Skip to main content

Posts

Demons and Secular Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Materialists contradict themselves by claiming that there is no God, spirits, or anything supernatural, and then they try to explain the soul and their version of free will (which is impossible from an evolutionary worldview ). Ironically, atheists have their own miracles of sorts, but they deny God.  Sure, we see some self-styled ghost hunters on television attempting to obtain electromagnetic, infrared, and other readings of supposedly haunted places. Those do not amount to much. Can secularists ride the trail and scientifically study demons, which they believe do not exist? Kind of difficult with their materialistic presuppositions and bad logic, such as, "Since there are some fakers, there are no spirits at all". I can show you some angry atheopaths that have blasphemed each person of the Trinity, and are demonically possessed. Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth The Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, said he had a demon telling him to k

Intellectualizing God out of the Bible

Some folks spend too much time in secular edjamakation centers and get into a habit of intellectualizing too many things. That is, they commence to pondering the minutiae of many things, and making a mighty great mess of it all instead of starting with the plain intent. A certain tinhorn named Dr. Jordan Peterson does that very thing with the Bible — especially Genesis — and unfortunately, he has many followers. Credit: Freeimages /  Sar Castillo I'll make no apology that he's not the kind of guy I'd like to have lunch with. From excerpts in his books it's easy to see that he's condescending and rejects the God of the Bible. He labels people who believe in creation, the global Flood, even the historical account of the Mosaic writings as fundamentalists.  Like so many other labels, it has become vague and has many connotations nowadays , and is primarily used to stir up negative emotions.  Peterson doesn't tell us how he  defines a fundamentalist. But then

Would Paul the Apostle Debate Modern Evolutionists?

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought. On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them , after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today. Made at Break Your Own News , background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens , Raphael, 1515 Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield. However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them"

Genesis as History: Short Form

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution. Creation of the World III , Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906 I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except  the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please!  So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and

Non-Human Persons, Pro-Life, and Evolutionary Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One aspect of the extreme environmentalist movement is to give "rights" to animals, even going so far as to call them non-human persons.  Naturally, vegans also saddle up to ride for this brand, which is primarily based on evolutionary thinking. Professing Christians are also joining in. Christians and creationists need to think logically, and not fall for emotional manipulation tactics, nor get their values from worldly thinking. Ham the chimpanzee in the biopack couch for the MR-2 suborbital test flight Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Be wary of word games, because not only do extremists use loaded, emotion-provoking terminology, but they redefine words. It is interesting that just before I wrote this, I saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Lonely Among Us". Commander Riker told someone , "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". Enslave? A slave is a person , not a

Roses for Afghanistan?

Poppies are nice to look at, but the plants have chemical properties that can be lethal. Opioids are processed from them, and some are for good purposes. Unfortunately, the opium poppies in Afghanistan are mainly used for heroin. Follow the money: people who foolishly use heroin are ultimately funding the sidewinders of Islamic terrorism! With any drug trafficking comes violence and criminal activity. What's a poor Afghani farmer to do who wants to put food on the table? Personally, I'd find something else to do that doesn't involve the deaths of many people. Damask rose image credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Kurt Stüber  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Enter the Damask rose. It is native to Afghanistan, appeals to the eye and nose, is more profitable than poppies, a renewable resource, is a source of employment, and more. God has given us all sorts of things for us to use. We can use them through biomimetics , or use them directly — if we know how. Our creator gave us minds and expects

External Pressures and Internal Changes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Over at Piltdown Superman, I've been posting material from ICR on engineered adaptability and the continuous environmental tracking model. Essentially, Charles Darwin supposed that organisms change because of external "pressures", a concept that his followers cling to even today. They don't cotton to the notion that critters adapt (without evolving into something else altogether) through internal mechanisms (see " Targeted Changes and Engineered Adaptability " if you want to see an example). The Master Engineer built in the ability to make changes. Modified from a Library of Congress photo (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Let's take this biological concept into another area — and flip it. People have been blaming others for their actions for a very long time. Go back to Eden, and see that Eve blamed the serpent, Adam blamed Eve and God ("the woman you gave me"). This happens all the time. J

