Question Evolution Day

The fifth annual Question Evolution Day is February 12, and you can be involved! No cost, no sign-up, and your activity in this global event is up to you. To learn more, click here.

January 23, 2016

Establishing Evolutionary Religion in America

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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


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

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

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




January 4, 2016

Being Offended, Tolerance, and Fazebook Absurdity

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I'd like you to read the article on Facebook fascism at the God or Absurdity blog. Someone should tell Facebook that it's bad policy to irritate millions of people that they want to sell products to, and that tomorrow, they can become as irrelevant as MySpace is today. People have trouble growing up intellectually and emotionally when they have enablers and other people who reward their bad behavior.


December 6, 2015

Definition Obfuscation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

November 21, 2015

Fraud on Facebook?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Consequences of fake Likes on Facebook
Used with permission

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

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






November 15, 2015

Atheists Display Galactic-Sized Ignorance in Debate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 5, 2015

Atheists and their Theistic Evolutionist Enablers

Theistic evolutionists say that God use evolution as a tool for creation. This clearly violates Scripture. Worse, they team up with atheists in ridiculing Christians. Some serious repentance is in order.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
(Edited 11-06-2015)


I'm speaking in generalities. There are theistic evolutionists who are not actively trying to troll the Web and recruit Bible believers away from their faith. Also, there are yet a few professing atheists who really don't care what the rest of us believe, and want to go on about their business. 

A foundation for the religion of atheism is evolution, which gives many professing atheists a "scientific" explanation for the origin and development of life. Naturally, atheists attack Christians because it's their nature to do so (John 8:44, Luke 6:22, 2 Timothy 3:12). But they hate creationists even more, because creation wrecks their evolutionary foundation. When it comes to biblical ("young Earth") creation, they ride in at full gallop with guns blazing, because evolution requires time — a lot of it — and biblical creation science shows not only the flaws in evolution, but gives evidence for a recent creation.

However, professing atheists are willing to sit down and play a few hands of poker with compromisers on creation. OECs ("old Earth creationists") are tolerated because they accept atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence. More than that, they are very fond of theistic evolutionists because not only do TEs reject the plain teachings of the Bible regarding creation, many join with atheists in riding for the evolution brand. In general, TEs and OECs reject the Bible's account of the global Flood.
 
To say that God used evolution is downright silly, old son. Evolution is a wasteful and cruel. It violates Scripture, the nature of God, and good science. God completed creation in six days (Exodus 20:11) and said it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Adam was complete right away (Mark 10:6). No long ages, bloody struggle, survival of the fittest, dead ends, or any of that. Also, if death and suffering were a part of the way God did creation, it's mighty strange that the Bible refers to death as an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), not one of God's creative tools. At the final consummation, there will be no more death (Rev. 21:4). No, you can't say that God used evolution and be consistent with the Bible.

Both atheists and TEs will use appeals to authority or to popularity in an effort to bushwhack biblical creationists, saying things like, "The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church accept theistic evolution", or, "Biologos believes it". What are they expecting? That we'd say, "Oh, well if they believe it, I'd better change my views." Not hardly! That doesn't make evolution right. Also, some of us don't cotton to throwing in with false doctrines just because someone else is doing it (1 Tim. 6:3-4).

No wonder the whole passel of sidewinders share a table — they all reject the authority of Scripture, and the compromisers (sometimes called "reasonable" or "honest" Christians by tinhorn atheopaths) are well down the road toward atheism. And yet, the professing Christians in that gang often claim to believe the Bible. Do they? Let's have us a look-see at what effect theistic evolutionists are having.

Many TEs work with atheists to ridicule biblical creationists because evolution is more important that what Scripture teaches about how Christians are supposed to treat each other; mockery and abuse are not in the canon. When evidence for a young Earth is presented, or when evidence refuting evolution is given, they circle the wagons and open fire on those of us who actually believe the Bible. (Looks like Paul was talking about something else when he said that we are supposed to be destroying arguments and strongholds against the Word of God, 2 Cor. 10:4-5 ESV.) Today's culture has many pagan elements, and Christians need to start with creation in our evangelism efforts. F'rinstance, when Paul argued with the Greeks in Acts 17:22-33, he began with creation because the Greeks were evolutionist pagans, not monotheists.

