Is there really a god?

January 31, 2006

There is a Jack Chick comic book all about this guy. It is absolutely hilarious. Jack Chick rules!

That is where I got my information. Guess we can only agree on cuddle-parties and Jack Chick comic books then.

January 31, 2006

Simple, you not basing it on the Bible. You are best to discuss this topic with QUICKANNE, or someone who may accept non-cannonical material in their tradition, or cannonise extra-biblical material.

quankanne ... Q-U-A-N-K-anne.

still not sure how you find reason to dismiss the very books your KJV Bible is derived from. Doesn't make sense, unless you've disregarded the evolution of these writings and the forms which they've taken?

January 31, 2006

Simple, you not basing it on the Bible. You are best to discuss this topic with QUICKANNE, or someone who may accept non-cannonical material in their tradition, or cannonise extra-biblical material.

quankanne ... Q-U-A-N-K-anne.

still not sure how you find reason to dismiss the very books your KJV Bible is derived from. Doesn't make sense, unless you've disregarded the evolution of these writings and the forms which they've taken?

Yeah, evolution alright. The KJV is a different source material than the Catholic/or other version Bibles. Directly from the ORIGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW texts. Nobody fuddled around with them. As for the other versions, yeah, they are inauthentic because they have the Egyptian/Alexandrian tampered Greek versions.

The whole account is on the Comic Book 'Sabatoge' by Jack Chick, and he also has a few comic book tracts that dwelve further into the subject. Go to

http://www.chick.com and check it online or order it today!

February 1, 2006

Yeah, evolution alright. The KJV is a different source material than the Catholic/or other version Bibles. Directly from the ORIGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW texts. Nobody fuddled around with them. As for the other versions, yeah, they are inauthentic because they have the Egyptian/Alexandrian tampered Greek versions.

OMG!!!! Do I have to spell it out to you Admiral??? These same hebrew and greek texts, that you place so much faith in are the ones the historians I referred to studied! This is what intelligent historians do! They study the primary sources.

February 1, 2006

OMG!!!! Do I have to spell it out to you Admiral??? These same hebrew and greek texts, that you place so much faith in are the ones the historians I referred to studied! This is what intelligent historians do! They study the primary sources.

I've read about it too. It's all part of a greater Jesuit conspiracy to discredit the source material.

You should read the comics from Jack Chick http://www.chick.com .

You can keep your scholars, but I like my comic books better.

February 1, 2006

Admiral, had a look at your heros website and I'm glad that moron is not in my country. He rants about homosexuals, abortion and islam amongst other things, and the guy shows himself to be an uneducated retard.

e.g. he claims that the quran tells muslims to kill people who "deny" islam. This is BS. Despite what many people think, there is no passage in the quran telling muslims to kill people who do not follow islam. Early muslim societies encouraged other religions in their culture.

February 1, 2006

Admiral, had a look at your heros website and I'm glad that moron is not in my country. He rants about homosexuals, abortion and islam amongst other things, and the guy shows himself to be an uneducated retard.

e.g. he claims that the quran tells muslims to kill people who "deny" islam. This is BS. Despite what many people think, there is no passage in the quran telling muslims to kill people who do not follow islam. Early muslim societies encouraged other religions in their culture.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The Bible is against homosexuality (as sex betwee same sex members is a sin), abortion (thou shalt not kill is one of the commandments), and what he says about islam, is what he says. Why dont you read it instead of judging the material?

You can not say the Bible is going to condone sin of any form. If you do not like what the Bible says, than that is too bad because that is all what Jack Chick is about, and since his authority is from the Bible, he has some backbone as opposed to most of these jellyfish people pleasing churches and preachers out there who will say anything to collect a dollar from their congregation.

Where does jihad come from? Their books teach that one of the sure ways to enter heaven is to blow themselves up in crowds of people to get 70 virgins. Islam is all about winning the world to Islam by any means necessary. I'll look up the Quaran myself later, and for sure, I'll find a reference about that.

February 1, 2006

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The Bible is against homosexuality (as sex betwee same sex members is a sin), abortion (thou shalt not kill is one of the commandments), and what he says about islam, is what he says. Why dont you read it instead of judging the material?

You can not say the Bible is going to condone sin of any form. If you do not like what the Bible says, than that is too bad because that is all what Jack Chick is about, and since his authority is from the Bible, he has some backbone as opposed to most of these jellyfish people pleasing churches and preachers out there who will say anything to collect a dollar from their congregation.

Where does jihad come from? Their books teach that one of the sure ways to enter heaven is to blow themselves up in crowds of people to get 70 virgins. Islam is all about winning the world to Islam by any means necessary. I'll look up the Quaran myself later, and for sure, I'll find a reference about that.

Holy smoke AT if you put this much effort into real estate you could hang with Trump.....

This ain't the truth.... maybe what you want it to be, what you think it should be, but not for all of us....... thank goodness for that!

a4a

February 1, 2006

I've read in the Quran, Surah 2: The Cow, vs. 12-13. It encourages that unbelievers should be killed.

Therefore, the Islam, as taken to its full spirit as originally intended, would have everyone murdered who chooses to remain an infidel.

February 1, 2006

This ain't the truth.... maybe what you want it to be, what you think it should be, but not for all of us....... thank goodness for that!
a4a

It is in the Bible. Like I said, it is easier for your guys to accept lies that pose no challenge to your pride, or lusts of flesh, eyes, and desire for things of the world, because that is where you choose to put your faith. The easy way out doesn't work.

February 1, 2006

It is in the Bible. Like I said, it is easier for your guys to accept lies that pose no challenge to your pride, or lusts of flesh, eyes, and desire for things of the world, because that is where you choose to put your faith. The easy way out doesn't work.

I'm feeling that Admiral!

I have a serious question. If The quran does not teach people that they will go to heaven if the kill why do so many muslims do it? Their has to be a motive behind it.

on another note if you don't believe there is a presence of God do you belive in the presence of Satan. How else can you explain the inhumane, inthinkable crimes we commit as a human race? I know it is because of the presence of Satan and his demons ( the fallen angles that our heard at work distracting us from the truth that is so plainly shown to us if we would just take the time and God to reveal himself to us we would surely find him. although many find him a reject him b/c things he has spoken don't make human logical since. but if you believe in any God at all don't you believe you God could do anything?

So where did Allah Come From?

Muslims worship a god by the name of Allah. They also give him ninety-nine other names. The question that naturally arises is who or what is this Allah? Where did the Muslims derive their ideas of Allah's nature and attributes?

Historical Source of Islam

Historians, linguists, and archeologists have dug into this question for over a century. Various archeological digs in Arabia and throughout the Middle East have uncovered the answer: Islam is a modern version of the ancient fertility religion of the moon god. Once this is grasped, the rise and history of Islam becomes clear.

The Arab conquests were made possible because the central powers in the Middle East had exhausted themselves in wars against each other. They were not able to fight off wave after wave of Arab armies which subdued entire nations with merciless slaughter, rape and plunder.

Conquering Armies

The Arabs destroyed some of the wonders of the ancient world such as the world famous library in Alexandria, Egypt, They destroyed many ancient churches and synagogues. Anthropologists have recorded how the Arabs destroyed the cultural heritage of any nation which fell under their sword.

