LoveForWisdom

Reaching out, sharing the love of the wisdom of the Lord with the world.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Refuting the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Refuting and debunking the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Jesusfighter2006 (10:05:00 PM): can you refute the FSM?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:05:05 PM): there's a good question
Jesusfighter2006 (10:05:22 PM): its nonsense sure
Jesusfighter2006 (10:05:27 PM): but its falsifiable
Jesusfighter2006 (10:05:45 PM): and completely false and self contradictory at that
Apologianick (10:05:59 PM): FSM?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:06 PM): flying spaghetti monster
Apologianick (10:06:10 PM): What is that?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:14 PM): www.venganza.org
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:22 PM): its garbage
Apologianick (10:06:22 PM): Just tell me what it is
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:38 PM): they say that instead of God being the creator
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:43 PM): a Flying Spaghetti Monster was
Apologianick (10:06:49 PM): alright
Jesusfighter2006 (10:06:56 PM): but the FSM can be everywhere and nowhere
Apologianick (10:07:07 PM): Now I see some flaws from the start
Jesusfighter2006 (10:07:10 PM): lol
Apologianick (10:07:14 PM): THough I'll be slow, I'm writing a thread now
Jesusfighter2006 (10:07:19 PM): really?
Apologianick (10:07:26 PM): Yes
Jesusfighter2006 (10:07:41 PM): okay, so what distinguishes Chrsitianity?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:07:47 PM): what makes this one...the right one if you will?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:07:57 PM): lets test the truth claim it has
Apologianick (10:08:34 PM): What does flying imply?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:08:44 PM): I don't know
Jesusfighter2006 (10:08:44 PM): lol
Apologianick (10:08:53 PM): Think about it
Jesusfighter2006 (10:08:58 PM): that its something tangible
Jesusfighter2006 (10:09:11 PM): something that can be tested
Jesusfighter2006 (10:09:15 PM): something contingent
Jesusfighter2006 (10:09:30 PM): though they call it invisible
Jesusfighter2006 (10:10:12 PM): its more of mass confuision than anything else
Apologianick (10:10:20 PM): tangible?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:10:28 PM): flying
Jesusfighter2006 (10:10:29 PM): I don't know
Apologianick (10:11:38 PM): What does tangible mean?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:11:43 PM): can be touched
Jesusfighter2006 (10:11:45 PM): seen
Apologianick (10:11:49 PM): Meaning?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:11:53 PM): it has already been seen
Jesusfighter2006 (10:11:56 PM): and is not invisible
Apologianick (10:11:59 PM): Meaning?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:12:02 PM): this can't work
Apologianick (10:13:04 PM): Why?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:13:42 PM): see...I don't know where you're getting at here
Apologianick (10:14:21 PM): What properties must something have in order for it to be seen?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:14:37 PM): finite
Jesusfighter2006 (10:15:09 PM): am I wrong?
Apologianick (10:16:03 PM): Partially
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:07 PM): okay
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:14 PM): well spill it, I'm not sure
Apologianick (10:16:14 PM): Jesus was visible in the flesh, but he himself is not finite
Apologianick (10:16:17 PM): Though I would say his body is
Apologianick (10:16:20 PM): It's a fine line again
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:22 PM): okay
Apologianick (10:16:27 PM): No. I'm not spilling it
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:31 PM): ahhh
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:32 PM): lol
Jesusfighter2006 (10:16:37 PM): I must figure it out then
Jesusfighter2006 (10:17:14 PM): let me see
Apologianick (10:17:15 PM): Yes
Jesusfighter2006 (10:18:24 PM): okay lets try this again
Jesusfighter2006 (10:19:26 PM): okay
Jesusfighter2006 (10:19:28 PM): its composed of matter
Jesusfighter2006 (10:19:35 PM): meaning its been created
Apologianick (10:20:08 PM): Yes!

Apologianick (10:20:10 PM): Very good!
Jesusfighter2006 (10:20:11 PM): lol!
Apologianick (10:20:15 PM): What else does it mean?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:20:52 PM): wait a minute
Jesusfighter2006 (10:20:56 PM): its not transcendant
Jesusfighter2006 (10:21:46 PM): its suspended within space and not outside of space and time
Jesusfighter2006 (10:22:32 PM): though that might be a bit weak
Apologianick (10:22:38 PM): It's also in a state of flux
Jesusfighter2006 (10:22:42 PM): what does that mean?
Jesusfighter2006 (10:22:44 PM): flux?
Apologianick (10:23:25 PM): Change
Apologianick (10:23:29 PM): I could be quiet some. Cleaning up. My sis is coming into town tomorrow to see my place and my mother will be coming over also
Jesusfighter2006 (10:23:39 PM): not a problem at all man
Jesusfighter2006 (10:23:51 PM): how do we know its in a state of change
Apologianick (10:23:55 PM): It's matter
Jesusfighter2006 (10:23:56 PM): I'm not seeing the correlation here
Jesusfighter2006 (10:24:02 PM): matter?

It doesn't work! The FSM is refuted.

Telling off the Emo Evos

Wow...it feels great telling off a bunch of emo evos. Check this out: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=82974&page=13&pp=16

Actual proof that Intelligent Design is being taught in Biology Courses. Not just any though, as you'll uncover here, I blow Evolutionism out of the water by showing that ID is being taught at none other than CORNELL!...The Ivy League school itself, as a Science. Watch some bewildered Evolutionists, and how they react in this intriguing debate.

God bless to all and keep Jesus first,

Casey Powell

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Update on Jewish Apologetics

Earlier we talked about the Muslim Apologetic Scene. INTERESTINGLY enough, what kind of Jewish Apologetics do we have out there? This is quite interesting. When we look at Jewish Apologetics, we find Jews who are basically GENERALLY SPEAKING, not opposed to Jesus Christ (now, I know this is interesting..but this is not to say that Jewish arguments on the web do not all appeal to pro Jesus arguments). Interestingly, when I googled this search item, I did not find anything opposed to Christianity. I found 10 pages, or basically about 100 sources of Messianic Jews, the Jews who have accepted Christ as their personal Savior. One of these was from Dr. Michael Brown:

If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, why don't more Jews believe in Him?

Judaism today is divided into various groups: Reformed, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hasidic. Each group accepts certain truths from the Talmud and certain truths from the Bible. The distinctive quality of Messianic Judaism is that it is biblically Jewish, i.e., it holds to the absolute authority of the Scriptures. This is important because to all other Jewish groups, the Bible is not the final authority. Therefore, the Messiahship of Jesus is not an issue that is approached with an open mind, since the interpretations of today's rabbis depend totally on the opinions and traditions of their forefathers who rejected Jesus.

