Cannabis, Cohen, and Copyright Infringement

A drum I keep banging on is about using caution when selecting images for articles, posts, and so on. Best disabuse your ownself of the notion that if a picture is on the web, anyone can use it. In fact, everything is copyrighted, whether registered or not. There are many sources of copyright-free images (several are listed here) to keep people out of trouble, but there are some things to keep in mind.

Marijuana cannabis law Cohen lawsuit
Assembled from graphics at Clker clipart.

Before I get to our lesson from Baron Cohen as Borat, there are a few other things that should be mentioned. Some graphics are borderline legal, such as “memes” and so forth. Many are so abundant that rightful owners have pretty much lost control, and may have trouble enforcing the copyright. Also, a low-resolution image is highly unlikely to cause the owner financial loss.

The Fair Use doctrine in these formerly United States is helpful, but it’s best to stay with the safe images as much as possible. (Also, the gray area of modifications to make derivatives can be difficult as well.) Legal challenges get expensive, even if the user is within his or her rights, so I recommend avoiding Fair Use unless standing on firm ground or it’s absolutely necessary. You can see how the Institute for Creation Research applied Fair Use in the fine print under this article.

Many free image sources do not require attribution, but I have a couple of reasons for doing it. One is to promote the photographer or artist and the site, and another is, I admit, for my own protection. If someone gets a burr under his or her saddle because I used a low-resolution image (usually under 100 kb), the attribution and link show that I acted in good faith. Public domain images are very helpful, but some caution is advised there as well if something is comparatively recent.

A fun fact that I learned from the occasionally-reliable Wikipedia: the word vetted and its derivatives came from horse racing.
“Has yon stallion been vetted?”
“Aye, we brought the vet(erinarian) to check him, M’lud”.

I brought that up to say that people can vet a photo image site.

Even with free image sources, we must be extremely careful to avoid giving the appearance that identifiable people in the pictures or brand names are used to imply the endorsement of something, or that they are presented in a bad light.

By the way, I try to avoid using pictures of children and minors. Miners, sure.

Now (at long last) to the huge illustration. Actually, it’s billboard-sized. Baron Cohen’s image was used by a cannabis company to promote their product, and he’s suing. It’s mighty surprising that someone was that stupid. The slightest bit of research would reveal that permission to use the likeness of a person or character must be obtained. Cohen said he doesn’t even smoke doobies, brother.

While that lawsuit is an extreme example, it should also be a reminder on how we use images in our work. Christians need to use extra care because we want to glorify God and do our best. Also, misotheists and others hate us, and look for any excuse to attack, or even bring legal action to waste our time and money.

Bedeviled by the Details

The mind likes to have complete information, and sometimes we fill in the blanks. When doing cloud gazing or looking into a distorted mirror, pareidolia can kick in so we “see” something that is not there (an extreme example is the lady on Mars). I have a problem with tinnitus as well as apophenia (musical ear), where people tend to “hear” distant music and similar things. Psychologically, we fill in the blanks with nonexistent details when data is missing, and then we create a story.

There are also times when people think they know something, but are really turning the details into hash. They may be drawing from incomplete memories, things they heard or read somewhere, assumptions, and so on. The secular science industry has a habit of sticking to the naturalism narrative, and they have often been baffled when observed facts conflict with the Bearded Buddha’s machinations. This makes for

Adam and Eve by Michelangelo, 1512

People think they know about the Bible, but often get details wrong. Since we have classical art going, it’s interesting that Michelangelo knew enough about the subject to include the serpent before the Curse and gave it something resembling limbs. (It looks like Adam’s scolding it, which is not in the account.) Masaccio seemed ignorant of the details, having Adam and Eve leave the garden naked — Genesis tells us otherwise. Gustave Dore was pretty accurate, though.

It seems reasonable that the more important a subject, the more people should make an effort to be correct on the details. Sure, people speculate all the time. However, when faulty memories, a preferred narrative or bias, and other things are in our minds, it’s best to refrain from being insistent.

There are several views regarding the nature of the serpent in Eden. I thought I was entertaining a unique view that since Eve didn’t seem surprised that the serpent talked, that maybe Eden was like Narnia with talking animals, but that idea is as old as the apocryphal Book of Jubilees. But I was very tentative on that. Check the facts before being dogmatic on alleged scientific facts, about the nature of the serpent, and other things.

Now I would like to encourage you to read an article about things we think we know, and how we may use speculation as truth. This one focuses on the serpent. If you’ve a mind to, spare a few minutes and read “The Devil Is in the Details . . . or Is He?

