Stormbringer's Thunder

When individual liberties thrive, there is a sense of accountability and a sense of wanting justice. For example, in the Soviet Union, atheist Stalin pushed for the collectivization of farms, where individuals were made to be inferior through propaganda and actual coercion. Can't have peasants owning and harvesting their own land, can we? No! We must work together for the common good of the Soviet, and you will be rewarded with farm equipment. Otherwise, what little you have will be taken away. This horrible procedure led to despair, famine, cannibalism, and more.   “Strengthen working discipline in collective farms” USSR propaganda poster Credit: Wikimedia Commons Totalitarian regimes emphasize the "common good" (or "greater good") of whatever those in power have decreed. People have little hope or expectation of justice. Such governments are usually riddled with corruption (the aforementioned Soviet Union was famous for corruption). Want to get somethin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen By my reckoning, evidence refuting evolution and deep time is increasing, as is evidence for special creation. Anti-creationists on the web commence to jabbering, trolling, bullying — but are unable to offer luculent responses. Instead, they  react. Hatetheists  and fundamentalist evolutionists detest that we present our side of the origins controversy. In fact, many act like we do not even have the right to disagree with their worldview. Something I've said before of which I am more firmly convinced than ever: they want us  silenced.   Many scoffers will pretend to read articles, listen to podcast, or watch videos we provide. However, they make judgments based on a title, a summary, or some-such. They embarrass themselves because their criticisms were often addressed in the items they refused to investigate, such as this one . In their blinded pride and arrogance, mockers utilize many rescuing devices, often using logical fallacies to  dry-gulch  the o

In " Blind Bias in the Secular Science Industry ", we saw that those organizations are not aloof and impartial in the slightest, and have a distinct leftist bias. For that matter, I'll borrow a line I heard: they're so left wing, they fly in circles. We're used to secularists in the science industry and their sycophant press opposing biblical creation science and using devious as well as distinctly unscientific methods. Now they're getting downright nutty — but then, we've seen quite a few leftists becoming totally unhinged from hatred, haven't we? Credit: Freeimages / Jason Antony At this writing, Donald Trump has just completed the first month as the American President, with 23 left to go. I'm not his biggest fan, but from what I've seen so far, he may end up doing a very good job; I'm cautiously optimistic. Before the inauguration and in that first month, people were acting like he's going to destroy their civil rights and bec

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Scientists are portrayed as dispassionate, objective, and following where the evidence leads. Not hardly! They're people living in a sinful, fallen world just like the rest of us. Unfortunately, those making money in the science industry have some serious problems that stem from their materialistic worldviews and the philosophies of the age — and their political positions are on the hard left. My tax dollars at work! What follows will link you to four articles, so I hope you come back to finish reading this post. Many of these scientists, as portrayed by their obsequious media, are the arbiters of truth. After all, they're scientists, and have the necessary tools. Their elitism shows in their blatant hatred of President Donald Trump, who has only been in office for a few days, but these yahoos have him all figured out and condemned. But that's the left, they do that.  The leftist science industry is also very interested in education (especi

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Interesting that some cultures have made scientific advances in some areas, then just — stalled. Ancient pagan cultures had some good mathematics and observations, Mohammedans falsely take credit for various discoveries [ 1 ], Communist science was notorious for lagging behind the West (espionage was a big part of their progress [ 2 ]), and so on. For science to thrive, it needs the proper environment. Mao Zedong image on Chinese banknote Image credit: Freeimages / Tudou Mao Despite Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's claims [ 3 ], belief in evolution has nothing to do with scientific progress. In reality, evolution is of no benefit to medicine [ 4 ], and has hindered scientific progress [ 5 ], and is anti- science [ 6 ]. Atheistic communism has been devastating to scientific advancement [ 7 ], and America is racing in that direction, what with the politicizing of science and all [ 8 ], [ 9 ], [ 10 ]. Do you need to be an atheist to be a scientist today?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, put in his will that a portion of his estate money be set aside and awarded for five recipients each year who have "benefited mankind". The five prizes are literature, physiology or medicine, chemistry, and peace. (A sixth prize for economics was established in 1968 .) Although most of this activity is in Sweden, for some reason, Alfie wanted the peace prize committee to be in Norway. Derivative from Nobel Prize image , public domain in the United States The prize for peace has come under criticism because it shows a leftist bias, including the award to B. Hussein Obama, who had done nothing to earn the prize except show up for work at the American presidency. (Years later, there is regret over giving Obama the undeserved award .) In 2016, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was given the peace prize. From the October 12, 2016 edition of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler : . . .and the controversy this

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen My brother the mother...sounds like a bad television show like My Mother the Car .  Unlike one of the worst television shows of all time, a bearded self-identifying "man" giving birth  is not fantasy fiction, and is unlikely to last for just a short spell.  Images from Clker clipart A woman gives birth, should be the end of the matter. Taking hormone injections, identifying as a man, selfishly wanting to do the birthing experience, having a female "partner", artificial insemination — this gender fluidity and free-for-all sexual perversion is sinful as well as mental illness, and  people like this are the real science deniers . That child is going to be very, very, messed up. For more about this, listen to or read the transcript from Albert Mohler, " My brother the mom? Time preaches the moral revolution ". I identify myself as a cowboy . So what if I couldn't lasso a calf to save my life? I declare it, it's my r