Those Jews who have studied the question of the Messianic claims of Jesus with a truly open mind have come to surprising conclusions, and many rabbis and Jewish leaders have indeed accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Some Jewish people have rejected Jesus because they fail to understand His dual role. They have looked for a king, a political leader who would free them from their oppressors and provide peace and prosperity. Jesus will accomplish this in the future, when He returns to re-establish the throne of David.

The Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Jewish people would not recognize their Messiah when He first appeared (Isaiah 53:1-3) to die as an atonement for sin.


Dr. Michael L. Brown is founder and president of ICN Ministries, devoted to taking the message of repentance and revival to Israel, the Church, and the Nations. He has preached throughout the United States and in numerous foreign countries, emphasizing radical discipleship, holy living, and the visitation of the Spirit. His books, articles, and messages have been translated into more than a dozen languages. In 1996, he became part of the ministry of the Brownsville Revival, holding weekly sessions for leaders and heading up the revival's intensive two-year School of Ministry. Dr. Brown is now President of the FIRE School of Ministry located in Charlotte, NC.

As a Jewish believer in Jesus, Dr. Brown is active in Jewish evangelism and has debated rabbis on radio, TV, and college campuses. He is also a published Old Testament and Semitic scholar, holding a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. In 1997, he was appointed Visiting Professor of Jewish Apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission and has been affiliated with Regent University Divinity School as an Adjunct Professor of Old Testament and Jewish Studies.


Zev Isaacs, the son of a Holocaust survivor, raised in Montreal's Jewish community, began his search for God while completing his degree in International Relations at York University in 1987. During his search, he was challenged by his mother's new faith in Jesus (Yeshua), and by his Jewish friend's conversion to Orthodox Judaism.

Confused, Isaacs began to meet and discuss the objections to the Messianic prophecies with Jews for Judaism and Aish HaTorah on Friday evenings. On Saturday mornings he would meet with a Messianic Rabbi to learn about Yeshua and the validity of the Messianic interpretation. After more than one year of studying the Messianic prophecies and struggling through the objections, he finally realized that Yeshua was the promised Jewish Messiah. Isaacs was determined to one day publish a Bible that would expose the truth of the Messianic prophecies.

Isaacs founded The Messianic Times newspaper in 1989 and resigned in 2002 to devote himself fully to the work of the Bible Project and the Messianic Evangelistic Association.




Dr. Michael L. Brown
General Editor Dr. Michael L. Brown is a well-known scholar and author who holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He has served as a Visiting Professor of Jewish Apologetics at the Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission and as a Visiting Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
He is founder and president of FIRE School of Ministry and has written more than a dozen books, including the recently published Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series by Baker Book House. He is also a contributor to the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion. As a Messianic Jew, Dr. Brown is active in Jewish evangelism and has debated rabbis on radio, TV, and college campuses.

According to Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus, "Brown is the new expert in Jewish Apologetics. Dr. Brown has enabled Messianic Jews to answer those anti-missionaries who are perpetually posing as authorities in the Hebrew Language and try to show that belief in Yeshua is a gentile pagan belief."

Relativism....is a logical fallacy?

Wow, so guess what. I have found that Objectivism and Absolutism are logical necessities, and therefore they are the judgers of what logical fallacies are. Its amazing, I was looking for all different kinds of logical fallacies, and found no Absolutist fallacies or Objectivist fallacies. However, I did find a logical fallacy known as the Relativist fallacy. It goes kind of like this:

Also Known as: The Subjectivist Fallacy.

Description of Relativist Fallacy
The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Claim X is presented.
Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.
In this context, relativism is the view that truth is relative to Z (a person, time, culture, place, etc.). This is not the view that claims will be true at different times or of different people, but the view that a claim could be true for one person and false for another at the same time.

In many cases, when people say "that X is true for me" what they really mean is "I believe X" or "X is true about me." It is important to be quite clear about the distinction between being true about a person and being true for a person. A claim is true about a person if the claim is a statement that describes the person correctly. For example, "Bill has blue eyes" is true of Bill if Bill has blue eyes. To make a claim such as "X is true for Bill" is to say that the claim is true for Bill and that it need not be true for others. For example: "1+1=23 is true for Bill" would mean that, for Bill, 1+1 actually does equal 23, not that he merely believes that 1+1=23 (that would be "It is true of Bill that he believes 1+1=23"). Another example would be "The claim that the earth is flat is true for Bill" would mean that the earth really is flat for Bill (in other words, Bill would be in a different world than the rest of the human race). Since these situations (1+1 being 23 and the earth being flat for Bill) are extremely strange, it certainly seems that truth is not relative to individuals (although beliefs are).

As long as truth is objective (that is, not relative to individuals), then the Relativist Fallacy is a fallacy. If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

Examples of Relativist Fallacy

Jill: "Look at this, Bill. I read that people who do not get enough exercise tend to be unhealthy."
Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

Jill: "I think that so called argument you used to defend your position is terrible. After all, a fallacy hardly counts as an argument. "
Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't accept it."
Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are bad. Therefore my position is just fine."

So all of these arguments about relativism are simply logically flawed! And not only are they logically flawed, its a logical fallacy to accept Relativism in cases where Objective truth does apply. This includes categorically nearly everything. Religiously, Relativism does not apply, Morally, Relativism does not apply, and so on and so forth. So relativism is false and fallacious in most instances.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Basic overview and a little bit about me and my sources

Since I don't have a lot of credentials to speak of, I thought I might at least give you a list of some sources I use. A little background about me first, is my name is Casey Powell. I am currently an Accountant with a 4 year degree from Christopher Newport University. I have recently been discovering the field of Apologetics and have been in active study for roughly nearly a year. I have been studying nearly nonstop and am very interested in becoming a minister for the force of the Apologetics Ministry in Christ. Now that you have my background, a few of the sources I recommend use of.

First of all, I won't mention the top 25 list. Those are I would recommend use of.
I'll give you the basics first. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is a must read. His first book is not going to give you much more than a bit of an overview. This has his first two books and an additional part in Philosophy and Epistemology that is a must read.

Lee Stroebel's The Case for Christ is going to give you a good bit of an overview of some of the top writers and scholars within the Christian Apologetics field. Included are a fair many today. I'd also recommend use of it not as the cure-all answers for questions, but again, a bit of an overview of topics that are discussed within Apologetics. Also a Case for a Creator for the modern movement of the Intelligent Design Theorem.

C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is fairly good too. He gives a bit of an overview of Philosophical issues pertaining to Christianity. He goes over a definitively accurate way of how to follow Christ. Again, this is not a very indepth souce. Another overview of some issues within the churches and our society of today, nothing more than an overview though.

Gregory Koukl "Feet Firmly Planted in MidAir" gives an excellent overview of why Postmodernism is definitely not the way to go. It provides an excellent rebuttal to Moral Relativism that plagues society today. A must read.

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart's "Handbooks of Today's Religions." Great overview of many different Philosophical positions and Religious Groups within today's society.

