Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
GEN 1:
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Thank you. I hoped someone would bring that up. Many use this section to claim the sun was created on the fourth day instead of in the beginning. In the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer, we find this explanation:
“Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the forth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on the earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon, and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars created [in verse one] as the source of light had been placed on their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time (“sign, seasons days, years”). The Hebrew verb wayya’as in verse 16 should better be rendered “Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.,” rather that as simple past tense, “[God] made.” (Hebrew has no special form for the pluperfect tense but uses the perfect tense, or the conversive imperfect as here, to express either the English past or the English pluperfect, depending on the context.)”
Here is more detail concerning the cloud layer that hid the sun:
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:2 tells us: “And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The words “without form and void” are translated from the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. Some believe this describes the first stage in creation where there is the inevitable chaos and confusion visible at any construction site. When man creates something, there is always the tohu and bohu in the beginning. But when God creates, there is none of that. In Psalm 33:6,9, we are told: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth…For He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast.” The only other place where the two words, tohu and bohu appear together is in Jeremiah 4:23: “I beheld the earth and lo it was without form and void, and the heavens, and they had no light.” The formless and empty condition exists here as the result of the sins of the Israelites. In Job 38:6,7, God tells Job that the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy at the creation. Tohu and bohu also mean an indistinguishable ruin and confusion, and yet in 1 Corinthians 14:33 we are told that God is not the author of confusion.
Another explanation of Genesis 1:2 is that the scene of indistinguishable ruin and confusion described there is the result of sin as is also described in Jeremiah 4:23. But who sinned? Who caused the condition found in verse two? Those who believe this believe that an unrevealed period of time elapsed between verse one and two. During this time Satan and his angels caused the condition found in verse two after they rebelled and were cast out of heaven down to the earth. This view makes more sense to me after considering the above scriptures.
This darkness was not the result of the lack of the sun, since it was revealed that it was created in verse one. The darkness was due to the consequence of Satan and his angels being cast down to earth and their tantrum causing such turmoil they literally destroyed the earth to such an extent that the sun was blotted out from all the debris in the atmosphere.
From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"
In verses 14-19, we see God clearing the debris and letting the light shine through. Notice He doesn’t say he created the sun, moon, and stars on day four. He is telling us their purpose.
“Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the forth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on the earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon, and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars created [in verse one] as the source of light had been placed on their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time (“sign, seasons days, years”). The Hebrew verb wayya’as in verse 16 should better be rendered “Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.,” rather that as simple past tense, “[God] made.” (Hebrew has no special form for the pluperfect tense but uses the perfect tense, or the conversive imperfect as here, to express either the English past or the English pluperfect, depending on the context.)”
Here is more detail concerning the cloud layer that hid the sun:
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:2 tells us: “And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The words “without form and void” are translated from the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. Some believe this describes the first stage in creation where there is the inevitable chaos and confusion visible at any construction site. When man creates something, there is always the tohu and bohu in the beginning. But when God creates, there is none of that. In Psalm 33:6,9, we are told: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth…For He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast.” The only other place where the two words, tohu and bohu appear together is in Jeremiah 4:23: “I beheld the earth and lo it was without form and void, and the heavens, and they had no light.” The formless and empty condition exists here as the result of the sins of the Israelites. In Job 38:6,7, God tells Job that the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy at the creation. Tohu and bohu also mean an indistinguishable ruin and confusion, and yet in 1 Corinthians 14:33 we are told that God is not the author of confusion.
Another explanation of Genesis 1:2 is that the scene of indistinguishable ruin and confusion described there is the result of sin as is also described in Jeremiah 4:23. But who sinned? Who caused the condition found in verse two? Those who believe this believe that an unrevealed period of time elapsed between verse one and two. During this time Satan and his angels caused the condition found in verse two after they rebelled and were cast out of heaven down to the earth. This view makes more sense to me after considering the above scriptures.
