June 14, 2010

A Faulty Scientific Theory

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 discussion more complicated. Besides, the fire stuff is more fun.

Phlogiston had no weight, smell, taste and so on, but it was required to make things go up in flames. The theory became refined and popularized, and lasted about two hundred years. Eventually, scientists became skeptical because their experiments gave results that did not fit the theory. What happened?

Further explanations and refinements that read more like excuses than anything else ("negative weight", "lighter than air" and so on). It took Lavoisier's experiments to show that
oxygen was what was making things happen, and that started to bring the phlogiston house down. Not right away, however. Eventually, scientists started saying that it was a principle rather than an actual substance.

This is where I step in and say that they were getting desperate. They had their pet theory, and just hated to part with it despite the evidence.

Credit: Dan Lietha / Answers in Genesis

"I think I know where this is going, Cowboy Bob."

Yup. Some of you can guess where I'm going with this, and I'm not going to keep you in suspense any longer:
Just like the so-called theory of evolution. (By the way, did you notice that Papa Darwin conveniently skipped the "hypothesis" step of scientific analysis and went straight on to propose his "theory"?)

People reject evolution because of their religious viewpoints. Like me, they also reject it because of its lack of scientific merits. That is, it has so many holes that you can drive a wagon train through it. Darwin's "theory" has fewer merits than the phlogiston concept. What actions do Darwinists take when confronted with contrary evidence? Make excuses, dodge the truth, reject said contrary evidence, and so on. Simply put, they are believing because they want to, not because of ironclad evidence. Cowboy up and face it: evolution is a faith system.

We are bombarded with evolution as "true science". It's everywhere. Television, movies, music, cartoons for the kids, alleged science publications, conversation between friends — all presenting evolution as unquestioned "fact", even though the evolutionists themselves are at odds with "how it happened".

Let's be blunt. To present only one side of the issue is not only propaganda, it's brainwashing.

Since evolutionism has taken on a religious life of its own (in addition to being foundational for atheism, Nazism, Communi
sm, eugenics and other evils of society), its adherents deal harshly with dissenters. When scientists reject evolutionary "theory" and see that the evidence actually leads to Intelligent Design, they have to either clam up or get ostracized by the orthodox evolutionist community. They are written off as religious kooks, but the truth is that they followed where the science led them.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion— a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion." - Michael Ruse

Evolution is today's phlogiston. Scientists are locked into their beliefs even worse than the phlogiston proponents seemed to be, however. Perhaps someday, they will follow where the science leads. In the mean time, we have to deal with fundamentalist evolutionary propaganda, excuses, modifications, theory upon theory upon theory and doing anything else to avoid the truth of creation.

Doesn't that just burn you up?

June 12, 2010

It Is No Secret...

...those things you do...

Ha! Bet you thought I was singing, "It Is No Secret What God Can Do", didn't you? Nope. Actually, I don't know that one after the first line.

It's funny, several of my latest articles came about because of a sudden, late inspiration. I seldom get an inspiration to write on a Saturday morning, but something happened just before bedtime that gave me the idea to write this morning. (No, I'm not talking about that, get your head out of the gutter.)

It is no secret what you do online. Well, for most people. I had a guy arguing with me on Twitter last night about an article I wrote. (Do you know how annoying it is to try to have a serious discussion on Twitter?) I have a service that tells me the basics of visits I get. I made the comment about the town he's in, and that he's using Firefox (my regular readers know that I like Firefox). He got nervous, or pretended to get nervous (I think this guy was setting me up, but I will not go into that). Then I discussed it with Hal the Hacker.

Yeah, I know, my writing is a bit disjointed. Waiting for the second cup of coffee to kick in. Sorry.

Now, take a look at this:
See, you don't need a site visit tracker. The point is that your information is available wherever you go. You are "giving" it every time you visit a site. Whether they monitor that information or not is another matter. Want something even more alarming? (No, I'm not going to send you to something that will hurt you. What do you think I am?) Click here, then "view more details"; quite a bit about your browser and system is easily available. Wish I could find the one that told me what software was installed on my system, that was alarming, too!

