Professional #liar4darwin proselytizer Jerry Coyne made some outrageous (possibly libelous) claims about Eric Hedin. It appears that he is not only opposed to free speech, but freedom of thought as well. Must protect the atheistic narrative, you betcha!
Militant atheists came after Hedin and forced the college to shut down his classes because he was accused of teaching religion in the classroom.
Censorship is a serious thing because it only allows for the strongest voice to be heard at the expense of dissenting views. All others must be silenced. In this way the truth can be suppressed in order to preserve a favored viewpoint.
In the case of Hedin, Ball State University approved the course and its description, which was titled, The Boundaries of Science. The university intended to have a course delve into larger, societal issues and implications. Thus Hedin engaged students by asking philosophical questions, such as how human significance…
View original post 2,811 more words
When I read that a vampire squid fossil had been named after the Fossil-in-Chief, I thought I was reading the Babylon Bee. Nope. This is real news from the secular science industry. Since they have been promoting leftist causes and often rejecting real science facts to do so (abortion is not murder, men can become women and give birth, math is racist, etc.), it should not be surprising that someone from the leftist state of New York chose to honor Joe Biden by naming him after a creature with blood-sucking tentacles. Republican, Democrat, or anyone else, this is quite funny.
Do people even think anymore? Democrats named this creature after him because they are happy about his policies for global warming. “Hey, let’s name a vampiric squid fossil in his honor!” They are not too bright. I doubt that Biden would cognate on the associations, since his mental abilities are rapidly failing (perhaps because he began politics in Grover Cleveland‘s first presidential term). The associations are fitting, though.
He has been known for inappropriate touching, and swimming naked in front of female secret service agents, offending them, back when he was the Vice President. What his socialism is doing to the formerly United States and the blood-sucking tentacles analogy is also appropriate. Add to this are how Darwinoids touted this as evidence for evolution, but the opposite occurs. Because they are locked into naturalistic presuppositions, evolutionists won’t get it that the evidence supports recent creation, not their paradigm.
This critter was discovered back in 1988 but not examined until recently. Evolutionists constantly try to rescue their fundamentally-flawed worldview from what has been observed. Once again, loss of features is somehow evidence for evolution. It’s also in the wrong place according to the evolutionary timeline. Want more? Okay. Soft tissue impressions shouldn’t last hundreds of millions of Darwin years. It was presumed to look and act like modern squids. No evolution here, folks.
The fossil challenges the evolutionary narrative about squids, says the press release from AMNH. The title, “New Species of Extinct Vampire-Squid-Like Cephalopod,” may add insult to injury to associate Biden with a blood-sucking monster extending its sucker-laden tentacles to pry the lifeblood out of its victims. They surely did not mean it that way, but it will be hard for Republicans not to snicker.
Vampire squid (vampyropods) had 10 tentacles compared to the usual 8 for octopuses, which are related members of the cephalopod (head-foot) class of mollusks. One reason for the problem with evolution of this fossil is that it represents devolution—the loss of features. In this case, the “understanding” devolved as well. Co-author Christopher Whalen explains:
To read the full article and see how Chris evosplains, see “Fossil Squid Named for Joe Biden.” (Image at the top: Pexels / Mark Newbury)
It has been said that words are vessels to carry thoughts. This short post helps show their power.
Words are not simply sounds caused by air passing through our larynx. Words have real power. God spoke the world into being by the power of His words (Hebrews 11:3), and we are in His image in part because of the power we have with words. Words do more than convey information. The power of our words can actually destroy one’s spirit, even stir up hatred and violence. They not only exacerbate wounds but inflict them directly. Of all the creatures on this planet, only man has the ability to communicate through the spoken word. The power to use words is a unique and powerful gift from God.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
A few people may be thinking, “Oh, there he goes again, getting ready to quit.” Not quite quit, but I did get a kind of warning that causes me to reexamine my attitudes and motives.
There have been several occasions upon which I considered walking away. It had nothing to do with loss of faith or lack of evidence. Indeed, this is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Apathetic responses to posts (whether mine or featured from others) from people who claim to support creation have been a big part of it, and I was doubting if I was called to do this after all.
However, the content is science and theology as well as creation science, and those are small niches. There are also what I call CiNOs — Christians in Name Only — who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. Many professing Christians are biblically illiterate and functional heretics (see the links at “Christian, Find your Bible“). That, plus the fact that I’m a nobody (not having celebrity status is something I’ve freely admitted for years) make for a low number if hits. If I want attention, I’ll write about gaming or something else that’s wildly popular right now and not be doing special interest writing.
