Deluded Guardians of the Planet

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems that the more people deny their Creator, the stranger things get. As we have seen, evolutionism is rooted in pantheism, and both of them saddle up and ride friendly-like with the New Age brand. (Nothing "new" there, it is just repackaged paganism.) Darwin's death cult is a big part of it.

A hero of the anti-natalist movement is suing his parents because he regrets having been born. Interesting that he claims to be close to them, and the amount of money is "symbolic", because he wants to send a message. Apparently people do not ask to be born. This telegram just came in over the singing wire, pilgrim: they never do ask. (Tell me how anyone is supposed to do that. Tarot cards and other hocus pocus, I reckon.) It is a part of the global warming movement to reduce the population, and rejects the biblical teaching that children are a gift from God. This movement should be flushed. 

While that anti-natalist stuff is just plain silly (indeed, the court didn't take none too kindly to having its time wasted), the next one is an example of a more dangerous aspect from climate activists: voluntary human extinction. At least it's not like some sidewinders who actively want to kill off people right away. Pagan pantheism is at the forefront, as are Darwinism and old earth beliefs. 

According to Les Knight, we must kill off the people to save the planet. This, too, is related to the leftist-globalist climate change cult. The global warming movement is socialist as well as pagan at its core, so it is not a surprise that Knight also detests capitalism (like Child of the Corn Greta Thunberg). In addition, some people insist that the Australian bushfire crisis is the result of anthropogenic global warming, but that is the opposite of the truth.

Note that pantheism is prominent. Earth is more important than the people on it. This is a denial of the truth, where the Creator gave us the world to care for and live on, and Earth is not a living being. Also, something we've noticed before is that they are inconsistent. These tinhorns affirm evolution, but they are inconsistent by saying that we cannot live according to evolutionary ideas. That is, we crawled up to the top of the food chain, so we should be able to do what we want. By saying something is right or wrong, they are tacitly admitting that atheism, pantheism, naturalism and all the rest do not work, and they are inadvertently standing on the biblical creationist worldview!

As Chris Plante (who was my source for the first two stories, you can hear his comments at this link) has indicated, being a leftist means never having to admit you're wrong. In this case, numerous failed predictions for the end of the world. What is their course of action when these doom and gloom predictions fail? Make excuses, ignore the failures, or best yet, make new predictions and keep going. Elton John's song title "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word" is often true, but apologies and admitting mistakes are pretty much nonexistent for evolutionary globalist apparatchiks.

There is no room for free speech and even free thought if these types get their way. There have been calls to punish climate change skeptics, and this has been happening for several years. Just recently, the fun folks in Deutschland are calling people who dare to think for themselves (and worse, who express themselves) as "saboteurs". They will be punished with fines and imprisonment. Can't have anyone go against "consensus science" because if you disagree with the views of totalitarians blackguards, you are a "science denier". One loathsome humbug plays God and condemns people to Hell for presenting contrary evidence to secular global warming beliefs! Oh, please.

Keep your eyes and ears open for complaints that people are publishing things that are "not true" or outright lies — these generally can be translated as, "Things we don't like, and we refuse to allow evidence contrary to our agendas". Those people want to control the narrative, and you may have noticed that they accuse others of being dishonest and intolerant, which is a distraction tactic because they are being dishonest and intolerant. See how that works? It's who they are and what they do.

While some of these things seem humorous and irrelevant at first, they actually come from a wretched worldview. Knight based part of his life on the failed Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, and there is obviously no room for the Creator and Sustainer of life in his philosophies, or in the worldview of these naturalists. Atheism and evolutionism have been detrimental to science and society, and people are in rebellion against God, whether consciously or without realizing it. Earth is not more important than humanity or the Creator who provided it for us.  Ever notice how these people are perpetually angry? The only hope for truth and meaning is repentance and submitting to the God of Creation.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Whale of a Miracle or Miracles of Whales?

Naturalists reject the biblical account of Jonah and the great fish out of hand. After all, that is a miracle and there are no miracles because naturalism. Such a view is arbitrary, not logical, and only justifies rebellion against the Creator instead of digging deeper.

Humpback whale image credit: NOAA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

If you stop and think about it, there are many "miracles" that apply to whales. (Of course, miracle is used loosely in this context, except for the many miracles involved in the creation itself.) Whales are not the product of evolution, but instead show the intricate work of the Master Engineer.

A skeptic once opined about the so-called problem of miracles, saying that “enlightened” thinkers doubt the Bible’s supernatural events such as “the whale miracle.” But which whale miracle did he reject? Was he thinking of Jonah being swallowed at sea yet living to tell the tale of the “great fish”?1 Some assumptions need examination because there’s more than one whale miracle to consider.

To read the rest, click on "Jonah's Whale Adventure and Everyday Miracles".