"Why are you shooting off your mouth this morning, Cowboy Bob?"

Because shooting my guns at this hour wakes the neighbors, shooting off my mouth is actually quieter.

I do want people to know that there is nothing to be alarmed about. Your information is readily available, and you've been spreading it all over the planet when you're using the Web. Some people say, "Don't use Google, they store everything you do." Yeah, big deal. So do the others. But think of this, that there is a great deal of information to sort through. It might be useful for legal actions, but not to the average user, capice?

If you're worried about identity theft or want to protect your online privacy (maybe you're doing undercover work for The Circus), you can check here, here, here, and do a general search on something like "protect my identity online" or similar.

Addendum: The article is less than an hour old, and I'm adding on... I asked a friend of mine for his comments since he's an expert in the field. Here is what he said:

The location information comes from databases saying IP address range are given to ISP XYZ, Inc. And they are in Sacramento, or even just collected data saying Comcast has all these IP ranges, and this certain one is in a range known to be given out in Boise. They're not always accurate either, for a long time the IP address I had showed up for a town a couple hundred miles away.
Another site for IP lookups is http://ipchicken.com/ which is just funny but easy to remember. Doing support for ***** smart phones, we'd have the users go there to give us their IP range.
I was also thinking... "there's so much noise on the internet, unless you're doing something that screams look at me!!, you'll never be noticed because no one really cares."

By the way, sometimes you need a quick reference to your IP address, so having it reflected back to you can be a plus. Sites like this are performing a service. Also, it has useful information to ease your mind.

So... it's happening, it's been happening and I don't think it's that big a deal. But I must add that if you're transmitting financial information, use trustworthy connections (not the computer at the library, f'rinstance). I'm not going into that, so if you need that information, click here and here.

If you'll excuse me, I have a weekend to fulfill.

Oh, shoot. It's raining. Book time!

June 11, 2010

Imagine - No Organized Atheism

I made this in response to attacks on religion (especially on Christianity) by militant atheist trolls. They do the lame thing of "religion is the cause of wars", etc. Oh, really, Skippy? If you did your homework instead of filling your mind with hate, you'd see that atheists are the greatest mass murderers in history! Institutionalized atheism incorporated into communism is a vicious lie, a political and moral failure every time. I did not have time and the room to put all of the atheist leaders in the picture.

Amazing how "progressives" revere these losers. Click for full-size.

Atheist, Atheism, Tyrants, Communist, Imagine No Organized Atheism, Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Numbers of murders for which they are responsible (approximate):
  • Mao — 70,000,000
  • Stalin — 23,000,000
  • Pol Pot — 1,700,000
  • Kim Il Sung — 1,600,000
  • Castro — 30,000 (keep in mind the size of Cuba)
Need I continue? Didn't think so.

If this annoys you, wait until you read "When Atheists Gain power"! 
Also, atheists are competing to set up their own symbol. Since atheism itself is laughable...

June 10, 2010

Your Ultimate Source

Addendum: For those who do not want the actual content of the site, but want to see whiny boy's comments, this article has some really great comments by another obstreperous, recalcitrant atheist. Comments on this Weblog have been disabled.

Buona sera. I swiped this image from Dan's site, "Debunking Atheists". I find some good images on my own now and then, but I really like that one.

OK, enough of this jocularity. Uncle Bob is not feeling too playful today.

Where do you get your morality? More than that, where do you get your integrity? Yeah, bet you didn't see that one coming. I've touched on the topic before, but it's been coming up lately, so I wanted to go into some detail.

We have many sources. One atheist said that "morals are reasoned and mutually agreed up on in a society... believe we can see an evolutionary mandate for social cooperation and moral codes". (Sorry, Dude, I think that's horse pucky.) Other atheists have said that they have "morals", but just try to pin them down on a final source, and they can't do it. They prove that they are intelligent, moral creatures by badgering, lying about and misrepresenting Christians, trolling, lack of logic and all kinds of cowardly foolishness. Sure, they hate God and the Bible, but have no ultimate source for their morality. And they have proven time and again that they have no integrity.