Who were these Arabs? They obviously were not Christians because they destroyed churches and murdered priests wherever they went. Obviously, they were not Jews because they persecuted Jews without pity. This is seen today in their hatred of Israel and the many wars and acts of terrorism waged against Jews throughout the world.

If the Arab hordes which swept over the ancient world were not Christians or Jews, then what were they? They were pagans who worshipped a pagan god called Allah and followed pagan rites which were practiced in Arabia long before the religion of Islam evolved.

Islam Denies the Trinity

These facts of history reveal that Islam does not worship the same God worshipped by Christians. Why?

Christians worship one God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But Islam denies the Holy Trinity and worships a different deity called Allah who is not a Father and who has no son.

Since the religion found in the Bible teaches the Trinity, then it does not take a Ph.D. to see that Islam did not come from the Bible. Thus it is not the religion of the biblical prophets, apostles or Jesus.

Pagan Origins

Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.

The Crescent Moon

What religion today practices the pagan rites of the moon god? Islam! This explains why the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. It is placed on top of mosques and minarets and displayed on hats, flags, rugs, amulets and even jewelry. Every time you see the Muslim symbol of a crescent moon, you are seeing the ancient symbol of the moon god.

Denial Not a Refuge

Does the average Muslim know that he is worshipping a moon god? No. Does he know why the crescent moon symbol sits on top of his mosque? No. Is he shocked and perhaps angered at these facts of history? Yes. But can mere denial or angry threats refute the fact that Islam is nothing more than a modern version of the ancient religion of the moon god Allah? No. The average Muslim has been kept in the dark by the Mullahs and Imams who would lose their power if the truth ever got out

How Did the quran come to be?

Modern scholars using sound principles of literary analysis have determined that the Qur'an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death.

This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel( a Angel who Carried a message from the Chrisitan God) brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad's companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Calif Uthman. ( Sounds a like they used some of the witings of The BIble)

This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad's companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Calif Uthman.

The insurmountable problem that Muslims face is that they do not have any documentary evidence from the 7th and 8th century to back up any of their claims. For example, if Uthman compiled the Qur'an as the Hadith claims (Bukhari I:63; IV:709: VI:507, 510), where is the manuscript evidence for this? Why have no Qur'ans survived from that period? Why do we have to wait over a hundred years before we find even a scrap of the Qur'an?

The Muslims are also guilty of circular reasoning when they document the Qur'an by the Hadith and then document the Hadith by the Qur'an! But there is no documentary evidence to back up the Hadith or the Qur'an! They are both fraudulent as to authorship and dates.

Some Muslims have claimed that 7th century copies of the original Qur'an have been found in museums at Topkapi, Turkey and Tashkent, Russia. But when they were examined by manuscript scholars, they turned out to be 9th or 10th century manuscripts.

The Qur'an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur'an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.

The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one.

How different is the situation with the New Testament. The manuscript evidence for it begins twenty years after the death of Christ. There are literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic texts which document the reliability of the New Testament.

The same holds true for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. We have more than enough literary documentation for the life of Jesus from first century Jewish, pagan, and Christian manuscripts. This is in sharp contrast to the life of Muhammad. We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 years after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur'an from the 7th century. Thus much of what is said about the life of Muhammad must now be dismissed as fiction.

The truth will triumph in the end. The Qur'an and the Hadith were political tools used to subjugate non-Arab cultures by forcing them to accept a religion with elevated Arabian language, political laws, moral standards, dress codes, penal punishments and other cultural elements to the status of divine law. This is why, to become a Muslim, you must take an Arab name, dress like an Arab, speak Arabic, eat only what Arabs eat, treat your wife as Arabs treat their wives, etc.

The religion of Islam was thus born out of Arab cultural imperialism and is rooted in a racist attitude that all things Arab are good while all things non-Arab are evil. Until this is understood, the true nature of Islam cannot be grasped.

This is why Western dress, food, movies, hairstyles, etc., are zealously denounced by the Mullahs and Imams as Satanic. Such things as blue jeans are not really condemned because they are immoral but because they are not Arab.

The truthfulness of this observation is easily demonstrated by Islam's demand that one bow in prayer in the direction of Arabia (Mecca) and make a pilgrimage to Arabia (Mecca). The religion of Islam is Arabian paganism and culture raised to divine law and imposed upon conquered nations.

If the Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, then it stands to reason that it would not contain factual errors of science. By "factual errors" we mean errors that can be physically examined. We are not talking about contradictions between scientific theories and the Qur'an. We are talking about hard evidence that can be checked out.

But first, there is a question we must answer: "is it legitimate to judge the Qur'an?" Many Muslims believe in the Qur'an as a blind leap of faith. They really do not care if it is filled with mistakes and contradictions. As far as they are concerned, they were born Muslim and they will die Muslim. The more closed minded they are, the more fanatical they become in their religion. When ignorance unites with arrogance, fanaticism is born. ( same is true for any religion)

We pity those whose religion is only the product of an accident of birth and culture. They blindly follow whatever religion they were born into. How sad it is to have an unexamined faith; a faith that cannot stand up to reason and science; a faith that merely shouts slogans, stamps its feet and beats its breast in a mindless mob. They do not believe in Islam because it is true. To them Islam is true because they believe it.

A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Macbeth Act V, Scene 5)

Thankfully, there are millions of Muslims today who have received a university education and understand that an unexamined faith is a worthless faith. They are open minded to scientific facts and evidence. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The Setting of the Sun

One of the questions which puzzled the ancient Arabs was, "Where did the sun go when night time came?" The Qur'an gave them Allah's answer.

He [i.e. Zul-qarnain] followed, until he reached the setting of the sun. He found it set in a spring of murky water.

(Surah XVIII ( Kahf) vs. 85-86)

We agree with Muslim scholars that Zul-qarnain refers to Alexander the Great (see Yusuf Ali's appendix on this subject in his translation of the Qur'an). According to this surah, Alexander the Great traveled west until he found out what happened to the sun. It went down into and under the murky waters of a pond. When it was completely covered by the water, darkness fell upon the earth.

To the early Muslims, this surah gave the divine answer as to why darkness fell when the sun set in the West. They assumed that the sun, like the moon, was the size perceived by the human eye, about the size of a basketball. Darkness came when with a mighty hissing roar it went down under the dark waters of a pond. They boldly and proudly proclaimed that this marvelous answer proved that the Qur'an was indeed the Word of God.

Today, modern Muslims are quite embarrassed by this passage and try to ignore it or to quickly dismiss it as poetry. But the passage is not part of a poem. Thus it cannot be dismissed as figurative language or poetic license. In the context, it is part of a historical narrative which relates several historical incidences in the life of Alexander the Great.

The mistake was based on the erroneous assumption that the earth was flat. The authors of the Qur'an did not know that the earth was a sphere which revolved around the sun.