To end this segment on background, I’ll just say that after agonizing, seeking counsel, prayer, and so on, I resolved to remain faithful and keep going. The truth is too important, and creation is the foundation of the gospel.
Something I learned long ago is that anything can be an idol for someone. Obviously, people in Western countries are not fashioning idols out of stone or wood and bowing down to them as their gods. People make other things their gods and ignore the true God of the Bible. Games, sports, relationships, politics, sex, and even church can become our false gods.
People can give such a priority in doing the Lord’s work in one form or another that they forget the Lord. I cannot make creation science into an idol and with it, take undue pride and seek glory to Bob instead of glory to God.
Every once in a while, I get a wake-up call.
There’s a guy (I’ll call him Perse) who posts many creation science links on a few social(ist) media platforms, using various groups and Pages (I capitalize Page because Fakebook does that, and it seems like a helpful distinction). His material is essentially what I call a link mill, sharing content from the big names in creation science but little if any original content.
The other day, Perse posted a link to a video on YouTube. It was “Check this out! a awesome video from Answers in Genesis” that the uploader first had to download from AiG.
Why do that? Although I don’t think AiG would care, it is actually copyright infringement — stealing. When I pointed this out, Perse deleted my comments. After being persistent, he wondered why I had a problem with it, and it was “something that I believe most people would find trivial”.
When I pressed him about deciding what other people would think, he said that I would “cause divisions between brethren who are supposed to be on the same side.” So, stealing is okay because it’s in the name of Jesus? Also, when I made a similar comment on that YouTube channel, my comment was hidden.
From there, he said that I have a problem with him and his content “because I’ve rarely used your content”, and that I have a problem with pride. Well, Perse seems to view my work as competition. If we’re on the same side as he said, why not share the content? Why avoid Question Evolution Day, which was a call to action for biblical creationists everywhere?
Yet I’m the one starting a “needless fight”. This all came about because I asked a question and rebuked the idea that stealing is all right because the end justifies the means. My speculation is that Perse felt convicted and didn’t want to admit it, so he lashed out in anger instead.
While Perse claimed to be glad that I’m doing creation science outreach, he also made several false claims, including appeal to motive. Essentially, he acted like an atheist! Don’t be disunderstanding me here, I’m not calling him an atheist or unbeliever, nosiree. His reasoning and statements were unchristlike. Unfortunately, some of my responses were approaching that same status, and I even declared that he was showing hatred for me.
There comes a time when Christians must correct, admonish, and rebuke one another. Those things need to be done in the Spirit, not from the flesh. A believer can be completely correct in saying something, but when it’s harsh and unloving, it’s likely to be rejected.
My wake-up call was that I began to consider if I have a problem with pride and self-glorification. Sure, an occasional acknowledgement of my work is nice, but I pray almost every day that what I am doing is glorifying to God and edifying to the saints.
Am I achieving my goal in keeping the proper attitude? Frequent praying for that should help. In addition to that, am I making creation science my idol? If that’s the case, I should walk away before I do harm to creation science and be dishonoring to God. I don’t want to be the kind of guy that Perse seems to be.
Yes, we all have sins in our lives, and none of us have achieved perfect sanctification. I get angry when people dishonor God, especially when atheists mock and blaspheme, so I need to work on patience and showing a Christlike spirit. We have to keep working at it through the Word and the Holy Spirit. So, I have to pause, pray, and consider what’s going on. Mayhaps there are believers reading this who will pray for me as well.
Copyright infringement is rampant, and saturates the web, especially YouTube. Sometimes, channels there have arrangements to allow their material to be posted. Although Perse falsely accused me of trying to police it, that would be impossible. It’s up to the owners to issue copyright takedown requests. Many copyright owners leave things alone because of the hassle, lack of financial harm, and gray areas regarding Fair Use.
Also, I admonish Christian writers to use images legally — just because it’s on the web doesn’t make it fair game. (Information on using images and links to several free sites, see “Images on the Web: An Appeal to Caution.”) Arrogance and theft do not belong in a Christian’s lifestyle, you savvy that, pilgrim?
So if creation science becomes my idol and I’m consumed with pride, I pray that I have enough sense to walk away.
“Featured Image” at the top by Vlad Vasnetsov at Pixabay
There are several items here that caught my attention, and I’m grateful that Jim included my detective work article examining how a Christian and his church were attacked. The principles in that can be useful in many other situations.
