December 28, 2016

More On Facebook Double Standards

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

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

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


December 23, 2016

Shooting Down Christmas

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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


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

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

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

December 7, 2016

Election Results and Shredding the Constitution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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


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

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

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

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



November 24, 2016

Christians, Secularists, and Giving Thanks


Although this is written for Thanksgiving Day here in the United States, there are some important truths that are applicable beyond this day. Although some sidewinders commence to rewriting history and redefining facts to suit their own preferences, America was founded on Christian principles, and Thanksgiving Day is a unique part of it.


Secularists try to "give thanks" without thanking God who gave them life. Christians need to be mindful of thankfulness.

One bit of historical rewriting is that in 1621, the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Native Americans. Not hardly! They gave thanks to God, primarily. There are conflicting stories about that first "thanksgiving day". A few years later in 1676, the first Thanksgiving Proclamation was set up "...as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour..." Eventually, a national Thanksgiving Day was established.

Atheists, whether calling themselves humanists, secularists, "freethinkers", atheists, or whatever, have a bit of a dilemma: they are in rebellion against God and do not wish to thank or even acknowledge him. Instead, they are attempting to find different ways to "give thanks" while avoiding God, who created them and gave them life. Their "prayers" seem a lot like Christian prayers, tacitly admitting that giving thanks to God is something deep inside us.

Another atheist bigot who worships scientism and atheism.
This character is elevating his religion of atheism and scientism above God — and basic civility.
Christians need to have an attitude of thanksgiving that transcends one "official" day a year. Ingratitude is sinful and selfish.

This is where I turn you over to the author and speaker who inspired this post, Dr. Albert Mohler. There are two items. First, there's a podcast that runs just over 20 minutes that you can download or hear online, or read the transcript if you prefer. That one is "Thanks be to whom? Celebrating Thanksgiving in an increasingly secular age". Second, he has an article that I recommend for Christians to read, "Thanksgiving as Theological Act: What Does it Mean to Give Thanks?".

Wishing you a blessed Thanksgiving!

November 11, 2016

Hating Donald Trump Near and Far

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is an amazing amount of vitriol aimed at Donald Trump, his supporters, and Christians. There were many Christians who did not support him, or (like me) only did so reluctantly in hopes that he meant what he said about appointing Supreme Court judges that are pro-life [1], supporting religious freedom [2], and he promises to uphold the Constitution [3]. Whether or not appointed judges betray the values they claim to uphold (like some have done) remains to be seen. Also, there's that "down ticket thing", people running for other offices; it wasn't just a presidential election, you know.


So Donald Trump won the election. Some are celebrating, some are full of hate and rage. Ideologues hate not getting what they want. Why did he win, why did Clinton lose, and what lies ahead?

I'm cautiously optimistic, and hope he gets advisers who know what they're doing. Christians need to pray for him [4]. I'd like to recommend a Christian analysis of the election on Janet Mefferd's podcast [5]. For some interesting discussion from a secular source, I had a great time listening to analysis and callers on this podcast by Chris Plante [6].

Hillary Clinton is a monster leftist who is a radical pro-abortionist. Abortion is the modern version of child sacrifice to Molech, and she wants to make it even more accessible. More? Right now, an unfit mother can be in the middle of giving birth, say she doesn't want to continue, so the murderous doctor can shove in a knife and kill the child on the spot. It's commonly called "partial-birth abortion" [7]. Amazing how heartless people want to put this wicked woman into the highest office in the land. Don't get me started on crimes and the way she treats people...

Perhaps Trump also won because of the contempt that leftists have for voters [8], such as Hillary calling half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" [9]. (I don't recollect Donald Trump giving blanket insults for Clinton supporters.) It's also been said that people have had enough of a Clinton/Obama/Clinton political dynasty. For that matter, Obama and Clinton were pushing toward Marxist globalism and surrendering American sovereignty (Obama circumvented the Constitution with his executive orders [10], and some of us believe we were on the way to a dictatorship), and Trump's victory is seen as a win against globalism as well [11]. The trend toward globalism may be faltering, as is seen with Brexit [12]. Two others offering analysis to consider: Matt Walsh has some ideas on how leftists can come to terms with their crybaby hysteria: they lost because Clinton was lousy [13], and Albert Mohler has some interesting thoughts about how the election of Trump was a repudiation of not only Clinton, but also of political elitism [14]. 

Sneering at Trump has come from other world leaders, but that seems to happen whenever a Republican wins (or even runs for office), people commence to whining. Leftists sneer and ridicule. That's what they do, it's their nature. The United States is not yet a socialist country and we're not interested in electing leaders to please people in other countries, you savvy?

Too bad people within our borders can't grow up.