For that matter, I've been attacked by theistic evolutionists who were so vituperative, I thought they were atheists! Same bad reasoning, condescending attitude, equivocating science with evolution, giving science philosophies (which change and disagree with each other), the magisterial position elevated above Scripture, and so on. No wonder I thought the professing Christians were atheists. (Actually, some of them are atheists; I've caught them lying and pretending to be Christians, such as this one.) Interesting how they claim to love science, but refuse to consider how the biblical creation model makes more sense than evolution.

Theistic evolution is a denial of God's Word, and therefore a false teaching. Certain TEs are enabling atheists in their rebellion against God by affirming the atheistic belief in evolution. What is worse is, again, how they will join forces against biblical creationists in strong mockery and ridicule, including defamation — they encourage hate (Rom. 16:17-18, John 13:35). They are false teachers (Eph. 5:11, Matt. 7:15-20). Would Jesus approve of such actions and attitudes?

Some TEs spend a great deal of time and energy in this ridicule. Calvin Smith of Creation Ministries International (a former atheist) was the latest target of mocker Tyler Francke. In addition to Francke's characteristic condescension and complete lack of respect for people, he resorted to using screenshots of e-mail correspondence. These hate mails against Calvin Smith were initiated by angry apostate "Haywire the Stalker" (Ashley Haworth-Roberts, and you can see some screenshots of my evisceration of his "logic" here, click each image to enlarge). Both Francke and AH-R crave attention, and I'm not happy about giving it to them, but it's necessary so you can see some of how depraved both camps can be.

Instead of joining atheists in ridicule and defamation of Christians who believe that the Bible means what it says, we are supposed to be proclaiming the gospel and destroying unbelievers' strongholds — not building up their foundations and enabling them in their suppression of the truth. Try to find what these professing Christians that adore evolution have to say about grace, sanctification, propitiation, redemption, the gospel message itself (especially salvation and justification by faith through grace), love for brethren, and the authority of Scripture. See if they glorify God, and show good knowledge of Scripture. I reckon it's safe to say that those who strengthen unbelievers in their rebellion will have to answer to God as to why they attacked Christians and helped unbelievers cling to their fundamentally flawed worldviews. Also, note the tone of the comments from anti-creationists (most of whom are atheists).

An added note: OECs and TEs send a mixed message. Many claim to believe the Bible, but then insist on interpreting the first eleven chapters of Genesis according to naturalistic views, presuming to tell God what he said and meant. That's called eisegesis, which is the only way to get mega-years and evolution out of the Bible, it has to be put in first. It's difficult to witness with a Bible that they say can't be trusted at the beginning (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Prov. 30:5-6).

I believe that many theistic evolutionists are not Christians, but are instead deists who have twisted God's Word to suit their own fancies. This is idolatry, and they need to repent. Some may need to repent for salvation, and some for their abuse of Christians and their support of unbelievers.

ADDENDUM: A companion piece of sorts is "Making God More Attractive Through Evolution".


  

October 18, 2015

Unhappy Halloween

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In my younger days, I was excited about Halloween. Not just going door-to-door and getting candy from neighbors who were pressured into giving it out (although some liked doing it), but doing scary stuff and wanting people to be frightened by my lame costume. (Big scare, people are expecting diminutive people to show up in costumes on that day.) My mother made me take down the decorations I had up in my room.

As I grew older, I put aside those things and realized that I hate fear, and am not a fan of Halloween. Isn't there enough death, fear and evil in the world without celebrating it? Yes, I realize that some people believe it's a way of coping with the fear of death and fear of the unknown. There were tasteless jokes made about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and of the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 that I regret ever hearing, and I was told those were coping mechanisms. I don't buy it.

I don't get into horror movies (the Saw series and others have been called "torture porn"), but never mind about that now.