Reducing Christians to Lab Rats

The secular science industry has often been reductionist when dealing with people, and in the view of this child, they are bushwhacking Christians more frequently. Indeed, atheists have accelerated their dehumanization of Christians in the past few years, and this is in conjunction with the secular science industry’s willingness to be hijacked by leftist science deniers.

Image credit before modification: Pixabay / Silvia

There have long been questions about ethics in scientific research, whether lying to test subjects in psychology, tampering with gene editing, and a host of others. In general, secular scientists have a worldview based on atheistic naturalism, so they have no consistent standard for morality.

They also believe in Darwinism, and these sidewinders display it in the way they treat other people — especially using their anti-Christian biases. Then we learn that they are also leftists. The “research” was appallingly bad, but it passed peer review (which further shows their biases). Are you surprised that they cranked out hit pieces? I’m not.

Social scientists who try to put Christians in their test tubes have the roles completely reversed.

Who do they think they are? Some social scientists (psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists) usurp the role of philosophers and theologians. They think they can treat their fellow human intellectuals like lab rats (the Ratomorphic Fallacy, according to Arthur Koestler). Well, let the philosophers and theologians return the favor and put the social scientists under the microscope.

Here are two recent papers that specifically mention Christians as a population to experiment on.

You can read the entire article by heading on over to “Christians Are Not Lab Rats“.

Another Reason To Question Evolution

It is an unscientific and unnecessary mythology used to fool the common man!

— by Kimbal Binder, first published on Radaractive before Goolag/Google took it down and then said, “Oops, we changed our minds so we put it back up”, and then did nothing of the kind. Originally published February 4, 2014. This version has been modified.

If you happened to listen to the podcast that Piltdown Superman put up on this blog yesterday, you are fully prepared to read the argument made by Scott Youngren in the article below.

I also love the quote Scott referenced from C.S. Lewis:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Now think about what you know and why you know it.   No doubt in grade school you were taught how to count with visual aids.   Two blocks added to two blocks (or apples or whatever) were shown to be four blocks.   Very simple, easy to see and understand.  What we understand as being proven scientifically is often just a marker left on the marathon that is the advancement of human knowledge. 

Darwinist evolution is nothing like this at all.   While science DID prove using the scientific method that nothing is created or destroyed in the natural world, that all of the natural world is running downhill and that life does not come from non-life, the so-called “science” of evolution breaks these laws without shame in order to advance a religion-based philosophy of Naturalism.   To pretend that Darwinism is scientific at all is a sham, a fraud and a crime against the human mind! I can assert that with good conscience because the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis remain intact and Darwinism must be at odds with these laws.   Darwinism is not scientific at all, it is an hypothesis that is used to prop up anti-God morality and for the pleasure of atheopaths.  Evil men who wish to do things God forbids have always sought to pretend that there is no God so they can entice others to join them in their evil practices.

“The God of the Gaps: Why God and science are not competing explanations”
By Scott Youngren

“The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability.”–Cambridge University historian of science Colin Russell


“Just because science hasn’t explained something yet doesn’t mean that we should just give up and say, ‘God did it.’”


-A comment made, in various versions, by multiple atheist commenters to [his] website.
——————————-
The cartoon above provides a good depiction of how many (perhaps most) atheists perceive God. They perceive him as an explanation for natural phenomena that competes with scientific explanations, and that serves to fill gaps in scientific understanding. But this perception is completely flawed and misguided.

To read the rest of that article, click here.

In the US, organized prayer in schools was banned in 1963 because of an activist Supreme Court which did not care to follow the Constitution. In 1973 came legalized baby-murdering, Now the spread of same-sex so-called marriage has led to widespread moral chaos! Just look at what happened in Massachusetts!

Do you know who I am? It doesn’t matter who I am or what schools I attended. It is all about the information and about truth. I have a few health issues but I do have my “assault keyboard” and I am still able to fire a few virtual bullets. Evolution is a threat to both the social and scientific health of our world. Those who proclaim it tend to be as ruthless to their opposition as were the Spanish Inquisitors in the name of a government that was unholy and greedy for power and money. Here in the USA we have not yet put non-Darwinists on a rack or burned them at the stake, but the career of a scientist who does not toe the evolution line? Darwinists gladly burn their careers instead.