Several celebrities said they'd leave the country if Trump won [15]. That nonsense has happened before [16]. What in the world are they thinking? People will adore them so much, even though they're not close personal friends, that they'll vote for Hillary so the celebrities will stay put? Those sidewinders are just being manipulative as well as stupid.

How about schools that offer "emotional support" [17] for students because Shrillary lost and Trump won? Or the Yale professor that makes midterm optional [18] because the poor children are so upset? Or the students that burned the flag [19] because Trump won? Or the detestable people who want Trump assassinated [20]? How about the temper tantrums by leftists [21] over a legitimate election?

EDIT 11-12-2016: 
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Interesting that Republicans and Conservatives don't have these problems. Perhaps it's because we cowboy up and deal with things. Some folks say that the rest of the world is laughing at America (as if they did a survey). Not laughing because of Trump, I think it's because we're turning into a nation of wimps. Those of us who stand up for what's right scare the leftists.

Some people are upset over the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by about 337,000 votes of the 120, 212,000 or so that were recorded (not including absentee ballots and others to consider, but are including votes from tampering with voting machines [22], illegal aliens [23], votes from dead people [24], and other fraud). They're angry that the Electoral College foils their fun and will place Trump as president (the Electoral College has rarely overruled the popular vote before). In a way, the small margin of difference in the popular vote is irrelevant [25], as the Electoral College was put into place to protect citizens from mob rule [26].

I heard the Chris Plante Show for election day, and a caller remained anonymous. He was a registered Democrat who voted for Trump but had to keep his mouth shut out of fear of retaliation. I remember similar things when George W. Bush was running for president, cars would get their paint "keyed", people would be verbally harassed. Never heard of it happening the other way around, and no Republican riots happened when B. Hussein Obama was elected [27].


"But I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.

"We don't just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them." 
— Hillary Clinton, November 9, 2016 [28]

Although I dislike giving narcissistic atheopaths any attention, some give me good material for examples of bad thinking and rage. Here is an astonishing vituperative attack from a bitter British tinhorn who hates God, Christians, Donald Trump, and especially biblical creationists. I've challenged him repeatedly to say why someone or something is evil based on his atheistic worldview, but he continuously dodges the challenge. That's because atheism is irrational and has no consistent foundation for morality. He has no legitimate basis to say of me, "The man is evil. As well as extremely hypocritical. And he hates the only politician who stands between the evil of Trump and the White House [29]." On what basis am I evil? What makes Trump evil? How can someone with any sense or conscience think Clinton is decent? By the way, he also does not understand the American political system.

Here is a screenshot of his bitter whining (click for larger):


Narcissistic atheopath is bigoted.

This is posted at a forum of anti-creationist bigots [30]. Yes, really. BCSE promotes censorship [31].
  • "A load of fundamentalist US Christians"
    Uh, did you take a survey? Not hardly. About 60 million votes for Trump were cast from people with a variety of religious and non-religious views [32].
  • "got into bed with the fascists"
    Loaded terminology fallacy. Fascist? He keeps using that word. It does not mean what he thinks it does [33].
  • "voted for a pathological liar"
    Documentation, please. Not just emotion-provoking rhetoric, we have plenty of that here in the US anyway.
  • "because they think he is more sympathetic to hardline 'biblical values' than the other candidate"
    He frequently uses the appeal to motive fallacy. Also, documentation would be helpful, especially since there are Christians who don't believe Trump upholds our values very well [34], "hardline biblical" or not. There are even sanctimonious professing Christians who have unfavorably judged other Christians who voted for Trump.
  • "But let's salute and remember all those other Christians, conservatives, liberals and independents who listened to their conscience."
    Is that a contradiction of the previous section? More likely, he's redefined those "other" people as those who meet his approval because they voted for Hillary Clinton.
He added, "These right wing bigots (Ken Ham on his facebook is another one) don't understand - or do understand but don't care - that there is genuine fear (and shock) within the US population at the election of Trump. As long as those awful 'anti-Christian' liberal Democrats have been shafted that's all they care about." [35] That loathsome hatred is not worth analyzing. Sure does hate Bible-believing Christians, doesn't he? It would be helpful for incoherent people to refrain from making ridiculous statements in public forums. Especially when a quick look at the facts contradicts such statements. 

Interestingly, despite this guy's arrogant ignorance (he probably gets his information from leftist Brit media and leftist American media), some people in other countries know a great deal about the American political process, even better than some Americans. I know this guy in Thailand as well as a non-citizen creationary scientist that could edjamakate a passel of Americans on what goes on.