Anything by William Lane Craig and Ravi Zechariah. Great authors there. Also Norman Geisler is a great author. These are three of the top Apologetic writers within the world today.

J.P. Moreland "The Lost Virtue of Happiness." Excellent book for Philosophy lovers. Shows why Moral Objectivism is the only true view within the world today.

Steve Angel.....All I can say about him is he has an equivalent of a PHD in Religious Studies as well as another Masters degree in Religious studies. He is a graduate from Cincinnati Bible College. Great source, though he is a personal one. He has a Psychology Masters degree and has since become a Psychologist as well as a gentleman who teaches at a local church. Well studied scholar and a personal friend.

Simon Greenleaf's A Treatise of Evidence. A Terrific book about the evidence of Jesus Christ.

Frank Morison's Who Moved the Stone. Another great book about who Jesus is.

St. Augustine "City of God." GREATEST book, possibly written of all time. He covers everything!

St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologica." Another great Philosophy book. Must read.

Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Great book from one of the iniators of the Intelligent Design movement. A must read
for those wanting to know the underlying messages behind the Intelligent Design Theorem.

William Dembstri's "The Design Revolution." Yet another must read for the basics underlying the ID movement.

Jobe Martin. "The Evolution of a Creationist." A D.M.D and Th.M. in Biology. Dr. Martin reviews the problems in Neo Darwinism.

"Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible." A good overview behind the history of the Bible.

I have many more, but not enough time to mention all of them. I'll mention a few at a later time. However, at this time, I am off. Take care.

Islam....Wheres the Evidence?

I was seeing some "evidence" from the Muslim faith. Basically, there is absolutely none.

Was He Insane?
Someone who has dealt with mentally ill knows people can be identified by their symptoms. Muhammad displayed no symptom of insanity at any time in his life No friend, wife, or family member suspected or abandoned him due to insanity. As for the effects of revelations on the Prophet, such as perspiration and the likes, it was due to the intensity of the Message which he had to bear and not due to any epileptic fit or instance of insanity...

Quite to the contrary, Muhammad preached for a long time and brought a Law unknown in its completeness and sophistication to ancient Arabs. If the prophet was insane, it would have been obvious to those around him at one point in a period of twenty three years. When in history did an insane man preach his message to worship One God for ten years, three of which he and his followers spent in exile, and eventually became the ruler of his lands? Which insane man has ever won the hearts and minds of people who met him and earned the respect of his adversaries? (Bill Clinton, Nero the Emperor, Adolf Hitler.....)

More so, his closest companions, Abu Bakr and Umar were recognized for their abilities, nobility, skills, and finesse. They were willing to sacrifice anything for the religion he brought. On one occasion, Abu Bakr, brought all his material possessions to Muhammad, may God praise him, and when asked what he left for his family, responded, ‘I left for them God and His Messenger!’

Abu Bakr, a merchant by profession, after being elected the ruler of all of Arabs after Muhammad, spent a mere two dirham on himself and his family!

Umar became the ruler of Arabia after Abu Bakr and conquered Syria, Egypt, and subdued the Persian and Roman Empires. He was a man known for his scrupulous justice. How can someone suggest these people were following a mentally deranged individual?

God suggests: stand before God without bias or pre-conceived beliefs, and discuss it with another person or think about it yourself, this prophet has no madness, he is as stable today as you had known him for forty years.
(Wow, our Bible actually says to think critically about this kind of thing. The only thing, is, I don't see their point when I read the verse from the Quran. It seems fabricated evidence)“Say: ‘I counsel you one thing only: Be (ever­ conscious of) standing before God, whether you are in the company of others or alone; and then bethink yourselves (that) there is no madness in (this prophet,) your fellow-man: he is only a warner to you of suffering severe to come.’” (Quran 34:46) HUH?

The Meccans of old rejected his call out of tribal partisanship, and they were not truthful in their accusations of his insanity. Even today, many people refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet simply because he was an Arab and self-gratify themselves by saying he must have been insane or worked for the devil. Their hatred for Arabs translates into their rejection of Muhammad, even though God says: (This is news to me, I reject him because he's a false prophet)

“Nay, but he (whom you call a mad poet) has brought the truth; and he confirms the truth of (what the earlier of God’s) message-bearers (have taught).” (Quran 37:37) (Except that, his "truth" contradicts the earlier followers of God)

Although the pagan Arabs knew Muhammad all too well, but they still through accusations of insanity at him, for they considered his religion a sacrilege against the tradition of their forefathers.

“And when our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, they say, ‘This is not but a man who wishes to avert you from that which your fathers were worshipping.’ And they say, ‘This is not except a lie invented.’ And those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, ‘This is not but obvious magic.’ And We had not given them any scriptures which they could study, and We had not sent to them before you, (O Muhammad), any warner. And those before them denied, and they (the people of Mecca) have not attained a tenth of what We had given them. But they (i.e., the former peoples) denied My messengers, so how (terrible) was My reproach.” (Quran 34:43-45)

Was He A Poet?
God mentions their accusation in the Quran and responds to it:

“Or do they say (of you), ‘A poet for whom we await a misfortune of time?’ Say, ‘Wait, for indeed I am, with you, among the waiters.’ Or do their minds command them to (say) this, or are they a transgressing people? Or do they say, ‘He has made it up?’ Rather, they do not believe.” (Quran 52:30-32)

God describes the poets of that time so the Prophet can be compared with them:

“And as for the poets - (they, too, are prone to deceive themselves: and so, only) those who are lost in grievous error would follow them. Art thou not aware that they roam confusedly through all the valleys (of words and thoughts)[1], and that they (so often) say what they do not do (or feel)? (Most of them are of this kind -) save those who have attained to faith, and do righteous deeds, and remember God unceasingly, and defend them­selves (only) after having been wronged, and (trust in God’s promise that) those who are bent on wrong­doing will in time come to know how evil a turn their destinies are bound to take!” (Quran 26:224-227)

Arabian poets were the furthest from the truth, speaking of wine, womanizing, war, and leisure, unlike the Prophet who invites to good manners, serving God, and helping the poor.Muhammad followed his own teachings before anyone else unlike the poets of old or philosophers of today.

The Quran which the Prophet recited was unlike any poetry in its style. The Arabs of the time has strict rules in regards to rhythm, rhyme, syllables and endings to each verse of poetry. The Quran did not conform to any of the rules which were known in the time, but at the same time, it surpasses any type of text which the Arabs had ever heard. Some of them actually became Muslims after hearing only a few verses of the Quran, due to their certain knowledge that the source of something so beautiful as it could not be any created being. (Muhammad the poet....what a wonderful book that would make)

Muhammad was never known to have composed a poem before Islam or after prophethood. Rather, the Prophet had a sever dislike for it. Compilations of his statements, called Sunna, have been diligently preserved and are completely different in its literary content than the Quran. The store-house of Arabic poetry do not contain any couplets by Muhammad.