We do not need God to be removed from society, we need Darwinism to be cast from our minds instead. Science was begun by Christians and Theists in the first place as a belief in a God with a Logical Mind gave them impetus to investigate the means and methodology by which the entire Universe worked. It was a belief in God that was the basis for the foundation of the sciences we are familiar with today…God does not need gaps! But we need to get rid of the holes in our heads and get back to honoring God and doing the best you can…

The Galápagos Vampire Finch and Lying for Darwin

This was originally posted here, but Goolag (Google, the owner of Blogger/Blogspot, in turned owned by Alphabet) took it down along with several others. Then they changed their minds and “reinstated” it. No, they haven’t. Why am I not surprised?

It is indeed unfortunate that my final Question Evolution Day was such a failure (due to apathy of professing creationists), because in addition to supporting freedom of speech, QED articles had material to help people spot fake news like how the “vampire ground finch” proves evolution.

To claim that the misnamed Galápagos vampire finch is proof of evolution. Instead, it is fake news and bad science used to attack the Creator.
Credit: Flickr / Peter Wilton (CC BY 2.0)

Many critters are opportunists when their preferred foot is unavailable. In the wild, the giant panda uses its nasty big pointy teeth to masticate bamboo, but will eat other things, including rodents (they take a greater variety of food in captivity). Indeed, the lorikeet has taken a turn toward carnivory.
How picky are humans? Consider Proverbs 27:7. Nick Yemana had a comment about Japanese eating raw fish at the 2 min. 42 sec. mark here. My Scottish ancestors and distant relatives over yonder eat haggis, but I’m not fond of the idea. I think Americans ignore the ingredients of hot dogs and other sausages. The point is that when you need to eat, you make due with what’s available.

As for that vampire ground finch — the naturalism narrative is once again more important than actual science. It may seem like an ad hominem for me to call them liars, but the lapdog media for the secular science industry as well as the educated professional scientists have no excuse. They know better. This bird does drink blood to some extent. Darwin’s acolytes are calling it evolution, but that is deceptively conflating evolution with slight change.

Have any of those tinhorns ever bothered to see if these wonderful examples of evolution can survive on blood alone? Is there evidence of significant mutations or added genetic information? Do these birds show any interest in blood when their primary food sources are available? Not hardly! Meanwhile, biblical creationists have shown many times that the Master Engineer has equipped creatures to adapt so they can survive. 

These are the kinds of things that other creationists and I are trying to teach: We want people to learn how to think, not tell them what to think. Secularists are lying to us about science and evolution. They are also suppressing the truth about the Creator, which is compounding their wickedness. Yeah, I’m a mite irritated. Those finches stopping off for a quick nip of blood on their way home from work is nothing Darwin could be proud of, and this kind of evoporn is sucked up by atheists and other naturalists to confirm their biases.

The diet of most vertebrates tends to be specialized, but flexible in extreme circumstances. Humans decidedly prefer certain foods, but in extreme circumstances will sometimes consume almost anything, even urine and other humans. Some birds consume primarily seeds, others worms, yet others nectar or sugar water. Robins prefer worms and insects but, if they are unable to find worms, will consume other foods, like fruit, raisins, suet, berries, and seeds. Likewise, some finches favor seeds, others prefer flower nectar, pollen and insects.

Darwinists believe that all food preferences evolved, so why did the discovery that some finches consume blood recently merit headlines? The reason is (it is implied), that, historically, finches did not include blood in their diet but, in extreme circumstances, they recently evolved the ability to eat blood. Thus, evolution is occurring in front of our very eyes! The claim is “Scientists suggest the vampire finch evolved to drink blood to survive the volcanic archipelago’s harsh environment and scarce resources.”

To read the rest of this evolution-refuting article, click on “Why Does This Finch Drink Blood?” Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Definitions are Important in Origins Discussions, Culture, and Politics

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Something I have been emphasizing for years is the importance of definitions (see this 2013 article, “Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules“). The simplest practical example is to have people to define their terms in a discussion so they will not end up talking past one another because they are working with different definitions of key words in their minds.

A favorite trick from anti-creationists, atheists, leftists and so on is to change definitions. The established definition of atheist, for example, is someone who believes there is no God or gods. They disingenuously redefined it to “lack of belief”. Another example is evolution. People who have read my work before may have noticed that I seldom write “evolution” at the outset, but qualify it (particles-to-paleontologist, dust-to-Dark Knight, universal common descent, etc.; but “the neo-Darwinian synthesis” and similar phrases are cumbersome). This specific word use is because there are sidewinders who conflate change, adaptation, variation, and others with evolution.