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Using Evolution to Excuse Promiscuity

While this post and the article linked below have nothing explicit or prurient, they contain adult concepts. Sensitive and younger readers may want to skip this one. Since Darwinism has given us many wicked social views and rejects the Creator, it is no surprise that evolution can be used to justify sexual promiscuity.

Lovers, Konstantin Somov, 1920

Atheists may feel free to indulge in sexual abuse because they suppress the truth that God exists and is the final Judge of everyone, but they still must deal with laws and societies. Many claim that morality comes from evolution, which is foolish even on the surface. We have seen in previous posts how evolutionists struggle with ethics and morality.

While atheists and evolutionists scoff at biblical Christianity and creationists, the ultimate truth is found in the unchanging Word of God. Humans may be classified by scientists as animals, but we are created in God's image. He has not only given us the Book to guide us, he lives within his people. Unfortunately, those who believe that we are simply another type of animal tend to justify acting like animals.

Using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™, a couple of scientists presupposed evolution and interpreted their observations of animals accordingly. From there, they added copious amounts of speculation and personal opinions. Men should be able to have sex with whomever they please, individually or in groups. To be blunt, I reckon that this is simply a "scientific" excuse for debauchery. The evoporn from the researchers does not indicate how women feel about all this — but they may think that they can play that game as well. But then, maybe they are playing their own game with abortion "rights" to justify the murder of the unborn.

Apparently, love has nothing to do with it. Nor respect. The Owner's Manual tells us our Creator's ideal: one man, one woman, one marriage. Obviously, we don't keep to the ideals and there is sin in our lives; those who have long marriages are the exception, not the rule. But this utilitarian use of sex has no place for love and respect — concepts that cannot be accounted for in materialism.

Women, are you listening? Darwinists justify unleashing unrestricted male passions on you with no responsibility.

In these days of the #MeToo movement, and strict rules against sexual harassment in the workplace, are you surprised that evolutionary biology justifies unrestricted, irresponsible male sexual indulgence, with anyone at any time, as perfectly natural? The ground for this view comes from fundamental assumptions Darwinians make before they even look at evidence:

To finish reading, visit "On the Origin of Lechery by Natural Selection".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

The Problem of Defining Information

People talk about information a great deal, but if you study on it, that word is a bit context-based. We can gain information from websites, cyberstalking, watching television, from Number Six, and many other areas. When it comes to genetics, information is tricky to conclusively define.

Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth

Creationists point out that many changes in the genome result in a loss of or change in information, then arguments ensue. Some even use viperine tactics to clam that, since we cannot define information to their satisfaction, it does not even exist. Oh, please! Evolutionists may use rescuing devices that information is added through gene duplication or other ways, but it is not useful information. It's there, and they have a huge mountain to climb in explaining where it came from in the first place. After all, they reject the Creator who made it all happen.

As biblical creationists, we often like to point out that ‘information’ is a notoriously hard-to-define term. Several authors have tried to grapple with this. As far back as 1993, Walter ReMine wrote a book called The Biotic Message that explained what type of information we would expect to see if a Designer had created life. Since then, Werner Gitt has given us the Scientific Laws of Information, and Royal Truman has written extensively on Information Theory. Hence, creationists talk about information, a lot.

To read the rest, click on "What would count as ‘new information’ in genetics?"





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Assuming the Rocks Look Old

"How much more riding do we have, Luke?"

"About two more days. Nice scenery, though."

"Lotsa rocks in nice layers. They sure do look old."

"How do you know that they're old? You need something to compare them with, you know, and there are no tags giving their ages. Now let's get these horses some water."

Credits: Grand Canyon from PIXNIO, run through PhotoFunia

We are told that rocks, layers, and so on look old because people assume that they are old based on deep time presuppositions, but there needs to be a reference point. Rocks are rocks. Radiometric dating? More assumptions, and different methods yield wildly differing ages.

There are people in my experience that look old because I also know people who are young. Here in the Kingston, New York area we have buildings from the Revolutionary War that look old near buildings that were constructed much more recently. (In Europe, you can see structures that are much older and then look at newer ones for a greater contrast.) Do we have any young rocks?

Actually, yes. But when you look at them, they look like the "old" rocks. When looking at geological formations, the appearance of age is not based on objective facts.

Some might argue that Earth’s rocks are obviously ancient even apart from radioisotope dating results. In response to creationist claims, they might ask, “If the earth was created just 6,000 years ago, then why does it look so old?” But does Earth really look old?

To read the rest of this short and not very old article, click on "Do Earth's Rocks Look Old?"





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Naturalists Hiding the Truth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Although Western civilization claims to value free speech, that commodity is being trampled like sawdust on a saloon floor nowadays. The secular science industry is heavily biased and increasingly involved in leftist causes. To have the freedom to present evidence supporting recent creation and refuting evolution presented in the secular science industry? Fuggedaboudit. They want to control the narrative and the information.