Was He A Sorcerer?
Prophet Muhammad never learned or practiced sorcery. On the contrary, he condemned the practice of sorcery and taught his followers how to seek protection against it.

Sorcerers have a strong relationship with the devil. Their partnership allows them to deceive people. Devils propagate lies, sins, obscenities, immorality, evil, and they destroy familys. The Quran clarifies those upon whom the devils descend:

“Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend upon every sinful liar. They pass on what is heard, and most of them are liars.” (Quran 26:221-223)

Prophet Muhammad was known and recognized to be a man of integrity true to his word who was not known to have ever lied. He commanded good morals and fine manners. No sorcerer in world history has brought a scripture like the Quran or a Law like his.
(OKAY? POINT BEING?)

Did Muhammad author the Quran? Better question, does anybody care?

Did Muhammad Author the Quran?

Description: Some proofs that Muhammad could not have authored the Quran.
By IslamReligion.com - Published on 08 May 2006 - Last modified on 17 Jul 2006
Viewed: 539 - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 38 - Emailed: 7 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles > Evidence That Islam is Truth > The Authenticity and Preservation of the Holy Quran
Category: Articles > The Holy Quran > The Authenticity and Preservation of the Holy Quran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the world a book like the Quran? (How many Muhammads wrote the Quran?) The book has amazing details of past nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this? If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with only a few possibilities:

- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.

- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
(Evidence where?)
A brief response from God is:

“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
(Muhammad has spoken!)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his birth. (This was apparent from the transmission of the Koran) They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:

“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)

Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.

Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to the following reasons:

First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came, people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his beloved wife Aishah of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.

Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of his followers? Here are some examples:

“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)

“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear Him..” (Quran 33:43)

“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)

“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears [God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses] are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)

If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he recited them faithfully.

“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen. And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)

The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise. But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)

These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor, also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:

“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”

If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter, he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself a proof that it was not authored by him. (So there's more than one lying imposter?) So God doesn't know Aramaic? Whats the point here, I'm more confused than before I read this article.

How about we use my trilemma argument. Liar, Lunatic or Loser?

If thats not bad enough, they also provide "evidence" for the origins of the universe:

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).[1] This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’ (see figures 10 and 11).


Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)


The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran:

“Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...” (Quran 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:

“Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?...” (Quran 21:30)

Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.”[2] (So a prophet of God couldn't figure this out?) (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here). Also he said: “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.”[3] (View the RealPlayer video of this comment).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.

[2] The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape). For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.

[3] This is the Truth (videotape).

Scratching my head on this one..........

This is the best evidence that the Muslims have? This is weak!

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Positive Atheism....whats positive about it?

"James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym used by Robert Turkel to write website articles in defense of biblical inerrancy. For some reason, he doesn't want his real identity to be known, even though almost everyone familiar with his attempts to reply to articles written by Jeff Lowder, Brian Holtz, Earl Doherty, and me (among other skeptics) knows what his real name is. His rationale for concealing his identity was that he worked as a librarian in a prison, so he was afraid that if he wrote under his real name, inmates upon their release might seek vengeance on him for "disciplinary reports" he had written. He was never able to explain why using a phony name to write internet articles, which prison inmates would have no access to, was going to protect him from vengeance seeking ex-inmates who from daily contacts with him while they were in prison already knew his real name." Farrell Till from "'James Patrick Holding,' the Want-to-Be Apologist"

"I confess, however, to being a total computer dummy.

Yes, he is sensitive; he told me I had insulted and offended him, and so he had blocked any further e-mail from me, as if I care. Well, I wasn't "nice"; I did let him have it. I don't want to brag, but probably I'm the "meanest" he's ever dealt with. I simply told him if he can use the alias James Patrick Holding, well then, so can I! So off I went! I really dumped on some conservative groups online, referring all their complaints right straight back to him, with a note how my new, improved Holding made far better use of scatology.

He threatened to sue; I told him to go ahead." Reynolds

"Regarding James Patrick Holding:

By his own admission to me, this is but one of the aliases he uses. Maybe his real name is Robert Trukel, maybe that also is an alias.

He refuses to reveal his real name. He claims he was or is a prison librarian and that prison inmates might retaliate on his family, if the get his real name. Why? He doesn't make that clear; seems he is perceived of as too strict in the library.

His scholarship is no place, absolutely zilch, despite his long-winded articles. He admits he has had no formal training in theology, biblical studies, church history, or any related areas. He does not know biblical languages or any foreign language. With me, and with others, he is generally quite rude, but couldn't take it when I dished it back to him. (This explains his ability to set up one of the best Resurrection cases for Jesus Christ on the net? Uhh, I wonder how much this guy truly knows about JP Holding's knowledge on these subjects. Never be too quick to judge a book by its cover.)

Gee, you sure picked a real character!!

I have an APB out all over the web just to get his real name and identity; no luck yet.

Blair Reynolds"


"Ah, but wait! You did this to his -- his pen name! That makes all the difference in the world, as far as I am concerned (even if it becomes a trademark infringement to use that particular letter sequence).

So the question becomes, is this his Service Mark? meaning, is this the Fictitious Name of his company? If so, has he registered it as such? in every state of the Union? If not, then you might want to grab some money and get on it: register it in all 50 states as your fictitious name, describing it as the name of your out-of-work clown character who very occasionally does adult performances for parties, etc.: Amazing Rope Tricks! "Hide 'N' Seek" Games for the Youngster in Everybody! Simulated Dungeon!

Am I sick, or what?

Hey, I just hate clowns! Don't you? I mean --

James Patrick Holding,
Executive Producer,
The "Positive Atheism" Project
Eight years of service to people
with no reason to believe"


I simply told him if he can use the alias James Patrick Holding, well then, so can I; and off I went and really dumped on some conservative groups on line, referring all their complaints right straight back to him. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8414.htm...whats positive about it?)

This unfortunately is what we get when we commit a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the irrelevant appraisal of something based on its origin. The actual issue is whether he's a fundamentally coherent Apologist. The answer to this is yes, and many credentialed scholars promote this gentleman. Ever heard of judging a book by its cover? This would be it. Another issue is, have we ever heard of "Ad Hominem" attacks? Well this is ad hominem at its worst. All of this over a name? Accusations and bald assertions (Especially in the case of someone whos biggest influence was Glenn Miller concerning Biblical training) against someone due to their name and "lack of credentials" is nothing more than ignoring the fact that the gentleman making these assertions obviously has no credentials to back up his own argument. If I had to guess, my belief would be this gentleman has no idea who JP Holding really is and probably has no credentials of his own to back him up himself. Lets see Mr. Blair Reynolds in a T-Web debate against JP Holding sometime.