I disremember where I came across the article that inspired my own (linked below). It emphasizes the cultural and political aspects of definitions and redefinitions. People are not taught how to think. Instead, they are being told what to think. The danger is that people in positions of power and influence can appeal to emotions instead of reason to more easily control sheeple.

There are words that didn’t even exist a few years ago that are part of everyday speech (especially when leftists use it for propaganda with concentration and repetition). How often do you see or hear racist or related words used? While racism does exist, true racism loses its impact and believability when the claim is bandied around loosely. Also, the word homophobe is nonsense; I don’t phobe any homos, and neither do you. How about fascist? It is horribly overplayed as well — people don’t even know what it actually means, and is practically redefined as, “Someone I don’t like and want to have silenced”. These tinhorns may shout the loudest, but that doesn’t make them right.

Leftists use loaded terminology to color stories and people’s perceptions, and they also ignore or underplay news that is contrary to their agendas. A black man is killed by police, everyone in the media loses their minds. Black people beat and kill white people? Nobody bats an eye. A new discovery to support evolution is promoted, big excitement. When it is proven false, obedient lapdogs of the secular science industry are asleep.

The article I mentioned earlier also mentioned how social jargon is used for social signaling. That brought dog whistle to mind. It wasn’t that long ago that a dog whistle meant a dog whistle. Now, it’s a political and social way of sending signals to certain people. This child believes hashtags are dog whistles. Sometimes it is difficult to read a post because there are so man of them, and in different colors because they are also hyperlinks of sorts. (For #God so #loved the world, #salvation #Jesus #Bible #Reformed. Oh, please!) In one of my early experiences on Twitter, I was warned by an atheist that if I used the word atheist, I was risking “calling down the thunder”. It turns out that they would call for help by tagging #atheist in their comments and I would get swarmed. It’s happened many times.

Secular education systems are essentially extensions of the Ministry of Truth (if you don’t know what that is, look it up, I’ll wait here). Using emotional tactics, there is increasing ridicule of homeschoolers from the left. They also use boilerplate terms of disrespect such as lack of socialization skills. (Yes, poor kids are missing out on school shootings, rape, drug abuse, and all those fun things learned in socializing.) When children are taught about God, creation, the Bible, and other truths at home, secularists scream that we are “indoctrinating” them. In reality, children are not being indoctrinated as well when they are not at schools for much of their lives, and the left is incensed by that.

At this point, I’d be much obliged if y’all would do two things. First, read “On the Road to Newspeak” (why it’s Protestant Post, I have no idea, because the principles apply to more than just Protestants). When you read it, see how this applies to not only biblical creationists, but also to Christians in general.

The other thing I’m asking is for you to watch this video. (There’s a bit of profanity, but you’ll get past it.) Notice how reality is subverted for the sake of personal preferences, appeals to emotion, loaded terminology, and other things. The satire is not far from the truth.

Burn the Witches — I Mean, Global Warming Deniers!


It is interesting that proponents of global warming (or “global climate change”) tell us that (a) there is a consensus, which is false, and (b) that it is not a political movement, which is also false. Those of us who believe in the free speech of “global warming deniers” are bullied along with the scientists who do say that humans are not the cause of global warming, which is inconsequential or even nonexistent.

In December 2006, Heidi Cullen, the “climate expert” at The Weather Channel, said:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It’s not a political statement…it’s just an incorrect statement.

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that’s why talking about the science is so important!

It appears that global warming is not a consensus among meteorologists because she felt the need to speak up on this. It is also political because she wanted to have a kind of purge against those meteorologists who dared to go against the favored view!

More recently, free speech has been blatantly threatened with stronger measures: Jail. Politicians (who often should be jailed for tangible crimes) should be imprisoned for denying global warming. Using “science” as a tool for bullying is another sign of the rising neo-fascism. Say what those in control want to hear or suffer the consequences. David Suzuki, who referred to humans as “maggots”, is active in the war on humans.

Left-wing extremism has a home at PBS – and that home, to be specific, is the set of Moyers & Company. Host Bill Moyers kicked off Sunday’s episode with a flashback to the previous week’s broadcast, in which scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki had announced that he believes society should literally punish politicians who don’t believe in global warming. 

This is what Suzuki told Moyers:

No, you can watch the video clip and read the article at “Lefty Scientist: Jail Pols Who Deny Global Warming; PBS Host Worries There’s Lack of Prison Space“.