Remember that the Democrat Party is on record for booing God [36]. You'll be hard pressed to find knowledgeable, Bible-believing Christians and biblical creationists who are loyal Democrats. Just look at their policies and actions. Hillary Clinton would continue Obama's anti-Christian and Marxist activities (I received a posted comment that was accurate, "A Clinton presidency would be the failed Obama presidency on steroids"). There are times when someone will run for office as a Democrat because he or she cannot defeat the local, corrupt Republican machine. In those cases, people vote for the candidate, not the party. Such instance are rather rare.

Leftists like anti-creationists and are in favor of the globalization initiatives of the politically-oriented pseudoscience of "climate change". (The character in the above screenshot said, "Trump denies climate change and Pence denies evolution" [37].) I found out after the election that Mike Pence is a creationist [38] (learned it from an Australian, no less), so that makes him a bad man according to evolutionists. Look up "Mike Pence creationist" on a search engine and see the evolutionists who are using the lie that he is "anti-science", which is a conflation of "science" with "evolution". I've not heard Trump discuss creation science or evolution. 

It is indeed unfortunate that anti-Christian, anti-creationist ideologues are so myopic that they hate Donald Trump even before he began his duties. The left has been slapping leather with Christians, Conservatives, and Republicans to support leftist goals. Since such a climate is actually bad for real science (see the references at "An Improper Environment for Science" [39]). Trump's pro-business views, if he follows through, can be beneficial for science [40].

Although many people in the United States and around the world express views that are decidedly anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, and anti-creationist, they must live with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. Some are angry because this thwarts their desires for the United States to continue toward apostasy, globalization, and Marxism (with the expected result of shutting down free speech and religion for Christians and biblical creationists). They demonize Trump, Spence, people who voted for him because that's their nature. They're bigots. It's what they do. Others vote Democrat because they like their traditions, and are sad that their candidate lost.

Even Hillary said we should give Trump a chance. Yes, let's. Christians, we need to pray for him to have wisdom — and safety. I believe God has stayed severe judgement on our country, and we need to pray for that as well.

November 5, 2016

An Improper Environment for Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Interesting that some cultures have made scientific advances in some areas, then just — stalled. Ancient pagan cultures had some good mathematics and observations, Mohammedans falsely take credit for various discoveries [1], Communist science was notorious for lagging behind the West (espionage was a big part of their progress [2]), and so on. For science to thrive, it needs the proper environment.

Some folks say that atheism and evolution are essential to scientific advancement. The opposite is true. Let's not lose the environment we had for scientific advancement.
Mao Zedong image on Chinese banknote
Image credit: Freeimages / Tudou Mao
Despite Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's claims [3], belief in evolution has nothing to do with scientific progress. In reality, evolution is of no benefit to medicine [4], and has hindered scientific progress [5], and is anti-science [6]. Atheistic communism has been devastating to scientific advancement [6], and America is racing in that direction, what with the politicizing of science and all [7], [8], [9].

Do you need to be an atheist to be a scientist today? Not hardly! That pile of bovine scat has been propagated by atheopaths, but is a manipulative lie. Many of the greatest scientific minds, past and present, have not only been Christians, but creationists [7], and have not only contributed to science, but been foundational to modern science [8]. 

If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that continuous scientific advancement came from people with a biblical worldview in environments that supported science. My recommendation is that you don't fall for propaganda and trickery. I've given you a heap of information to show that science thrives in a biblically-based environment. Let's not cave in to atheists, evolutionists, and leftists who want to hijack science. Think, people! With your heads, not emotions and from propaganda. I ain't kiddin', neither!
 

October 19, 2016

When is a Fallacy NOT a Fallacy?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. People have to use logical thinking every day and seldom think about thinking. Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and other peoples used geometry, which requires logic. Logic as a discipline became more formalized with people like Aristotle. Some people will say that logical fallacies only apply to debate situations, but such an idea cannot be supported.


While some of us try to avoid errors in reasoning and arguing, we may be accused of using logical fallacies. There are times when something may resemble a fallacy, but is actually valid.
A twist on Aristotle by Luca Giordano, 1653
On the surface, spotting logical fallacies seems rather easy. Sometimes it is. Other times, the lines blur because fallacies share different names, different fallacies resemble each other, people combine them, and more. Those times are like a social media relationship status: it's complicated.

We cannot be clinical all the time, and some fallacies appear in our everyday speech. For example, reification (assigning a characteristic to something that is abstract) happens frequently. No, your car does not hate you, nature is not feeling generous today, and so on. There's no call for correcting someone who is just adding color to a conversation. When bad logic is used in a formal presentation or argument, that's a mite different. Some of us try to avoid fallacies, but they creep in now and again.

There are times when something may appear to be a logical fallacy on the surface, but we need to hold off before getting the bit in our teeth and jumping the fence with calling someone out on it. I'd like to cover a few things that can initially appear to be fallacies, but may very well be valid.


Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy occurs when an argument or evidence is rejected because of it's origin (genesis). I can't count the times when someone has rejected evidence for creation science because it came from a creation science Website and the complainer claimed that the creationists are "biased" or it is "not science". (Ironically, they often furnish material from Wikipedia, Talk.Origins, and other heavily biased anti-creationist sources from non-scientists.) When someone is trying to present a point of view, they are biased. Other times, I've seen people reject material from Fox News with inaccurate accusations of Conservative bias, but cite other news sources that are known for their leftist biases. A bit of a double standard.

That leads into my point on this: sometimes a source can be dubious. It may defy observable science, such as when Dr. Greg Bahnsen said that he saw a tabloid headline claiming, "Woman Gives Birth to Her Own Father". (Yes, some publications get away with printing weird stuff.) There can be times when a source has a proven political or social bias, so one might be careful in citing it and do some fact-checking. When accusations are made against creationary sources, it's often helpful to challenge the critic to show where the science or theology is spurious. When I've made that challenge, the mockers frequently misrepresent the material, do selective citing, or simply refuse to read it.

Here's where I had a bit of fun doing research. Iraqi transportation minister Kadhem Finjan al-Hamami claimed that ancient Sumerians had airports and space travel. That's something I reject out of hand, since there is nothing to support the claim. Another reason I reject it is that supporters of "ancient astronaut" conspiracy theories (that somehow get aired on the History Channel) are not credible. Their "evidence" may sound compelling, but saying something like, "My friend's cousin knows a high-placed military official who spoke under conditions of anonymity and told me that space aliens were moved from Area 51 to a huge underground facility outside Tombstone, Arizona" do not cut it for me. The aliens guy from the History Channel, Giorgio Tsoukalos, may seem like a nice guy and sound convincing, but some of us prefer something substantive. It also doesn't help matters much that he is heavily involved with discredited Chariots of the Gods? author Erich von Daniken's organization "A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association". Chariots is still in print.

When citing or rejecting a source, use your own discretion and experience. Perhaps you need to check your own biases at the door because you're going to find out that you were wrong about something. What can seem to be a genetic fallacy of rejecting a source may very well be based on careful consideration instead of an emotional reaction.


Ad hominem

The ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy seems to be a first resort for many atheists and evolutionists, and I've seen and experienced attacks that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would say, "Nice abusive ad hominem there", and get a reply, "No, it's not an ad hominem, it's an insult". It's a lie, too, since the insulting "facts" are fictitious. It also distracts from the discussion, as well as poisoning the well for other readers or listeners.

However, I've learned that an ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. That would be when it's a conclusion. "I have decided that you, sir, are a lying cyberstalker and a blackguard!" I've heard Chris Rosebrough analyze teachings on Fighting for the Faith and declare certain people to be heretics. That's strong wording, but he backs it up. Similarly, some people may begin a presentation of one kind or another with an ad hominem and then go into the "here's why I say that", but care must be used to avoid poisoning the well and appearing to manipulate others to agree with the presenter.

If you insult a Neanderthal, are you committing an ad hominid fallacy?


Appeal to Motive

This one can be mighty difficult to justify. An appeal to motive fallacy implies that one person knows the heart and mind of another: "You're doing this because..." No, you have no insight into someone's heart and mind. It bothers me when I read or hear brilliant people, including Christian apologists, use this fallacy. A good way to still use what resembles the appeal to motive is to use it like the ad hominem. That is, when something is a conclusion — and clearly stated as such. For example, "He says creationists are 'evil', but has not given a basis for what constitutes 'evil' in his atheistic evolutionary worldview. I have challenged him many times to answer this question, and all I get is personal attacks in return. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he cannot give a reasonable answer". I reckon that's a good way to present your belief about someone's motive.  

Conclusion

Before I wrap up, just a quick note on the straw man fallacy, which is setting up a belief someone holds, or putting words in his or her mouth, so it can be torn down. (Nice job, destroying something that is not the position your opponent takes.) People may think that a straw man is being set up when someone repeats words back. No. When restating or asking for clarification ("Do I understand that you're saying...?"), the other person has a chance to respond. It is a question, not an assertion.

Again, we are not automatons, and will use occasional fallacies in our common speech. Sometimes they appear when we're trying to make a point, but it happens. If we become aware of common fallacies and learn to identify them, it's a great help. Also, saying "in my opinion" (or something similar) can turn down the heat a bit, since the speaker is not necessarily asserting that something is proved. At any rate, try very hard to avoid using fallacies, or giving someone room to criticize you.

