Stormbringer's Thunder

This is quite ironic, really.

Buon giorno.  A while back, I gave an overview of some of the products available to enhance your Kindle experience 1 . Now I am going to revisit " SENDtoREADER ". At least, the areas that I have explored. From here, I will refer to it as S2R because it sounds officially spiffy as well as being easier to type. They do not know that I am writing this article, so there are no extra grotzits in my bank account for my efforts, capice?  And I apologize in advance, this article will have more graphics than usual. Hopefully, keeping them small (click for larger) will not slow down your browser too much. S2R has free and paid levels. I am using the free level. The paid level lets me get involved with features that I do not need yet, but I suggest that people check out all the options because these people have given us something that has many diverse functions. Installed S2R has a right-click option. This is from my creation science Weblog . The most obvious point

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

Fallacies of ambiguity are when words and phrases have more than one meaning, and those meanings are blurred or changed. One of the most common of these that I encounter is the Fallacy of Equivocation (almost identical to Conflation). Because I deny evolution, I am accused of hating "science". One problem is that I am not specific every time I use the word "evolution", because I reject the general "molecules to man" theory of evolution (or something changing into an entirely new creature), but do not reject observable variations within species. Another problem is when evolutionists equate goo-to-you evolution, a philosophy about the past attempting to use scientific principles, with operational "hands on" science. (By the way, accusing people of "hating science" is also fallacious, but never mind about that now.) There are two equivocations happening in that example, between the definitions of "science" and of &

Buona sera. Despite the failed "Reason Rally", the so-called "new" atheists have not only failed to advance reason and logic, but continue to further devolve into ridicule and misotheistic cheerleading. It turns out that their "arguments" are copy-n-paste of vituperative remarks of other non-thinking atheists. (Nietzsche would be embarrassed to associate with them.) Meanwhile, Christians are realizing that what passes as arguments for atheism get refuted , especially since there are no arguments for atheism , just excuses to hate God. And complaints against something are not arguments in favor of something else, capice? Before material like the very inexpensive e-book True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism was available, Greg Koukl of " Stand to Reason " did this excellent video. But get comfy, it takes almost an hour. The time is well-spent.

Buon giorno. While reading True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism , something occurred to me. This section of the book was pointing out how the so-called "new atheists" will conflate "reason" with morality. As I have seen it, "I claim to be rational and use reason. You are religious, so you do not use reason, just ignore my genetic fallacies here. I am a better person than you are!" In addition, I have been attacked with being called a liar because I disagree with the interpretations of the facts regarding evolution. Amazing. They conflated so badly that they could not tell the difference between a difference of opinion and a moral flaw. Joseph Lister's germ theory was met with disbelief, but I seriously doubt that other scientists called him a liar. But I digress. An evolutionary worldview does not provide a realistic basis for morality. Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This is not to