Here are the links related to Presuppositional apologetics gathered between February 15th-21st, 2022.
1.) Cave to the Cross’ Evil’s Purpose In God’s Story – Ep.164 – What About Evil? – The One True Story – Part 1
View original post 19 more words
Thanks to Seeking Divine Perspective for writing this article relating to Question Evolution Day. This year is the 11th annual, and you can find out more here: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/p/question-evolution-day.html
In honor of Question Evolution Day tomorrow (Thanks, Jimmy and Clyde*), here are some thoughts on questioning.
After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. – Luke 2:46
It was my middle school biology class, second semester. We had spent a good portion of the first semester learning the basics of just what is meant by “science” – what can be observed with our five senses, the difference between “observation” and “interpretation,” and cause and effect – that everything that happens has a cause and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, nothing happens in a vacuum, nothing happens “just because.”
Now we were getting to the fun part – actually studying LIFE! I was excited to learn just how these bodies of ours worked. I knew we were incredibly complex creations, but…
View original post 933 more words
There are several aspects to Question Evolution Day that many people can support, such as biblical creationists and even professing atheists or agnostics who believe in freedoms of speech, expression, academic, and thought. Fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists find it execrable. They attempt to silence this day as well as creationists themselves through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. I thought an important part of rational and scientific inquiry is to allow the examination of contrary evidence, but I’m just a nobody. It is easy to think that those who claim to believe in freedom of speech only support it if the material supports the consensus.
Here’s an area that I must confess to having inconsistency. There have been several misotheists and anti-creationists who want to slap leather with me over the years, and several times I have pledged to stop featuring their comments and such as examples of bad logic and bigotry. I was giving them the attention they seem to crave. Then they give me something else that needs to be used. C’est la guerre.
The above image was posted on Fakebook and these misotheists did the usual: share for the purpose of mockery. First, I want to point out that the owner of that Page and his few fans complain when creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist, they falsely claim that we are engaging in ad hominem attacks. Then they hypocritically use their own. Frequently.
By the way, notice the “ha ha” emoji. Atheists love those, even when they’ve been caught lying or given irrefutable evidence for something. No intelligent response, just a childish retort.
The two sentences in the comment on the “share” are chock full o’ fallacies, so let’s give them a look-see.
As I said, they use ad hominems frequently. This one has “idiots”, “moronic”, and “clowns”. Some people defend the use of insults and say that are not ad hominems when not used in the course of an argument, but I disagree. It is still to the man and is a way to dismiss what another person or group has to say.
For that matter, an insult can also be a form of poisoning the well to discredit what the other says before any statement is made. If someone states, “No, that’s not an ad hominem, I simply insulted you”, it should not be allowed to stand. It does nothing to advance an argument or position, and is harmful.
Note the viperine conflation of evolution with science, which is common among anti-creationists. This is frequently expanded so that, if we reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, we reject science. Not hardly!
If you study on it a mite, you’ll see that their attitude is anti-science. You betcha, since those who
One need not be a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent to have doubts about evolution. It is in no wise “settled science” or “proven”, since science can’t prove anything, and a true spirit of science it so seek knowledge (which includes adjusting or even rejecting bad theories), not protecting the prevailing paradigm.
Dissent from Darwin has been signed by over 1,200 scientists (and MDs who are also professors of medicine). As discussed at Piltdown Superman, this is essentially blaspheming Darwin and, therefore, hazardous to their careers. If there were more professional, academic, and other freedoms, there would undoubtedly be more signers.
I am once again reminding people that there are many credentialed scientists in the creation community that have published in refereed journals in their own fields. Of course, evidence refuting evolution and supporting creation is not allowed in the secular science industry. It makes Darwin frown.
Interestingly, while I was writing this, another Admin at The Question Evolution Project re-posted something I wrote a spell back about how creationists embrace science. That same Page owner under discussion here called me a liar in his comments. Because atheism.
Implicit in the line, “As if a bunch of Creationist clowns are going to cause science to abandon evolutionary theory”, is an appeal to motive fallacy. Since that Admin uses the genetic fallacy as an excuse to avoid reading creationist material, he doesn’t know what Question Evolution Day is about in the first place.
When I started QED, I never said that it would cause the secular science industry to abandon one of their foundations. (Indeed, glance through this collection of Darwin Day images and notice the religious fervor. Somehow, a couple of QED images made it into the mix.) I am a nobody. Fact. I wasn’t being facetious before. And I know I don’t have much influence or power. This is a movement by and for the people who actually care about getting out the truth and prompting people to think for themselves instead of floating down the stream of “consensus science”.