This darkness was not the result of the lack of the sun, since it was revealed that it was created in verse one. The darkness was due to the consequence of Satan and his angels being cast down to earth and their tantrum causing such turmoil they literally destroyed the earth to such an extent that the sun was blotted out from all the debris in the atmosphere.
From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"
In verses 14-19, we see God clearing the debris and letting the light shine through. Notice He doesn’t say he created the sun, moon, and stars on day four. He is telling us their purpose.
Even if you manage two twist verse 16 to say "God had made (previously) the sun and moon, but now the clouds parted so they could be seen", in the following verse it says, "God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth."
You must see your problem.
You would then have to render the Hebrew to say, "God had set them (previously) to eventually give light on the Earth after the cloud issue was dealt with."
William of Ockham is spinning in his grave.
You must see your problem.
You would then have to render the Hebrew to say, "God had set them (previously) to eventually give light on the Earth after the cloud issue was dealt with."
William of Ockham is spinning in his grave.
B
Exodus 20:11 confirms what Genesis says about the whole of creation, not that each day was a 24 hour day.
man created the scale of seconds n minutes to finite time, like saying midnight is 12am not really midnight changes rather it be 1:30am or 1am etc. halfway between sun up and sun down is midnight.
man created the scale of seconds n minutes to finite time, like saying midnight is 12am not really midnight changes rather it be 1:30am or 1am etc. halfway between sun up and sun down is midnight.
A Moment For Truth
Dave Hunt
America awakened September 11 [2001] to appalling scenes on TV of passenger planes deliberately crashing into the towers of the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Stunned disbelief gave way to the question, who could so carefully plan and efficiently execute such incredibly inhumane destruction and slaughter?
What cause could so powerfully motivate educated and trained individuals to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of so many total strangers in this manner? In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics. But were they? Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."
Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him...I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."
Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"?
There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman. He is proof to would-be imitators that terrorism pays big. The United Nations, European Union, and countless world political and religious leaders have sided with him in his terrorism against Israel.
Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation)—which has just been equaled, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc.
Instead of being tried by an international tribunal as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat's bloody exploits gained for him acceptance as a leader for peace!
In his brief speech to the nation the morning of the 12th, President Bush declared that the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were "acts of war." Indeed, they were—jihad ("holy war"). He said that "freedom and democracy are under attack [but] we will not allow this enemy to win the war by...restricting our freedoms." Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country? Who dares to make the obvious connection between this declaration of war against America, and the declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century; a part of Islam ever since? Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change. Rioting Muslim mobs invariably chant in their "fanaticism," "Allah is great! Allah is great!"
In the wake of this terrible act of "holy war," our President and Congressional leaders referred to God numerous times and invoked His blessing in tracking down the perpetrators of this infamous deed. The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully!
We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians. Never! The simple but horrible fact is that only the religion of Islam could supply the motivation for what they did. Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason.
It would be extremely naive to imagine that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up in Israel or to crash a plane at the loss of their own and many other lives do so for some commendable humanitarian cause. The courage comes solely from a unique doctrine of Islam.
Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph to succeed Muhammad (and one of the few to whom Muhammad promised Paradise without martyrdom), declared that even if he had one foot in Paradise he could not trust Allah to let him in. The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward.
And what reward does Paradise bring to the jihad martyr? He is promised a palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions; inside each mansion are 70 houses and in each house a bed on which are 70 sheets and on each sheet a beautiful virgin. He is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood. This motivation alone gives the reckless courage and determination to train and execute terrorist deeds in which they sacrifice their lives in bringing death and destruction to "the enemies of Allah."
America has been called "the Great Satan" by Muslim leaders around the world. Thus the strike at America was a strike for Allah against his chief enemy. Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel. Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate.
Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion. The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned government leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.
In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends...Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them....Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.
Several years ago Steven Emerson produced for PBS an excellent video titled Jihad In America. Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques here in America where eager young Muslims were being recruited for jihad against the United States. Muslim leaders are shown giving speeches about bringing America to its knees through terrorism and making cold-blooded statements such as the following from Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in1989: "Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans. Hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!" Yes, Allah's religion is the motivation!
