Search This Blog

Thursday, December 30, 2010

For all the Worldview friends - Creationists and Christians and Patriots and Intelligent Design people, scientists, writers and friends

Why do I blog?   Because I want to convert the accepted slogans of today into the absurdities of tomorrow...because they ARE absurdities!   Darwinism,  Socialism  and Anthropic Global Warming are three fundamentally ludicrous concepts that threaten the future of our nation.   We are not a threat to our planet, the planet is here FOR us to use.   We do not share all THINGS, we simply have the same right to succeed or fail.  We did not randomly occur, we were intentionally created by a Creator God.  Hat tip to WUWT!
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They are accepted by default." - The Anti Industrial Revolution” – Ayn Rand

Now for the main point of this post. Thank you!

It would be impossible to thank everyone who helps inspire me to write this blog, those whose work I copy, those who encourage me, those who make intelligent comments, those who also blog in other ways seeking to make the world a better place and shine light into darkness.   By making a list I am likely to forget some and if you are among them I apologize...comment and remind me!

A category above all else = God is my inspiration and Debbie is my better half.   My primary motivation is to do what I was called to do and be what I am called to be.  My main rooter and partner and friend is my wife.

Without God I would never have been born and without Salvation through Christ I would either be dead, in jail, or one of those stretched-face rockers still touring a quarter-century past my prime.   To be husband, dad and grandpa and son to God is far better.  My family supports me and my blogging although they rarely comment because I am a phone call away and they all either pretty much agree with me or are not science/information geeks.   Sometimes my sister's husband and my two brilliant nieces read my blog so hi you guys!   Clark has to be pretty smart or Shelley would not have married him.   So the idea that they sometimes read and discuss my blog is pretty cool!   It is a lo-o-o-o-o-o-ong way from Indiana to California in more ways than one.

Ladies first, the gentleman says:  But if I laud Amy Proctor I must also commend her husband, MSG Johnny, who is a career Enlisted NCO very high up in the ranks and also a fine musician!  So you guys get thanked together.

Gotta be thankful for Angel!  Nice pictures today...

Pamela Gellar = Hated by the Daily Kos, so you know she is the real deal!

Kate from Canada.  Read her often but rarely comment.  Smart and funny...

Michelle Malkin has sent me exactly one email, lifetime.  But I like reading her so I am putting her on the list.

Also shout outs to Juliette and other Chicks on the Right.

Now for guys.  My buddy Tim likes to slug it out on the comments threads so thanks for that!   Also I usually beat him at fantasy football but this year I stunk that league up!  Ouch.

Mark is a friend who has lagged in his blogging lately but he is one sharp guy and so are his various swords...and knives...plus he has a lot of guns.   He drives a Porsche and has a hot blonde girlfriend so watch out!   Maybe I just figured out why he hasn't done any blogging lately?

Hawkeye has a new job!   Way to go...in the Obama economy times are tough so very glad for you, man!

A couple of the guys over at Stop the ACLU like Lobo have been very encouraging, and I believe Lobo has another blog so hey Ron, comment and remind me what your current blog is doing?   Doofus here forgot.

Then there is Karl Priest and Dr. Joseph M.,  who have sent me material and encouragement and I always appreciate hearing from you!   I also learn a lot from getting Ian Juby's emails, a guy who actually has done plume research and also proved the famous Delk Track to be genuine and the entire world of Climatology has been changed by Anthony Watts and his audits of climate stations.  

I have had the pleasure of speaking with Jonathan Sarfati of Creation.com as well as Gary Bates, very smart and very friendly people.  Interesting that J.P. over at Tekton introduced Jonathan to his very nice wife.  Then the US portion of CMI moved in with/merged with the group that includes two very smart Bible Brains in Hank Hanegraff and Gary DeMar.   Not sure how that all works, but I know the organizations often work or appear together.  Then there is so much good stuff at Cre-Evo headlines and Access Research Network and AIG.   Some of the best research being done today is that ICR founded by Dr. Henry Morris.  I could go on and on but check my links, lots of great scientific sites with a Creationist worldview.   Then there are many ID sites like IDTHEFUTURE and The Discovery Institute.  Tas Walker is a go-to guy for geology.  (see below)
Tas Walker on November 22nd, 2010
<em>Journal of Creation</em> <strong>24</strong>(3), December 2010.
Journal of Creation 24(3), December 2010.