Halloween gets more graphic and occult every year. Some people removed their extreme yard decorations, then blamed other people for their foolishness

Halloween is a big money maker, and this 2014 article in The Atlantic tells us that although it's not one of the top retail holidays, Americans spend billions of dollars on costumes (including for their pets), decorations, candy, and so on.

Things get more intense every years, it seems. Some sidewinders had an exceptionally graphic, realistic and offensive yard display, including the image of someone crucified upside down, and other startling images. I'm going to send you to a site with a video from a news broadcast, but be forewarned, this is not for the young 'uns or people with delicate sensibilities. Click here for the site, and if the video doesn't work for you, an alternate with the images is here. These people had no regard that they were near an elementary school or that the neighbors didn't cotton to the displays. Instead, they took them down out of fear for their own safety, what with people standing in their yard in the middle of the night and such.

What did they expect? Those of us with a Christian worldview and some knowledge know that this kind of thing attracts people with demonic influence, the mentally disturbed, and the genuinely curious. The woman in the video actually played the victim card, and placed blame on other people. Hey, lady! Here's your sign!

Halloween is a day with pagan occult origins (see "Halloween History and the Bible" and "Are Ghosts Real?" It cannot be Christianized with the real meaning forgotten, and it is a major holiday for Satanists.  Can Christians celebrate or participate? Although I don't, they do have their freedom in Christ, but should stay away from the occult aspects. Those of you who say, "Absolutely not! Jesus didn't tell us to celebrate it or any other holiday", don't get legalistic on me with your disunderstanding of the Bible, you savvy? We'll ride our trail, and they'll ride theirs.


October 10, 2015

Bill Nye's Pro-Abortion Anti-Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Bill Nye, the tiresome leftist guy, seems to be the go-to spokesman for anything pseudo-science. "Science Guy?" He has a BS in mechanical engineering (the consensus is that engineers are not scientists) and worked as a mechanical engineer for Boeing, was rejected by NASA, got his "science guy" start in the "Almost Live" comedy show, went on to do a science show for kids (mainly run on the liberal PBS-TV), and so on.
Bill Nye is getting increased adoration from leftists. Now he's using bad science and bad logic to support abortion.
Is Bill Nye pondering how NASA could succeed without him? Image credit: NASA/GSFC/Bill Hrybyk
By my cognating, he was just another unimportant celebrity that wandered away from the corral. But since it's cool for leftists to mock Christians (and especially creationists), Nye got attention by attacking biblical creationists in a video. Answers in Genesis responded with two reply videos, and when the attacks on AiG escalated, they issued a public challenge for Nye to debate one of their PhD scientists. The "science guy" didn't have the nerve to do that, so he had to settle for Ken Ham (who still has more earned academic credentials than Nye). The Ham-Nye debate had many responses from creationists. Nye not only ignored scientific evidence for creation, but used outdated material that had been dealt with by creationists long ago, and used logical fallacies. (That was fine with atheists, he could have made rude noises and they would have applauded.)

This poster boy for evolutionism has been sought for his "scientific" expertise on various topics, including global warming, the NFL under-inflated football scandal, shipbuilding (in the debate), and more. He's annoying, and the liberal media should stop consulting him.

What is much worse is that he's using his lack of science knowledge to support leftist pro-abortion propaganda. I find this troubling, and others are finding him mighty irritating nowadays. Bill Nye the Abortion Propaganda Non-Science Guy was taken to task in two strong articles that are worth reading: "Back to Science Class for the Science Guy", and "Abortion Fans Are Bad at Science and Even Worse at Making Rational Arguments".

When Bill Nye was a mite less known, The Onion posted a piece on how Nye was killed in an experiment. There was also a hoax in 2014 that was quickly discredited about his untimely demise. The man himself is not yet pushing up the daisies, but his integrity and credibility have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. There's still time for him to repent and come to terms with the Creator that he is pretending does not exist (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, John 1:12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Until then, intelligent people need to refute his pronouncements.