In Kansas, in 1988, another leader recruiting Islamic holy warriors against the United States exults, "O, brothers! After Afghanistan [where Muslim "freedom fighters," aided by the CIA, drove out the Soviets and installed the brutal Taliban regime] nothing in the world is impossible for us any more! There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is will power that springs from our religious belief!" Yes, religious belief, the particular belief of Islam, is the only motivation capable of inspiring such "fanaticism."
At the beginning of the video, Emerson, who had tracked international terrorism for the prior ten years, reported on what he called "networks of Islamic extremists" inside the US. He accurately warned that "for these militants jihad is a holy war, an armed struggle to defeat nonbelievers, or infidels, and their ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic [worldwide] empire." Yet he later backpedaled into the incredible statement that "Islam as a religion does not condone violence; the radicals represent only themselves—an extremist and violent fringe..." That is simply not true. It is not because men are Arabs or extremists that they turn to terrorism, but because they are devout Muslims. Yet who will face this obvious fact?
Hatred of Israel and the call to destroy America for supporting her are also underlying themes of the terrorists seen in the documentary. Another Muslim leader in the US declares that Washington's Capitol Hill is "Zionist-occupied territory," that the Jews control Congress, and that the United States deserves what it gets so long as it continues to support Israel.
Referring repeatedly to "Islamic holy warriors," the video documented as clearly as could be done that Islam is the driving force behind terrorism. Astonishingly, however, the narrator and counter-terrorism experts being interviewed repeatedly declared that Islam was not to be blamed but only the "fanaticism" of certain individuals. For example, Paul Bremer, former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism for the State Department, said it is "important to make a distinction...the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are peace loving." It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and would protest that they support terrorism. Our sympathy is with them. However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence, which from its very inception has been spread with the sword?
Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world. Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword.
On radio and TV, during that black Tuesday in September, which we can never forget, we were repeatedly told by well-intentioned government officials that we must be careful not to blame Islam for what a few fanatics had done. In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world.
We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere? Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan? And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel?
No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence. It is only Islam's claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of promise and that the Holy Land belongs to them, which unites Arabs in the "fanatical" determination to destroy the Jews.
There is a natural reluctance to accept any statement which seems to be a prejudiced attack upon a world religion. It is the fear of such prejudice which prevents the world from facing the truth. But is it prejudice to state the plain facts? No, it is not—but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad.
The world has sided with Islam in its false claim to the land of Israel, which is now inaccurately called Palestine. This promised land, given to Israel by the God of the Bible, has been occupied by Jews continuously for the last 3,000 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. But steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain's administration of this mandate (and the demise of the British Empire can be dated from that betrayal); the land was parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land, which actually has been theirs for 3,000 years. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world.
We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system.
The expose of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders. It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.
Let us pray to that end.
Dave Hunt
America awakened September 11 [2001] to appalling scenes on TV of passenger planes deliberately crashing into the towers of the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Stunned disbelief gave way to the question, who could so carefully plan and efficiently execute such incredibly inhumane destruction and slaughter?
What cause could so powerfully motivate educated and trained individuals to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of so many total strangers in this manner? In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics. But were they? Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."
Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him...I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."
Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"?
There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman. He is proof to would-be imitators that terrorism pays big. The United Nations, European Union, and countless world political and religious leaders have sided with him in his terrorism against Israel.
Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation)—which has just been equaled, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc.
Instead of being tried by an international tribunal as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat's bloody exploits gained for him acceptance as a leader for peace!
In his brief speech to the nation the morning of the 12th, President Bush declared that the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were "acts of war." Indeed, they were—jihad ("holy war"). He said that "freedom and democracy are under attack [but] we will not allow this enemy to win the war by...restricting our freedoms." Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country? Who dares to make the obvious connection between this declaration of war against America, and the declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century; a part of Islam ever since? Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change. Rioting Muslim mobs invariably chant in their "fanaticism," "Allah is great! Allah is great!"