The latest issue of Journal of Creation, volume 24(3), is now available. Creationist scientists have had to establish their own research journals because mainstream science journals are tightly censored and closed against creationist ideas. 
One of the first such journals was the Creation Research Society Quarterly, which commenced publication in 1964.

Journal of Creation began in 1984 as Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and has undergone a couple of name changes since. All the papers published are listed on the web. After a one-year embargo, past articles are made available free. I have long been an enthusiast of the Journal, so it has been a wonderful experience over the last eleven years to have had the privilege of being part of the editorial team.

As well as these two journals, there are a few other good ones that are now being published. Consequently, we are seeing a significant body of creationist research becoming available, and starting to influence researchers in the scientific establishment—even if it is just to make them more aware of the need to be careful about what they say.

If you are a researcher, lecturer or teacher, or just a science enthusiast, whether creationist, IDer, evolutionist or atheist, I would encourage you to subscribe. The scope of the Journal is broad, so when you receive the Journal of Creation you will become powerfully informed of the alternative way of looking at the scientific big picture, and see how it affects the details in your area of interest. As well as being personally enlightening you will become better equipped in what you do.

To subscribe to Journal of Creation visit the store at Creation.com.

Tags: ,

ALAS, I have not yet read through this latest.  It is open and sitting on my desk waiting impatiently for me.  It does not become available on the internet for a year.  But the point is that there are now hundreds of organizations like Creation.com and dozens of respected journals being published and dozens of peer review groups formed to review non-Darwinist output since Darwnists have censored ID and Creationists out of their organizations, often illegally.   Ask the University of Kentucky...When the New York Times calls you out then you are truly called out.   Takes a lot for that liberal rag to print the word "Christian" normally.  I am a member of a few such groups as a teacher and amateur scientist (and before you laugh, I have far more scientific training than Charles Lyell ever did, which is probably why he was so catastrophically wrong about geology).  Can anyone spot the pun?

All that and I have barely scratched the surface of people who encourage me, sites that inspire me and inform me and even entertain me in some cases.   Cartoons?   Buy the Truth has 'em.  Tom has his own style. (see below):


Plus look to the left side to see the Day by Day posted every, uhm, day?   Example below:


If you want sarcasm?  Frank J. or the EWS or hot air baby!

Philosophy?  Man!   Now I have to name seven or eight more blogs.   But maybe another post.  If I linked you on the left side, I hope many people come see what you have to say...cheers!

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOL at thanking Dr. J. for his "encouragement". I mean, he brought the level of debate on this blog WAY down during his brief visit, which seemed entirely impossible at the time. If you don't believe me, check this out.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html

I mean, as you can see in the link, even hb had this to say about him at the time,

"Okay due to the childish crap in the last comment there, its pretty evident Joseph whatshis is nothing more than a troll. Radar, while I don't see your posts in the negative light as most of your dissenters, Joseph sure isn't doing you any favors."

Tell me Radar, "Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?"

- Canucklehead.

All I can say is, keep it up Radar. I am supremely confident that anyone visiting here (especially if they have little or no religious indoctrination) end up with a good understanding of the fallacies peddled by you and your creationist overseers. Thanks to the many "darwinist" commenters, of course.

radar said...

Gee, Canucklehead, you haven't enlightened me as to whether you are capable of independent thought or are simply a result of random chance that rules all you do. So I am not sure if "answering" you accomplishes anything.

It has been my experience that if one of my sources is roundly hated by Darwinists, he must be pretty good. Funny thing, Dr. Mastropaolo was actually sued by a Darwinist for publishing the fact that said Darwinist would not debate him. The West Virginia State Police even followed up on the complaint and found it groundless. Dr. J was not "blackmailing" anyone by challenging them to produce evidence in open court. Think you have the goods to take his money, since you think he is so incapable?

Anonymous said...

Oh and Radar, before you start complaining again about censorship and conspiracy in the scientific world, here's another link for you:

Open Letter to Richard Dawkins: Why Are You Still In Denial About Group Selection?