The reader must ask himself if he is prepared to believe and to defend the Qur'an in this passage. Either the sun sets in a pond or it doesn't. It is either one way or the other. There can be no middle ground, no compromise, no evading the issue. If you agree with us that the sun is shining on the other side of the earth and thus it does not go down into murky water, then you must also agree with us that the Qur'an contains scientific errors.

"So what?" you ask. "Who cares!" you cry. Only those who are brave enough to seek the truth will care. Those who are intellectually lazy or dishonest will close their eyes and pretend to see nothing.

It only takes one error to disprove the Qur'an. That's right. Just one little error and the whole book goes down in defeat! You have just discovered one irrefutable error in the Qur'an. What are you going to do about it?

When you pick up a copy of the Qur'an, several questions should immediately come to your mind:

WHO? AUTHORSHIP

WHAT? LITERARY NATURE

WHERE? PLACE OF ORIGIN

WHEN? TIME OF WRITING

HOW? MEDIUM OF TRANSMISSION

WHY? JUSTIFICATION OF NEED

These questions are good and necessary. But how can we find answers to them? There are two different approaches to answering these questions

1. The Muslim approach depends upon secondary sources which were put together generations after Muhammad died. The Sira and the Hadith supply the Muslim with the official answers to these questions. Thus while the Qur'an does not answer the questions above, the Hadith does. Note: Muslims are guilty of circular reasoning at this point: They prove the Qur'an by the Hadith and then prove the Hadith by the Qur'an!

2. The secular approach focuses on the issue of primary sources. It questions the veracity of the Traditions as well as the veracity of the Qur'an. It does not want material written in the ninth or tenth century telling them what was written in the seventh century. They want actual material from the seventh and eight century. The failure of the Muslims to come up with anything has great implications.

Part I: The Muslim Approach

The Hadith is sometimes called the second inspiration with the Qur'an being the first inspiration. The Hadith claims to be the record of Muhammad's exposition and application of the Qur'an, biographical material on Muhammad, and the history of the writing, collection, and composition of the text of the Qur'an. (Bukhari vol. VI, no. 564). The authority and authenticity of the Qur'an depends entirely upon the integrity and teachings of the Hadith. In other words, the Qur'an is valid only if the Hadith is true. If it is false, then the Qur'an is automatically false.

A. The Integrity of Muhammad

The integrity of Muhammad is all important. He was either whom he claimed to be, a liar or a nut case (mentally insane or demon possessed). This is why the Traditions went to such great lengths to create a model of Muhammad that depicts him as a "super man" as well as a prophet. What do we find in the Hadith?

1. Muhammad's credentials for prophethood are unacceptable. The two prominent Hadithic "proofs" of his prophethood came from pagan ideas of what a shaman would look like and the manner in which he would be inspired.

A. The Hadith explains that when the Qur'an refers to the seal of prophethood being upon Muhammad (Surah 33:40), the seal was a large hairy mole on his back. This is found in both Bukhari (vol. 1, no. 189; vol. IV, no. 741) and Muslim (vol. IV, no. 5790,5793). This mole was the physical proof that Muhammad was a prophet according to Tabari and other later Muslim authorities. They even claimed that the mole was a fulfillment of such Scriptures as Isa. 9:6. We cannot accept this proof. While such ideas can be found in pagan traditions from many primitive cultures, it is not a part of the religion of Abraham, the prophets, the apostles or Jesus.

B. Both the Bukhari and Muslim Hadiths describe what happened to Muhammad when inspiration came upon him. He heard ringing in his ears, fell to the ground, turned red, sweated profusely, made moaning sounds, spit ran from his mouth, etc. While ancient pagans placed a great deal of importance on such things, they were never a part of the biblical prophets.

2. He failed a direct test of his claim to prophethood. He was asked to explain why a child will look like one parent as opposed to looking like the other. He claimed that Gabriel came and gave the inspired answer. See Bukhari vol. IV: no. 546. So, we are dealing with revelation and not just his personal opinion. He said that the child will look like which parent reaches his or her sexual climax first. The study of genetics and DNA forever disproves this idea.

3. He believed in magic, the evil eye, amulets, omens, spells, etc. He was superstitious about many things and made up weird rules about bathroom duties (Bukhari vol. 1, no. 144; vol. IV, nos. 110, 111; vol. VII, nos. 636, 648, 649, 650; Muslim vol. I, no. 458; vol. III, 3 nos. 5424, 5427). He was afraid whenever a strong wind blew (Bukhari vol. II, no. 144) and of eclipses (Bukhari vol. II, no. 167).

While this is bad enough, the Hadith tells us that Muhammad was at times under magical spells, i.e., bewitched, and told lies and did things while under those spells. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 400, 490; VII, no. 660; Muslim vol. III, no. 5428) Once it is admitted that he told lies and did things while under satanic influence, then the entire Qur'an could be satanic in origin.

Later Muslim authorities even went so far as to say that he was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an. They were later removed because they were Satanic verses. (Surah 53:19,20)

4. The Hadith tells us that "Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests." (Bukhari III: no. 495), Was he in it for the money? Some Muslims are ignorant of this Hadith and claim that Muhammad was poor like Jesus.

5. He did not keep the rules he imposed upon others. He had more wives than four (Bukhari vol. I, no. 268) and did not write a will (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 3,4).

6. He commanded that anyone who fell away from Islam should be murdered. (Bukhari vol IV, no. 260; vol. V, no. 630) Volume IX is filled with death threats against apostasy (pgs. 10,11, 26, 34, 45, 50, 57, 341, 342). These Hadiths contradict other Hadiths which say that no one ever leaves Islam (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 6, 48).

The punishment of apostates reveals that he did not believe in the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press. The fact that he commanded that no churches or synagogues be allowed in Arabia is a telling argument that he was not a man of peace.

7. The Hadith reveals that Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for sin more than seventy times a day. (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 711; 78; vol. V, no. 724) Since Muslims believe that prophets must be sinless, this means that Muhammad was not a prophet.

8. He was guilty of false prophecies.

1 - The 100 yr. Prophecy. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 539)

2. The end of the world predictions. (Bukhari vol. IV, no.401)

9. He kissed and caressed the idol of black stone set into the wall of the Kabah. (Muslim vol. II, no. 2912, 2916) We cannot imagine Abraham or Jesus kissing a pagan idol and then commanding their followers to do so.

10. While Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate in order to make the Qur'an a miracle, the Hadith records that he could in fact read and write. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 393)

II. The Teachings of Muhammad

Just as the Hadith gives us good reasons to question the integrity of Muhammad, his teachings recorded in the Hadith give us even more reason to doubt he was a prophet. The following is a brief list of some of the strange and absurd teachings of Muhammad.

1. Adam was 60 cubits tall! (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543) Then how tall was Eve? If they were that tall, how did we get here? Is it medically possible for him to be that tall?

2. Muhammad was a dog hater. He thought that angels could not enter a house if a dog was there and that black dogs were devils. Thus he ordered dogs to be killed and forbid the selling of dogs. (Bukhari vol- IV, nos. 539, 540; Muslim vol. I, nos. 551, 552; vol. II, nos. 3803, 3829)

3. Satan lives in the nose over night. He can be flushed out if you snort water up and then out the nose. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516; Muslim vol. I, no. 462) How big is Satan? Is he in everyone's nose? Is he omnipresent?