In the wake of this terrible act of "holy war," our President and Congressional leaders referred to God numerous times and invoked His blessing in tracking down the perpetrators of this infamous deed. The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully!
We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians. Never! The simple but horrible fact is that only the religion of Islam could supply the motivation for what they did. Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason.
It would be extremely naive to imagine that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up in Israel or to crash a plane at the loss of their own and many other lives do so for some commendable humanitarian cause. The courage comes solely from a unique doctrine of Islam.
Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph to succeed Muhammad (and one of the few to whom Muhammad promised Paradise without martyrdom), declared that even if he had one foot in Paradise he could not trust Allah to let him in. The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward.
And what reward does Paradise bring to the jihad martyr? He is promised a palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions; inside each mansion are 70 houses and in each house a bed on which are 70 sheets and on each sheet a beautiful virgin. He is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood. This motivation alone gives the reckless courage and determination to train and execute terrorist deeds in which they sacrifice their lives in bringing death and destruction to "the enemies of Allah."
America has been called "the Great Satan" by Muslim leaders around the world. Thus the strike at America was a strike for Allah against his chief enemy. Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel. Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate.
Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion. The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned government leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.
In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends...Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them....Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.
Several years ago Steven Emerson produced for PBS an excellent video titled Jihad In America. Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques here in America where eager young Muslims were being recruited for jihad against the United States. Muslim leaders are shown giving speeches about bringing America to its knees through terrorism and making cold-blooded statements such as the following from Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in1989: "Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans. Hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!" Yes, Allah's religion is the motivation!
In Kansas, in 1988, another leader recruiting Islamic holy warriors against the United States exults, "O, brothers! After Afghanistan [where Muslim "freedom fighters," aided by the CIA, drove out the Soviets and installed the brutal Taliban regime] nothing in the world is impossible for us any more! There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is will power that springs from our religious belief!" Yes, religious belief, the particular belief of Islam, is the only motivation capable of inspiring such "fanaticism."
At the beginning of the video, Emerson, who had tracked international terrorism for the prior ten years, reported on what he called "networks of Islamic extremists" inside the US. He accurately warned that "for these militants jihad is a holy war, an armed struggle to defeat nonbelievers, or infidels, and their ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic [worldwide] empire." Yet he later backpedaled into the incredible statement that "Islam as a religion does not condone violence; the radicals represent only themselves—an extremist and violent fringe..." That is simply not true. It is not because men are Arabs or extremists that they turn to terrorism, but because they are devout Muslims. Yet who will face this obvious fact?
Hatred of Israel and the call to destroy America for supporting her are also underlying themes of the terrorists seen in the documentary. Another Muslim leader in the US declares that Washington's Capitol Hill is "Zionist-occupied territory," that the Jews control Congress, and that the United States deserves what it gets so long as it continues to support Israel.
Referring repeatedly to "Islamic holy warriors," the video documented as clearly as could be done that Islam is the driving force behind terrorism. Astonishingly, however, the narrator and counter-terrorism experts being interviewed repeatedly declared that Islam was not to be blamed but only the "fanaticism" of certain individuals. For example, Paul Bremer, former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism for the State Department, said it is "important to make a distinction...the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are peace loving." It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and would protest that they support terrorism. Our sympathy is with them. However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence, which from its very inception has been spread with the sword?
Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world. Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword.
On radio and TV, during that black Tuesday in September, which we can never forget, we were repeatedly told by well-intentioned government officials that we must be careful not to blame Islam for what a few fanatics had done. In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world.
We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere? Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan? And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel?
No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence. It is only Islam's claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of promise and that the Holy Land belongs to them, which unites Arabs in the "fanatical" determination to destroy the Jews.
