Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  When I have time and my circumstances allow, I want to respond to some material about why Americans do not want an atheist as President. Briefly, atheists lie. A lot. They not only do it overtly, but through blatant misrepresentation. Perhaps this is to cover up the fact that while they profess to profess reason and tolerance, they are dreadful at utilizing either. This link is one of many possible sources. There you will notice little or no discernable logic, including a prairie schooner-full of straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, baseless assertions, hasty generalizations, and ridicule. Why do they act like ridicule will make atheism and Darwinism less false? That makes sense on their world, old son. Dan Barker is from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and acts like he's Canis Major. He claims to be a former Christian but demonstrates little knowledge of actual theology and history. While he likes to sell his books, he gets on the prod w...

Evolutionists are on the prod again . A bill was proposed in South Dakota that required...what? What was in it that would cause such distress? Maybe if the bill required the teaching of Intelligent Design, or even biblical creation science, and exclude evolution. That'll be the day! Actually, the "problem" with the bill is that it promotes critical thinking instead of blind acceptance of evolution, so flaws in evolutionary speculations should be made known. Generated at Glass Giant The secular science industry has been getting more political nowadays, with a distinct leftist bias . But Machiavellian approaches to evolutionary education have been happening for some time now — it's acceptable to deceive students for the sake of believing evolution. Critical thinking is unacceptable (as is free speech when contrary to leftist causes, atheism, and evolutionary thinking). Unfortunately, true science thrives on critical thinking and challenges, and free speech is a...

Atheists and evolutionists are not only confused by their irrational worldviews, but they are also cunning. One of their tricks is to first deceive themselves, and then deceive others, about the definitions of words. The disingenuous redefinition of atheism to mean "lack of belief" is laughable to any thinking person. The Evo Sith will sneak a change in definition of the word "evolution". These word games are some of the tools used to attack Christians and creationists. These tricks and attacks are partly the result of realizing that they cannot defeat the biblical creationist worldview with reason and science. We are right, they know it, and they hate it. But hiding from the truth and redefining words will not change the end result. For anyone reading this and watching the video below, it's not too late. It might be too late in an hour, though.

Evolution cannot withstand scrutiny. But it is foundational to liberal Christianity, other irrational religions and especially the incoherence known as atheistm. That's why evolution is protected, and contrary evidence suppressed, by the Evo Sith in their efforts to protect their fundamentally flawed worldviews. And yet, the truth is discovered. Oh, sure, the protectors are sent scrambling to find excuses to keep their failed "theory" intact. Here is another short video with more information to show that evolution is a fun damentally flawed belief system. That is, evolutionism keeps looking more and more far-fetched because the evidence shows the Creator. How good is that?

Now, I know that there are people who will go with redefinitions and a "No True Scientist" fallacy here, that true scientists accept evolutionism; anyone who rejects evolution must be an unedjamakated fundie. But that is obviously fallacious. It is also an attempt at poisoning the well and an appeal to ridicule. This short video will inform you of the truth.

stock.xchng/schulergd  We're getting closer to " Question Evolution Day ", and this video raises some serious questions. Evolutionists hate the fact that DNA is highly-coded, complex information.  And rather a lot, really. Worse for them, this information is purposeful and directed. Efficiently. It is exchanged  within a cell. This means there was a Designer.

Another short video to turn up the heat before Question Evolution Day ! This one includes the obfuscation of biased sites like Wiki pedia in order to pro tect evolutionism.

Sex. Evolutionary theo ries can't explain it . E volutionary theor ies can't explain many things. We all know that many evolutionists want to slap down those of us who dare to disagree with their dogma (they would silence us if they could.) So, we just have to suspend our disbelief and trust them, even thought they do not have answers, and the answers they do offer raise more questions.

In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're much better off watching reruns of "Columbo". Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are: Attacking the person instead of discussing the topic "You do it too!" Appealing to numbers, as in, "Everybody believes this way" (or "Bandwagon") to the extreme of accepting evolution on faith, not evidence Confusing cause and effect Straw man (misrepresenting the beliefs of creationists, ID proponents, Christians, the other political party &c. and then ridiculing the caricature that was made up) Appealing to emotion Appealing to unqualified authority Hasty generalizations Appeal to faith in scientism ("Science wil...

It is painfully obvious that reporting to prove evolution is biased. Information is cherry-picked so that inconvenient facts that do not fit into evolutionary presuppositions are discarded. Alternative explanations and theories about observable facts are suppressed. Equivocation on word definitions and other attempts at "moving the goalposts" are rampant, as are other logical fallacies. Worse, evolutionists are downright disingenuous when it comes to protecting their faith. This short video uses evolutionary terminology (from one of the evolutionists' biased sources) to support Intelligent Design.

That's right, I said it! Protecting evolution from questioning, examination, contrary evidence and explanations — cowardice. "You're crazy, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is a fact and doesn't need to be protected!" Evolution is protected by fundamentalist extremists who will go to almost any lengths to keep people from actually thinking: Using the fallacy of reification, evolution is treated as if it was a living thing , complete with intelligence and decision making abilities Instead of giving satisfactory explanations to evidence, evolutionists pile story upon story and call it science Misrepresent creationists and ID proponents Biases and circular reasoning Actively suppress dissent of evolution Fight to leave the bad, outdated science in the textbooks so they can continue brainwashing Recommend that textbooks get accepted without question Lie about evolution — after all, the end justifies the means, and the goal is to have people blindly accept e...

The arrogance of some scientists (and the unwashed masses who adore them) is astounding. When they could not determine the uses of some human organs, they were called "vestigial", or "leftover from our evolutionary past". (This led to unnecessary (but profitable!) surgeries to remove appendixes, adenoids and so on.) Later, the so-called leftovers were determined to have functions that were hitherto unknown, much to the embarrassment of scientists. At one time, the "simple" cell was considered to be rather well understood. Then technology advanced, and science advanced with it. The "simple" cell is not so simple after all. In fact, it is astonishingly complex — and it is still not fully understood. Arrogance naturally spills over when studying the human genome. Since it is not fully understood, showy scientists (with their faulty evolutionist worldview) tag things they do not understand as "junk DNA". The fact is, DNA is also aston...

Buona sera. Materialistic atheists insist that there is no Creator. But everything that is made requires a maker, capice? The blade of that simple logic is sharp enough for Occam to shave with, but instead of following where the evidence leads, some people prefer the illogic of infinite regression; to wit (I've never used "to wit" before, hope you like it), the childish question, "Who made the Maker?" People like Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Jason Rosenhouse (someone I had never heard of until very recently) seem content with this silliness. Although I find the question absurd, some people do not. To wit (OK, I'll stop with the "to wit"): As I have pointed out many times in this column the origin of life is one of the greatest mysteries facing science today. As renowned physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson recently wrote: “The origin of life is the deepest mystery in the whole of science. Many books and learned papers ...

Question Evolution Day is February 12! For more information and more videos, go to Piltdown Superman dot com .

No sound for the first fourteen seconds or so.

"I'm sorry, I just don't see any evidence. I mean, look at the Hubble telescope. It's discovered untold wonders of a vast unexplored universe. But not one picture of a guy with a beard sitting around on a cloud." — "Brian Griffin" saying that he's an atheist "I looked and looked but I didn't see God." — Attributed to Yuri Gagarin "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." — Paul the Apostle Buona sera. I'm sure most of you are familiar with "The Family Guy". This animated show is offensive on many levels, mainly to Christians and Conservatives. (Don't believe me? Count how many times Seth MacFarlane , the liberal atheist who runs the show, takes po...

Slightly edited January 1, 2018. Buona sera, wherever you are. Uncle Bob is really burned up about something. No, that's wrong. I want to say that today's topic is about bad science. First, I'm going to talk about what makes things burn. Naturally, you're going to say oxygen, or combustion process, or maybe an independent fuel source. Well, we do know about what makes things burn today. Way back when, it was a different story. It was a mystery. Johann J. Becher put out (ha!) his theory of phlogiston in 1667. (Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a very good article on the subject.) Basically, stuff burned because it contained this ingredient. No phlogiston, no burning. You may be tempted to laugh at it today because science has left the theory behind over a hundred years ago, but it was an attempt to work through and explain the observed phenomenon of burning. It was also used to explain rusting, but there is no need to make this discussi...

...it makes more sense to believe that a tornado went through a junkyard and assembled a 747, than to believe that life, the universe and everything happened by chance.

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. — Carl Sagan Buona sera. I was going to go for something lighter, but Lee Strobel fueled more thoughts in me about evolution and random chance. I have always been amazed when scientists and anti-theists will say ridiculous things like the Carl Sagan (rhymes with "pagan") quote at the top. They will claim that belief in God is not only irrational, but that it takes away the wonder of the universe. Let me ask you something: Which is sillier, to investigate the way God has performed his wonders, or to investigate the dead ends of a philosophy that is based entirely on random chance? When a biochemist examines the intricacies of, say, a single cell, he or she is faced with astonishing complexity and evidence of design. And yet, there are people who b...

Buona sera. I've been going on about "humanists" and atheists lately, and off and on for several months. Those people irritate me with their smug "I'm smarter than you" attitudes, and their efforts to tear down the beliefs of others. Here are links to a two-part article by Frederick Meekins. This is more scholarly and less caustic than my articles ( here are a few if you want to have some fun), but contain a great deal of truth. I won't invite atheists to read them, because the number of atheists who have the intellectual honesty to examine the evidence against them, well, I can count them on one hand. (For instance, mention Intelligent Design and just sit back and watch them rant. Extra points if they turn red in the face.) Take it away, Mr. Meekins! http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74565 http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74637