See Radar: even Richard Dawkins is not above criticism in the scientific world. But that's how it works. And that's what creationists are afraid of: criticism, skepticism, their ideas and experiments rigorously examined. That's why they stay away from peer-review. Yet they still know the value and credibility that peer-review gives to science. That's why they have their own 'peer-reviewed' journals where they can feel safe and secure. It makes them look like real scientists, but they don't have to do the hard work or fear the criticism.
Creation science is nothing but a cargo cult. Face it. Learn from it.

Also: John Harnett.

Anonymous said...

What is this? I posted a lengthy reply just before this one above, and all of a sudden it's gone.

This is ridiculous...

Anonymous said...

Why I Won't Debate Creationists

Jon Woolf said...

Anon, Radar's talent for mucking up Blogger seems to be showing again. I've lost a number of comments in the last week or so, but only on this blog, among all the Blogger blogs I comment on. Length seems to be important: the longer a comment is, the more likely it is to disappear.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, the problem with creationist 'peer reviewed journals' is simple: if all involved, editor and submitter, agree on basic assumptions and are trying to work toward a predetermined conclusion, 'peer review' is meaningless. I mean, isn't that the basic reason you ignore everything published in 'peer reviewed' conventional-science journals?

"...I have far more scientific training than Charles Lyell ever did ..."

[jokerlaugh.wav]

radar said...

So who died and made Jon Woolf an authority? Also most people are not having problems with comments so you should check your computer for problems rather than blaming blogger. I NEVER delete comments by others unless I detect profanity or obvious spam. It is not for me to censor people, that is for the Eugenie Scotts of the world.

Richard Dawkins is hardly a good example of a scientist or a philosopher. He is to science what Joel Osteen or Brian McLaren is to Bible study...not particularly bright or studious but quite popular with a large segment of society.

It is true that Charles Lyell was a liar who had little scientific training and deliberately fudged the findings of the Niagara Falls erosion information because it hurt his pet theory.

If you critique Creationists for reviewing Creationists, it is only happening because Darwinists will usually only review Darwinists. What Darwinists want is for us to shut up and go away so the propaganda drumbeat can go on unabated. But you are going the wrong way, I am just trying to be the "bridge out" sign before you try to cross the river you are unprepared to cross.

radar said...

It is also quite amazing that Darwinists find so much to complain about concerning a post where I am thanking people and sources. I suppose if I wrote a book you would even be complaining about the bibliography? Good grief.

Philip said...

Keep up the good work, radar. I really enjoy this blog.

Philip said...

radar: as they teach in sales training, an objection is not a rejection; it's merely a request for more information.

Anonymous said...

"If you critique Creationists for reviewing Creationists, it is only happening because Darwinists will usually only review Darwinists. What Darwinists want is for us to shut up and go away so the propaganda drumbeat can go on unabated."

No Radar, the truth is that Creationists are scared. Scared to have their ideas critically examined.

Didn't you recently write an article on draft-dodgers, on how they didn't deserve your respect? Well, these creationist 'scientists' are the draft dodgers, the Ted Nugents of science.

Why do you defend draft dodgers and cowards?

Anonymous said...

"Think you have the goods to take his money, since you think he is so incapable?"

Dr. J has clearly demonstrated some bizarre mental issues in the blog post that Canucklehead posted above. I'm pretty sure most people can think of easier ways to make 10,000 bucks than giving this lunatic 10,000 bucks of their own as a hostage.

On the other hand, if Dr. J did have the goods on any of his claims, he'd be able to present them in an open debate. What's he scared of? Seems pretty clear he's more interested in a propaganda stunt than any kind of scientific understanding.

Anonymous said...

"So who died and made Jon Woolf an authority?"

It's nothing to do with authority. Jon Woolf has presented a large number of facts and questions that you refuse to address. It's straightforward and you are consistently defeated by simple facts.

Your predictable response almost every single time is to retreat into special pleading ("the Bible says so and the Bible is not subject to question"), complaints about "worldview" (as if facts cease to matter as soon as this word is mentioned), and unsupported allegations of vast, vast conspiracies that are not borne out by the facts.

It's no wonder you've practically surrendered any discussion on the theory of evolution and now talk about "Darwinism" almost solely in relation to origin questions. We can see your concession, even if you seem unaware of it.

radar said...

If creationist are scared, then why does Dr. JM get NO Darwinists willing to argue the question in court based on factual evidence? I guess it is the Darwinists who are scared.