This may put some people off, but mayhaps some of my history will be useful.
Creation Ministries International had a Question Evolution! campaign that included several videos and questions that evolutionists cannot answer. I made a comment that there should be a Question Evolution Day. Didn’t happen, so, being a cowboy at heart, I took the initiative and started the observance. Not much happened.
I asked for other people to participate, and had a boost a few times from Creation Today. Ian Juby promoted QED on Genesis Week a couple of times. Many other people wrote weblog articles (Duane Caldwell has done several at Rational Faith), and people on social(ist) media had their own material as well as sharing hash-tagged #questionevolutionday posts.
In addition, I sought out interviews on radio and podcasts (here is one of my favorites; a skilled interviewer brings out good responses from the subject). A few times I got my name “in print”, such as The Christian Post and The Washington Post (via Religion News Service.) Like I said, I was being a cowboy. Being a nobody, however, hindered getting doors opened.
Writing that stuff makes me uncomfortable because I have long said (and pray to remind myself) to seek glory to God, not glory to Bob.
Even so, one point to QED is that a passel of us common folk can get together and spread the world. We can hope and pray that people will realize that they are not getting all the facts from atheistic materialists. They may question evolution and realize that the God of the Bible is the Creator — that means he makes the rules and we should find out what he has to say.
As for angry atheists…they can’t hurt us. Sure, ridicule and say all sorts of evil things, it’s who they are and what they do. But they can’t stop the truth, and people don’t need to spend much time on hard-hearted trolls, you savvy?
I hope all y’all will get involved in Question Evolution Day, our protest against Darwin-mandated science philosophies can be heard!
There are many speculations about what provided the light before God created the sun. I lean toward the “physically manifested shekinah glory” suggestion, but others have speculated on angels, temporary light sources, and others. The Bible does not say, so we can’t be barking dogmatic about the answer.
Recently Reader Madison asked an intriguing question in a comment on this BibleScienceGuy article: The Big Bang!
Madison’s comment included this question on the creation of light in Genesis 1:
“What is the difference between the great light created in verse 3 and the one created in verse 16?”
Here are the relevant passages about the light God created on Creation Day 1 (verse 3) and later on Creation Day 4 (verse 16):
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness…
View original post 664 more words
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Misotheists try to prove their intellectual superiority to us st00pid dujmb theists by using risible logic, which includes invalid comparisons.
“We don’t believe in God in the same way we don’t believe in Santa Claus”, or “We don’t hate Jesus, nor do we hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc.” Let’s give a look-see on why such remarks are ridiculous. Instead of going at this as a formal logic lesson, this article will take the reader along a different trail.
At first glance, this may remind people of an argument from silence, and I’ll allow that there are superficial similarities. (A quick example of an argument from silence is that in the comments area of a post, I responded to the request to mention a movie that needed its ending explained. I asked for The Quiet Earth. No responses. To assume that nobody can answer would be fallacious.) What follows can be more properly considered an argument from conspicuous absence.
There really was a Saint Nicholas of Myra in the 4th century, and he was a generous, godly man. Legends and modern mythology have very little to do with the real person. It is highly unlikely to find a sane adult who actually believes in the fat guy at the North Pole who has elves working for him, flies around the world pulled by reindeer on Christmas Eve, and defies physics. Ain’t happening, Hoss.
There are other things that won’t be found:
- Science supporting his existence, including physics, archaeology, biology, paleontology, and more.
- Gatherings of people who sing his praises, offer worship, and give exegetical teachings from the Book of Santa.
- Prophecies that have been fulfilled, and others waiting to be fulfilled, from that same book.
- Testimonies of people who have experienced miracles or had their lives changed by Santa.
- Folks coming to the door or talking in the park, imploring people to come to salvation through the Claus Clause.
- Disaster relief efforts spearheaded by organizations like Santa’s Purse.
- Schools, hospitals, and so forth being built by believers in the modern version of Santa Claus.
For people who claim that they take Jesus as seriously as they do Sinter Klaas, they sure do spend a passel of time hating God, but no effort to hate Santa. For that matter, many professing atheists seek their personal value and identities railing against someone they claim doesn’t exist! However, they do know that God exists (Romans 1:18-23). They need to repent. It would be great if they did it at Christmas time.