Debunking Jim Mumy

PART 1 – What is Evidence

I used to think of faith as the opposite of reason. In this characterization of the dichotomy, I believed that atheists were reasonable “freethinkers” while Christians were simple, mindless drones who blindly followed the unreasonable teachings of their leadership. But if you think about it, faith is actually the opposite of unbelief, not the opposite of reason.”

Well, yes, but believing ANYTHING without evidence, is not reasonable. So, indirectly, faith is not reasonable if it means acceptance of anything without evidence.

As I began to read through the Bible as a skeptic, I came to understand that the biblical definition of faith is a well-placed and reasonable inference based on evidence.”

IF there is EVIDENCE, faith is not needed.

Oftentimes people will reject the message of Christianity because they will say they cannot accept anything which cannot be proven scientifically. This is actually a highly uninformed statement because no fact of history can be confirmed through the Scientific Method, none whatsoever. “

This is just not true. For example, video documents history, meaning we can actually rewatch history. WE can also look at evidence and be 99,9999999% sure something happened. Allt though, that is not a 100%.

When people make the claim, “Science is the only way to really know the truth,” they should be asked how they “really know” that that statement is true; has science helped them come to that conclusion?”

It is of course based on that there are no other KNOWN methods for gaining truth. The statement is true with just a minor adjustment: “Science is the only way WE KNOW OF to really know the truth,”

But there are more:

  1. Logical and mathematical truths: these must be accepted as foundational presuppositions in order for us to engage in any scientific study, so we clearly can’t use science to determine the logic and math facts that precede science.”

But as soon as math does not correlate with nature, that math is wrong. So, math can be accepted on its own merits, but, it can be excluded through EVIDENCE.,

Logical truths are something made up, logic is used to remove faulty conclusions, it can not draw its own without scientific observations.

2. Metaphysical truths: some truths about the nature of the world (such as whether or not the external world is real in the first place) cannot be determined through the use of science.”

It cannot be determined AT ALL with the methods available today. But we of course do not ASSUME that they are true, without evidence. So they are not even “truths” to begin with.

3. Moral and ethical truths: Science cannot tell us what is morally virtuous or vile. It may, on occasion help us to know what “is” (related to the material world), but science can never tell us what “ought to be” (related to moral judgments).”

There are no moral or ethical truths. That is just interpretation and culture.

4. Aesthetic truths: Science cannot help us to determine or judge what is beautiful or what is ugly.”

But these are not truths, since they are up to opinion, they can never be anything but subjective truths, and those lack scientific value.

5. Historical truths: Perhaps most important to the study of the Christian worldview, science cannot determine what is true historically. “

This is a common creationist LIE, there is no distinction in real science between observational and historical science, that is make-belief made up by Ken Ham. We can know the past in the same way we can solve a murder without eyewitnesses, by looking at evidence.

Science can tell us nothing about who won the Oscar for best picture last year, and in a similar way, science can tell us nothing about the ancient claims related to the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the Bible.”

Of course it can, by looking at evidence we can know the past. For example, when studying history, which is not a natural science, we look at documents and what historians of that time said, none of the historians of Biblical time mentioned Jesus, and he is not in the Roman records. So, Jesus’ existence is most likely a fabrication based on this evidence.

They simply cannot be recreated and observed for truth.”

DIRECT observation has not been a requirement in science for 700 years.

If we are going to reject all categories of truth that cannot be determined or verified scientifically, we are going to have to reject all truths related to logic, mathematics, morals, aesthetics, history or metaphysics.”

Logic can never prove anything, and math is out if it does not correlate with observations. The rest are not considered truths at all, but are simply subjective. ALL verifiable truths, right now, comes from science, the rest is just speculation.

The most important claims and assertions of life would have to be ignored as untrustworthy.”

Such as? Jim has not provided such claims and assertions. He has put forward a few we can easily do without however.

More importantly, an over-reliance on science eliminates explanatory options on the basis of bias. There is a difference between the scientific method (a rational process of testing) and scientism (an irrational commitment to philosophical naturalism).”

But scientists is absolutely true with just one little addition to its statement: “As far as we know”. That is, as far as we know, there is no other methods for gaining verifiable truth than science.

Philosophical naturalists refuse to consider anything outside the natural world as an explanation for the events they observe. “

Because such explanations would be pure guesses. Speculations built on absolutely nothing.

Christians, on the other hand, are better able to let the evidence take them where it leads. “

They have no evidence, they let GUESSES take them where they lead.

If natural laws and processes can account for a particular phenomenon, so be it.”

And if they cannot, it only implies we do not have a great enough understanding of the natural laws. It implies nothing but us not understanding.

If natural laws and processes fall short of providing an explanation”

Then nothing, then we do not have knowledge enough and more research is required.

and the evidence points to the existence of something supernatural, that explanation is still on the table.”

Sure, there just is no evidence that points to the supernatural.

Philosophical naturalism rules out an entire category of supernatural explanation even before it seeks to determine if anything supernatural exists!”

Not really, it just STARTS with evidence, not ASSUMPTIONS. IF there is no evidence, we do not assume something exists.

It turns out that the Christian worldview has the ability to embrace natural explanations without rejecting the supernatural ones out of hand.”

Usually through a process called “cherry picking”. Jim here for example, do not accept the evidence for evolution or abiogenesis, not because he has evidence against them, but because he does not like them to be true.

An over-reliance on science (often described as “scientism”) causes us to reject anything supernatural before we even begin to investigate an explanation.”