When I confronted trolls, they said it was because "I deserved it". HUH??? Some morality, there! It came from the opinion of the moment. Nicky said, "Atheists [on that Weblog] are subjective. You have cookie cutters and expect Christians all to look the same. And act the same. No emotions allowed even though you **** in their faces... saying that Stormbringer got flamed because he deserved it. Standard Internet protocol says to ignore whatever you think deserved it and to act like rational human beings. Atheists aren't doing that." Boy, do they get cranky when someone tells them the truth! So, they flamed Nicky as well.

Where does morality come from?

We have bunches of places for our personal morality input:
  • Friends
  • Family
  • Man-made religious directives
  • Society
  • Our own experiences and opinions
  • Race
  • Social class
Fine. They all combine to make us what we are to varying degrees. But they change. You say you like the band Day of Fire just to win my approval, then convince yourself that you like them. Or the old clergyman said that rock music itself is evil, so you give it up. The trend in society is to vote a certain way or to hold certain values. It's "in" or "cool" to be a bandwagon atheist. Your mother told you never to date anyone that isn't Italian (smart, but still arbitrary). You choose to hate Belgians because that's just what your family does.

Later on, you make changes. You decide to listen to rock music again, what did that old clergyman know, anyway? Then you exchange your interest in Day of Fire (but you can still get it for my birthday) for August Burns Red (sorry, I can't do metalcore). Further, you realize that you were calling yourself an atheist just because your friends were, and you're having second thoughts. You're dating a Jew instead of an Italian, and apologize to your mother. Then you realize that Belgians aren't that bad, but you can't stand Chileans.

All of that stuff is not nailed down. Where is your morality? Do you have a source that is not changing, that is trustworthy?

Then you have your integrity. That is more than just opinion, it's who you are. Your integrity is your unchanging values, your morality that is not compromised. Let's face it, if your integrity is based on compromise, it's not worth much and you're not trustworthy.

My source is the Bible, and I'm trying to live so that I please God. Isaiah 40.8 Yes, I often fail, but I do have an unchanging standard. Galatians 1.10 There is someone to encourage and comfort me, and to rebuke me when I fail.

How about you?

June 4, 2010

The Real Truth about 9-11

Yeah, I'm a 9-11 truther. Here's the truth, in your face: It was not an inside job, it was done by insane, cowardly terrorist Islamo-Fascists. Got it? Comprendez? Capice? Comprendre?

No? OK, I'll give you a little bit more. Probably been watching that ridiculous Zeitgeist "movie", huh? Kids love it. Thinking people don't. Or maybe you're listening to lunatic Hollyweird actors that are using their celebrity status in lieu of being knowledgeable in the subject?

Remember how the planes essentially disintegrated when they hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Some nut cases were saying that they were armed military missiles, not jets used like missiles, that struck the buildings. (I have read the laughable idea that the passengers and crew are all safe and sound. Imagine, all those people without a conscience and still keeping quiet, even knowing that they are tacitly complicit in the "bombings". Oh,

Jump forward to concerns about nuclear power plants. People had fears (some legitimately, some pretending so that they could shut down the evil nasty nuke stuff) that planes could crash through the walls and turn parts of the country into a radioactive wasteland.

I was sent this video, and it takes care of two things at once:

First, it gives evidence that the nuclear power plants are well protected. But also, it shows that planes do tend to disintegrate with high impact into solid objects.

That is one of the objections. If you believe in 9-11 conspiracies are have the courage to face the unthinkable (that you have been duped), here are some links to get you started. First, the established and well-respected special report from Popular Mechanics is here. Another source that covers a great deal of ground is here. Some videos are here. Finally, my previous article on conspiracy theories, if you feel like it.