Leftists celebrate and Conservatives warn against the increase in politically correct activism, especially when it infringes on personal freedoms. We read how "surveys show", but how accurate are they, really? Questions are often loaded, and the questions that are asked (as well as the people selected to participate in surveys) are frequently neglected during reporting. We should know that there are sidewinders who will selectively cite and manipulate data, but it seems that many people simply take "reporting" as unbiased and factual. Not hardly! Generated at Add Letters There are surveys and research results for many purposes, including "evidence" for evolution that conveniently leaves out pertinent data , and more. Ask your friends how many people they think are of the homosexual persuasion. Some think it's about half of the population, when the actual figure in the United States is closer to five percent or less ! The inflated number percept

stock.xchng/nion I'm going to redirect you to a mult-faceted post. The first part is about the "ownership" of science. Many atheists strut around as if they invented the thing, and that to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. Dead wrong, Robert! Does science belong to Christians and Theists? We (not me, of course, I wasn't born yet) invented the whole modern disciplines of science. Whether genetics or physics or electrical theory or classification of organisms or chemistry or you name it... You could assert that the ancient Greeks like Archimedes were the first scientists and there is some support for that. However, the axiomatic way of viewing the world proved to be a hindrance to science. Keep in mind that science was always simply a part of the overall concept of philosophy and was not considered separately back in the ancient world. How does that grab ya? But wait, if you act now, you'll get absolutely free, a bonus post about space aliens!

"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." — Lord Kelvin It is easily seen that many modern atheists persist in misrepresenting Christianity and creationism to the point of using transparent and even laughable lies. They pretend to be the harbingers of "reason", but their blatant disregard for honesty and their lack of ability to use reason betrays them to people who can actually think. One of the grate-est irritants to atheists is the fact that many of the greatest scientists of all time were theists, and even Bible-believing Christians; many were biblical creationists. Here, spend about seven minutes on this video:

For a long time, I have said that people are stupidified by hate. (Yes, I learned that word from Matt Slick .) They are so wrapped up in their hatred of people that there is little, if anything, that hate-ee can do that is "right" in their eyes. When it comes to atheism, the stupidification is a spiritual problem. Not only are they suppressing the truth about God (Rom. 1.20), they are unable to understand deeper spiritual matters (1 Cor. 2.14). This feeds itself and other areas of their lives are affected (Rom. 1.21-22), especially the ability to reason. Some refer to this as the "noetic effect of sin". This helps explain why the garden variety atheopath is unable to understand basic concepts of logic, even after they are explained. These proponents of "reason" are exceedingly irrational. (Click for larger.) This troll's assertion is helpful how, exactly? Since they are unable to defend their incoherent worldview, preferring instead

I just wish he hadn't said "Christian scientist". That's a crackpot cult. "Scientist who is a Christian" would have been better. Still, this almost-three-minute video is worth watching.

Modern "science" (read: religious philosophies of evolutionism conflated to mean "science" and confuse people) is becoming a religion in its own right. Think about it. People rely on science to solve all their problems. After all true (observational and applied) science does exactly that, and gives people hope for a better future. Richard "Daffy" Dawkins has been a pope of scientism, preaching the anti-gospel of evolutionism. This hardcore atheist believes that God does not exist, then conveniently hates him anyway. Playing off people's anger, confusion and bigotry is a great way to sell books, innit, Ricky? But that agnosticism crack is displeasing to his master. Do you know how to make a scientist mad?  Try this some time.  Go up to a scientist and say that you believe the natural evidence of creation supports a scientific inference of a creator.  That is, explain that the abundant evidence of design in the universe and the world around you natura

Also posted at "A Soldier for Jesus" and at "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". Buon giorno . This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his " Theopologetics " podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to " Question Evolution Day ". It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it. Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and ta

This nonsense came at me out of the blue, but helps illustrate the topic. Buon giorno. When discussing science, evolution and faith, people have some very strange ideas about definitions. I have encountered some interesting re-defintions (including the astonishing claim that if someone is not an evolutionary biologist, he or she is not a scientist!), misunderstandings of definitions (deliberate, I suspect, for purposes of personal attacks), equivocation (evolution is science, from people who promote the thing but do not really understand it themselves) and so on. For that matter, the word "evolution" itself has several meanings. Many misunderstandings can be avoided by a couple of things: First, know the correct definition of the word, and second, clarify terms in the first place, such as "What do you mean by...?" Then there are the types who say that if you disagree with the tentative, tampered, tendentious "evidence" for evolution, you are

Modern science would not have come very far without Christians. I know it goes against everything that propagandists want you to believe, but it is true. Read "The Christian Foundation of Modern Science" here .

The rules of the game As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true. by Carl Wieland ‘Creationism isn’t science.’  ‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’  Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science. Read the rest of this article here .

Here is a link to a good article. I particularly like the expression, "Atheistic faith masquerading as science". Another article on the nonsense by Stephen Hawking is here .

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." — Robert Jastrow, from God and the Astronomers

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