October 15, 2016

Nobel Pieces Prizes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, put in his will that a portion of his estate money be set aside and awarded for five recipients each year who have "benefited mankind". The five prizes are literature, physiology or medicine, chemistry, and peace. (A sixth prize for economics was established in 1968.) Although most of this activity is in Sweden, for some reason, Alfie wanted the peace prize committee to be in Norway.


The Nobel Prizes for peace and science are becoming increasingly leftists and irrelevant. Should they be scrapped?
Derivative from Nobel Prize image, public domain in the United States
The prize for peace has come under criticism because it shows a leftist bias, including the award to B. Hussein Obama, who had done nothing to earn the prize except show up for work at the American presidency. (Years later, there is regret over giving Obama the undeserved award.) In 2016, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was given the peace prize. From the October 12, 2016 edition of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler:
. . .and the controversy this year has to do with the fact that Santos was awarded the prize precisely because he had negotiated an historic treaty of peace between his nation and the so-called FARC rebels. They had been fighting a civil war for decades, a civil war that had brought much mayhem and murder and a great deal of death to the nations. But what makes the story really interesting is that the peace prize was awarded publicly just days after the president was repudiated by the citizens of the nation who turned down that peace agreement with the rebels and put the president back at the starting line in terms of the negotiation.
Dr. David Coppedge thinks that the Nobel Prize for science should be scrapped. He gave sixteen reasons for doing so, although I reject his first two. Several of his points merit serious consideration, such as the fact that several more fields of science have been developed over the years, and that worthy people have been shunned by the committee.

One problem I see is that since Big Science has been enslaved by leftist owlhoots, there could be an increase in naturalistic, anti-God awards to secularist ideologues if more categories were added. People must stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God. It can't happen with the small, biased Nobel committee that makes its own rules and answers to no one.

There are tinhorns on the Web that troll and say, "You creationists should disprove evolution and win your Nobel Prizes!" They don't know much about the prize, it's selection process, and categories. I've reminded them that there's no prize for evolution. However, secularists who award the prizes may very well come up with that category. Of course, they'd have to rescind a passel of prizes because so many evolutionary "discoveries" are disproved, re-dated, changed, and even found to be the products of plagiarism and fraud.

Sorry, cousins in Sweden. The Nobel Prizes for science has serious flaws, as does the prize for peace.

October 13, 2016

Evolution and the "Separation of Church and State"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Actually, the title of this post is slightly inaccurate. It's actually more like "Evolutionary thinking and the so-called 'wall of separation between church and state'". A story I like to tell is that I was in a discussion with someone on this:

Me: The constitution says that the church shall be separated from the state, and the school from the church.

He: Right.

Me: That's the Soviet constitution.

He: Wait...

The secularist war cry in America is often, "Separation of church and state". But that's not in the Constitution!

There's your problem, Hoss. People in this country have been beaten over the the head with the separation thing so often that they actually believe it's in the United States Constitution. It's not. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were worried that they'd lose their freedom of religion, and Jefferson reassured them that they have nothing to fear about the government establishing a particular denomination.

Nowadays, secularist sidewinders will use "separation of church and state" as a rallying cry when the go on the warpath against any perceived from by a dreaded theist, oh, yucky, ptui, ptui! Col. Jeff Williams of NASA read from Psalm 24 and got a slapdown in a comment because he was an employee of a US government agency. Town of Greece, New York opened town meetings with prayer, so an atheist was "offended" and had to run crying to Nanny State. The foolish complaint went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where it was finally laid to rest. Coach Kevin Wallace and public school student football players prayed before a game, so they went screaming to an atheopath organization over the "separation" thing. There are many more instances of atheistic attacks on the freedoms of Christians.

Secularists try to rewrite history and deny the fact that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Secularism has been at a walk, then trot, then canter, and is pretty much at a full gallop. Most Christians (indeed, most Americans) are not interested in forcing our beliefs on others; we're not Mohammedans, after all. You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want without governmental interference unless you're plotting treason or harm to others. A good part of the problem with the erosion of Christian freedoms is rooted in evolutionary thinking, based on the biological concept of muck-to-materialist evolution. I have some items for you to see that can help clarify:
 Until we lose our freedoms, we must continue to be faithful to God's Word and proclaim the truth.

September 26, 2016

Putin on the Ritz

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

3дравствуйте товарищ! In a recent episode of The Briefing, Albert Mohler expressed thoughts about how many Republicans are fond of Vladimir Putin (Владимир Путин), president of the Russian Federation. In the spirit of "Me, too!", I wanted to give some of my thoughts, things that Dr. Mohler and others have probably discussed already, but with my distinctly less intellectual approach. So I may as well continue Russian into this.


