Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Many people are baffled as to why a saddle tramp comedy actor turned children's television show host who never bothered to get an advanced science degree is considered an expert on practically everything. Bill Nye is calle d a "science guy", and did fairly well when he did actual science. Amazingly, his net worth is rated at 6.5 million USD , probably because atheistic propaganda pays well — just ask C. Richard Dawkins . Nye hopes to gain more from his lawsuit against Disney . Why he did not sue years ago, I have no idea. Even so, if he deserves the money, he should get it. The way I see the way things happening, he became popular when he attacked biblical creationists, and especially Answers in Genesis. Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG challenged Nye to a debate (which he dodged) , and he eventually settled for a debate with Ken Ham, who has a bachelor's degree in applied science . Ham also earned a Diploma of Education so he could become a sc

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is no secret that the public has trust issues with atheists, and also with the secular science industry. This is nothing new, and there are still laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding some elected public offices. (Ironic, most atheists erroneously claim that atheism is not a religion, but keeping them out of office violates their religious rights.) There was a time when the assertion of atheism was shocking and put people to the one making the declaration, but not so much these days. They still score low in polls . People are reluctant to trust atheists. Do they ride their horses side saddle? Put their pants on both legs at once instead of one leg at a time? Steal booze from homeless winos? No more than anyone else that I'm aware. They do earn their bad reputations, however. The mass-murdering dictators of the 20th century were mostly atheists (Hitler was not an atheist, he was an occultist at best), Norwegian murderer Brevik wa

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here in the United States, and to some extent in other parts of the world, there has been considerable debate about the religion of the Founding Fathers. While the majority of them could be considered fundamentalist or evangelical Christians by today's standards, a few were Deists. Secularists who attempt to rewrite history somehow try to make it seem that the appearance of these Deists negated the fact that America was clearly founded on Christian principles .  There are different stripes of Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, atheists, and other religions. Indeed, even within certain sects and denominations, you will find variations. This includes Deists. I've encountered deists who want to join in with misotheists in slapping leather with Christians, and others who are more moderate. Like other groups, there is no "one size fits all" for Deists. Benjamin Franklin / Joseph Wright, 1782 Benjamin Franklin was unarguably one of the m

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Don't be getting ahead of me, the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially entropy) should  have nothing to do with hate per se,  and hate should not  involve laws of science. When you get atheists wanting to slap leather with biblical creationists, however, their blind hate and seething rage prompts them to use science for leverage in their quest for the ideological supremacy of materialism and the promotion of their death cult of evolutionism. Credit: Freeimages / Peter Skadberg There was a recent article by Creation Ministries International  where creationist engineer Colin Gibson was interviewed about his faith journey. As a child, he was not taught the Christian faith effectively. When he was confronted by evolutionary propaganda, he believed that the State school was being truthful, and rejected Christianity for the most part. Still, Gibson had "nagging doubts" about evolutionary adaptation. When he heard creationary speaker Carl Wieland

When it comes to sensationalistic fake news that denigrates the Bible, the secular science industry is relentless. Ever see those documentaries that crop up around Christmas and Easter where producers round up unasinous liberal scholars to malign the Bible? Not only do they ignore conservative scholars and focus on the odd ones, but stories like the tomb of Jesus and so on are discredited or forgotten. This bit of disingenuous journalism is of the same pathetic caliber. But I forgot, lying is in the nature of secularist leftists. Mostly made at Image Chef Those of us who actually believe the Bible and know about how it has been supported time and again through history, science, and archaeology have to endure the constant attacks on the Word of God. It's one thing to disbelieve and offer arguments or evidence as to why not, but it's another to act like an evolutionary scientist that makes up his or her own "facts", and ignores pertinent data. What really takes t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist". Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach They are  detestable to the rest of the American population . (I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic. To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical , and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him . In the formerly

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies: Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says) Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience) Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem  remarks against Dr. White Equivocation For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies