Stormbringer's Thunder

Atheists, Aliens and Science

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:54:00 +0000

stock.xchng/nion

I'm going to redirect you to a mult-faceted post.

The first part is about the "ownership" of science. Many atheists strut around as if they invented the thing, and that to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. Dead wrong, Robert!

Does science belong to Christians and Theists? We (not me, of course, I wasn't born yet) invented the whole modern disciplines of science. Whether genetics or physics or electrical theory or classification of organisms or chemistry or you name it...

You could assert that the ancient Greeks like Archimedes were the first scientists and there is some support for that. However, the axiomatic way of viewing the world proved to be a hindrance to science. Keep in mind that science was always simply a part of the overall concept of philosophy and was not considered separately back in the ancient world.

How does that grab ya? But wait, if you act now, you'll get absolutely free, a bonus post about space aliens! (Are space aliens atheists who do science? Not a chance.) Here's a preview for the second part:

Not that long ago the idea that older (on the evolutionary scale), more technologically advanced (than humans), wiser and benevolent extraterrestrials have visited or are currently visiting the Earth would have seen you carted off to the local psych ward. But not anymore. Popular polls have even suggested that upto 20 million Americans have seen a UFO and that 4 million claim to have been abducted by aliens (see The Fourth Kind our review of the infamous alien abduction movie of the same name). Such ideas have become very mainstream and children in particular are very susceptible and are openly targeted. Many seemingly credible scientists now believe that life on Earth originated from outer space via either directed or undirected panspermia (‘seeds from space’—from the Greek words pas/pan [all] and sperma [seed]). Some very famous scientists have even suggested that our DNA may contain revelation from our alien creators once we are smart enough (like them) to decipher it. Ironically, this makes many of them ‘creationists’ (sort of). It appears that they just don’t want the God of the Bible to be responsible.

You really should fly over and read this material posted by my buddy, Radar. Click this: "A GREAT LINK, then...Ancient Knowledge, not Ancient Aliens...We are saved by JC, not ET!!!"

The Other Place

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:59:00 +0000

Since my priorities are at Piltdown Superman and The Question Evolution Project, I haven't been motivated to post here very often. After deleting quite a few articles and posts, I am using this for occasional use, but primarily as an archive. Especially for the stuff that tells how atheists really are.

You might like to see this article about a problem that evolutionists have.

Shining the Light on Space Aliens

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 11 May 2013 16:00:00 +0000

NASA image, slightly modified

Since haters are gonna hate no matter what some of us do, I may as well give the mentally challenged atheopaths another gem: I believe that UFOs exist. There is no way that so many people for so many years have been faking video footage, lying, hallucinating or been simply mistaken.

Do I believe that they are beings from outer space? Not anymore. I used to, though. People would tell me that since the Bible does not say that there are extraterrestrials, they must not exist. Their arguments were superficial, mainly a fallacious argument from silence, and I used my own bad argument, that the Bible does not tell us that they do not exist, so they might exist after all. Silly, I know. In addition, I had a weird notion based on wishful thinking and bad theology that Jesus went to other planets to offer salvation, like in the Ray Bradbury story, "The Man".

Do I believe that governments are covering up contact with extraterrestrials, or whatever they are? Nah, never put much stock into that idea. But I still watched the X-Files series for a while.

I don't buy into that New Age nonsense that they are "more highly evolved" and helping us to evolve into enlightenment.

"What do you think they are, Cowboy Bob?"

I was getting to that. Actually, I'm becoming convinced that it is a spiritual problem. Investigations show that there are some startling similarities between alien abductions and demonic activity.

Edit: Forgot to add that I also believe that some UFOs are not unidentified to the military. Places are secret because of research and testing, not because of alien contacts and contracts.

Long ago, before I had access to Algore's Amazing Internet™, I had to use a typewriter, paper, envelope and postage stamp to ask someone far away a question. This primitive method persists in some areas to this day. Anyway, I wrote to a UFO organization and asked if people who had experiences with UFOs had varying religious views. The reply was that it covered the whole spectrum of religious and non-religious.
It turns out that the opposite is true.

One of Joe’s cases involved a brand-new Christian called Bill D. During an alleged alien abduction he cried out “Jesus, help me!” and the encounter immediately stopped. When Joe contacted other MUFON investigators to see if they had had similar cases, they would only agree to talk to Joe if it was ‘off the record’ for fear of their careers. The truth was they all knew of similar accounts of abductions being stopped by people praying, singing hymns or calling on the name of Jesus. But because it was ‘religious in nature’ and not ‘scientific’, the evidence was being deliberately ignored and actually hidden. Joe’s CE4 group knew there must be more cases with which they could expose the deception. A local newspaper, Florida Today, reported on CE4’s initial findings. The story went viral via the press and internet, and suddenly, lots of people were contacting CE4 sharing similar testimonies. This research of Joe’s was pivotal in helping me and others create awareness in the Church on this widespread phenomenon.

Read the rest of "Lifting the Veil on the UFO Phenomenon" in context here, and you might like the half-hour video, here:

Video: Atheist and Evolutionist Morality — Fundamentally Flawed

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:52:00 +0000

Atheists and evolutionists are not only confused by their irrational worldviews, but they are also cunning. One of their tricks is to first deceive themselves, and then deceive others, about the definitions of words. The disingenuous redefinition of atheism to mean "lack of belief" is laughable to any thinking person. The Evo Sith will sneak a change in definition of the word "evolution". These word games are some of the tools used to attack Christians and creationists.

These tricks and attacks are partly the result of realizing that they cannot defeat the biblical creationist worldview with reason and science. We are right, they know it, and they hate it. But hiding from the truth and redefining words will not change the end result. For anyone reading this and watching the video below, it's not too late. It might be too late in an hour, though.

Atheist Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:30:00 +0000

Yes, I'm replaying an article from 2011.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:

there is none that doeth good.

(Psalm 53:1, KJV)

Here is a story that circulates on the Internet. Although it is not true (despite what your e-mail correspondent said), it is still funny.

An atheist created a case against Easter and Passover holy days.

He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays!"

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.

"Court is adjourned."

I really like the Atheist International Holiday. (Have they recovered already from railing against Christmas?) I like it bunches. You betcha. Atheists gather at the Madalyn Murray O'Hair Memorial Hospital to sing some hymns, read devotions from Charles Darwin and Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, followed by a video sermon by Christopher Hitchens (whose brother is a former atheist that became a Christian, by the way). Then, they find a Christian symbol on public land that has not been bothering anyone for decades and start picketing. Their conversation includes the alleged stupidity of Christians, deliberately misunderstanding remarks so they can accuse people of lies, distorting reality and having a grand old time that they make up as they go along.

After that, they venture to the places where Christians are ministering to destitute people and remind them that atheists are so much better and smarter than they are. Then, they look for other opportunities to practice their religious bigotry. Finally, they adjourn to their festively decorated homes for rum punch and to exchange gifts of brightly wrapped empty boxes whilst complaining about Christians and the Resurrection observances. The conclusion is to go outside, look at the night sky and chant, "It all happened by chance!"

Actually, no wonder they hate us. There is no true joy (Rom 15.13) in their lives, nothing to celebrate (Rev. 19.9, 21.3-4). And there is no hope (Titus 2.13), only condemnation (John 3.36 ESV) in their silly pride (Job 35.12, Prov. 29.23). Too bad, really. It's their choice, but it doesn't have to be this way (John 1.12, 2 Cor. 5.17).

By the way, Ravi Zacharias and staff discuss "no God" thinking in this short MP3.

Three Objects of Ridicule

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:00:00 +0000

Some people who want to be considered "intellectual" and say that they live by "reason" love to ridicule the Bible. They are wrong. Three of the main objects of derision are the Genesis flood, Jonah and the great fish, and the resurrection of Jesus. Did you know that these three historical events have something in common?

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4).

And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land (Jonah 2:10).

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay (Matthew 28:6).

These three verses of Scripture speak of three great events of history, widely separated from each other in time, but each involving a mighty miracle. Each testifies of God’s creative power, as well as His judgment on sin and His grace in salvation. The accounts tell of three remarkable specially prepared—yet temporary—domiciles and the amazing experiences of their occupants. Each record has been bitterly attacked by unbelieving skeptics, but the accounts are true and the events were real.

Read the rest of "The Resting Ark, the Grounded Fish, and the Empty Tomb", here.

"What I have written, I have written"

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:01:00 +0000

Pilate also had a sign lettered and put on the cross. The inscription was: JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Don’t write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that He said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’ ” Pilate replied, “What I have written, I have written.”

— John 19:19-22, HCSB

All four Gospel accounts mention the sign on the cross. All four accounts differ a little bit. This seems puzzling when approached on a superficial level. In reality, it is not a difficulty at all.

Why do all four Gospels contain different versions?
Does this indicate error?

By no means. Both Luke and John tell us that the inscription on the Cross of Jesus was written in three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that three of the Gospel writers each chose to quote a different language, and that one writer chose to quote the words common to the other three.

You can read "Inscriptions on the Cross", here.

Tiny Video: An Evolutionist Easter Dance

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:30:00 +0000

Starring Richard Dawkins, Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris, Charles Darwin, and everybody's hero, Piltodown Superman!

Disproving Resurrection "Explanations"

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:20:00 +0000

From the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, people have been attempting to make excuses to explain away this greatly attested fact of history. Some have been pathetically desperate to say that he never existed, but they have to find a minority of crackpot "historians" to support this conjecture. Others have come up with silly ideas, such as, "His disciples sole his body while we were sleeping" (Matt. 28.13). So tell me, how do you know what happened while you were sleeping, Buttercup?

Using basic logic, the false explanations of the absence of his body do not withstand scrutiny.

Definitions
Sir Karl Popper, the late philosopher of science, devised a falsification criterion that can be used to disprove theories. It is derived from the modus tollens rule of inference, which is of one of these two forms:
Form 1
1) p⇒q
2) ¬q
∴ p
Form 2
1) p⇒¬q
2) q
∴ p
The falsification criterion devised by Karl Popper is an example of form 2 of the modus tollens. It is as follows:
1) Theory T predicts that O will not be observed.
2) O is observed.
∴ T is false.
Examples
Here are a couple examples that are used by the police to either prove or disprove one's innocence in a crime:
Proving Innocence
1) If suspect S is guilty of a murder, then he will not have an alibi for the time of the murder.
2) S has an alibi for the time of the murder.
∴ S is not guilty of the murder.
Proving Guilt
1) If person P was not involved in a crime, then he will not know any details that were not released to the public.
2) P knows a detail that was not released to the public.
∴ P was involved in the crime.
Disproving Resurrection Alternatives
For the last 2000 years, ever since Christianity began, anti-Christians have been looking for ways to explain away the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus by various means. It is important for us to be able to refute these alternative theories, as Christianity stands completely on the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14-18). Thankfully, as I will demonstrate, the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed can be disproved easily using the Popperian criterion. If you need a refresher on all the details of the Betrayal, Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, they can be found in Matthew 26-28, Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, and John 18-21.

It is eminently logical for you to continue reading "Using Popper's Falsfication Method to Disprove Resurrection Alternatives".

Atheism, Materialism, Relativism and Reason

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:04:00 +0000

We have seen in numerous posts that atheism is an incoherent, irrational, unreasonable and self-defeating worldview (as is its confused, timid kid brother, agnosticism). Evolution is a cornerstone of this belief system, since it relies on materialism. This is viciously circular reasoning, a self-affirming and intellectually suffocating idea that starts and ends with the physical universe. To admit that there really is a Creator would destroy this view instantly, because that would imply that we need to find out what the Creator has to say to us.

Further, atheism relies on relativism, a convenient means of excusing thoughtlessness and convenience-based "morality". Relativism is an absurd philosophy.

"Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration... The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths." -Wikipedia.org

____________________________

Many atheists claim that truth is relative, meaning they reject objective and absolute truth.

And in fact, to hold this position is consistent with the atheistic worldview.

...But is relativism a reasonable worldview?

Absolutely not.

"Here Comes The Storm..."

A worldview without real truth is a house built on the sand!

Observe the mental chaos that ensues when we critically examine atheistic relativism...

1. If relative truth is true, then it is false; to call it true is to appeal to absolute/universal truth.

Note: As we shall see, objective/absolute truth is true, and MUST be true...

2. The person that claims no truth denies the truth of their claim.

Note: A person who claims "there is no truth" is making a truth claim - which can't be true if truth doesn't exist!

3. The person that claims no truth can be certain of nothing.

Note: How can one hold certainty, if nothing is true?

4. The person that is certain of nothing isn't certain of it.

Note: This is an absurdity of a worldview without certainty.

5. The person that claims no truth denies the law of non contradiction, as the law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way.

Note: The human mind is inherently bound by non contradictory thought processes. Have you ever tried to imagine a "square circle"? Your mind will flip from square to circle, but never to both at once. And truth is foundational to this logical thought process.

If you're ready to pursue the rest of this philosophical exercise and see more of why we say that atheism is irrational, you can read the rest of "Atheism: A House Built On Sand".

Atheists, Hitler and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:33:00 +0000

It is truly baffling to me when atheists want to "give" Hitler to Christianity. And they do it with gleeful self-humiliation.

"Why is it self-humiliation, Cowboy Bob?"

Most atheists that I have encountered, especially on the Internet, fallaciously declare themselves to be the intellectual elite, simply by virtue of being atheists. (Ridiculous, I know.) Yet these bastions of enlightenment commit logical fallacies freely and frequently. They also do not know how to correctly identify fallacies. Hitler supposedly claimed to be a Christian (but his "Christianness" is easily refuted). When a Christian says, "Hitler was not a real Christian", the misotheist will scream, "AHA! The 'No True Scotsman Fallacy'". Except that he's dead wrong, and has embarrassed himself by incorrectly attempting to use a logical principle.

Remember, don't fear the atheist. They have a great deal of bravado, but even a cursory knowledge of logical fallacies will show that there is nothing behind their bold talk.

But back to what I was saying before: Atheopaths want to "give" Hitler to us. What do they hope to gain? Just like their constant but pointless attempts to demonize Christians, there is no benefit to a discussion. It does not prove anything. Oh, sure, I know some really nutty atheopaths who are so stupidified by hate and demonic influence, their logic goes like this: "You are a bad Christian, even though I hate all of you. So was Hitler. Therefore, Christianity is false. There is no God!" Yeah, pathetic, innit?

So anyway, I wanted to share this video illustrating the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You, too, can see how people who use it are only embarrassing themselves with their lack of knowledge.

Video: Atheist Saltare Insensatus

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 16:06:00 +0000

Crank up the dance music and boogie!

Free Royalty Free Music

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:16:00 +0000

And now for something completely different.

While researching material on background music for videos, podcasts and whatnot, my edjamacation has increased dramatically. Sure, you can get "royalty free" music. But you still have to pay for it; the only thing free is that you don't have to pay royalties. There are several sites that have this kind of music available. The people at "Partners in Rhyme" have some good material. If you want to avoid getting into legal trouble (or having YouTube mistakenly identify music you've uploaded as belonging to someone else, which has happened to me), get the royalty free stuff that you can run with to your heart's content.

They also have some free samples, as well as sound effects. Don't be misled, they are not indicative of the material that you can buy (I almost wanted to start a podcast to tack onto the music!), but there are some gems here that can be pretty good for special projects. I have some in mind that certain alcoholic unemployed misotheists will just love in the final product.

Royalty Free Music and Sound Effects. Download the music and sound effects you need for your multimedia project today at Partners In Rhyme.

Enemies

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:22:00 +0000

Haters Gonna Hate!

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:44:00 +0000

Takin' Care of Cheapness

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:00:00 +0000

This steak still has marks
from where the jockey was hitting it!

— Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack"

I tried to tell people before, but did they listen? Noooooooo!

What is it, really? morgueFile/MaxStraeten

So I'll say it again, and appeal to the wallet instead of ethics: This is not the kind of economy for businesses to be cheap! There are reports of horse meat in various products [1,2] ("contanimated" is such a strong word...it's just not what people paid for) and speculation that the merchants are cutting corners. "Generic" or "store brand" items thaqt were formerly comparable (and sometimes superior) to their name-brand counterparts are getting less desirable; the name-brand products are often reducing quality themselves. Customer service? In many cases, fuggedaboudit! Little to no help. You have to learn how to work that gadget yourself. Restaurants that water down the soup? How cheap can you get?

Then they raise prices to prove how wonderful they are, and how you should be happy dealing with lousy service and a chintzy product.

Don't get me started on companies that pay $11 USD an hour to employees who are essential to their multi-million dollar businesses.

Scimunito!

People want a good product at a fair price now more than ever. They You're going to drive them away to your competition. Sometimes customer service ranks higher in importance than the item itself.

Don't be a cafone, Mr. or Miss Merchant. Or your customers will find someone who will take care of them. You might wind up in the shipping department of your competitors — if you work at all, capice?

Terms of Service — Are They Enforced?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:00:00 +0000

When Facebook allows Pages and groups whose names are unfit to mention in front of children and sensible ladies, when they allow atheopath hate speech, when they allow libel, when they allow threats of violence, when they allow all sorts of infractions that violate their "Terms of Service", and do not enforce them, what good are they? The message they send is the Satanic, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

I have reported several posts, pictures and so on that any sensible person would clearly see that the contents violate the ToS of Facebook. Big deal. Perhaps it's because of the atheistic leanings of Facebook, but obscene anti-Christian materials are left alone.

This lack of activity from FB gives me the go-ahead for some truth-telling pages about wicked atheopaths, then. They won't care about the screenshots, will they?

On the other hand, Wordpress may not be a company to trifle with.

An atheopath was caught using an image of mine. (Actually, my wife snapped it.) I told him to take it down. It's mine, not his. Pretty simple that even this simpleton could understand it. He refused. I reported it to Wordpress (Automattic). They made him take it down.

Then he put it up again. I filed another takedown notice with Wordpress. It came down.

I found up that he put the thing up again a third time. Pretty arrogant, "Nobody's gonna tell me what to do!" attitude, he felt that he was in the right, despite what the law and what the Wordpress Terms of Service said. Guess what? Looks like the third strike, he's out. Addendum: Nope, just suspended. He perjured himself and claimed "Fair Use" to Automattic, and I would have to pursue expensive international litigation, so it was restored. Yet, the hypocrite fills his diaper whenever someone posts a public screen shot of his nefarious activities. I have an idea of something to make for his birthday.

Bottom line: ToS apply occasionally. The unfortunate lesson is: See what you can get away with.

Video — Eukaryotic Cells Refute Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:30:00 +0000

Evolution cannot withstand scrutiny. But it is foundational to liberal Christianity, other irrational religions and especially the incoherence known as atheistm. That's why evolution is protected, and contrary evidence suppressed, by the Evo Sith in their efforts to protect their fundamentally flawed worldviews.

And yet, the truth is discovered. Oh, sure, the protectors are sent scrambling to find excuses to keep their failed "theory" intact. Here is another short video with more information to show that evolution is a fundamentally flawed belief system. That is, evolutionism keeps looking more and more far-fetched because the evidence shows the Creator. How good is that?

Video — Dear Atheist, Let's Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:30:00 +0000

The religion of atheism is irrational and fundamentally flawed. Although many who call themselves "atheists" claim to have rejected the existence of God through "reason", they have failed miserably, deceiving themselves and perhaps deceiving others. The irrational, unscientific worldview called "evolution" is a cornerstone of atheism. It gives their religion a veneer of intellectualism, and they refuse to acknowledge the multitudinous failings of evolutionary theories. They prefer to continually prop up the failed "science" of evolutionism for emotional comfort.
Atheism is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience. There is no plan for the life of the atheist, since everything is an accident of nature. This also means that there is no foundation for morality (I can name atheists who will say and do anything because their "morality" is based only on their immediate desires, and they are useless for humanity as a whole). What passes for "reasons" to embrace atheism are actually emotionally-driven excuses to hate God, the Bible and Christians; there are no reasons for atheism.
If they will take a few minutes to be honest with themselves and actually think instead of pandering to their atheopathic friends about how they ridiculed Christians and "found" another excuse to hate God, they would see that they need answers. The biblical Christian worldview has the necessary conditions of human experience, and answers the questions of life that atheism and evolutionism cannot deal with.

Dumping Posterous

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:43:00 +0000

Having second Weblogs on Posterous was a silly idea, I admit. Since this Weblog is a general purpose thing, I did not really need to use it. But I wanted to try it out. Posterous is a good idea that is poorly executed. You can upload MP3s and some other things and they make it accessible to everyone. The main problem is that they were down a great deal of the time. Another problem is that for having a Weblog like Blogger, Wordpress and others, fuggedaboudit. The concept was good for multimedia but I did not like it for trying to write something up.

After they were bought out by Twitter, they became even more unreliable. One time, it took me almost a week to get a good connection to be able to edit one post. Worse, one of my Posterous Weblogs had content vanish! I sent them an e-mail, asking what was going on. No reply. After several days, I fully deleted the account. I know of one page that was there, it contained public screen shots of atheopaths showing how rotten they can be in their own words, mainly from Twitter. The other stuff on that place, I don't remember. Whatever it was, I keep everything backed up so I can start over at another location.

After finding a new home for the material on my other account, I migrated the content. When I went back, they were kind enough to remind me of why I did not use them much anyway:

After I was finally able to connect, Posterous gave me this message:

"...we'd love to answer your questions." Rubbish! They ignored my question. Also, they do not even provide a feedback form asking why you're canceling like some other services do. But if they ever want to know why, they can read it right here.

So, I'm done with the hassle of trying to deal with Posterous. Not that it matters, many people have never even heard of them!

Addendum: An atheopath is claiming credit for that one site on Posterous being down. But since he is famous for lying, libel and defamation, I doubt that it's true. Even if it was, it does not excuse such terrible service, communication and incompetence from Posterous. Ironically, Posterous is owned by Twitter. Twitter "Tweets" are public. Twitter said so. Edit: Big deal. Posterous is shutting down anyway.

Video: Are There Scientists Who Reject Evolution?

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:00:00 +0000

Now, I know that there are people who will go with redefinitions and a "No True Scientist" fallacy here, that true scientists accept evolutionism; anyone who rejects evolution must be an unedjamakated fundie. But that is obviously fallacious. It is also an attempt at poisoning the well and an appeal to ridicule. This short video will inform you of the truth.

Zack Kopplin, Useful Idiot for Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:00:00 +0000

Before you get your knickers in a twist about the use of the word "idiot" in the title, let me point out the historical setting. A "useful idiot" was a supporter of the Soviet Union in the West, and the Soviets held them in contempt. They blindly followed fatally flawed ideology. Zack Kopplin is being used by atheistic evolutionism. Like Bill Nye, he is unclear on several concepts, including the difference between operational and historical science, the profound lack of importance of evolution to scientific development, and more. He has been deceived by fundamentalist atheist evolutionists; I would not be surprised to find out that he's a fan of Richard Dawkins and other proselytizers of atheism.

The religious dogma of evolutionism cannot withstand scrutiny and cannot tolerate competition. Many seek to punish doubters of evolution. (It must drive them batty that this date has been established as Question Evolution Day, huh?) Atheists and evolutionists are usually bigoted and intolerant of any views but their own. They support each other in their dishonesty, and are contro freaks who oppose free speech. That's right, I said it!

Another tactic is to shield inquiring minds from evidence that is embarrassing to evolution. Typical tactics include ridicule, screaming "Liar!" at anyone who says evolution is wrong, straw men, ad hominems, genetic fallacies, poisoning the well and other juvenile tricks.

Then those fail or are not enough, they use the corrupt judicial system for leverage. There is a Louisiana law in place to allow supplemental materials in schools to help students develop critical thinking. But no, that must be stopped! Evolution must be blindly accepted and defended by Darwin's Stormtroopers. God forbid (heh!) that people learn to think for themselves and examine the evidence!

Students are being brainwashed with evolutionary ideas in almost all public schools and museums, and they are expected to accept it uncritically. We’ve made this point many times over the years, but a recent news story has made the brainwashing even more obvious. In 2008, Louisiana passed a bill that would allow teachers in the public school system to “use supplemental materials … to help students critique and review scientific theories.” Such critical thinking skills should be a part of an education process and are part of many state education standards.

Well, a 19-year-old student at Rice University, Zack Kopplin, is on a mission to repeal that law. He is being praised by the secular world for his ambition, as evidenced in a recent article about him.

Atheistic evolutionists do not want any talk of “critiquing” or “thinking critically” about evolutionary ideas, because evolution is their way of explaining life without God, which is why we call evolution a religion. Despite their claims to the contrary, atheists use evolution as their religion to replace God. Evolution is a foundation for their set of beliefs about life and how it arose, just as creation, as described in Genesis, is our set of beliefs about how life arose. Atheists blindly hold to evolution because of their rejection of Christ. Zack Kopplin has seemingly declined to talk about his personal beliefs about God, but many atheists have basically claimed him as one of their own, including the Friendly Atheist, a well-known blogger, who published a post the other day calling Kopplin an atheist.

Intellectually honest people can read the rest of "The Legacy of Brainwashing" and learn something. (Also, Tony at Defending Genesis is on the same trail.) Others can cry to their friends about how the big, bad creationists are telling the truth again.

Atheist "Research" and Deception on "Evolution Weekend"

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:17:00 +0000

It must drive Michael Zimmerman and other misotheists around the bend that there are people who are not interested in his "Evolution Weekend" apostasy drive. F'rinstance, there are Bible-believing Christians who take a stand and proclaim "Creation Sunday" every year since 2006.

There are also people involved in the grassroots "Question Evolution Day", started by yours truly in 2012. It was inspired by the "Question Evolution!" campaign. One part of "Question Evolution Day" includes the use of the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" aspect of the "Question Evolution!" campaign. (I was honored that they liked my video and included it in their "15 Questions" page.)

As I've said for a while now, hate stupidifies. (For the atheopath readers, that's stupid-i-fies, it makes people stupid.) Their emotions cloud their reasoning abilities.

I am not a reader of the "Huffington Post", even though it is widely known as a bastion of objective, intelligent journalism. (Can you believe that I typed that with a straight face? Those leftists are biased and have a reputation...).

There were some interesting things in an article from Zimmerman that ran last year. (OK, so I'm late on this, I don't read the thing, remember? I blundered across it a while back, forgot it, found it again.) He was busy demonizing Ken Ham and portraying him as someone who is only in it for the money. Zimmerman must be assuming that Ken Ham is like the other atheists. In fact, I'd like to see a comparison of who gets more money, Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins. Yeah, that'll shut you up!

This was really interesting:

Third, and perhaps most tellingly, every year creationist organizations spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to disparage Evolution Weekend. If Evolution Weekend were not an important event, creationist groups would ignore the celebration. Instead, they attack it -- and use it as a way to raise money from supporters.