The Mystery of the Trinity

Although orthodox denominations bearing the name of Christ have their differences in some doctrines, they tend to historically agree on major articles of faith. (With the increase in apostasy, that may not be happening so much nowadays.) One of the most common areas of agreement is the Trinity: The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And yet, there is only one God! Trefoil (Trinity) symbol image credit: Pixabay / Philip Barrington People get bothered when a theological question is given the response of, "It's a mystery". That is often an excuse for someone who does not know what he or she claims to believe, or maybe does not want to actually look for an answer. This is devastating to children. However, there are times when mystery really is the best explanation. We are not expected to fully understand everything about the eternal Creator God, our Redeemer, you know. We cannot fully understand the Trinity. Some owlhoots and cultists deny the exis

The Bible Affirms the Genesis Flood

Unfortunately, many professing Christians (including pastors) have not given serious thought to the Genesis Flood. Many accept atheistic interpretations of science philosophies, accepting millions of years and evolution. This makes it more difficult to present the gospel message because of the compromise involved. Also, accepting deep time usually means rejecting the Genesis Flood. This leads to a series of biblical errors and, ultimately, rejection of Scripture. The Animals Entering Noah' Ark , Jacopo Bassano, 1570s I have pointed out several times that when people say that the Flood was local or tranquil (or never happened at all), they are calling Peter, Paul, Jesus, and others wrong or even liars. They said it was a real historical event. Peter likened the Flood to the end times, and Judgment by fire — will that be a tranquil, local event also? Not hardly! When you claim to believe the Bible but doubt the Holy Spirit's divine inspiration, you have some serious problem

Suicide and your Creator

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This child has had problems with depression for decades, so I can relate to the frustration people feel when they are told to "get over it" or have similar dismissals. It seems like some folks just do not care. While that may be the case, we have to use our minds in our depressed moments — which can be difficult at times. Credit: RGBStock / Jeff Grace People are caught up in their own problems, whether it is relationship issues, bad employers, family difficulties, their own shallowness, health troubles, and maybe their own depression or mental health challenges. Seems that everyone gets depressed now and then over circumstances, so the callous "get over it" is at least a mite understandable. Others have depression problems because of chemical imbalances or other medical causes that need to be diagnosed and treated; it annoys me that some of my hypertension and other medications contribute to depression. I believe that knowledge of wha

The Best Evidence for the Young Earth?

Biblical creationists are occasionally requested to give what we consider the best evidence for creation, and closely following, the best evidence that the earth is young. We have quite a bit of scientific and logical evidence for both. However, it is a serious mistake to try to "out evidence" a skeptic, because they often counter with something else (often unrelated — be careful of distractions), then you counter the counter, ad nauseum, even though the evidence is on the side of biblical creationists. Credit: Unsplash / Robert Lukeman Many times, atheists and evolutionists will reject what we present out of hand because of their naturalistic and deep time presuppositions. They are not in the habit of honestly considering books, videos, articles, and so on, and find rescuing devices. Creationists often have links thrown at us, which can be from atheistic and evolutionary sites, compromising Christians, and so forth. Scoffers have a habit of finding something written for

The Inconsistent Message of Compromise

Edited about 19 hours after publishing. Israel was warned by God to stay true and avoid the idols and false teachings of other nations, but they repeatedly rebelled. Eventually, they were decisively conquered. Later, God provided the Redeemer, and Christians were told in no uncertain terms to stay true to God's Word and the teachings of the apostles. Still, compromise happened and many false teachings had to be opposed by the faithful. Cry of prophet Jeremiah on the Ruins of Jerusalem , Ilya Repin, 1870 Gallop ahead to more recent times. Scientists believed in recent creation until the likes of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin hijacked science with gradual change and deep time. Christians saddled up with them, compromising on the plain teachings of Scripture. We have that problem today, and biblical creationists are the minority while compromisers are doing great harm to the truth. One big problem is, I believe, that professing Christians, from the 19th century through today, s

That Awful Question about Children who Died

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is an article I did not want to write, and a subject many of us try to avoid discussing. Sadly, anguished parents and many other people want to know if their children who died early are in Heaven. They may have been lost through accidents, miscarriage (a word I detest because it implies that the loss is the woman's fault), or other reasons. For whatever cause, a child is missing. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Atheists and some uninformed professing Christians chide Bible believers, saying that infants and young children are damned because they did not make a saving profession of faith in Jesus. Such a vile, wicked claim is based on bias and woefully incomplete theology. It also impugns the integrity and mercy of God, and raises the question that Abraham asked God in Genesis 18:25. The question of the eternal destiny of the very young is not something that is Calvinist versus Arminian theology, either. I have some problems with both camps, as