As far as Mr. Farrell Till, well he's virtually been exposed as a fraud. The sad part is this is the best anybody can argue against JP Holding. JP Holding admits, "The name is all they have against me. I'll give them that one." What then can be said for his credentials? Well, as is the case in most instance, there is a 2nd side to the story. One that has not come up on the internet that I'm ready to expose now. This is JP Holding's side of the story:

>>>"His scholarship is no place, absolutely zilch, despite his long-winded articles. He admits he has had no formal training in theology, biblical studies, church history, or any related areas. He does not know biblical languages or any foreign language. With me, and with others, he is generally quite rude, but couldn't take it when I dished it back to him." Blair Reynolds I simply told him if he can use the alias James Patrick Holding, well then, so can I; and off I went and really dumped on some conservative groups on line, referring all their complaints right straight back to him. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8414.htm...whats positive about it?)

>>>Have you at least addressed this garbage?

Nothing to address, really. That was years ago; he wrote several obscene messages to Mormon and Catholic websites under JPH, but none of them had ever heard of me and nothing happened. As for who couldn't take it, it was him. :-D He's a pagan jerk. I did torment him by email for a while, that's what got him mad.

I don't think I had the resume' online when he did that.

>>>How relevant is library Science to Apologetics?

I'd say very, since both are research.

Well this means that JP Holding is a scholar in textual criticism and this gentleman was too ignorant to realize to ask him this. JP Holding also uses highly credentialed sources in his arguments as well. It seems that JP Holding had the same problem with his name getting smeared by the Pagan jerk Blair Reynolds as I had with the FSM jerk Bobby Henderson also falsely smearing my name on his venganza website. A jerk is a jerk is a jerk though.

UPCOMING AND EXCITING EMOEVO NEWS!

Keep on blogging, cause this weekend, a big story is ready to emerge. I will once and for all show why Evolution is a PseudoScience that is being displayed as propaganda across the community of Science, that being the TRUE Science of Intelligent Design. This will be a shock to all and a must read for all viewers. Stay tuned. Now for some serious business as I address the GREATEST argument ever presented against JP Holding, with a special thanks to him for allowing me to conduct the opinion.

The Darwin Code In Review

Dear Casey

This message came to me about a month ago regarding, yes, the very Darwin Code that is posted on my blog. It was sent from Jonathan Dunlop at the BBC Information site regarding feedback and review that would be done on the Darwin Code itself. Check it out:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Darwin Code.

Please be assured that your comments have been fully registered on a
daily audience log which is made available throughout the BBC including
senior management. Feedback of this nature helps us when making
decisions about future BBC programmes and services and your comment will play a
part in this process.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

Regards

Jonathan Dunlop
BBC Information

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Problems in Evolution? You don't say.......

You will usually only find me posting one story per day on Jesusjustforyou. However, this story was too good to pass up. Tomorrow's coverage will be to show how Evolution is actually nothing more than Pseudoscience at its worst. In the meantime, I would like to show you what a secular source thought about Evolution:

These statements about Darwinian theory may surprise you:
Evolution is a Rag Hypothesis.
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science... It is a mere rag of a hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of species.
Darwin did not really explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one species might proliferate into many. - Douglas Futuyma

Evolution is Defective.
The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. - Dr A. Fleishmann, Zoologist

Evolution is Pure Fantasy.
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet, the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. - David M. Raup, Geologist

Evolution is based on Ideology.
There is no evidence for a primeval soup… The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology. - Hubert Yockey, Information Theory

Evolution is Vague.
The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds. - Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Biologist

Evolution is a Gnostic Myth.
The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim... Evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. - Wolfgang Smith

Evolution is a Pseudoscience.
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Pierre Grasse, Zoologist, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University

Evolution without intelligent direction is improbable.
Even if the whole Universe consisted of organic soup... the chance of producing merely the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be about 1 over a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it; a probability too small to imagine. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer, Modern Theory of Panspermia

Evolution does not explain consciousness.
The match between our intelligence and the intelligibility of the world is no accident. Nor can it properly be attributed to natural selection, which places a premium on survival and reproduction and has no stake in truth or conscious thought. Indeed, meat-puppet robots are just fine as the output of a Darwinian evolutionary process. - William Dembski, Mathematician, Intelligent Design Theory

Evolution is blind and selfish.
We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. - Richard Dawkins, Darwinist

Evolution involves Group Mind.
Using morphogenetic fields as the carrier of memory implies no absolute separation between minds. It suggests our identity is dual, like an electron that is both particle and wave. We have aspects that are unique and totally individual, yet at the same time much of our thought and behavior is shaped by, participates in, and helps to create transpersonal morphogenetic fields. Because our brains contain levels (mammalian, reptilian, etc.) that connect us to other species, that group mind includes all life. - Rupert Sheldrake, Biochemist, Theory of Formative Causation

Evolution is a Leak of Vital Force.
The process of evolution can only be described as the gradual insertion of more and more freedom into matter. ... In the amoeba, you might say that the impulse has manufactured a small leak through which free activity could be inserted into the world, and the process of evolution has been the gradual enlargement of this leak. - T.E. Hulme, Poet and Vitalist

Evolution is not Earth-Centered.
The real paradigm shift is to consider that the Universe is a life-producing nursery and that the genesis and evolution of life is not earth-centered but rather is distributed among the stars of the galaxies. - William F. Hamilton, Theory of Astrogenesis
Evolution is Blind Faith.
Evolutionary theory presents one of the most explicit examples of a priori reasoning, and even blind faith, ever seen in a supposedly scientific hypothesis. Books on evolution are full of the prior assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The facts are then presented to fit the theory. - John Davidson, The Web of Life, Vitalist

Evolution has the Appearance of Being Impossible.
The information complexity in biological entities is very high and the probability of random mutations leading to more highly structured life forms has the appearance of being impossible. - Hubert Yockey, Physicist, Information Theory

Evolution is Not Based in Fact.
In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts. - Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles), in a letter to his brother Charles

Evolution is an Approximation.
I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. - Professor Jerome Lejeune

Evolution is not Arguable.
In China its OK to criticize Darwin but not the government, in the United States its OK to criticize the government, but not Darwin. - Dr. J.Y. Chen, Chinese Paleontologist

Evolution is Embarrassing.
I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection. - Daniel Dennett, Philosopher and Darwinist

http://www.biped.info/

This coming from what even the Evolutionistic community would call a "neutrally unbiased" source leads me to believe that the absurdity surrounding Evolution is nothing more than hypocritical lies at its worst.

For information on this source FYI, it is a site that actually objectively looks at many Scientific theories, not just Intelligent Design and Evolution. However, oddly enough, it concludes that Intelligent Design is the best method of Science available to the world today and that Evolution has become a dogmatic religion of sorts.