Some Republicans and Conservatives are enamored with Vladimir Putin. Is that such a good idea?
Vladimir Putin image credit: www.kremlin.ru
People can respect and even admire political, religious, and other opponents without giving up their own principles. Dr. Mohler discussed the "strong man" aspect of Putin, and I can see why this appeals to some people. I'm old enough to remember being fearful about some degree of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The Soviet KGB (and to some extent, the GRU) were the subjects of books, essays, movies, television, and the like, so we were frequently reminded of their presence and activities with what I believe was a mixture of fear and respect. Comrade Putin was a high-ranking official in the KGB, and now he's boss of a mighty big country that spans eleven time zones. Impressive.

He appears as a no-nonsense kind of guy who is very physically active (and rides bears, if you believe photo editing). Guys who go to those "How to be a Robust He-Man" sites want to emulate President Theodore Roosevelt, so they may be attracted to Putin's style. Russia has a low tolerance of Mohammedan terrorism, and they don't cotton to homosexual propaganda, either, so those aspects are likely to appeal to some American voters. Putin repudiatd atheist ideology and also said that Communism was a blind alley, something else that should appeal to many Americans. If he's being truthful.

We've also had to deal with a long spell of B. Hussein Obama bowing and scraping to foreign and domestic leaders, apologizing for America, making his own rules via "executive orders", yada yada yada. Along comes Donald Trump, who gets on the prod when he's criticized, isn't afraid to speak his mind (his position of the day, which may change at a moment's notice), and that appeals to many voters: make America strong again. Hillary Clinton is running for president, but has criminal charges that should be pursued by legal agencies, health issues, dishonesty, and much more that the leftists and their media cohorts are covering up and excusing. I'll let you do your own research on those issues, there's a heap of it on the Web.

Vladimir may want to saddle up and ride with the Russian mafia. That doesn't sound good. Should we hold his secret police KGB history against him? I'll just say it's worth taking into consideration, especially since he wants to revive it. His "christian vision" that repudiates atheistic ideology should give some people cause for concern, especially those who study biblical prophesy. The Soviet Union persecuted Christians for decades, and the KGB was instrumental in that. After the fall of the USSR, Christian persecution was greatly reduced. However, recent developments, including a new law that restricts evangelism (ostensibly as a tool against Mohammedan terrorism) is affecting Christians. Franklin Graham changed the venue on a Christian persecution summit away from Russia, which would have been a fitting irony since Russia and the USSR were leading persecutors on the globe.

So what are Americans faced with? A seemingly strong but inconsistent Donald Trump, a wicked abortionist leftist Hillary Clinton, a history of Obummer's leftist machinations, not knowing who to trust, some of us wonder if a third-party candidate can win, praying for God's will and mercy. There's that guy on the other side of the world seems like a strong man with values and knows what he wants. Values? Not hardly! My belief is that Vlad may be a nice guy, and he knows what he wants and how to get it, but admiration should be kept to a distance. Republicans — and especially Conservatives — shouldn't try to dance with someone that seems ritzy, but could be a monster. Don't compromise your principles and emulate someone's ruthless tactics, you savvy?




September 17, 2016

Vaccinations, "Big Pharma", and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For several months, I've been chomping at the bit to get this article written. There is an addendum below the video.

Is it just my imagination, or has there been a marked increase in anti-vaccination material? (Perhaps they get worked up by anti-vax celebrities and politicians like Donald Trump, Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, Bill Maher, and others.) There are many conspiracy theories linked to vaccinations, and there is a range of intensity, including "governments use vaccines to control the population". This troubles me. No, it actually gets me angry. (There are people who will take any innocuous comment and say that the writer is angry, but in this case, I'm telling you right out of the gate how I feel. I've even "unfriended" people for spreading the stuff.) This will not be a detailed pro-vaccine apologetic, since too many people have their minds made up from emotional appeals and terrible reasoning, but I want to make some statements. Will I influence anyone to change their minds or even slow down and think rationally? That'll be the day. It's worth a shot (shot, get it?) though, so I thought I'd try, even though it will cost me some friends.


Celebrities, lack of logic, hysteria, anecdotal evidence help fuel the anti-vaccination movement. Is "Big Pharma" evil? THINK, people! Do some serious research!
Image credit: Pixabay / dfuhlert
Emotionally-provocative words like "Big Pharma" are added to conspiracy theories to poison the well, and have confused people about whether or not to get vaccinations. It affected me about the flu shot that my doctor recommended, but he persuaded me despite anecdotal "evidence" like the highly-publicized cheerleader's adverse reactions that were later debunked. And yet, I had no hesitation in getting my tetanus booster, because the tetanus infection frightens me, what with being often fatal and all.

Some of the deceptive information involves the claim that vaccines contain additives, like mercury and formaldehyde —

"Whaaaaat? Formaldehyde is used to embalm dead bodies, and you want that injected in you, Cowboy Bob?"