September 6, 2015

Kim Davis, Homosexual "Marriage", and Religious Freedom

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since the US Supreme Court legalized homosexual "marriage" (no one can actually redefine marriage because God is the one who defined it), religious persecution has been on the rise, as was predicted by Franklin Graham and others; say that homosexuality is a sin and not something to be celebrated, risk getting in trouble. The court has been wrong in the past (abortion, the Dred Scott decision, and others), and is wrong now. Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses that would violate her religious convictions. She went to jail, which was a violation of both the United States Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution. Indeed, the tinhorn activist judge who sent her to jail also required reeducation of students who opposed homosexuality.



Naturally, the Gaystapo, unintelligent atheists, and other leftists are thrilled with all this, not caring about the implications that state and federal laws are being violated. No, it's more important to advance the gay agenda and hog tie "religious" folks. These are the kind of people who would kick a fresh cow patty on a hot day.

One of the hate remarks is summarized in the picture above, that Kim Davis is on her fourth marriage, so she has no right to complain or stand up for her convictions. Sanctity of marriage? She's a hypocrite since she's had so many herself, so why complain about homosexuals wanting marriage? Narf! Nice superficial straw man there, Poindexter. The fact is, she made her religious commitment after her divorces and fourth marriage. Take a look at "Top 10 liberal lies about Kentucky clerk Kim Davis".

Follow me as we ride along this here side trail now.

Many Christians are uniting to support this "sister in Christ". But is she, really? She's a member of the Rock Solid Apostolic Church, which holds to a heretical modalist view like the United Pentecostal Church, which denies the true nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Her church's site is down (no surprise), but in the archived "About Us" section, it says in part,
We believe, as explicitly stated in the scriptures, that there is only one God (Deut 6:4). He is the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10). He was manifested as the Son for our redemption (Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 1:21-23) and is dwelling in the lives of the believers as the Holy Ghost (Colossians 1:27). We preach the Bible as our roadmap to heaven. The plan of salvation that the apostles preached is the same plan that we preach (hence the name “Apostolic”), which is repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, Col. 3:17, Eph. 4:5).  
Although they list several Bible verses, they are twisted and taken out of context. This church is listed in the Apostolic Churches directory, which has several major flaws in its beliefs section.

As I said, Rock Solid believes modalism, but also insist that water baptism is necessary for salvation, which is false. The Apostolic Churches also believe in the unbiblical doctrine that you must speak in tongues to prove you're saved. Both of these are adding works to faith-based salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, the "apostolic" churches are unbiblical, divisive, and cultic. To learn more, I suggest checking out Holly Pivec's "Spirit of Error" and these two interviews with her. Also the articles, "What is the New Apostolic Reformation?" and "The Apostles Who Don't Do Anything".

This brings me to something that will irritate some folks. That is, Kim Davis is deeply religious, but if she's accepting the false teachings of this group, then the Jesus she believes in and her religious convictions are not based on a proper understanding of the Bible. She would then need to repent and believe in the real Jesus of the Bible, and accept the biblical understanding of the nature of God.

Now let's rejoin the main trail we were riding and reach our destination.

Do I support Kim Davis because she's a sister in Christ? No, because I do not believe that she is. Should I join with others in supporting her for upholding her religious convictions? You betcha! Listen up, cow-patty-on-a-hot-day-kickers as well as decent people. Myopic atheists and leftists should be supporting her as well because of the blatant governmental violations of free speech, religion — and thought. Just because someone doesn't agree with the views of someone else doesn't mean they can't uphold the bigger principles at stake.

Update: She has been released from jail. Let's find out what happens.

This popular version of a quote by Martin Niemöller applies here:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
Do you savvy?
  

August 15, 2015

Does Free Speech Apply to Employers and Social Media?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Most of us know that employers in The Big Company monitor someone's social media activities. As is often the case, when someone expresses a personal view that is not politically correct, they can be screened out and barred from employment, and people have even lost their jobs for expressing themselves on social media.