Testing Testing 1, 2

Many people know how hard pressed Christians are when they are giving accounts to Skeptics. More and more skeptics come up with fascinating ideas and blatant debauchery of what the real character of Christ is all about. We are often confronted with many questions and put under strict scrutiny of evidence and forced to defend our faith against questions that probably are no more worthy of mention but seemingly a shrug of the shoulders if they were intended towards another historical figure. I will show later on in another thread why this is not necessarily an issue against our personal faith, but even with this in mind, it still does need to be addressed. More and more it appears that the evil methodology of the world is causing more and more Apologists headaches that are unwarranted due to the media. With publications like the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and the ever popular The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, more and more questions abound for skeptics to address Christians with. This has caused the Christian community to gain an edge, I believe, in the brains department over other religions and secular groups within the world, but many headaches along the way that could and should have been avoided. Interestingly enough, we've never seen these critical methods used against the presuppositional stances of the people who actually utilize these skeptical methods against Christianity in practicality......until now. I have always wondered how this process would work against the skeptical viewpoints that oppose Christianity and decided to put it into full force. For this reason, I applied this process of questioning against a group I like to call the “Emo Evos.” For those unfamiliar with the term “Emo Evo” it is a term that is meant to be applied to “Overly Emotionally Charged Evolutionists.” They are basically what we know in modern day society as Libs (Liberals) or Poseur Posties (Postmodernists).

I have actually tested similar questions that are presented against Christ towards Charles Darwin that are posed to Evolutionists just to see how they would respond to the same questions that Christians are required to respond to concerning who Christ was. My discoveries in this research have proved laughable at best. On Panda's Thumb, one of the most renown Evolutionist sites on the web today, I addressed an issue as to whether or not anybody had firsthand eyewitness accounts of whether Charles Darwin visited the Galapogos Islands. I told them I would believe in Evolution if they could provide me this response. Sadly, the only responses to this I got were, "Yeah, I guess he has evidence from other people or maybe family members" or "It doesn't matter because it wouldn't matter what Charles Darwin believed in one way or the other, Scientists were coming to the same conclusion", and that quite frankly doesn't cut it as a response. The finches scenario on the Galapogos islands are an all important issue as to whether or not Evolution could even potentially make sense at all. The other Scientists never visited the Galapogos islands and used speculation off of the ideas that Charles Darwin had. So if we had no Darwin, we would have no Evolution today. My writing of the previous thread the Darwin Code makes just as much sense as Darwinism based on this logic.
This basic trend was tested further as I travelled to Theology web and asked the same question. Interestingly enough, I have the responses from the actual thread itself. In regards to whether or not Charles Darwin existed, one response completely avoided the issue, "Darwin's existance may have been a Nazi farce, but what of Anaximander?" Anaximander was a Greek Gnostic whose conjecture made probably less sense than the theory of Evolution does today. His idea was that the mud caused beings to rise up after the sun made contact with it. It sounds more like some slimey green mutant monster theorem over anything else. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=81935&highlight=The+Darwin+Code. Further responses concluded from the question, "Do we have any eyewitness accounts of Darwin on the Galapogos Islands" gave us another wonderful and insightful answer in the likes of, "Yes I think we do." And basically, that was about the best answer I could get out of this question. How many people would believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead if when we replied to the question of whether there were eyewitness accounts the only thing we could think of was, "Yes, I think we do."? Yeah...probably not too many willing to buy that story. In fact, if thats all we had concerning the verifiability of Christ's resurrection, I'm not too sure I wouldn't have abandoned Christianity myself by now. Likewise, I'm not even the least bit sold that Evolutionists have any bit of a valid argument to support their theory that include solely a bunch of arguments that I like to call "Evolution of the gaps." Evolution is purely hyped up speculation. We have no evidence to support a basic and fundamentally sound question such as this and for that matter, I believe there are plenty of other fundamentally flawed problems with Evolution. If this evidence is lacking, imagine the extent of the rest of the evidence that must be lacking on this subject. Why is this conjecture still around? I believe its regarding two reasons. One, contrary to what a Relativist one time told me, which was laughable at best, the media does not support Christianity in the foggiest. When we turn on our television sets, we constantly time and time again see Christian hate messages set out against us. So we have the worldly press against us which serves as a disadvantage to Christianity and portrays it in the light of the world as merely a "fantasy world." The second is that I believe Naturalism and Humanism are two of the predominantly shaped viewpoints within the United States of today. While many people proclaim to be Christians within the United States, the question of whether they are truly Christian constantly comes up. Evolution is basically the Emo Evos and the Fundie Atheists "last hope" and the best thing going for them today. However, if we were to take the Flat Earth Society, UFOs, NWO theories, Area 51, Elvis is alive press, Liberalistic (Relativistic) "honesty" and the National Enquirer, and put them alongside Evolution, we'd have similar media press for the entire world to view. So the question is clearly, who has more credibility? Christians or Emo Evos? You make the call.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Any Real Evidence of Christ's proclamations? Come on man, you know I mean outside of the Bible right?

Anyone who thinks there is not enough evidence for who Jesus Christ was outside of the Bible obviously has no idea who we're dealing with here. If we were to, for example state, that Jesus Christ didn't exist, we'd have less people agreeing to the fact that Charles Darwin never existed, even though there is probably less evidence that Charles Darwin existed and that he ever visited the Galapogos islands outside of his very claims. So where is all of this evidence? ALL OVER THE PLACE. We'll take you specifically to one of JP Holding's excellent summations of the evidence: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

A general overview of evidence can also be found at www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html:

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"



Answer: Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels in the second century A.D., 100+ years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.



It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.



Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:



The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).



Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."



Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).



Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.



The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.



Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.



Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.



Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.



In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).



In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

So we can literally reconstruct what the Bible states about what and who Jesus Christ was with just this historical evidential accounts alone. Jesus Christ is the real McCoy, and we are literally without excuse for not believing in Christ.

Next question is, what do these accounts actually state about Jesus Christ. If we look on my top 25 countdown, one of them comes from www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Non biblical accounts of
New Testament events and/or people

Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."

The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11–13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

And what about the problem with Josephus? Lets highlight this: http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm

Regarding the quotes from the historian
Josephus about Jesus


Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt called the "Jewish War." Later he wrote "Antiquities" as a history of the Jews. It is in Antiquities that he mentions Christ. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64; see below). Josephus was born in Jerusalem around 37 A.D. He died around the year 101.
The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus as they are very favorable, some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes.
However, all is not lost. First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute (see outline below). This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things. Nevertheless, though there may be some Christian insertions into the text, we can still reconstruct what may have been the original writing.
Two researchers (Edwin Yamauchi and John P. Meier)1 have constructed a copy of the Testimonium with the probable insertions in brackets and underlined. The following paragraph is Yamauchi's:

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."2
The Arabic version was copied from a Greek version. What is not known is which one? But if you notice the comparison below, if the Arabic version was a direct translation of the Greek, then why the differences? Nevertheless, what is important in the Arabic Version is that the resurrection of Christ is maintained.

