Stormbringer's Thunder

You’ll forgive me if I am a bit snarky, but I’m not going to pull any punches. You’ve been warned. (This is also going to be somewhat link-heavy; to really follow along you might have to follow me around the internet. I will also be wordy… pack a lunch.) I have two main points. First, atheism is a paper tiger. Second, the real threat to Christianity is not found outside the church, but from within. I suppose the first bleeds into the latter in a way, but they are somewhat separate points. Now by atheism I am referring, for the sake of this post, to popular atheism such as you’ll hear from the average person, advocated in comments on facebook, the same  kind that’s advocated by the popular atheist evangelists like Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Dawkins. These guys are not sophisticated thinkers. They are not philosophers and they frankly, don’t even care enough to do any homework on what they speak on. The whole sorry bunch should have stuck to Dawkins’s wise decision ...

Another "See, I told you so !" moment for me. Re-posting.

For more information that evolutionists do not want to face, check out my Creation Science site, " Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman ".

Piltdown Man was a fraud. Why not, if it advances "science"? Buona sera. I wanted to tell you that my newer Weblog, " Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman ", will be more active. It contains links to articles against the "fact" of evolution, and also to material supporting Intelligent Design and Creation Science. Evolutionists give only one side of the story and suppress contrary evidence. Presenting only evolutionism is not science, it is brainwashing. There are scientists who disagree with the mainstream interpretation of the facts. By the way, some people are incapable of differentiating (I know, Uncle Bob's using big words again, look them up) between differences of opinion and lies. People like that will not even begin to understand the material presented there, so they may as well stay home and play Solitaire. I will write an occasional article, but most of the work will be done by other people. Oh, and I will not be taking comments...

Buon giorno. A few months ago, I saw a comment on an atheist's Weblog that astonished me in its arrogance and stupidity: Recent archaeology shows that Palestine was not even inhabited at the time of Jesus. This insipid remark reminded me of similar remarks that archaeology of the past hundred years is disproving the Bible. Ostracon from Qeiyafa. Can you dig it? That is just plain silly. Archaeology is not like other science (that is, not evolutionism) where hypotheses and theories are made, modified to fit data and even discarded when necessary. No, archaeology accumulates evidence. "New" archaeology is unlikely to "disprove" the archaeology that supports the Bible. I've been up to my old tricks, and I called Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason . When I told Melinda the call screener ("The Enforcer") that I was calling about the claim that Palestine was not inhabited at the time of Jesus, she actually laughed! Greg expressed a bit of amazement as w...

Buon giorno. I wanted to get it nailed down one last time for a certain obstreperous atheist: I have no interest in calling "Atheist Experience", whatever that is. You see, this guy was crying that he was not getting good debate action at the "Stand to Reason" Weblog (if he had a grasp of logic, as well as civility, it would have been different). So, the recommendation was made that he call Matt Slick at CARM . Although I was not the only one to challenge him on this, I was probably the most persistent. As I mentioned earlier , he did so and did a great job at humiliating himself. And had the nerve to brag about it afterward. Agonizing. He called again, which surprised me. With this call, he was less off the rails, but did not understand the (discredited) concept of Lamarckism that he was putting forth. However, he had a logic fail that he tried on me: Since I challenged him to call Matt, I am now obligated to call Atheist Experience twice. Liste...

Ad hominem , or "against the man", is the most common logical fallacy to be encountered, and is a very popular tactic by evolutionists and atheists. People use this to provoke their opponent instead of actually addressing the topic, and it is primarily intended to humiliate. Normally, people find it quite easy to recognize when it is used as a simple insult, but it can be rather well hidden at other times. What complicates matters is that ad  hominem attacks can be mixed with one or more other fallacies to manufacture a particularly loathsome statement. I will bring discuss these mixes again when I write about the "straw man" and "poisoning the well" fallacies. To make matters worse, words with emotionally-laden connotations are used to create a negative response against the opponent. I have seen "redneck" and "homophobe" used in spiteful articles and comments because they are loaded terms. I have been called a ...

Not in the mood to write just now, so I'll show you this bumper sticker that I found. I think it's great, and too bad the publisher is gone or I would get more.