It's true that there are additives in vaccines, but the conspiracists ignore the amounts, chemical compositions and differences, and other places that these "toxins" can be found — you get more of a kind of mercury in a can of tuna than an injection, and more formaldehyde by eating an apple than from a vaccine; your own internal mechanisms makes that stuff!

We can reverse this to show the bad reasoning. How about a nice glass of wine, beer, or shot of rye whiskey? "Don't do that! It contains alcohol! Alcohol is used as a disinfectant, a motorcar fuel additive, solvent, and more. Do you really want that in your body?" This is similar to the faulty reasoning from vaccine opponents, as we have just seen. What I did was withhold pertinent information, especially the fact that there are different kinds of alcohol and different concentrations. The alcohol in your drink is only poison when it's abused.

When people say that "Big Pharma" is withholding cures because they get rich from people staying sick, that really takes the rag off the bush. If you'd study on it for a spell, it's stupid even at surface level. Not only is such an accusation blatantly disparaging of the medical profession as a whole, but implies that the accuser has the ability to know the thoughts and motives of all those people. Add to that the false claim that vaccines cause autism, and the insult level is astonishing. Apparently the ones who say that they went into medical areas because they want to seek cures and help people are all liars, huh? Prove it, Pilgrim.

It's even worse when professing Christians and creationists pass along anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, empty claims, and outright lies. Otherwise intelligent people, even apologists, go in for this. Not only are they disparaging other Christians and creationists in the field, but they are indulging in the same logical fallacies that we call Darwinists out on! Further, they are not using critical thinking (which makes me wonder why I even bother to educate people on logic). Previously, I touched on the appeal to motive fallacy, where people claim to know why medical professionals withhold cures. People who make such claims need to be confronted: how do you know the motives, and where is your supporting evidence?

For that matter, I've seen a combination of the appeal to motive fallacy coupled with the genetic fallacy (reject something because of the source), so my supporting links from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, WebMD, and other sources could be rejected because they come from "Big Pharma" and the US Government, who have all been condemned as evil by those people. Pay attention to the anti-vax crowd and you'll see a whole heap of fallacies.

There has also been an increase in natural this, natural that, natural the other thing. Recently, I've been hearing about refusal to vaccinate because of "natural immunities". (Some Christians have wondered if vaccines are unbiblical. It's fine to wonder, but don't exceed what is written in Scripture, and be careful about who gives you your anti-vaccination information.) I reckon that some of the people who push the strongest for natural remedies and immunities often have a financial interest in selling something "natural". As the saying goes, I'm just saying. In addition, I suggest being careful about your sources, as quite a few anti-vax sites are famous for false information to further their own agenda. Sounds like I'm being fallacious, but I'm saying to use caution. Many diseases have been eliminated or brought under control through vaccination, but none through homeopathy or hysteria.

What could be more natural than eating peanuts? People develop severe allergic reactions to them. How about a bee sting? That's natural, but some people need some chemicals mighty quick or they could die. Did you need surgery or similar procedure? I wonder what kind of anesthesia was used, since the hospital stuff has chemicals. Maybe a few shots of rye helped deaden the pain. But surgery and other life-saving techniques are "unnatural", aren't they? Don't have it. Die naturally and fulfill Darwin's dream of eradicating the weak and unfit in the population. Survival of the fittest and all that. Or you can get sensible.

Yes, some vaccines and medications are expensive. To claim that they are high-priced so the companies can get rich is rooted in ignorance and bias. Those companies employ people with advanced degrees who want to be paid (ever hear of student loans, as well as the desire to make a good living?) They have invested in people, research, testing, submitting for government approval, and more. These take time and expense, and it seems to me that there are people who think it should all be done for free. Maybe some people can donate their time and expertise, but their education probably was not gratis. You also don't hear about medication costs that have gone down over the years, especially after expenses have been recouped by the companies that paid for the research. As for me, I take seven prescriptions, and they have become affordable for the most part.

Is every vaccine safe for everyone on the face of the planet? Don't be ridiculous, I'm not saying that and don't know of anyone who is. There will be bad reactions in some people, just like in every medication. But the exception is not the rule, some people having reactions or bad experiences does not make it logical to condemn all vaccines or the entire medical profession. And for crying out loud, don't be hopping on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon because friends, celebrities and politicians are doing it! Are ya'll going to stop "thinking" with your emotions and listening to false reports, or did I just waste my time again?

Think I sounded less angry than I expected. Perhaps doing some research settled me down; I thought this would take half an hour to write, but it went over three hours. I need a vaccination — I mean, a vacation.