Greek Version Arabic Version
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.
For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.
He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.
[On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

To summarize, the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be so easily dismissed as pure Christian interpolation (insertion into the text). Though it seems probable that interpolation did occur, we cannot be sure what was added. Also, the Arabic version contains very similar information as the Greek one regarding Jesus in His resurrection.
Even if both versions have been tampered with, the core of them both mentions Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.

_____________
1. Edwin Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?” in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland ( Zondervan, 1995): 212-4. And 2) John P. Meier, “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 76-103.
2. Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.). See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism. (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html)

JP Holding does another great overview with much more accurate detail here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

This will lead you to some other interesting controversies. Basically, what I'm getting at is something not often looked at. Often you will hear, "Thats just your interpretation, or thats just an interpretation of the facts." Okay, but here, we are looking at hardcore facts that are beyond dispute of any nature. God might as well smack you upside the head or something. This is the ONLLY religion based around Historic proclamations of ANY sort. It somehow gained more clout than the Muslim faith did. With the tradition of Rome being the way it was established it is unlikely Constantine would have established as the National Religion without a clear reason to do so. Based on the Council of Nicaea's outcome, it appears this religion was already in place long before Constantine ever took power (2 voted for the non-deity of Christ out of 300). Why so much support? If it was coercion, we would not expect any descent of any kind here. The two that voted nay on the issue shows that it was a democratic voting system, and that the agreement was based on unanonimity. Regardless, the early church really says it all. This religion was already well established before Constantine, so any skeptical claim coming regarding it was "Constantine's doing" should be overlooked on account that the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. If any skeptic can not believe based on this evidence, they will not believe based on anything because their will is not to seek out Jesus Christ.


God bless,
Casey Powell

Monday, August 21, 2006

Casey's Top 25.....Casey Counts Em Down

Monthly my aspiration is to post a top 25 list of the best websites on the web. I will start from no. 25 and count them down to the bottom down to the no. 1 of the month. Feel free to e-mail me any exciting websites that are out there on the web to add to this monthly list:

25. www.icr.org
24. www.iscid.org
23. www.arn.org
22. www.iconsofevolution.com
21. www.designinference.com
20. www.uncommondescent.org
19. www.idthefuture.com
18. www.christianitytoday.com
17. www.discovery.org
16. www.allaboutphilosophy.org (many links and Randall Niles does a good overview on generals)
15. www.josh.org (for those beginning Apologetics)
14. www.behindthebadge.net
13. www.leaderu.com
12. www.ideacenter.org
11. www.be-thinking.org
10. www.answersingenesis.net
9. www.christiananswers.net
8. www.godandscience.org
7. www.trueorigin.org
6. www.creationontheweb.com (Best kept Science secret on the Web)
5. www.jewsforjesus.com
4. www.answering-islam.org
3. www.carm.org

And the no. 1 website on the web this month....is a tie!:

1. www.christian-thinktank.com - for Glenn Miller's awesome responses to different religious groups and excellent use of sources. He is found to be one of the best in the business of Apologetics with his uncanny wit and ability to respond to even the deepest of questions with profound resolve. I welcome any and all to check this site out. Miller gets my nod at no. 1.
1. www.tektonics.org - One JP Holding, who admits that Glenn Miller was an influence on him, he's got one of the best websites going on the web today. His ability to combine humor as well as some serious Apologetic responses and his ability to take on the best in debating today leaves people wondering: how did he do that? One of the best attributes of this website is the fact that JP Holding is never afraid to hold back and will get back to the best of questions within an unthinkably timely manner. He is the guy you want for quick responses and never puts things off to the last minute. For this, he gets my nod at no. 1.

A few adjustments have been made. However, at this time, the board is closed.

God bless all,
Casey Powell

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Casey's Top 15 Crappy Emo Evo Athy Sites for the Weak!

Okay, so today, I was googling to see if I could find at least one competent Atheist and Evolutionist Site on the web. It was a no go. So I've compiled a list of crappy sites that should not even be bothered with your time to go visit.

Crap sites:
www.creationtheory.org
www.geocities.com.lclane2.creationismfront
www.infidels.org
www.csun.edu
www.wikipedia.org
www.lhup.edu
www.natcenscied.org
www.jesuspolice.com
www.atheists.org.evolution
www.pandasthumb.org
www.talkorigins.net
www.nationalacademies.org.evolution
www.geocities.com.CapeCanaveral.Hangar
www.sciam.comh
emporium.turnpike.net
www.skepticfriends.org.forum

To give these guys a little bit of a "helping hand" (up to and including God's if possible) and to help them boost up morale (I know you can do it...maybe, er guess not), I've decided to create my own Evo Athy Emo site called "IntelliEvosJustForYou". Its sure to be filled with action packed Ad hominem attacks, Begging plenty of Questions, silly Liberalistic Equivocations on words, Strawman arguments a plenty, and even some self stultifying positions that can't help but be laughed at.

God bless,

Casey Powell

Friday, August 18, 2006

Can we believe in God AND Evolution?

The answer to this is quite no, and we can find this on any Creationistic site. Many people such as Catholic Kenneth Miller have tried to compromise a belief in Evolution and a belief in God. Glenn Morton is another example who has tried this. What can we know about these examples?