I disremember when I read this, but someone said that it was good and right for The Big Company to monitor someone's activities. Really? We may cry "censorship" or "freedom of speech", but those do not apply so much here. That is, try to fight it in court on "free speech" grounds, and you'll probably lose. Your speech is regulated while on the company clock, vocal or written, and what you write can be monitored even though it's on your own time, on your own media accounts.


People misunderstand "free speech", then get surprised when they're fired for getting mouthy on social media. Sometimes employees are protected, but often, the employer may have a right to fire you. Worse, persecution is increasing, and Christians are being fired for expressing biblical views.


There are companies that don't really care what the typical employee does in his or her spare time as long as they do not claim to be representing The Big Company. That seems fair. My personal policy on social media is that people don't need to know where I work. This was brought home to me when a furious atheist on Twitter took exception to what I was saying, found out where I was working (my Linked In account was visible to the public back then), and said he was going to call the boss at The Big Company where I worked back then (and I mean big, a mult-million dollar corporation), and get me fired. Although they wouldn't care, they didn't need the nuisance, even if he did make contact.

An upset employee was badmouthing the customers ("*** idiots") of the company where she worked. Someone reported it, she was confronted, and fired. There have been times where people would post pictures and comments about co-workers, and lost their jobs. Freedom of speech? Not hardly! In addition, ridiculing The Company and its products, leaking proprietary information, and more are likely to get you terminated. In such cases, I agree with companies, big or small, who remove employees who embarrass them in that way, and who harass co-workers. People can get fired for being stupid with their Weblogs.

Getting fired for attempts to unionize, whistleblowing, and similar things are embarrassing to companies, but (as Remo says), "That's the biz, sweetheart!". Termination for such activities is illegal, and companies are setting themselves up for not only legal action, but potential lawsuits, since whistleblowing is not only legal, but in the public interest. Also, interfering with forming a union is illegal. Of course it is, unions are primarily outposts for the leftists in America these days!

People set up sites, Weblogs, and other things separate from The Big Company for their personal views. Sometimes, being fired for blogging is illegal, but there many factors to consider. People have been fired for expressing themselves on social media, on their own time, with their own equipment. This is one reason to consider using aliases, since the laws on being fired for your social media activities are muddled, and often difficult to enforce in the individual's favor. Many times, I have come across Weblogs that have a disclaimer that resembles, "The views expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily express the views of my employer". Sometimes, the employer is named ("...the views of my employer, Pernicious Whatzit Widgits" or so), which I'm not sure is such a good idea.

The Web is replete with examples of people who were fired for expressing their views — especially Christians. For example, newspaper editor Bob Eschliman was fired for writing Christian views against the Gaystapo and the Queen James Bible. I've seen similar examples where people expressing their views and not mentioning their employers lost their jobs.

We all know that companies are in business to make money. Some businesses care excessively about their image, so they slap leather with employees who express politically incorrect views. Atlanta Fire Chief Kevin Cochran wrote a book for a men's Bible study in his church. It had a short section about how homosexuality is in opposition to the Bible, and the Gay-K-K found out about it and had him fired. "Tolerance", my joyfully bouncing buttocks! I took a big risk by posting my article about homosexual "marriage" and the Bible on Weblogs, and my current or prospective future employers may not cotton to it. But it has no bearing on how I perform my job as a venomous snake wrangler at Pernicious Whatzit Widgits. 

Even so, laws or not, relevance to job performance or not, persecution of Christians is increasing. Saying that homosexuality is a sin and needs to be repented of just like all other sins (1 Cor. 6:9-11), saying that observable scientific evidence refutes evolutionism and supports biblical creation models, saying that Islam is a false and violent religion, saying that Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) — those can get me, and others, fired. In my case, it's unlikely, but possible. For other people, it is very possible, and I hope they check the links above for resources and information that may provide legal recourse.

People in high-profile positions may do well to use pseudonyms for their personal Weblogs, social media, and so forth. Greed is eternal, and persecution is increasing. But Jesus is still enthroned in Heaven, is coming back in the final Judgement, and wins in the end.

  

Subscribe in a reader