4. Muhammad forbade the game of chess! (Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612) This makes no sense to me.

5. People turn into rats, pigs and monkeys. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 524, 627; Muslim vol. IV, no. 7135). Abraham's father was turned into an animal (Bukhari vol. IV, no.569)

6. Muslims have one intestine while non-Muslims have seven! (Muslim vol. 111, no. 5113-5115)

7. If you lift up your eyes towards heaven while praying, your eyes will be snatched out! (Muslim vol. III, nos. 862-863)

8. One wing of a fly has poison but the other wing has the antidote to it. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 537)

9. We should drink camel urine as a medicine. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 234)

10. Fevers are from the fire of hell and can be cooled by water. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 483, 486)

III. The Text of the Qur'an

Who wrote out the Qur'an? On what materials? Who put the Qur'an together? Where did he find the materials to do this? Why did he do this? Were others putting together their own Qur'ans? Did these Qur'ans contradict each other? How did one text gain dominance over all the others? What happened to the other Qur'ans? Only the Hadith gives us answers to these questions.

1. From Bukhari vol. VI, no. 509 we learn the following things:

a. Muhammad did not collect the fragments of the Qur'an and make them into a manuscript.

b. Some of the Companions of Muhammad were killed in battle and whatever surahs they had memorized died with them.

c. Abu Bakr asked Zaid to collect the fragments of the Qur'an and arrange them into a manuscript.

d. Zaid hesitated because the task was harder than sifting through an entire mountain.

e. The task was difficult because of:

1. the fragile nature of the fragments: palm leaves, stones, bones, etc.

2. the faulty memories of men (vol. VI, no. 527)

3. the false claims of men (vol. VI, no 523)

4. conflicting versions of the Qur'an (vol VI, no. 510, 514, 523)

5. contradictory orders of the surahs (vol VI, no. 515, 518)

6. God caused verses to be abrogated or forgotten. (vol. IV, nos. 57, 62, 69, 299, 393; VI, nos. 510, 511, 527,

7. Muhammad himself forgot and missed various parts of the Qur'an (vol. VI, no. 558, 562)

2. Even after the manuscript was put together, they found that they had missed some verses (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 62, no. 510).

3. They tried to burn all the other Qur'anic fragments and manuscripts. (VI, no. 510)

4. Uthman is usually credited for making the present text. (vol. I, no. 63; vol. IV, no. 709; vol. VI, nos. 507, 510)

It is clear that the text of the Qur'an was not perfect and that conflicts arose which made it necessary to make one uniform text. That Uthman tried to burn all the other Qur'ans is clear. Yet, there are thousands of variant readings and there remains controversies about verses such as the one about stoning which were omitted by mistake.

IV. The Contradictions and Variant Readings in the Hadith

One problem all Muslims face is that there are contradictions in the Hadith, conflicting readings and abrogations of Hadiths (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 42, 47, 74, 78, 80, 81, 86, 102, 107, 112, 159 vs 160, 161, 179, 180; vol. III, nos., 159, 161; Muslim vol. I, nos. 682, 685 ,689, 699; vol. II, nos. 2547, 2548). The footnote on Bukhari vol. III, no. 159 says, "Hadith no. 159 contradicts the Hadith of Al-Hassan." Evidently Allah was not capable of preserving a perfect text of the Hadith. On what grounds then can we assume that the Qur'an was kept perfect?

V. The Inspiration of the Qur'an

The mistakes in the Qur'an are well known. I list over one hundred such problems in Islamic Invasion. The following is a few of the more glaring problems that the average person has no problem seeing. All we need is ONE factual error to disprove the Qur'an. We are not talking about conflicts with theories but with brute facts.

1. Theological errors: The Qur'an is mistaken about what Christians and Jews believe. (Surah 5:73, 75; 9:30).

2. Historical mistakes: the Samaritans (Surah 20:85, 97), Alexander the Great, etc.

3. Grammatical errors: Arabic scholars point out errors in Surahs 2:177, 192; 3:59; 4:162; 5:69; 7:160; 13:28; 20:66; 63:10, etc.

4. Linguistical errors: Even though the Qur'an claims to be in pure Arabic (12:2; 13:37; 16:105; 4l:44; 42:7), it has foreign words.

5. Scientific errors: sun in muddy pond (Surah 18:86), mountains never shake (Surah 16:15; 21:31; 31: 10; 78:6,7; 88:19)

6. Moral errors: Muhammad justifying the taking of his daughter-in-law (Surah 33:36,38)

7. Mathematical errors: Did creation take six days (Surahs 7:51; 10:3) or eight days (Surah 41:9, 10, 12)?

8. Chronological errors: Puts Muslim vocabulary into mouth of Patriarch, prophets, etc. (Surah 2:129133; 7:124,126, etc.). The words did not exist in Hebrew or Arabic at that time.

9. Biblical errors: The convolution of names, places, events and times. Couldn't even get the name of Jesus right. He was the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross according to the Bible. The Qur'an contradicts this.

10. Political errors; Commands Jihad -- against apostates and non-Muslims (Surah 4:91; 5:33; 9:5)

Conclusion

The Hadith and the Qur'an stand or fall together. The facts are clear that they are not from God and are false works.

Part II The Secular Approach

Modern scholars such as Crook, Crone, Wansbrough, Rippin, etc. are giving us a totally different model of the origins of Islam and the Qur'an. Once you put aside the Qur'an and the Hadith, you begin to see that Islam created the Qur'an instead of the Qur'an creating Islam. Islam created a mythological Muhammad who is nothing like the historical Muhammad, if that was his true name. The Qur'an had multiple authors from various locations who combined different legends and materials to make the stories found in it. It took 150-200 years for the Qur'an to appear. Muhammad never saw the present Qur'an and would disown it if shown it. He is not the source of it. This explains the contradictions and mistakes in it.

Time line

570 Muhammad's birth

7th Century

610 Muhammad's call to prophethood

632 Muhammad's death

650 Calif Uthman

691 Dome of the Rock

8th Century 700

legends

myths

9th Century 800 traditions

700,000 Hadiths

850 Bukhari's Hadith

10th Century

923 Tabari's Commentary

1. No references to Muhammad as a prophet have been found in contemporary literature, rock inscriptions or coins.

2. No manuscripts of the Qur'an exist before 150-200 years after Muhammad. This allows opportunity for myths and legends to arise.

3. The claim that Uthman compiled the Qur'an has no evidence to support it.

4. The claim that two "original" Uthman Qur'ans can be seen at Topkapi, Turkey and in Tashkent, Russia is false. The manuscripts are in the Kufic script which did not exist in the 7th Century. They are clearly from the 9th Century and are in "landscape" format which was not used in the 7th century.

5. The present text of Qur'an came from multiple authors using erroneous legends, myths, and stories. It has many additions, deletions, variant readings, and no primary source materials to support it. It is thus a corrupt text and cannot be trusted to tell us what Muhammad really taught or did.

6. The text and stories of the Hadith are as corrupt as the Qur'an. Where is the evidence to support its claims?

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.

Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and The Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.

Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.

If you end where you began, you got nowhere.

Examples:

#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.

#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.

#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.

3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.

Examples:

#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...

#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...

#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say, "If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."

What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."

The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."

Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.

4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.

Examples:

#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:

a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.

b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.

#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.

#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?"

This argument is erroneous for several reasons.

a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).

b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice many things which came from the paganism of that day.

c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).

#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.

When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand.

#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.

5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.

#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods.

#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus, too.

#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.

On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever, Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them.

#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings.

a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)

b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."

c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.

d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.

e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.

Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.

6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).

Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims."

It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.

Examples:

#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:

a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"

b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation, The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).

c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.

8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,

a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."

b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.

c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 94:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.

d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Mohammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.

9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.

Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.

10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument, Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.

Example:

Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach, "The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters." They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.

Conclusion

The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.

I Think this should clear up anything on Islam and the quran.

February 1, 2006

ugh, is this some sick, sad joke? Or is this what the "true" evangelists are touting in the name of God?

I looked at the Chick link, and followed the Rivera links with a sickened feeling in my gut. Sickened, because gullible and easily swayed readers are going to call this crap "truth." I realize I'm not the most enlightened person on the face of the earth, but in my heart I understand that what "message" Chick and Rivera disseminate is not of God, but of something Unholy. I'll pray for the salvation of your soul, AT, because it is apparent to me that you are in serious immortal danger by exposing yourself to such vicious lies that are told in the name of God ....

February 1, 2006

......monkey see, monkey overanalyze...

February 1, 2006

not really ... Chick disseminates inaccurate and misleading information of the Catholic faith that is dangerous because it passes itself as "truth." While I may not agree with how X or Y professes spiritual belief, as a good Christian, I try to find a common meeting ground so I can share my faith with someone if asked.

Chick's message is not from God because it reeks of lies and has the goal of creating chaos, if you will, among people who profess a belief in Him. And that, my dear, is work of the Devil, to make what is good or holy into something bad.

I've never uttered these words lightly about the Devil because it's a very serious thing with me.

February 1, 2006

:bunny:

February 1, 2006

If you have ever visited a large cave, you may have heard the guide warn you, "Don't touch the formations! They took millions of years to form!" Hanging from the ceiling of the cave were probably many beautiful pointed rock hangings, called stalactites. They are formed by mineral deposits left by dripping water over time.

The guide may even have told you that it takes a thousand years to grow a stalactite an inch. Carlsbad Caverns is supposed to have taken 250 million years to grow. But is it true? If so, the world must be millions of years old, and the Genesis account of creation completely wrong.

Dr. Kent Hovind, in his video "The Age of the Earth," offers many surprising facts demonstrating that the world cannot possibly be this old.

Among them is a photo of stalactities, some 50 inches in length, that have been formed by dripping water under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922. These stalactites have grown nearly 2/3 inch per year! So much for the "thousand years per inch" idea.

Hovind also shows a photo of a bat covered by flowstone in a cave before he could rot. Imagine how long this bat would have had to lie here dead, without rotting, for this flowstone to cover him as it has! Obviously, these mineral deposits occur much more rapidly than we are led to believe.

If in fact God created the world 6,000 years ago, and then destroyed it by a flood 4,400 years ago, we should expect to find many of the oldest things in the world to be somewhat less than 4,400 years old.

Hovind, in his seminar, offers many examples, including:

The Great Barrier Reef, the oldest and largest reef in the world, has been determined to be 4,200 years old.

The world's oldest tree is 4,300 years old.

Minerals being washed into the ocean by erosion would bring the salt content of the ocean to its present level in less than 5,000 years!

more prove we did not evolve!

Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.

Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.

Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.

Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.

According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.

Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.

So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their newfound powers.

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.

The water beetle is also equipped with an impressive—although different—defense mechanism. He manages to escape his enemies by secreting a detergent substance from a gland. Ejecting the detergent accomplishes two things. Firstly, it serves to propel the beetle forward quickly so that he is out of the immediate danger. Secondly, the detergent causes the surface tension of the water to break down, and the pursuing insect sinks into the water. How true are the words of the psalmist who wrote: "O Lord, how manifold are they works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches" (Ps. 104:24).

Even more evidence!

Evolutionists speak with great confidence when they toss around dates related to age of earth and fossils. When you take a closer look at their evidence, great gaps appear. For example, radiocarbon dating is one of the most famous methods that they use.

Yet, Dr. Kent Hovind exposes many discrepancies in the dates produced by this method in his Creation Evangelism Videos and in the accompanying workbook.

Hovind cites an occasion where a living mollusk was dated at 2300 years old.

Another document reported that an "absolute date had been obtained" for a geological formation and it was a "value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." One leg of a mammoth discovered frozen in Alaska was dated at 15,380 years while his skin was set at 21,300 years.

Different parts of another baby mammoth dated at 40,000 years and 26,000 years while the "wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000." New advanced dating techniques used on sediment found with Homo erectus skulls in Java in the 1930s date them no more than 27,000 years old. Scientists previously declared that the species, supposedly an ancestor of man, vanished some 250,000 years ago. So maybe it was just a man, after all.

Potassium-argon dating is another method. But how accurate is it when it dated the lava from a Hawaiian volcano eruption in 1801 at 1.6 million years old?

Dr. Hovind, who taught science in high school for 15 years, uses humor and devastating statistics to expose the lies embedded in public school textbooks. His series of videos cover: age of the earth, conditions in the Garden of Eden, Noah's flood, dragons and dinosaurs, fossil dating fallacies, and the false idea of the geologic column.

He explains how evolutionist teachers have used the child's fascination with dinosaurs to subtly plant the idea that the earth is billions of years old, contrary to the Bible view of creation. His simple, humorous, delivery will give the student confidence in the Bible and help him see through the lies being fed to him in school.

The video series, along with the workbook, is a great tool for a Sunday school teacher looking for a way to help his students understand the creation-evolution controversy.

It is critical that our youngsters understand the danger of believing evolution. If it is true, then the Bible is false. If it is true, then there can be no absolute moral standard and no sin, since we are all just animals. If it is true, then it is right to kill the weak to assist the progress of natural selection. If it is true, then the sexual taboos should be abandoned so that everyone can have sexual enjoyment with everyone else, including children and other animals.

Dr. Hovind's videos deal a devastating blow to this "strong delusion" that the natural man has chosen to believe.

What do peppered moths, ancient horses and the Piltdown man have in common? They are all pillars of evidence of evolution that have crumbled. "These pillars sounded so scientific and compelling that multitudes put their faith in the bridge and walked out on it," says Thomas Heinze in his new book, The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution. "As the years passed, mighty floods of new evidence have swept these pillars away! The shaky old bridge still stands as a philosophic or religious belief system held in place by faith, tradition, and the changing new arguments."

For decades the peppered moth was the mainstay of science textbooks. The theory was that, in London, industrial air pollution turned the tree trunks dark and all the light-colored moths were eaten by birds that could see them easier than the dark-colored moths. Thus dark moths proliferated (evolved) and this proved evolution. The "scientist" who discovered this took pictures of moths on tree trunks to prove his point.