Wow, I'm sure glad that this nonsense is falling away again. I can't stand people that are so desperate to advance the liberal (leftist) political viewpoints that they will resort to such rubbish.

Addendum: Also, I cannot stand how some people insist on believing crap like this. They believe because they want to, not because of evidence. They argue from silence; since there aren't enough airline parts left over, then it must have been missiles instead of jets. Also, "what other building collapses into its own footprint", etc., while ignoring the actual explanations. Spare me!

June 2, 2010

Double Facepalm for Atheists

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
- Sherlock Holmes

I had better point out to my more vicious, childish readers that I know full well that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character. But everyone would be enriched by watching the way Jeremy Brett portrayed him! But look, there is more to logic and reason than you may think. Some people think they know everything humanly possible. How do you deal with facts that do not fit your presuppositions? You must accept the conclusions of the evidence, whether you like them or not.

There is something that I have to address with my critics. They are angry because I do not engage them in protracted discussion on other people's blogs. These arrogant atheist trolls demand that I reply to each and every comment they make, and even bring up material that I have written here, to be discussed there, even though I am commenting (or in some cases, absent from commenting) on other people's articles.

It reads like this:
  • Joe posts evidence for belief in God
  • Joe gets flamed for being a hypocrite, stupid, liar, etc.
  • I get flamed in Joe's comment section for things that I posted here
  • That's not fair to Joe
  • Once in a while I comment back, but for the most part, I ignore the noisy children
Also, the trolls are furious because I ignore things, so they demand that I reply to everything. ("Prove to me God exists, Stormbringer. I'm still waiting!" Like that's going to happen in a comment area or forum! Besides, I've made plenty of links available that offer the evidence that they seek.) But I do not have to reply there, or here. This is my Weblog. Tee hee.

Something else I should point out. They condemn me for being a "false Christian", or "hypocrite", "hateful", or something else. What is their standard?

They are appealing to the Bible (which they consider fairy tales or a book of lies), or even to God himself. So... I'm being judged by people who do not believe in the Bible or God, and they cannot understand what they are talking about in the first place. Psalm 14.1

Again, I say that lovers of "reason" and "logic" are proving my point. Way to go!

One last bit for those trolls at other people's comments areas. Why should I take you seriously? I have reasons not to do so, and reasons not to give more than a cursory scan of your comments:
  • I have been tricked and lied to, so why should I believe the next "serious question for you"?
  • Trolling and personal attacks
  • My own comments are unanswered or deliberately misunderstood
  • Although the demographic for "new atheists" is about 18-25, from the actions of the majority, I think I am dealing with 12-year-old dwellers of parents' basements
  • I have it on good authority that atheists will lie to me. The rubbish I have experienced is nothing compared to what others have dealt with. For that matter, look at the comments you people leave for Ray Comfort and for Dan at "Debunking Atheists". I'm supposed to subject myself to that kind of thing?
  • Playing the victim: "But I didn't do that..." Your sneering and mocking attitude, plus the nastiness of your fellows, keeps me from wasting my time. "Prove to me that God exists", but we all know full well that you really do not wish to have any evidence, Buttercup.
Now, can I get back to other things? Although you think that you are the center of the universe, God haters have a great deal to learn. That goes for anyone else that has an overly-inflated opinion of themselves, too. James 4.6 NASB There is more to life than you. It's really too bad. You can never know true inner peace without the Jesus that you deny. For your own sakes, I hope you think about this some more. And be honest with yourselves this time.

Addendum: This article illustrates the absurdly shallow intellects and arguments of the so-called "new atheists".

May 30, 2010

Is There a Conflict Between Science and Religion?

Buon giorno. Today is the three-year anniversary of Stormbringer's Thunder. (Waits as cheering and thunderous applause quiets down.) I'm on vacation. To celebrate this momentous event, I'm referring you to an article posted elsewhere. Also, I'm going to ask you to come back tomorrow for something really important.

But first...

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science ... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence ...
Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."

- Allan Sandadge

Take a look a "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief". Click here.

Subscribe in a reader