Stormbringer's Thunder

Although touted as a "great scientist", many people do not know that Darwin's formal schooling was not in science, but in theology, where he soared to the heights of mediocrity. His rejection of God, who is revealed in the Bible, is severely lacking in logic. It is fundamentally flawed by naturalistic presuppositions and by emotional excuses. His journey of rejection is similar to other agnostics and to many atheists who are not actually using reason for their rejection of God. Besides, people like that are lying to themselves and to the rest of us, because they really do know that God exists (Romans 1.20-22). Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator. Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more tha

More and more, I keep seeing how people are ignorant of creation science, the Bible, God, Jesus, Christianity and so on. It is not just from me, I see complaints from other Christians, including apologists. Much of it is because such atheists never bothered to seriously think about the subjects, and get their bad information from friends, dishonest sites of atheopaths, terrible misotheist pep rally philosophers like Richard Dawkins and so on. So, the basic accusation seems true: Atheists do not do their homework. But their ignorance does not interfere with their expression of their prejudicial conjectures and dishonest accusations. Here is a letter that a creation organization received: S.A. from the United Kingdom wrote in response to our article Is God watching?: Looking at this article, it doesn’t sound like morality comes from Christianity, only obedience and fear. I don’t steal or murder people because that is wrong, not because I might be punished for it. And to su

A letter to Creation .com from an angry misotheist is very typical of the kind of thing that Christians, and especially creationists, encounter on a regular basis. (I suspect that people like this are angry that atheism is on the slide and Christianity is growing .) He seems to think that the world would be a better place if Christians were restricted and not allowed to practice their religion, except in carefully regulated boxes. To be blunt, his desire for certain laws and restrictions are nothing less that fascist. P.H., from Ireland, commented on CMI’s Question Evolution campaign and Dr. Don Batten responds. Hello, I am a little sceptical that you will print this, but we shall see. I wonder when you go out with your 15 questions , will you stop once you have met anyone who can give you a reasonable answer? Obviously not everyone is going to have the knowledge to answer the specifics, but if you meet a Biologist for instance who can clearly explain the current state

On a broadcast of Evidence for Faith , Keith and Kirk discussed a study from the Psychology Department at the University of British Columbia called " Mentalizing Deficits Constrain Belief in a Personal God ". It shows that people with a tendency toward mental disorders, especially autism, are more likely to be disbelievers. The more severe the autism, the stronger the disbelief. Several projects attempt to determine the causes of atheism. There is probably no single cause, however.  Most atheists appear to be Caucasian adolescent males (which is not a surprise, considering the complaints of sexual harassment from the less numerous atheist females) A majority of atheists seem to have had bad or nonexistent relationships with their fathers A desire for attention Sociopath behavior (especially trolling, personal attacks, unhealthy amounts of time on the Internet in efforts to antagonize Christians) Further, it is seen in their irrational insistence on asserting t

Thank God that atheism and evolutionism are dying off ! Unfortunately, the moldering corpse of atheism is still walking around, preaching the false gospel of evolutionism and making a general nuisance of itself. After that appetizing introduction, I am pleased to announce that part of this article is about food. Sorta. Atheists can't seem to understand why most people do not like or trust them. Would obnoxiousness have anything to do with it? I think so. It seems to make sense that if you choose to offend large segments of the population ( usually through misrepresentation ), it would reinforce public opinion that they are cafones. Of course, the typical rebuttal of atheists when someone tells the truth about them is a petty, "You're a bad man so everything you say is a lie and therefore there is no God" nonsense. Small minds attack people instead of dealing with concepts. Hate and persecution take many forms. But wait, there's more! Food, remembe

While listening to the August 12, 2012 podcast of " Stand to Reason " with Greg Koukl, I heard something that I could not only use, but fit in quite will with my intellectual and spiritual development. I was pounding the desk and shouting out, "Yeah!". Then I realized that all my co-workers were staring at me. Then I further realized that my outburst only happened in my mind, so everything was fine. Anyway. Greg was going on about the withered old canard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (popularized by Carl Sagan, a variation on a quote from Laplace, also a variation on a similar quote from Hume). There was something about that saying that struck me about its wrongness, but I did not know why. All I knew was that it was rubbish. Then Greg pointed out that there is substantial arbitrariness to that remark. The speaker demands that you please him or her with the evidence. You can listen to the part of the show that got me all agitat

stock.xchng “Christianity is the foundation of modern science and explains why we can do science: a rational God created a rational man in his own image so that he is able to understand the creation with his mind. Indeed, the Creator Jesus Christ is called the Logos (Λόγος John 1:1–3), and makes sense of this orderly universe and complexity of life. Those believing in a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life are the ones with a blind faith.” — Dr. Matti Leisola Dr. Leisola was an evolutionist and an atheist. He studied enzymes, amino acids and DNA. After being confronted with the realities of the Christian worldview, he did some serious thinking. He found that evolution does not have a solid foundation, and a naturalistic worldview requires blind faith. Dr Matti Leisola obtained his D.Sc. (Tech) in biotechnology from the Helsinki (Finland’s capital) University of Technology in 1979. His extensive career includes winning the Latsis Prize for a significant young res