It was later discovered that the man who ran the experiment had to paste the moths to the tree trunks to take his pictures. The moths were nocturnal and were asleep in the daytime on the underside of the leaves of the trees. They never naturally rested on tree trunks in the daytime when the birds were awake. Yet, these pictures still appear in modern textbooks as proof of evolution. Heinze points out that all such "proofs" of evolution do not show "transmigration of species" or that the moths evolved into birds or even into butterflies.

In fact, all so-called proofs do not show "uphill evolution" where a simple organism mutates into a more complex one. All such changes (mutations) only damage the organism in some way or leave it the way it was. For example, short legs on a sheep are not an improvement. He only gets caught by the wolf more quickly.

If evolution worked "uphill," then the sheep should turn into a horse so he could escape the wolf more easily. But evolutionists cannot find any uphill evidence. They are forced to try to convince the world that evolution is true by using "downhill" examples.

Heinze lists the most prominent "proofs" used by evolutionists and shows how their credibility has vanished. When your child is given a textbook by a government schoolteacher, you will need information such as found in The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution to help them separate truth from falsehood. It will also help you convince unbelievers that they were special, made by a loving Creator, not descended from some monkey whose ancestor was an amoeba in a primordial pond.

Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.

Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.

Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

Do Fossils Prove It?

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

But What About Those Bones?

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?

The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?

In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."

Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well.

Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.

A. Lunn summed up the curious faith of the evolutionist as follows: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.) Those supposedly omniscient scientists who still teach evolution as though it were fact are finally seen for what they are...frail men willing to believe a lie because it helps them avoid the truth

another loop whole! Though secular science books teach that a first living cell evolved from chemicals, the idea is not science, but an opinion about ancient history. For it to be true, the ingredients cells are made of would have to be capable of forming under natural conditions. But God made cells of materials that will never form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. DNA, RNA, and proteins won¹t form outside of already living cells, they all break down. If one of them had been able to form spontaneously as many secular biology books lead students to believe, it would have broken down while waiting for the others

Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator

You are walking down the road with a friend and come to a wreck. You point to one of the fragments and ask your friend who knows cars, "Is that thing a piece of the car?" He explains: "It's one of the computer chips that control the motor. If it detects something in the exhaust it uses that information to adjust the fuel mixture or the timing to make the motor run more efficiently." What made the chip? You have two choices:

It was put together by the blind forces of nature.

It was developed by an intelligent designer.

If you see four bricks stacked one on top of another you know someone stacked them that way; how much more the complex design of a chip? However, in cases where the designer would have to have been God, we are told not to reason like we do for everything else, but to believe that cells had no designer at all.

Abiogenesis, the idea that the first life started with no intelligent designer, is contrary to real science because it contradicts:

The Laws of Probability that calculate the chance of a thing happening.

The Principle of Biogenesis (life only comes from life).

Cause and effect.

The general tendency of things to become disordered described by the entropy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The observation of what happens in nature.

The experimental evidence.

As new information about the complexity and information content of cells is discovered, the evidence against life forming without a Creator mounts up, strengthening the case for an intelligent Creator. Something is being done about that! The very definition of science is being changed to get rid of the obvious conclusion that God created living things.

The term "science" once meant "knowledge discovered by experimentation, observation and objective investigation." To be scientific, a thing had to be observable, testable, and repeatable. When one scientist did an experiment, others could repeat his experiment, and obtain the same results. If no one who repeated the experiment came up with the same results, those results had been "falsified" (shown not to be true). Science thrives on this definition. It helps us understand how things work, but it is a big problem for those who don't believe in the Creator. The claim that a first cell came together spontaneously from mindless chemicals is an opinion about ancient history. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated so it is not science, and should not be taught as if it were.

To make the elimination of the Creator appear scientific, many now insist that science must explain all that we observe by solely natural causes. In Kansas the state guidelines redefined science as, "The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."1

The meaning of the term "natural" in this context is "naturalistic; without any input by an intelligent Creator." Redefining science makes it easier to believe in a theory that is obviously not true because it makes it sound scientific. Some atheists must understand that any naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is contrary to scientific evidence. If not, why would they try to manipulate the definition of science?

If science is now the "activity of seeking natural explanations," then science now has a religious purpose. It is not to find the true explanations, fall where they may, but natural explanations, which means explanations which don't involve an intelligent designer. This is an atheistic religious goal, and it has determined the conclusion a scientist is to reach before he even starts his research!

Fry, a philosopher of science, in her book which explains the work of each of the leading origin of life researchers makes this clear:

"… origin of life research consists in looking for a naturalistic alternative to the idea of the creation of life by a designer."2

Irreducible complexity

Fry also responds to the very influential book, Darwin's Black Box, written by Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry. Behe makes the point that even the most simple cell could not function without a certain number of essential parts. He uses the common mouse trap, with a base and a wire that snaps down, as an illustration. If even one part of the trap is eliminated it will not catch mice. Behe calls this "irreducible complexity." Whether it is a mouse trap or a cell, things that are irreducibly complex could not have gradually built up one part at a time. They must have been designed because they will not work at all until a number of parts have been constructed and assembled to work together.

Fry calls the search for a naturalistic explanation of life an attempt to "reduce the irreducibly complex." First life researchers are attempting to find some way in which a cell could have functioned without irreducible complexity which could only have come about by intelligent design. So far they have not succeeded. Why not?

In order to live, a cell must at least have parts that will let it:

Separate itself from the water around it,

Take in food, and expel wastes,

Use food to make the energy the cell needs to do its work,

Contain the information that directs all this,

Reproduce.

A first cell could not have lived to produce a second cell if it lacked the parts needed to make possible even one of these abilities! This is irreducible complexity, and it is evidence of design. Many dead cells, however, have the necessary parts. To be a living cell, it also needs life.

My question to Fry and the first life researchers, each with his doctor's degrees, standing as it were on the shoulders of the scientists who came before him is: "If, after years of accumulating knowledge and ability, one of you should succeed in creating life in a test tube, will he have shown that life just popped up without an intelligent creator?" In the meantime, as more is known about cells, more and more evidence for the irreducible complexity of living things piles up. Is there a point at which we can say, "The idea that life began spontaneously without a Creator has been falsified?" If there is no test that will show a false idea to be false, that idea lies outside the realm of science-at least as science has been defined in the past.

Put it to the test

The new definition of science: "The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," leads one to find that whatever it is applied to had a natural explanation, not design. A cell? Yes, but also an arrowhead or a computer. Why should a definition which obviously leads to a false conclusion about arrow heads, which we know were designed, be used on cells? Since it is so obviously false where it can be tested, why would anyone trust the new definition in an area in which it cannot be checked?

Where did presidents come from?

The heads of some of America's presidents have been carved out of the solid rock on the side of Mount Rushmore. A visitor who knew nothing about them could ask, "Did the wind and the rain do that?"

No one asks that, however, because the heads of the presidents are so perfect that they are obviously the work of a sculptor. Ask a thousand science teachers. All of them will give you that kind of answer. However, many of these teachers will stand up in class the next day and teach their students that not only a first cell, but the very presidents themselves were formed by the blind forces of nature. "There is none so blind as he who will not see!"

