. In addition, he demonstrated dreadful reasoning that strikes me as a relative of the genetic fallacy, that Flew was right while he was an atheist and met with this jasper's approval, then he was wrong because his belief system changed:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
In Christian theology, the concept that sin has affected all areas of the unbeliever, including the ability to reason, is called the noetic effects of sin. It helps explain the intellectual dishonesty of atheism.

When atheists, who claim to love science, logic, and reason, demand scientific proof that God exists, they have already misfired on the draw. Why? Because that is a logical fallacy known as the category error or category mistake. (You can't use material means to test for the immaterial, Skippy.) Since thinking is hard, many attack the Bible instead. When given evidence that the Bible is trustworthy, they double down on their prejudicial conjectures, as discussed in "Doubt the Bible? You Might be a Conspiracy Theorist". Many well-intentioned Christians think that if they give atheists and evolutionists enough evidence, they will renounce their positions and submit themselves to God. This seldom works, and is actually dishonoring to God. You may end up with a Deist like Antony Flew, who is just as lost as a full-gallop atheist.

Like other unregenerate people, atheists are under Satan's control (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14. 2 Cor. 4:4) and are enemies of God (Matt. 12:30 Rom. 5:10). When unbelievers say, "Prove to me that God exists, but leave the Bible out of it" and wants you to be neutral, a saying from Dr. Greg Bahnsen is worth remembering: they aren't, and you shouldn't be. That's because neutrality is a myth. The unbeliever is presupposing materialism and the rejection of God, and we are saddling up on his horse at his ranch and riding the trail of his choosing. Essentially, we agreeing with him by denying what God says about the unsaved. By letting the unbeliever decide whether or not God exists using his or her fallen, corrupt "wisdom", we are not only letting him put God on trial, but making his authority superior to the Word of God! The Christian is supposed to uphold the authority of Scripture. Satan fell from Heaven because of pride, and has been using it ever since. Note the extreme arrogance and pride of many professing atheists; we cannot be supporting their egos and pride.

You will not find anywhere in the Bible where a prophet, apostle, Jesus, or anyone else saw fit to prove either the existence of God or the historicity of Genesis. No, they started with the presupposition that God is real and the entire Word of God is true. The Bible tells us plainly that those who claim to be atheists know that God exists, but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-22). This explains why they spend a disproportionate amount of time railing against God and his people instead of other groups. 

At this point, you may wonder if I'm advocating fideism and rejecting the presentation of evidence. Not hardly! Christians and creationists use a passel of evidence. It is not to be used to convince someone who is hostile to the faith, but when someone says, "I have something that I'd like to understand", we can use evidence to help remove a stumbling block to faith. Although evidence, science, whatever, are subordinate to the Word of God, they also help strengthen the faith of Christians. 

The biblical creationist worldview is the only one that comports with reality. Logic, science, evidence, morality, and those other things that atheists claim to believe in are actually impossible in their worldview. When they appeal to the uniformity and consistency of nature, right and wrong, and the laws of the universe, they are actually standing on our worldview, since belief in a godless random chance universe is inconsistent and irrational.


Insisting on his Scientism and reaching a conclusion via circular reasoning
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: In responding to this post about illogical questions such as, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" (which implies the legitimacy of belief in square circles and so forth). He states it's a valid question, but it is actually quite irrational. By making this claim, he has finalized his disqualification from serious consideration in any logical discussion. I wonder if he's too young to be on Facebook.


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
What I'm doing is using presuppositional apologetics. Atheists hate this apologetic because it shows how their epistemology (study of knowledge) mixes in metaphysics, and that their worldview is irrational and inconsistent — and deflates their pride. They commence to circling the wagons and opening fire on us when we point out that we all have our ultimate starting points. Ours is the Word of God, theirs is materialism, which makes science and reason impossible. They really get on the prod when we point out that atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves. Atheist bigots establish an arbitrary standard with which they contemptuously judge others who have the temerity to disagree with their opinions and dismantle their reasoning.
You scientific people build up whole philosophies on the basis of things you never saw, and you scoff at people who believe in other things that you think they never saw and that don't come under what you label scientific. You talk about paradoxes—why, your scientist, who thinks he is the most skeptical, the most materialistic aggregation of atoms ever gathered at the exact mathematical centre of Missouri, has more blind faith than a dervish, and more credulity, more superstition, than a cross-eyed smoke beating it past a country graveyard in the dark of the moon!
— Outburst from Larry O'Keefe in Abraham Merritt's The Moon Pool

I have the opinion that anti-creationists and atheists are becoming more obstreperous because their father down below knows that his time is short, so he's using his hand puppets to try to destroy the faith of as many Bible believers as he can. Christians, I'd be very much obliged if y'all would take the time to read a couple of articles that explain these things far better than I can. First, "Help In Understanding Presuppositionalism". This is at "Theocentric Living", which is unfortunately not being maintained any longer. (The comments areas show the importance of comment moderation.) Next is a longer article that has some overlap with t'other, but presents some good basics, "What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?"

Digging deeper, I strongly recommend Dr. Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and there is a video for sale as well as versions of talks on the subject on YouTube, such as this one. Many articles from various authors are linked at The Domain for Truth, which also has a variety of posts.

While we are to present the gospel to everyone who asks (1 Peter 3:15) and tear down fortresses against the knowledge of the truth (2 Cor. 10:3-5), we must do it in a Christ-honoring way. That means holding fast to the Word, and not allowing the unbeliever to judge God. Evidence and science are important, even exciting, but our apologetic needs to be in a presuppositional framework: do not use "neutral ground". Take note: it's not about evidence or science, salvation is a spiritual matter. We do use our minds, but they deny the existence of the soul or spirit. Further, it is not our job to do the conviction or saving through our own brilliant argumentation (1 Cor. 2:4-5), that's the work of the Holy Spirit. We have to do our part and trust the results to God.

 

Subscribe in a reader