There is a natural reluctance to accept any statement which seems to be a prejudiced attack upon a world religion. It is the fear of such prejudice which prevents the world from facing the truth. But is it prejudice to state the plain facts? No, it is not—but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad.
The world has sided with Islam in its false claim to the land of Israel, which is now inaccurately called Palestine. This promised land, given to Israel by the God of the Bible, has been occupied by Jews continuously for the last 3,000 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. But steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain's administration of this mandate (and the demise of the British Empire can be dated from that betrayal); the land was parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land, which actually has been theirs for 3,000 years. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world.
We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system.
The expose of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders. It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.
Let us pray to that end.
'Nuff said!
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.1 The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.2 This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit.
Genomics and the DNA Revolution
One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often omitted from the scope of the analysis. Another problem is that only similar DNA sequences are selected for analysis. As a result, estimates of similarity become biased towards the high side. An inflated level of overall DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimps is then reported to the general public, which obviously supports the case for human evolution. Since most people are not equipped to investigate the details of DNA analysis, the data remains unchallenged.
The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.
The availability of the chimp genome sequence in 2005 has provided a more realistic comparison. It should be noted that the chimp genome was sequenced to a much less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small un-oriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.
At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained.3 Once again, keep in mind that these regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?
Analyzing the Source of Similarity
So how exactly did scientists come up with the highly-touted 98 to 99 percent similarity estimates?
First, they used only human and chimp DNA sequence fragments that already exhibited a high level of similarity. Sections that didn't line up were tossed out of the mix. Next, they only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison. Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients.3 The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similarity estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop markedly and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared.
Another important factor concerns the potential for variants of the same protein to have different functions that can perform different tasks in different tissues. There is now no doubt that gene or protein sequence similarities, in and of themselves, are not as significant as other functional and regulatory information in the cell. Unfortunately, evolutionary assumptions drove a biased approach of simple sequence comparisons, providing few answers as to why humans and chimps are obviously so different.
Interestingly, current research is confirming that most of what makes humans biologically unique when compared to chimps and other animals is how genes are controlled and regulated in the genome. Several studies within the past few years are demonstrating clear differences in individual gene and gene network expression patterns between humans and chimps in regard to a wide number of traits.4, 5 Of course, the largest differences are observed in regard to brain function, dexterity, speech, and other traits with strong cognitive components. To make the genetic landscape even more complicated, a number of recent studies are also confirming that close to 93 percent of the genome is transcriptionally active (functional).6 Not so long ago, scientists thought that only 3 to 5 percent of the genome that contained the protein coding regions was functional; the rest was considered "junk DNA."
Conclusion
So what is an appropriate response to the assertion that a 99 percent similarity exists between human and chimp DNA, and thus proves common ancestry?
One can simply say that the whole genomes have never really been compared, only hand-selected regions already known to be similar have been examined, and the data is heavily biased. In fact, due to limitations in DNA sequencing technology, researchers do not even have the complete genomic sequence for human or chimp at present. In the sequence that they do have, much more analysis needs to be done.
Here are a number of key points that counter the evolutionary claims of close human-chimp similarity:
- The chimp genome is 10 to 12 percent larger than the human genome and is not in a near-finished state like the human genome; it is considered a rough draft.
- When large regions of the two genomes are compared, critical sequence dissimilarities become evident.
- Extremely large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes, including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes.
- Distinct differences in gene function and regulation are now known to be a more significant factor in determining differences in traits between organisms than the gene sequence alone. Research in this area has clearly demonstrated that this is the case with humans and apes, where marked dissimilarities in expression patterns are evident.
It is clear that the only way to obtain extreme DNA-based similarity between man and chimpanzee is to use comparative analyses that are heavily skewed by an evolutionary bias where one picks and chooses what data or what part of the genome to use. At present, the DNA sequence differences between these genomes clearly indicate a much lower level than 98 to 99 percent. In fact, one evolutionary study suggests it may be as low as 86 percent or less. In addition, the complex functional aspects of genes and their regulatory networks differ markedly between humans and chimps and play a more important role than DNA sequence by itself.
