Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Jared Huffman, a Democrat Congressman from California, recently "came out" as a Humanist. There is no appreciable difference between Humanists and atheists, though some theists call identify as Humanists because they have a low view of the Bible and elevate humans to the highest priority. Huffman does not go on record as endorsing atheism, but says he does not believe in God. He seems to be politically timid, keeping mum about his beliefs for years (atheists generally do not get elected). He felt he had to finally admit his views. The Democrat party has a disdain for God and the Bible, and Huffman believes in homosexual "rights", he is pro-abortion, and just what you'd expect from a leftist in general. Identifying as a Humanist, or atheist (or maybe he'll change to agnostic), should fit in well with the current political climate. I want to interject something here. Atheists are materialists, rejecting God and the supernatural (...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article contains a time-sensitive link that may expire soon, at which point, it will be deleted. The murders of people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has stirred many emotions. Grief, pain, anger, and others. It has also raised questions about how a loving God could allow this, what were the motives, and just...why? We will never have all the answers tied up in a neat package. We can find some of them. Credit: Pixabay / MissSuss At this writing, the motives are not known. I'm not going to varnish this, we already know that the killer was a seriously disturbed, violent atheist . Some are saying the motive was because of a domestic situation, others say "unknown" and "uncertain". The rampage may have been far worse if the shooter was not interrupted by the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford . If the motive was due to hatred of his mother-in-law, he could have killed only her elsewhere. The fact that he did this rampage duri...

Science is supposed to be a search for knowledge, with scientists considering evidence, proposing hypotheses, then running them up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes them. When ideas are refuted, they accept the changes and try something else. Problem is, that scenario is fictitious. (For that matter, when people claim that "science has proved" something are showing their ignorance of the philosophy and methodology of science .) Scientists, medical doctors, and others have refuted consensus views and been resisted. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate of women giving birth could be drastically reduced with antiseptics , but he was ignored by the establishment. Sara and Her Mother with the Baby , Mary Cassat, 1901 Scientists and the secular scientific establishment seem to be increasingly biased nowadays, especially to viewpoints propagated by leftists . Something that is in opposition to the Bible is celebrated, even when they try to sla...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen At first glance, this may look like a basic reaction to vindictive atheists. Nope. It's a whole heap more than that, showing how professing atheists and anti-creationists resort to contemptible methods in their efforts to silence biblical creationists. As shown in numerous posts here, on my Piltdown Superman site, The Question Evolution Project Fazebook Page , and at numerous other sites and forums, the typical village atheist who trolls the internet demonstrates very little ability to use logic. In addition, they often seek to justify what passes as morality in their world by railing against God by using selective citation of biblical texts (that is, woefully out of context) and straw man arguments. A couple of tinhorns consistently wants to slap leather with me and "debate", but there is no sense in defending positions I don't hold.  Background image from Clker clipart I have long maintained that atheopaths are made stupid by thei...

The source of morality is disputed among secularists, some claim that it comes from evolution, some say it is based on society, some postulate other sources. People who have a materialistic view of morality cannot  have a consistent moral standard, and end up with disastrous speculations  when they suppress the truth. Riot in the Galleria , Umberto Boccioni, 1909 I reckon it should be common sense that you can't follow the crowd. (Isn't following society's dictates a form of just "following the crowd"?) I don't like crowds, you never know when they can get mean. Things get out of hand, next thing you know, the saloon's ceiling is shot full of holes, the town marshal and his buddies show up, and guys spend a few nights in lockup, even after they get sober. Individually, if you asked these rambunctious patrons about right and wrong, they'd have told you differently than what they did that night in the saloon. Those jaspers knew better than to get r...

There are people who consider peer review as the gold standard in science, and it is somehow a guarantee of truth. Not hardly! As we have seen, the secular science industry is becoming increasingly biased and involved in leftist political activism . Add to this the fact that their peer review process discriminates against creationists, has numerous retractions, passes junk (including computer-generated papers ), and is pretty much a good ol' boys' club. Their image has a bad complexion , and some scientists are calling for major changes. Made at Hetermeel.com , then modified with colors Unfortunately, the sidewinders in charge want to circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. They don't want transparency and accountability. Others want to improve ethical standards. Wait, what? People who reject the Creator and his Word have no consistent moral standard are going to decide what is right and wrong? Scientists are people, complete with presuppositions, knavery, a...

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...