ADDENDUM: Here is some of what I have to deal with. The "reasoning" is just like what I frequently have to endure from professing atheists:


September 11, 2016

Deplorable Things Fifteen Years After the September 11 Attacks

People have remembered significant national and global events many years after they happened. I've heard and read where people remember the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the 1941 attacks on Pearl Harbor, and other things many years later.


Remember when we were unified for a few days after September 11, 2001? Remember that day? There are things in the intervening years that have become deplorable.
Memorial of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, image credit: Pixabay / brandnewday
I was working in the back of the Big Chain Company Store (now semi-defunct) with the shipping and receiving manager, getting merchandise ready for shipping. (I had lived in New York for just over a year.) One guy came back there and began telling us about the plane crashes, and I didn't believe him because he often told jokes that were in poor taste. After he convinced the manager and me, I went to the computer and saw that he was right. When the Internet went down, I became even more alarmed. What's going on? Millions of people were wondering this, but we knew that America was being attacked. The rest of the day was a daze for me. I listened to the radio while making deliveries, and missing many turns because I wasn't focused.

Later, almost every house had an American flag attached to it one way or another, as did vehicles. Churches were filled. People were making themselves crazy watching the news, hoping for answers, new information, possible reports of military retaliation.

Naturally, the news reports went from bad to worse. Fearmongers for ratings saying how terrorists could use atomic weapons and chemical weapons (Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds in 1988, killing thousands). I was about to cross the Kingston-Rhinecliff bridge for a delivery a few days later, and I saw a plane flying low because it's near the small airport we have. I had to overcome my fear and press on, no, it's not nerve gas or something. Much later, I read and heard people who knew what they were talking about: chemical weapons need precise conditions to work, and both nuclear and chemical weapons require very difficult, timely, special handling.

There are several things that I find deplorable in the intervening fifteen years:
  • After churches were filled, they emptied out again. I believe this is because modern church-ianity does not believe and teach the Word, and cannot give answers to a world in need, even though they are in the Bible.
  • Atheists used the terrorist attacks for their own ends. Some make big money writing books about the evils of "religion", while they and their disciples complain that Christians who do the heavy lifting in building hospitals, building schools, providing relief efforts, and more ask for donations to help support the work. Those sidewinders get rich off gullible, non-thinking atheopaths, attack a vague phantom of "religion", get rich, misrepresent Christianity and the Bible — and those sidewinders know full well that the September 11 attacks were by Mohammedans, and not "religion" as a whole. Much later, Clinton Richard Dawkins admitted, "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death."
  • Others have been ridiculous, comparing the September 11 attacks with abortion. My readers on various sites know full well that am I strongly pro-life (as shown here, for instance), but I strongly object to absurd AHA comparisons of September 11 with abortion. Yes, abortion must be eliminated, but using illogical arguments and manipulating emotions is not the way to do it. Doing this is a mockery of the suffering of those who died, their families, millions of other people — and the military. There are other situations where the attacks have been used to further an agenda, but the atheist and AHA examples are the most egregious to me.
  • Most of the rest of the world was united in the suffering of Americans for a short time, but have left us behind in intervening years. This is most likely due to leftist politics in this country and ridiculous "leaders" who have alienated former allies.
  • Conspiracy theories. There are people who can't suppress their consciences over little things like the "Alien Autopsy" video, imagine how many thousands would be involved in the murders of so many people. Further, conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, but some pinheads still insist that the attacks were an "inside job".
  • Bad political leadership allows Mohammedan "refugees" into countries without vetting them, while keeping true refugees like Christians behind to continue to be slaughtered. Islam is being excused and coddled, many countries are feeling the effects, and it continues. Blatant stupidity. Frankly, I believe the problem is spiritual; nobody can be so stupid unless we are under God's judgement and he's letting our inner nature run loose without restraint.
  • Here I'll be controversial. People gave — I gave — to those left behind by the terror attacks. They got wealthy! Why are the lives of people in office buildings worth millions of dollars, yet the soldiers who fight to preserve our freedoms only worth a pittance, financially? 
  • We've forgotten. There was a short period of national unity, now it's leftists advancing their agendas and waving their bony middle fingers in the faces of Christians and Conservatives. Patriotism is not cool. Well, except for several country music stars, and a few surprises in the rock industry, most recently, Kiss.
While writing this, I had tears in my eyes fifteen years after the fact. The memories are still there. It's not only adherents of Islam who need salvation in Jesus Christ, but professing atheists, liberal professing Christians, and the average John and Jane who never really thought about their eternal destinies. We need to get back to our foundations as individuals and as a society.

ADDENDUM: Some similar thoughts from a different approach can be found in "Big Science’s Distorted View of 9/11".




Subscribe in a reader