Seriously? I see an Affirming the Consequent fallacy as well as Appeal to Motive. You might even get a Fallacy of Exclusion here. But the next paragraph was quite interesting:

This year was no different. Indeed, as The Christian Post pointed out, something called "Question Evolution Day" was created this year to combat the efforts of The Clergy Letter Project. Given all of the T-shirts, bumper stickers and related paraphernalia that sponsors were hawking, "Question Evolution Day" might well have been a boon to the economy, but there was no evidence that it promoted meaningful dialogue.

Again, seriously? If Zimmerman had any desire to do actual research, he took said desire, tied it to a chair and threw it in the East River. I have some bad news for you, Sunshine: I am the one who started "Question Evolution Day", which was inspired by Creation Ministries International. Not only does it have nothing to do with Answers in Genesis, the article I'm quoting demonizes AiG and Ken Ham, but I did not market any merchandise (I'm just a guy doing this after work and on days off, not a part of an organization), and am not aware of anyone else who did.

Also, "Question Evolution Day" was not started in response to your "Clergy Letter Project" call to apostasy. The fact is, I had never heard of it, or him, until after QED was happening. Zimmerman needs to get over himself. Now, I can see where he might get the idea that QED was started because of his "let's get liberal churches whoring with atheists" initiative, since The Christian Post (which he linked) said:

As many churches observed "Evolution Weekend," some congregations and other groups decided to celebrate a different perspective on the origins debate with "Question Evolution Day."

The Feb. 12 observance was meant to encourage people to skeptically approach Darwin's theory of evolution. It was coordinated by multiple groups including the Traditional Values Coalition, Creation Ministries International, and the website Piltdownsuperman.com.

"This is not designed to teach Genesis per se, nor is it a platform for debating the age of the Earth; there are plenty of other places for that," said Bob Sorensen of Piltdownsuperman.com, to The Christian Post.

So I can see where someone who read hastily and did not bother to do research might get the idea that it's in response to his "get the liberal Christians to compromise more" project.

The number of churches that Zimmerman has recruited is misleading (and fewer than in previous years). He lists churches that are so liberal, their doctrines cannot even be recognized as Christian any longer. Adding Unitarians, "New Age" groups, Buddhists (!) and others that would rather align themselves with atheists than actual Bible-believing churches is disingenuous at best. Still, whatever it takes for an evolutionist atheist to look good, huh?

I can lower my standards and use the same fallacies that Zimmerman used. It is obvious that education systems will crank out a doctorate for anyone with enough money to pay for it (especially atheists), because he does not show the ability to do decent research, and indulges in selective citing. But I won't indulge myself in that fallacy. I will say that his "research" was very sloppy.

Here's a message for the apostate groups that want to further their apostasy:

“Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
—Joshua 24.14-15, NASB

Video: The Magic of Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:00:00 +0000

To be a consistent atheist, you cannot follow where the evidence leads. At least, not if you see that the evidence shows evolution is not science and that there is a Creator. No, even though the Creator is the rational conclusion, emotion and blind hate keep the irrational atheist from getting there. Instead, they have to believe in some magical things that defy reason. Things that lead them to the magical fairyland of evolution, and seething, bitter hatred for Bible believers and for Question Evolution Day, February 12.

Edit: For those who claim that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, and that such a thing is not even taught, that is the opposite of the truth. Here is one example.

Very Short Atheism Video: A Fairy Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Stormbringer) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 13:00:00 +0000

To be an atheist, you must believe in the impossible and discard reason. The atheist wordview is incoherent and irrational. They have no real foundation for morality except for what is expedient for them at the moment, all they while saying they're "Good without God". Perhaps that is why so many are angry, obstreperous, vituperative and just plain bitter. Perhaps that is why they hate Question Evolution Day. Perhaps that is why they hate Christians, because our worldview contains the necessary preconditions of human experience — ours makes sense.