Ghastly Weather Free Fire Zone

This won’t be a difficult question, but we’re obliged to ask it as an introduction: What do you get when you have: (a) a total lack of amusing creationist news; and (b) an approaching ark-load of ghastly weather that may last for several hours and keep us off the internet?

Give up? Okay, we’ll help you out. The answer is: another Intellectual Free Fire Zone!

To get you started, consider this: Biden’s wide-open border policy is flooding the US with immigrants who are almost entirely creationist. Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t like that topic? Okay, come up with another.

We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, or even astrology, theology, mythology, and sociology — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

12 responses to “Ghastly Weather Free Fire Zone

  1. Robert Baty

    Matt Powell was recently in Orlando, FL and posted his presentation today and said it had a really unforgettable ending.

    Best I could tell, his “unforgettable” ending was a tearful tale about the Columbine shooting, and he anchored it with a chilling account of the death of a girl who, according to Matt, they executed after she said she believed in God.

    See:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3480710538702275&set=gm.1831609270341527

    Matt’s account is discussed in the Wikipedia article regarding Rachel Scott, and it seems Matt has chosen to use the account that seems to be, quite justifiably, disputed.

    Also, within the last few days, Kent Hovind was entertaining Matt on his 145 acre conpound near Lenox, AL. Kent keeps prodding Matt to move in with him (Matt has a wife, one child and one due shortly). Most recently, Matt responded to Kent’s inquiry with “perhaps”.

    Matt, I think, should be more honest with Kent and tell him there ain’t no way his wife is going to let him move in with Kent, not with her and the 2 kids.

    See:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3478793435560652&set=gm.1831120803723707

    In other news, Kent’s and Paul John Hansen’s $500,000,000.00+ federal suit continues to inch towards its ultimate dismissal.

    Paul John Hansen and one of his other clients, TB Herbst, appear to be involved in a little mortgage fraud where Herbst is trying to avoid foreclosure on some property he transferred to a bogus “ministerial trust”. They are suing, in federal court, the bankers claiming there is no liability to pay the mortgage. There is a hearing on that case later this month and it also is inching towards dismissal.

    Kent’s man Hansen remains a fugitive from justice out of Douglas County, NB (warrant is outstanding).

    That’s what is going on with some of the issues I watch.
    .

  2. Logos.nl points out the dangers of methodological naturalism:

    https://logos.nl/moet-een-christen-methodologisch-naturalisme-aannemen/

    “1) MN stimuleert wetenschappers om theorieën aan te nemen die in de kern niet samen kunnen gaan met christendom.”
    “MN stimulates scientists to accept theories which essentially are incompatible with christianity.”

    2) “MN creëert een cultuur die spanning tussen wetenschap en christendom versterkt.”
    MN creates a culture that reinforces the tension between science and christianity.”

    3) “MN kan christenen dwingen om de werkelijkheid van God te negeren of Zijn plaats in het intellectuele debat te ontkennen.”
    MN can force christians to neglect the reality of God or to deny His place in the intellectual debate.”

    I especially like problem 2. How can there be tension between science and christianity if (I quote AIG) “the Bible is the foundation for science”? That that tension moreover can be reinforced?
    What is it, dear YECers – are evolution and Big Bang science that reinforce that tension or are they not science at all, so that there is no tension?
    My tentative conclusion: creacrappers don’t even understand what they themselves believe.

  3. For those who doubt that football/soccer is the greatest sport mankind ever invented:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/football-follies/

  4. What about the suspected variation from the Standard Model of particles in high-energy physics, the g-minus-2 magnetic moment of the meson.
    There seems to be a confirmation of an earlier value of g-2.

  5. BTW, I discovered an article which explained the g-2 result in Quanta Magazine. I had never heard of Quanta Magazine before. It is online and free. Is it reliable? As I understand what it was saying: A muon has spin 1/2, so it should present the magnetic moment in two rotations, thus the value 2. But there are complicating factors due to each of the known possible particles. If we know all of the possible particles, we can calculate the precise deviation from 2. A deviation from the calculated value is an indication of an unknown particle.
    Did I get that sort of right?

  6. FrankB – “How can there be tension between science and christianity” Creationists distinguish between Christian Science (that’s the real one) and secular science.

  7. @Hans: the search function at AIG doesn’t give any hits on “christian science” or “secular science”. Neither does its Dutch counterpart Logos.nl. At the other hand creacrappers never claim that evolution is secular science; this example even suggests the opposite.

    https://biblicalsciencenews.blogspot.com/2017/09/secular-science-refutes-evolution.html

    Creacrappers maintain that evolution is not science at all.
    I understand your point, but mine is about what they actually write.

  8. Our breed of creationists here (creation.com) talk about ‘secular science’ all the time. You can assume that in their view ‘secular science’ is the same as anti-science.

  9. @FrankB
    Readers may be puzzled by.the
    expression “arrow dynamics”. ISTM that should be “aerodynamics”.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Speaking of aerodynamics, I see that the slow unravelling of the F-35 program continues. In February this year, the USAF reduced its flying hours, announcing that the F-16s – which are thirty and forty years old now – would have to pick up the slack. Twenty-plus years of “development” and the expenditure of $US430 billion have not improved it to the point where it can manage an all-mission readiness rate above 40%, and attempts at fixes only generate new glitches and problems.

    Now the UK has quietly shelved its plans to buy 130 of them, and will take only the 48 which are actually on order. These are the F-35B STOL variant meant to be the air groups of the two new QE class “carriers”. In one of the most foolish blunders of recent times, those ships were commissioned without catapults or arrestors, so are completely dependent on STOL aircraft or choppers. But so wretched are the readiness, availability and sortie rates of the F-35Bs that the RN is now looking at refitting the ships and acquiring decent naval aircraft. At, of course, huge cost to the taxpayer. But the alternative is to reclassify them as “helicopter carriers” or some such, and to accept that the RN can’t have an air arm capable of a strike or air superiority role.

    The other problem is that even the generals are now aware that despite the huge costs of “stealth” in exotic materials, manufacturing time, and foregone performance especially in payload and range, variable-wavelength mobile radars are now being deployed that can and will detect the “stealth” aircraft at range. Jamming, decoy, dummy and mirror site systems can confuse even the best gosh-wow electronics. Interceptors can themselves be stealthy, and they can go completely passive, being vectored by the aforementioned radars. In short, the ancient facts are emerging again – complex, expensive, difficult to deploy and demanding systems will be met with simpler, cheaper, more available and robust systems that can be deployed in bulk.

    The old aphorisms still apply: what can go wrong, will go wrong; the more there is to go wrong, the more will go wrong; the higher, the fewer; many beats few, to a first approximation; keep it simple, stupid; and there is no substitute for a willingness to bleed.

    Why this has to be beaten into the military establishment every generation continues to be a mystery to me.

  11. Here in the Britain Formerly Known as Great we have lost an amiable but cringingly gaffe-prone Duke, but this blow falls far heavier on the inhabitants of the island of Tana: Prince Philip: The Vanuatu tribes mourning the death of their ‘god’

    But I must caution anyone who, on reading the above article, might feel a certain patronising smugness about what they consider ‘primitive’ cultures. One need only look to recent events in Northern Ireland, where a solution had previously been forged to mitigate tribalism but which has now been discarded in favour of a different primitive superstition…

  12. @Hans: “You can assume that in their view ‘secular science’ is the same as anti-science.”
    Like I already wrote: I understand your point.