So great scientists who do not buy in to the Great and Powerful Oz are forming their own institutes and organizations and doing real science with no help from you. It will continue. In fact, eventually it will prove to be that fewer real scientists will mention Darwinism and rather than having to deal with the embarrassment of exposing years of idiotic indoctrination, the whole Darwinist thing is going to mostly fade to black. Saving face, that is what many scientists will do. What they will NOT do is accept a hypothesis that continues to be eroded until there is nothing left.

Jon Woolf said...

"If creationist are scared, then why does Dr. JM get NO Darwinists willing to argue the question in court based on factual evidence?"

Because his "question" is rigged so that it's unwinnable. Why waste any time on a con man, when they could be spending it in the lab making new discoveries?

"What they will NOT do is accept a hypothesis that continues to be eroded until there is nothing left."

Which is why most of them don't even bother to notice creationism anymore. To those who know the facts, evolutionary theory is so so thoroughly confirmed that it's become just another background element, like "water is wet" and "gasoline burns."

loboinok said...

Happy New Year, Radar!

I haven't been to my blog in over two years.

Still doing the Stop site and Jay is still in the AF and back in college.

I still come over here regularly.

I'll email soon.

Happy New Year and best to all.

Lobo

radar said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12099928

Jon Woolf you are about as indoctrinated as they come. Dr JM's challenge is to face him in open court and present evidence. So forcing Darwinists to find even one tiny bit of actual evidence makes it rigged? Wow.

radar said...

Happy New Year, Ron! We need every hand at every tiller this year, eh?

Jon Woolf said...

Mastropaolo's challenge is unwinnable because Mastropaolo is a coward and a liar who will never pay off even after he inevitably loses. He'll do the same thing you always do when presented with facts you can't refute and questions you can't answer: duck and dodge, cheat and retreat, change the subject, distort the record, maunder endlessly about "unjustified assumptions" and "point of view," hurl baseless accusations and guilt-by-association charges -- anything and everything he can do to avoid admitting that the evolution side whipped his worthless ass.

highboy said...

"No Radar, the truth is that Creationists are scared. Scared to have their ideas critically examined."

Totally ridiculous statement that ignores the fact that the peer reviewed process with opposing viewpoints to creation only review themselves. I realise you people would like everyone to be foolish enough to believe that out of sheer objectivity a panel of evolutionists would stamp their approval on research that blows their life's work apart but sadly most of us have common sense.

"It's nothing to do with authority. Jon Woolf has presented a large number of facts and questions that you refuse to address."

And he's made a number of ridiculous statements and has refused to address any requests for verifiable facts to support them.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"I realise you people would like everyone to be foolish enough to believe that out of sheer objectivity a panel of evolutionists would stamp their approval on research that blows their life's work apart but sadly most of us have common sense."

So what does your common sense tell you? That creationist research NEVER would be approved? If so, on which verifiable facts do you base this statement?

So, if you say that well-researched Creation Science papers would never be reviewed by reputable scientific journals I'd like you to provide hard facts that support this assertion. Otherwise, it's just a belief.

Jon Woolf said...

"And he's made a number of ridiculous statements and has refused to address any requests for verifiable facts to support them."

Incorrect. I've simply stopped responding to your petulant demands for "verifiable facts," because experience proves you don't actually want to hear it.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"So, if you say that well-researched Creation Science papers would never be reviewed by reputable scientific journals I'd like you to provide hard facts that support this assertion. Otherwise, it's just a belief."

I seem to recall that Radar has been asked about this before - an example of a creation science paper that featured verifiable claims that were in fact verified and that were then turned down by a peer-reviewed paper (the paper itself and the rejection) - but Radar has never come up with a single one. This whole conspiracy blabla is just creationists playing the victim to cover up the fact that they have no verifiable claims to back up their beliefs.

Captain Stubing said...

"I seem to recall that Radar has been asked about this before - an example of a creation science paper that featured verifiable claims that were in fact verified and that were then turned down by a peer-reviewed paper (the paper itself and the rejection) - but Radar has never come up with a single one."

It's the one thing that would demonstrate this supposed conspiracy they keep whining about (surely they can find a couple dozen if such a conspiracy really existed...) -

- and the one thing they can't find.

It's funny and it's true.