Background image furnished by Why?Outreach

For example, much of the information presented by climate alarmists is tainted, and they reject not only contrary information, but logic itself. If you offer scientific information that is suppressed by climate cultists and leftist science, expect to have those tinhorns shout you down. You may hear something like, "I don't care if there is documentation! Ignore the false predictions! I can tell you that deniers are all liars, even though I don't read or understand their material! Listen to me!" So much for honestly evaluating the data in the spirit of scientific inquiry. Leftists causes must be promoted at all costs — including resisting freedoms of speech and thought. I kinda doubt that they would support Question Evolution Day, don't you?

Creationists have been horsewhipped (figuratively, since doing the real thing is still illegal — for now) and ridiculed by atheists and evolutionists for many years. When Clinton Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists, it's supposedly because he doesn't want to give us attention and credibility. Good thing for him, because in the article linked just above, he displays loaded terminology ("real" scientists), his fundamentally flawed presuppositions, and blatant bigotry. "Real" scientists are equated with those who embrace naturalism or materialism, so creationists are excluded by arbitrary, self-serving definitions.

I saw a complaint about a creation science post from a jackanapes who tries to drive a wedge of religion between creationists. He indicated that "real" science supports an old earth and evolution, and that "honest" Christians accept such views (if you're honest, you agree with him — that's the fallacy of bifurcation). He cited a pseudo-christian organization and linked to material that you have to pay to see. Also, to join and pay, you are required to agree to their "statement of faith" and be approved. Unbiased science, you betcha, Sweetcakes. 

Indeed, atheists and evolutionists are known to dodge debate challenges more often than not, such as the challenge by Creation Ministries International at an atheists convention. Remember the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate? Nye ignored a challenge to debate Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis. He eventually settled for Ken Ham, but atheists were frantic about that.

Do not think that naturalists are guilty of moving the goalposts. When things are not going their way, they hire four Germans (all named Hermann, coincidentally) to remove the goalposts entirely. It is thought that they are hidden somewhere in Surbiton.

Many village atheists try to silence Christians and creationists through ridicule, which only shows how they beclown themselves through their lack of integrity, lack of knowledge of science, and lack of civility. For that matter, we often have to educate them on their own mythology. If things are this bad among the commoners, perhaps the aversion to debates among the self-proclaimed intelligentsia is rooted in similar apprehensions. Consider this: if creationists had nothing to say, then someone like Dawkins could stop dodging and take a formal debate with a creation scientist and shut us down.

No, ridicule, hiding, misrepresentation, and ignoring inconvenient truths will not silence us or make us go away, old son. Evidence for recent creation and the global Genesis Flood is plentiful; truth is on our side. Leftist science is non-science, dumbing down the public through groupthink.

Big Science assumes you will be assimilated. Don’t even think about disagreeing. You have no voice. You don’t exist.

Study the following renewal ad from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It’s not really surprising to anyone familiar with Big Science these days, but perhaps it should be:

To read the rest of the excerpted article, click on "Ignoring the Opposition: How Big Science Descends into Groupthink". You may also want to peruse "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Informed Creationists Affirm Natural Selection

This title may be alarming to some creationists and startling to believers in scum-to-skeptic evolution, but things should be clarified if you stay with me. Like any other science, creation science has had some errors and had to deal with misconceptions from opponents.

Credit: Good Free Photos

When creationist Carl Linnaeus developed his classification system, may creationists believed in what is sometimes called the "fixity of species". There are evolutionists who think that's what creationists believe, but they obviously are using extremely outdated material. Modern creationists know that natural selection, speciation, and variations are a part of God's design.

I have encountered uninformed creationists who hold to that view. Perhaps they believe that admitting natural selection exists is a compromise in favor of evolution. That is understandable to some extent because Papa Darwin hijacked a legitimate concept and redefined it for his own ends.

Unfortunately, there is also confusion about natural selection and the created kinds of Genesis. Add to this that there are evolutionists that disagree about the definition of species, and the waters are muddied further. No, creationists, you have no reason to deny that natural selection exists. God designed it, after all.

“Do you believe in natural selection? Do you believe that animals and plants change at all?” If you say you believe in creation and a young earth, you’re likely to get questions like this. The young-earth creationist view has been so maligned in popular culture that many people think creationists deny basic facts of life.

Do they? Is natural selection fact, or is it a fantasy invented by Charles Darwin? Should Bible-believing Christians reject change in nature as a lie?

Unfortunately, many non-creationists base their answers to these questions on outdated views of creationist thinking. Consult modern biology textbooks or popular books on evolution, and you’ll likely find a description of creationism that is more than 150 years old. Contemporary attitudes toward creation are anything but modern.

To read the rest or get the audio version, click on "Is Natural Selection at Odds with Creation?"






Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!