You can't possible have all this proof and still believe we evolved. If you evolutionist have done your homework like you say you have how do you explain the proof i presented to show you there is a God and we did not evolve. Really answer my question built on what i wrote not on oh that's what you believe. This is scientific proof here. we as christians can use science to futher proof the existance of God. But if you take a close look as i have shown you. You can not use science no matter how hard you try to prove a non- existince of God

February 1, 2006

Wizdom, if you are going to copy and paste half of the internet, do so in a separate thread.

February 1, 2006

Because it is fundmental to biology.

Right, go up to someone with an Evolution textbook and cure them by teaching them Evolution.

Kevin Trudeau is a convicted felon with no knowledge of the human body or medical science. His book is paranoid, and he preys on the ignorance of people to sell his books. It is not surprising to me at all that you would quote him as someone that whose ideas we should consider.

There are two sides of a coin. Kevin Trudeau claims that he has been victimised by the FDA, the Government because he is whistleblowing them.

Tell that to people who can't breathe without their inhaler, or can't get out of bed without anti-inflammatory drugs, or people in severe pain.

When there is a natural remedy around the corner that can cure all that.

The point is, the government is making censors, or restricting information to the public about natural cures, because only 'drugs' are conveniently labelled as a substance that can cure people. People should be free to choose what cure or treatement they want, and not have to be victim of witheld information.

If the drug companies know about these cures but are keeping them secret, why does anyone with a relative inthat industry die of cancer? Why do their families get sick just s often as everyone else? To suggest such a thing is to suggest that a person would rather see every woman in their family die of breast cancer than cure them, just because of money.

It's as Miclkle Moore said on "The Corporation", why would corporate Hollywood want to make money off a DVD that could cause a boycott of corporations or start a revolution?

The answer, the rich man is so greedy, that he will sell his own noose to make a buck. They dont understand anything but the dolllar, even if it means risking their own lives or their family members. There are people who would sell their grandparents for a dollar. The richer people are, the greedier they become, and it is as simple as that.

False. People are living longer today than they ever have before. All thanks to medical science.

That is malarchi. People are dying of cancer, stroke, and heart-attacks to a much greater extent than ever before. If people are living longer, it is because of hygene, toilet paper invention, and other things that have helped things get more sanitary.

By the time someone starts going into the doctor-drug system, they start a process of a slow death, until they start taking umpteen tablets a day to cure of damages done by other drugs in a chain-reaction.

Let's say that I saw Elvis in a casino today. I am positive that it was him, not a lookalike. I believe this so fervently that I would even pass a lie detercotr test. Does that mean that I saw Elvis? Of course not. Elvis is dead and buried, so it is impossible for me to have seen Elvis. But by your reasoning, not only is it possible that I saw Elvis, I must have, since I believe it so strongly, and you cannot discount my experience.

There are plenty of Elvis Prestlie impresonators. That is what you would have probably seen. You choose a very bad example because people do see Elvis Prestlie impersonators, since they are quite a few of them, right?

Stalin brethed air just as I do, too. Idi Amin believed in God, and look how he treated people.

Look, if you are going to start comparing religious people and Taliban, then it is fair to compare Atheists with Stalin. And religious people breath the same air as George Bush, Sadaam Hussein, or Osama Bin Ladin, so what's your point?

No, you haven't. C-14 is used to date relatively young objects, like around 50,000 years old or so. And it is very, very accurate. And you can't date living organisms using C-14.

It's a sham. It incorrectly dated a living organism as being extint millions of years ago.

But, since you doubt dating methods, please explain to me how every dating method that shows the Earth to be at least 4.5 to 5 billion year old is wrong by a factor of ten. Why are all these dating methods wrong by the exactly the same amount?

A time-machine would be a necessary invention to determine exact dates.

If science can solve all problems, then why cant it come up with a time-machine so we can travel back in time and find out what really happened?

I don't need to "prove" the theory of evolution. Species change over time. This is a fact. You can observe it yourself.

Sure, but they could have been 'created' to do so.

No, time travel is not possible.

Why not? I thought you said science has all the answers. It cant come up with something as simple as a time-machine invention? What about the Flux Capacitor? Or Einstine's theory of relativity, and harnessing Black Hole energy and warping the space-time continuum?

I have no idea why there is "stuff" as opposed to there not being "stuff". But that is a metaphysical question. Science is used to explain and understand how all the "stuff" works.

But not where it came from.

God could have created everything a second ago, with all of our memories intact. It is impossible to determine if this is the case or not, but it is certainly possible.

That is absurd. Let's stick to theology not wild philosophical speculation.

It is certainly possible that God could have created everything, but to suggest so is to suggest that god is incompetent.

How can you come to that conclusion?

You are exactly right. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, that is why it is science. Creationism is not falsifiable, which is why it is NOT science.

When a time-machine is invented, then we will see how the Theory of Evolution will stand.

Thanks. But I do stop doubting when to keep doing so is foolish. That is why there is no doubt in my mind that all life shares a common ancestor.

Adam and Eve.

To doubt that in the face of so much evidence would be foolish, in my opinion, and in the opinion of every biology department on the planet.

Ahem.

LSD is great recreationally, but it doesn't mutate or reproduce.

Probably only in the mind.

I am not rejecting any evidence at all. There is a hotel near where I live that is supposed ot be haunted. I have talked to people who ardently believe that it is, and that hey have seen ghosts there. I have been there many times, and I have never seen anything. Its the Gold Field Hotel, and they have made an episode of "Haunted America" all about it. None of that is evidence.

Maybe you were on the wrong floor or building. Maybe the ghosts do not like you. Maybe the ghosts come out at certain times days.

I have done LSD before, and I have seen walls literally breathe.

But not mutate or reproduce?

It was just as real to me as typing this to you now. Does that mean that the walls must have been breathing? Of course not. But I saw it.

Of course, what you are seeing is attributable to the effects of the drug.

To infer that other people's experiences are attributable to drugs, mental disorders, and discounting ancedontal evidence on those grounds, is as I told d'Arthez, the epithomy of absolute ignorance and is downright disrespectful to the people who have had these experiences.

February 1, 2006

ugh, is this some sick, sad joke? Or is this what the "true" evangelists are touting in the name of God?

As you can see, they are easy to read, Comic book material, and they also have written material too. Are you going to order any?

I looked at the Chick link, and followed the Rivera links with a sickened feeling in my gut.

I know, those Jesuits. I felt the same way when I read it.

Sickened, because gullible and easily swayed readers are going to call this crap "truth." I realize I'm not the most enlightened person on the face of the earth, but in my heart I understand that what "message" Chick and Rivera disseminate is not of God, but of something Unholy.

What, his message is based on the KJV Bible. We have already discussed that the Catholic church is not based on the Bible on previous posts, but they pick bits of verses here and there and interweave it with their paganistic traditions.

I'll pray for the salvation of your soul, AT, because it is apparent to me that you are in serious immortal danger by exposing yourself to such vicious lies that are told in the name of God ....

Are you crazy? Prove they are lies.