Despite their claims to "lack belief" in God, skeptics (that is, hate-filled mockers) will troll and attack anything Christian because they know what the Bible teaches about how Christians are supposed to respond to our enemies. These blatant hypocrites do not dare to give Mohammedans the same treatment, probably out of fear for their lives. Mock Mohammed, burn a Koran , and people die. And yet, Western governments keep on coddling the "religion of peace" instead of taking action and telling them to act like the civilized people that they pretend to be. But I'm digressing a bit. Contrast the fear of violence from Islam for almost any slight, large or small, real or imagined, with Christianity. Although dishonest misotheists portray us as unkind when we stand up to their bullying, there is no reasonable assumption that their lives are in danger from us. So, they mock. A play called " The Bible — The Complete Word of God (Abridged) " is a flat-out

In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're much better off watching reruns of "Columbo". Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are: Attacking the person instead of discussing the topic "You do it too!" Appealing to numbers, as in, "Everybody believes this way" (or "Bandwagon") to the extreme of accepting evolution on faith, not evidence Confusing cause and effect Straw man (misrepresenting the beliefs of creationists, ID proponents, Christians, the other political party &c. and then ridiculing the caricature that was made up) Appealing to emotion Appealing to unqualified authority Hasty generalizations Appeal to faith in scientism ("Science wil

In World War 2, one strategy was to beat your enemy into submission by bombing population centers into nonexistence. Military targets were the priority, but the people were not entirely off-limits. Fast forward >> to the Gulf Wars and into today. Surgical strikes against military targets, with great effort to minimize civilian casualties (if we can tell the difference between civilians and cowardly, non-uniformed terrorists combatants, that is). Some missions have been aborted because of the risk to civilians. This principle appears to apply to Israeli forces as well . However, cowardly terrorist combatants not only refuse to wear uniforms, they even use human shields . This cowardice extends to the deliberate personal murders of entire families, and hanging children after the rest of the family has been murdered. (Many words come to mind, but I am attempting to restrain profanity and will settle for "low-life, cowardly, murdering scumbag weasel losers".) Religion of

Everyone deserves some rest and relaxation. And the rocket-firing-at-civilians , anti-Conservative-propaganda-spreading terrorist organization Hezbollah has just the place!

A bit of a play on words in the title. Justin Brierley's show "Unbelievable?" has people debating, whether it's atheists and Christians, liberal and conservative Christians, world religions and other things. I am not a huge fan of the show, but it does get my interest on occasion. This episode was interesting. The topic was whether or not Mohammed even existed, and if there is historical evidence to support the idea. Like other Mohammedan "scholars" in debates, Adnan Rashid showed hostility, ignorance, kept going off topic and exhibited dishonesty. Robert Spencer called him on it numerous times, eventually getting a bit perturbed himself. Heck, so would I. ( Dr. James White is acquainted with Rashid's nonsense. ) Rashid came out of the gate attacking the historicity of Jesus and attacking Spencer's character. You can listen to the debate at "Unbelievable?", here .

I am going to use the search term "sentence" here to make a point: As usual, the searcher may have been putting words together to make the best use of the search engine. But I am going to go with it anyway. Please pay attention: There is no such thing as Christian or creationist evidence per se . We all have the same facts; a fact is a fact. The disagreement happens in the interpretations of the facts. Evolutionists have their interpretations, models, explanations and whatever else. Creationists have their interpretations, models, explanations and whatever else as well. There is no such thing as your facts and my facts, capice?

A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel. — Proverbs 12.10 NASB This picture was circulating on Facebook and has upset quite a few people. There are over 30,000 comments on the main photo and 176,000 "shares". No idea how many total with all of the comments on the shared versions. I saw several comments where people wanted to personally harm and even kill the man in the picture. I'm warning you, it is upsetting to animal lovers. Be sure to read this all the way through.  Click for Larger; Picture is viral, original source not found.  From your initial glance, what do you feel? Outrage? A desire to hurt the guy? Sorry for the puppy? Now, what do you see? A fellow forcing a puppy to drink vodka? Animal abuse? In addition to the rage that was expressed, some interesting comments and observations were made. There is considerable argument about whether or not the cap is on the bottle in the fi

No, it's not here. I put it at Piltdown Superman. Click here to read it .