A Who’s Who of evolutionists
by Don Batten
Some protest that ‘you can believe in God and evolution’, and that evolution does not necessarily exclude God. However, many of these people also believe that evolution explains everything. If ‘god’ had a role at all it was in ‘creating’ the early universe, or causing a big bang in such a way that evolution would operate. In other words, ‘god’s’ part is invisible, not obvious. This clearly contradicts many Bible passages which teach that creation proclaims God’s handiwork and clearly reveals his attributes (for example, Psalm 19:1–4; Romans 1:20).
In effect these protesters are atheistic in their way of thinking. They have evolution, plus ‘god’, but evolution does not need ‘god’, so ‘god’ is totally superfluous in their way of thinking about the world.
If we consider a Who’s Who of those who are most visible in their public promotion and defence of evolution—since World War II, for example—a clear pattern emerges: they are virtually all avowed atheists! Note the names:
Ernst Mayr, zoologist.
J.B.S. Haldane, geneticist, who was also a Stalinist.
Carl Sagan, a promoter of the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), and author of the anti-Christian book and movie Contact.
Isaac Asimov, science fiction writer, signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II, and past president of the American Humanist Association.
Sir Julian Huxley, first Director-General of UNESCO and signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II.
Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize-winning biologist, and signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II.1
The more recent crop of evolutionary proselytisers include:
Stephen Jay Gould, a Marxist, author of many popular works promoting the evolutionary view.
Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and other anti-creationist books, now employed by Oxford University (U.K.) to promote the ‘public understanding of science’ (i.e. evolutionary naturalism).
Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea who argues gleefully that evolution eats away all foundations of religion and morality.
Eugenie Scott, head of the so-called National Center for Science Education which grew out of efforts by secular humanists to oppose creationists.
Ian Plimer, anti-creationist Australian professor of geology, and Australian Humanist of the Year in 1995.
Many in the above list of overt atheists are strident in their opposition to everything ‘creationist’ and have contributed to publications and court cases opposing creationist ideas. Many promote censorship of creationist views, even exploiting legal loopholes (such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s misapplication of the First Amendment) in attempts to silence creationists.
Even though 39% of scientists in the United States believe in a ‘personal god’,2 theistic scientists are conspicuous by their absence from the above lists of public promoters of evolution. Why are atheists at the forefront in promoting evolution?
Atheist Frank Zindler said,
‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’3
We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational/necessary for their faith that there is no Creator and that everything made itself (i.e. evolution). So, that is why atheists are at the forefront in promoting the public acceptance of evolution—it promotes their atheistic faith. They recognise that if they can persuade the general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity.
References and notes
The late Theodosius Dobzhansky was also a prominent public promoter of evolution and apparently claimed ‘Russian Orthodox’ affiliation. However, in his 1970 book Mankind Evolving he favourably quoted Teilhard de Chardin, ‘Evolution [not God—DB] is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow’. Earlier, he wrote: ‘Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.’ (T. Dobzhansky, Changing man, Science 155:409, 1967). Dobzhansky’s ‘god’ was irrelevant to his view of reality. Return to text.
Edward Larson and Larry Witham, Scientists still keeping the faith, Nature 386(6624):435–436, 1997. Return to text.
Frank Zindler, American atheist, in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996. Return to text.

Unfortunately, while this ideology sounds good and "compromising" it is unrealitic and compromises what is the most important for salvation within this lifetime. The necessity of God and his eternal promise of salvation that can only be found within Jesus Christ. Atheism as I will demonstrate in a later post is not the default Philosophical position. It is not truth and is in fact very self defeating. People forget about God, and this is why they become Atheists. They then formulate their beliefs around what the rest of the world wishes to believe as "the majority." I have some unfortunate examples of this happening which I will address in a later post as well. Please don't fall for this trap. This is the first trap in a spiral in the wrong direction. Evolution is not the answer. Its not Science. Its a deception provided by Satan. God bless everyone.

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

The Bogus Assertion of Evolution

Atheism and Evolution go hand in hand. We have known this for years. My question is, if Evolutionists are "so sure" that Evolution is a fact, why do I keep hearing statements like this from Evolutionistic website:
Our universe may be 15% larger and older than we thought, according to new measurements of the distance to a nearby galaxy. The team used light, velocity, and temperature measurements to calculate the true luminosity of the two stars, which eclipse one another every five days. By comparing this intrinsic luminosity to their observed brightness, the team calculated that the galaxy lies 3.14 million light years away from us. Surprisingly, this is about half a million light years farther than previously thought.Recent estimates have put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, and the new research suggests it may actually be 15.8 billion years old. source

Great, so we keep pushing the origins of the earth further and further back? Before long the Earth is going to be 83 trillion years old if we keep trying to make sense out of Evolution. I believe Socrates from Theology Web has it completely right here:


Origin of life (chemical evolution) -- see http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../faq/origin.asp
Origin of information -- see http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../infotheory.asp
Origin of exquisite design http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../faq/design.asp
Marc Schindler
When people learn the difference between science and religion is not in the answers, but in the questions, which derive from totally different assumptions.
This is just the philosphically bankrupt NOMA nonsense, based on the fallacious fact-value distinction. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs...924ep1.asp#noma
Typically, the misunderstandings arise because people are using words differently. Teach evolution as part of biology, and Genesis in religion classes.
Why? Evolution is part of the religion of Humanism, and separate creation and a global Flood are part of origins science.
Creationism is bad science, but it's bad religion, too.
A wonderful ipse dixit.
Likewise scientism is just evangelizing atheism.
You're right there FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
There are many good, believing biologists who accept evolution (in the Catholic tradition Kenneth Miller is by far the best known; in my own, LDS tradition, there's Michael Whiting and Duane Jeffries).
Miller is most unreliable, as shown http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...15n3_miller.asp and I have no interest in any LDs opinions. These compromisers have accepted scientism for all practical purposes -- "believing" WHAT exactly? Certainly not the god of the Bible.
Socrates:
Quote:
Hume demolished the logic of Paley's Natural Theology Paley actually wrote about 30 years AFTER Hume and addressed some of Hume's pathetic objections , which even Dawko was not impressed with. The way Paley expressed the teleological argument was not vulnerable to Humean counter-arguments Bob blubs:
Not really..... Paley wrote the "science" that supported the "logical" proof of a creator by design. Hume did demolish the logic.
As if you'd know -- fact is, Paley rebutted Hume, not vice versa.
Dawkins demolished the "creation" science many times over by explaining Darwin. Two separate chances at Creationism and two refurations.
As if you'd know -- Dawkins the just-so-story teller has been demolished in the articles I provided.
Your comrehension skills need some fine tuning. Dawkins was not imprressed with the philospher who answered "What about Hume" in response to Dawkins statement "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published". Dawkins went on to say "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?" The unimpressive reply from the philosopher was "He didn't.. Why does it need any special expalnation" You will find that tidbit on page 5 of my copy of the book.
That's exactly what I meant. And I understand that it was A.J. Ayer.Socrates
Quote:
Obviously you have never read the critiques of this pathetic book such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp, or of its sequel Climbing Mt Improbable such as www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp Bob:
Tell us, Socrates, what, in that web site, is most important fact for establishing "Creation Science" or for refuting Evolution. "
We all have the same facts -- the difference is how we interpret them. You interpret them from your bigoted atheistic framework, which can't even provide any justification for science in the first place.
You have not supplied any specifics even though you have mentioned those sites more than once.
Which actually provide some specifics :dunce: And all you have done is cite animal behaviorists like Dawko to "prove" the goo to you theory.
I can fully appreciate you avoidance. I can fully appreciate your struggle to maintain faith in "biblical authority" in the face of Evolution.
I can fully understand your struggle to maintain faith in atheism in the face of the massive amount of evidence for design because of your desperate desire to avoid the notion that you're accountable to your Creator.

Science is Creationism. I am so thoroughly convinced of Creationism based on two reasons. One are the arguments from Evolutionistic claims that Evolution is the one and only valid theory and is a fact in Science. The other is that I have enough supporting evidence from Creationistic websites to make sense out of Creationism. By all means, I encourage one to actually discuss Science with an Evolutionist. See if politics are not discussed somewhere along the line.

Casey Powell