February 1, 2006

That is malarchi. People are dying of cancer, stroke, and heart-attacks to a much greater extent than ever before. If people are living longer, it is because of hygene, toilet paper invention, and other things that have helped things get more sanitary.

Care to explain how people where supposed to diagnose lung cancer, Thrawn in 34 BC for instance? Diabetes?

There are plenty of Elvis Prestlie impresonators. That is what you would have probably seen. You choose a very bad example because people do see Elvis Prestlie impersonators, since they are quite a few of them, right?

He was not talking about impersonators. But the real Elvis. According to you he must have seen the real Elvis. According to him, he would have realized that he saw an impersonator. Hard to grasp?

It's a sham. It incorrectly dated a living organism as being extint millions of years ago.

Millions of years? It is reliable up to 40,000 years. Only an incompetent person who uses that method, would come up with millions of years, and claim it as a reliable result.

Why not? I thought you said science has all the answers. It cant come up with something as simple as a time-machine invention? What about the Flux Capacitor? Or Einstine's theory of relativity, and harnessing Black Hole energy and warping the space-time continuum?

It is Einstein. And besides you would reject that theory anyway. And if it were possible on the basis of that theory to build a time-machine, you would claim that the time-machine is a hoax.

That is absurd. Let's stick to theology not wild philosophical speculation.

You only claim it is absurd, because you cannot disprove it. "It is absurd", is not a way of rejecting a claim.

To infer that other people's experiences are attributable to drugs, mental disorders, and discounting

I did not do that. If you can't read, then stop claiming that other people claimed this or that.

ancedontal

Anecdot(ic)al

evidence on those grounds, is as I told d'Arthez, the epithomy of absolute ignorance

And yet, you claim to hold a psychology degree, and have not even tried to refute my claim with anything? Hey, if you claim to have a degree in that area, it might actually help that you even know how to write schizophrenia, or actually know something about the subject of psychology.

and is downright disrespectful to the people who have had these experiences.

Not to mention the omission of the "Eternal hell and damnation if you do not believe as I say is the absolute and infallible truth", in d'Arthez's claims?

February 1, 2006

not really ... Chick disseminates inaccurate and misleading information of the Catholic faith that is dangerous because it passes itself as "truth."

What inaccurate or misleading information? A general turse statement is not good enough. Just because you dont like what it says, and you are a practising Roman Catholic, does not mean it is inaccurate or misleading.

While I may not agree with how X or Y professes spiritual belief, as a good Christian, I try to find a common meeting ground so I can share my faith with someone if asked.

People like reading comic book tracts.

Chick's message is not from God because it reeks of lies and has the goal of creating chaos, if you will, among people who profess a belief in Him. And that, my dear, is work of the Devil, to make what is good or holy into something bad.

Not everyone who professes a belief in God holds the correct one. People who really want to know the true God will benefit from the ministry of Jack Chick - because he teaches what is in the Bible.

I've never uttered these words lightly about the Devil because it's a very serious thing with me.

The same could be said about the Catholic church and its pagan traditions.

I think that too is very serious and many people are misguided into that Christianised Pagan faith.

The Catholics were behind the Soviet Revolution and HOlocaust because they wanted to kill non-Catholic Jews so they could put their church in Jerusalem. It's all on Alberto Rivera's book called godfathers. Please, read it, it * could * be true, right? Why would someone make up something like that if it weren't?

February 1, 2006

It's all on Alberto Rivera's book called godfathers. Please, read it, it * could * be true, right? Why would someone make up something like that if it weren't?

And why would people come up with the idea of evolution, relativity etc. if it could not be true?

February 1, 2006

Care to explain how people where supposed to diagnose lung cancer' date=' Thrawn in 34 BC for instance? Diabetes? [/quote']

They probably did not have to. In this pollution riddled, cigarette smoking, radiation emitting substances or devices society where people are getting obeise by eating more junk food and driving to and from places of work, and having bad diets, it is no wonder that there is a greater prevalence of these type of unnatural diseases now then ever before.

He was not talking about impersonators. But the real Elvis. According to you he must have seen the real Elvis. According to him, he would have realized that he saw an impersonator. Hard to grasp?

How would he know if it the real Elvis and not an impersonator?

Millions of years? It is reliable up to 40,000 years. Only an incompetent person who uses that method, would come up with millions of years, and claim it as a reliable result.

Whatever:rolleyes:

It is Einstein. And besides you would reject that theory anyway. And if it were possible on the basis of that theory to build a time-machine, you would claim that the time-machine is a hoax.

No. Show me a time-machine.

You only claim it is absurd, because you cannot disprove it. "It is absurd", is not a way of rejecting a claim.

Again, show me a time-machine.

I did not do that. If you can't read, then stop claiming that other people claimed this or that.

Yeah, right.

Anecdot(ic)al

And yet, you claim to hold a psychology degree, and have not even tried to refute my claim with anything?

What claim? That you are a duck?

Hey, if you claim to have a degree in that area, it might actually help that you even know how to write schizophrenia, or actually know something about the subject of psychology.

A good scientific study would be to see whether you or a real duck is more intelligent. What's with that stupid avatar?

Not to mention the omission of the "Eternal hell and damnation if you do not believe as I say is the absolute and infallible truth", in d'Arthez's claims?

Quack, quack, what are you saying?

February 1, 2006

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The Bible is against homosexuality (as sex betwee same sex members is a sin), abortion (thou shalt not kill is one of the commandments), and what he says about islam, is what he says. Why dont you read it instead of judging the material?

You can not say the Bible is going to condone sin of any form. If you do not like what the Bible says, than that is too bad because that is all what Jack Chick is about, and since his authority is from the Bible, he has some backbone as opposed to most of these jellyfish people pleasing churches and preachers out there who will say anything to collect a dollar from their congregation.

.

Hummm AT then what is your educated opinion about this site which contradicts part of your quote above?

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html

enjoy..... a4a

February 1, 2006

They probably did not have to. In this pollution riddled, cigarette smoking, radiation emitting substances or devices society where people are getting obeise by eating more junk food and driving to and from places of work, and having bad diets, it is no wonder that there is a greater prevalence of these type of unnatural diseases now then ever before.

According to you, it is impossible to determine whether or not cigarettes, radiation, polution etc. cause cancer. As it is only a theory. Not proof, as it is impossible to proof anything in your book.

How would he know if it the real Elvis and not an impersonator?

The real Elvis is dead.

Whatever:rolleyes:

Of course. You can fly on a refrigerator. And do the dishes with a video-recorder. You can.

Is there really a god?

Recommended Posts

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

quankanne

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bogun

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bogun

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

a4a

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

wizdom

Link to post

Share on other sites

quankanne

Link to post

Share on other sites

Geoffrey

Link to post

Share on other sites

quankanne

Link to post

Share on other sites

d'Arthez

Link to post

Share on other sites

wizdom

Link to post

Share on other sites

d'Arthez

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

d'Arthez

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

d'Arthez

Link to post

Share on other sites

Admiral Thrawn

Link to post

Share on other sites

a4a

Link to post

Share on other sites

d'Arthez

Link to post

Share on other sites

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...