The Most Interesting Man in the World has a comment about evolution to share:

This guy has a unique way of making videos, and I would like to know how he makes them, voice and video, while on a motorcycle. You might want to follow the link to YouTube itself and see the links there. Anyway, notice that leftists are invariably evolutionists. Why is that?

Some things that are noteworthy in the efforts of the radical leftists to seize power include: Appeal to emotion. The "values" of the leftists are opposed to the majority of the people, but they play up the emotional aspects of "causes" and people support them without thinking; look how leftists tell groups of people that they are oppressed and cannot succeed in life without leftists in power Labels and redefinition. Leftists use labels to provoke emotion (supporters of traditional marriage are labeled with the nonsensical but emotion-laden word "homophobe"), and redefine words to suit their purposes (such as "tolerance" meaning "Everything is okay except Judeo-Christian stuff"). Lack of reason. Someone who is not caught up in the emotional pot-stirring of the leftists can listen to their prominent figures and realize they do not make sense. I saw a picture of homosexuals with a poster outside of a Chick-fil-A restaurant

This is what showed up on my site tracker: I thought that maybe people finally got the message long ago... It shows up in their own search results, and what do they do? Click anyway! And there are plenty of other choices. Take a look at what the Yahoo searcher would see (as well as the Google searcher, I've checked that as well): Click for larger

I just wish he hadn't said "Christian scientist". That's a crackpot cult. "Scientist who is a Christian" would have been better. Still, this almost-three-minute video is worth watching.

As a review: "Strange Searches" is my term for those things that show up in my site thingie. It shows how someone got to the site, and what search terms they used (if any), and their search engine. Sometimes people just use key words that resemble an actual sentence but seem funny to read, other times, people really do search for something that I consider strange. And sometimes, people want me to see what they put together so they can get their prank on the page, but that trick usually fails. Here is something that made me wonder. I'll let you do some imagining:

This is circulating on Facebook A while back, I wrote an article on what I called "Bandwagon Convictions". I call them that because people jump on the bandwagon because something is trendy or popular. People would become atheists because of the shock value and the ability to get attention, not from actually reasoning to their position. (But the religion of atheism is on the slide , and intelligent people are more likely to be apathetic or contemptuous of such an admission.) In addition to jumping on a causal bandwagon for attention, people join causes because of emotion, a good sales pitch, a desire to please the current lover, to shut someone up or assorted other insincere reasons. Then (as is the case with atheism), people lose interest and start finding other things to do. I believe that there are two aspect to the so-called "gay rights" campaign. One is that "joiners" go along with this because they want to support a cause. Although homosexuals

I suppose it depends on someone's loyalties. Atheist evolutionists do not recognize the Creator as the one who gives rights. The atheistic religion of Secular Humanism has evolution as one of its tenets. Evolution is a religion and it is not science (like we've been telling you). In fact, evolution is a faith-based religion, despite science! People were worried about John F. Kennedy being elected president because he was Roman Catholic, and his loyalty would be to the Pope. Now they're pulling the same stunt about Mitt Romney's Mormon religion. What about the evolutionist? I would be much more concerned with the freedom of Christians if there was an admitted atheist in the Presidency, since there is no God to them, and they are Statists. The “myth of evolution” is the most seditious of all attacks being made upon the foundational core principles of our Constitutional Republic. If one accepts the belief that evolution is fact, one must - then and there - surrender and

Found image circulating on Facebook This picture has been circulating for a little while, and I had to show it anyway. Here you go, proof that evolution is fiction: Barnes and Noble said so! There are many reasons to dismiss the "proof" claim, including employee error, staged picture, prank, someone just shoved it there or whatever. And yet, when it comes to finding excuses to disbelieve in creation science and in the existence of God, people use "proof" that is even less reliable than this picture! Anyway, it's misclassified. Darwin's writings belong in the religion section .

It is painfully obvious that reporting to prove evolution is biased. Information is cherry-picked so that inconvenient facts that do not fit into evolutionary presuppositions are discarded. Alternative explanations and theories about observable facts are suppressed. Equivocation on word definitions and other attempts at "moving the goalposts" are rampant, as are other logical fallacies. Worse, evolutionists are downright disingenuous when it comes to protecting their faith. This short video uses evolutionary terminology (from one of the evolutionists' biased sources) to support Intelligent Design.