The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.7
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research? | The Institute for Creation Research
Natural Selection 1
Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the Designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. (a).
a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]
Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html]
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a non-evolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell]who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.”Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal,Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html]
Natural Selection 2
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or
a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or
a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or
a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or
a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).
b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science,Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.
“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.
c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.
d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly,Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.
e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]
“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American,Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html]
B
wierd how we get that tail in the beginning stages of life
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-il...yo-digital-illustration-species-image48928926
[video=youtube;dgPCDXmcQjM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgPCDXmcQjM[/video]
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-il...yo-digital-illustration-species-image48928926
[video=youtube;dgPCDXmcQjM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgPCDXmcQjM[/video]
'ANGEL' IN BEAMS OF LIGHT AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9/11 MEMORIAL
Photographer: 'Almost looked like a vision of the Lord'
Published: 1 day ago
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack1.jpg
Image being called the Angel of the World Trade Center. This image was captured by Richard McCormack. He is a photographer at the New Jersey Journal.
Copyright: Richard McCormack
A startling image has emerged from the recent memorial light display in New York City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America by Islamic terrorists: an image that is being described as an angel.
“I did a double-take not knowing really what it was, but as I zoomed in it almost looked like a vision of the Lord with his arms crossed,” photographer Rich McCormack told a New Jersey station. “I got very emotional, and I got tears in my eyes.”
He’s posted his images on social media.
Yvette Cid, who lost two sons in the 9/11 terror attacks, told him, “Rich I know you don’t photo shop that’s an awesome pic wow I lost my two boys and I believe this is a sign to all that have lost a loved one.”
Here’s a zoomed-in view:
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack2.jpg
Copyright: Rich McCormack
And another even closer:
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack3.jpg
Copyright: Rich McCormack
THelena Padget added, “The Lord is with us and this is just another reminder. It’s beautiful.”
McCormack, of Jersey City, reported he’d taken multiple images of the light, but the figure appeared only in one.
What do we know about heaven? See the resources available at the WND Superstore, including “Heaven Vision: Glimpses Into Glory,” “Heaven Is Beyond Your Wildest Expectations: Ten Ture Stories of Experiencing Heaven,” and “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey Into The Afterlife.”
Read more at ‘Angel’ in beams of light at World Trade Center 9/11 memorial
Photographer: 'Almost looked like a vision of the Lord'
Published: 1 day ago
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack1.jpg
Copyright: Richard McCormack
A startling image has emerged from the recent memorial light display in New York City commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America by Islamic terrorists: an image that is being described as an angel.
“I did a double-take not knowing really what it was, but as I zoomed in it almost looked like a vision of the Lord with his arms crossed,” photographer Rich McCormack told a New Jersey station. “I got very emotional, and I got tears in my eyes.”
He’s posted his images on social media.
Yvette Cid, who lost two sons in the 9/11 terror attacks, told him, “Rich I know you don’t photo shop that’s an awesome pic wow I lost my two boys and I believe this is a sign to all that have lost a loved one.”
Here’s a zoomed-in view:
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack2.jpg
And another even closer:
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/LightAngelMcCormack3.jpg
THelena Padget added, “The Lord is with us and this is just another reminder. It’s beautiful.”
McCormack, of Jersey City, reported he’d taken multiple images of the light, but the figure appeared only in one.
What do we know about heaven? See the resources available at the WND Superstore, including “Heaven Vision: Glimpses Into Glory,” “Heaven Is Beyond Your Wildest Expectations: Ten Ture Stories of Experiencing Heaven,” and “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey Into The Afterlife.”
Read more at ‘Angel’ in beams of light at World Trade Center 9/11 memorial
As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.
But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.
It doesn't make sense that abortionists could use such bad science to justify their deeds. But then, a lot about abortion doesn't make sense.
Does the Human Embryo Go through Animal Stages? | The Institute for Creation Research