Jim is taking things in the wrong order. WE do not ASSUME the supernatural BEFORE there is EVIDENCE that such a thing exists.

Which of these two approaches is most prejudicial?”

ASSUMING the supernatural is.

Which is least tolerant of the variety of explanations that are available to us?”

Creationists as a rule, who rejects things as evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang, which has massive support in science. Jim said himself that if there are natural explanation, that is fine. Well, in the case of life and the universe, we have a natural explanation. Jim has just rejected it based on his FAITH that it is not true, that is, his GUESS.

If the Scientific Method was the only method of proving something, you couldn’t prove that you went to bed last night or that you had lunch today. “

Yes, we could. We could for example use at skin flakes in the bed, that would have your DNA. We can determine how far they have gotten in the decay-process, and in that way, both see THAT and WHEN you have been to bed.

IF we examine a person’s stomach, we can conclude, trough science, what this person has been eating.

There’s no way you can repeat those events in a controlled situation.”

No need, we only have to be able to repeat THE EVIDENCE, not the event.

The Scientific Method is incapable of duplicating, and consequently, validating any historical event and that includes biblical events. “

We have no need of duplicating the event. That is not what “observable” means in science. Let’s take evolution as an example. By looking at evidence, such as fossils, DNA, Embryology, Biogeography, and so on, we can conclude, with great certainty, what happened in the past.

Though scripture cannot be proven through the Scientific Method, like all matters in history, it can be proven through the Legal-Historical Method. “

No, it can be indicated, but unlike science, it will never be verifiable, it will always remain a GUESS.

The Legal-Historical Method is what we use in our courts of law every day. It is based on showing that something is true (fact) beyond a reasonable doubt. “

That is also how science works actually. Evolution for example, is true beyond any reasonable doubt, 99,99% certainty.

In other words, a verdict is reached on the basis of the weight of the evidence where there is no reasonable basis for doubting the decision.”

And the strongest evidence in courts, are the scientific ones.

The Legal-Historical Method involves three kinds of testimony: Oral Testimony, Written Records, and Physical Exhibits. “

And only the Physical counts as conclusive. Written records and Oral testimony means nothing if we can produce physical evidence against them. DNA does not lie, witnesses sometimes do.

As one example, Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, wrote an historical narrative (First Corinthians chapter 15, written within 32 years of the event) and stated that there were over 512 Oral witnesses to the fact of Christ’s resurrection. We have the Written record of the Apostle’s themselves (those who knew Jesus and witnessed the events) in the New Testament manuscripts verifying the fact that Jesus did rise from the dead.”

So, we have a CLAIM by ONE PERSON that there are 512 witnesses. Why believe him?

And we have Physical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection: the tomb is empty and there is no body to prove otherwise. “

The supporters of the Garden tomb being evidence are basing this on its closeness to Golgata, and also that it looks like described in the Bible, however, it was outside the city limits during biblical times.

But those are just a few. The truly massive amount of evidence is outlined in the following pages.”
Hope so… So far nothing…

But there are, in fact, many things that we know without the benefit of science. In fact, the very statement, “Science is the only way to really know the truth” cannot be verified with any kind of scientific experiment; it is, instead, a philosophical proclamation about the nature of truth. “
But with a small modification it works: ““Science is the only way WE KNOW OF to really know the truth”

Well, there are several good reasons to trust a courtroom over a laboratory when trying to determine what happened at some point in the distant past:”

Not really, but let’s see what Jim puts forward.

The Nature of the Courtroom Vets Claims Aggressively”

So does science. Peer review is ruthless. If one person studying at any university in the world find an error in your work, it is out. And the scientists have no say in WHO peer reviews them, no one can stop anyone from doing it.

If you trust that a scientific peer review process ensures an accurate outcome, you’re sadly mistaken. “

No one believes it does. What it does is making DISHONEST RESEARCH almost impossible. You cannot lie about your evidence in science, because if you do, someone peer reviewing will notice, and your research will be out.

The antiquated prior theories in virtually every discipline of science (theories that have now been abandoned by the scientific community) were all subject to peer review. “

Yes, because peer review does not ensure correctness, it ensures HONESTY.

This process of review was inadequate to exclude false ideas. “
It was never meant to. The scientific method in itself does that.

Courtrooms have a far more aggressive vetting process. Opposing attorneys begin by opposing each other’s ideas and claims. This public vetting of truth claims is far more aggressive than scientific peer review.”

No, it is not. Most ideas in science will be proven wrong BY SCIENCE. That is not the case with the court of law. And there are MANY cases where innocent people have been convicted, and guilty people have gotten off. The court takes POPULAR OPINION into account. It also matter how much MONEY you have. That is not very correct, and does not yield the best results.

How many times have you asked your kids to tell you what happened earlier in the day? Have you ever been inclined to verify their claims with an experiment? Instead, weren’t you more likely to find another eyewitness if “

But there would be no way of verifying that another eyewitness is telling the truth either. What people say, is not evidence, ever. They can be wrong, they can lie, and so on.

It’s important to remember that courtrooms are not devoid of scientific examination. There are many limited aspects of historical events that can be examined scientifically to corroborate the claims of eyewitnesses and help to establish what happened at a particular crime scene. “

And if we cannot, they remain PURE SPECULATION. WE need to verify that people are speaking the truth, everytime they speak, if we are to reach truth. This means that even if a person ha never been wrong ad never lied in his entire life, it makes no difference, he may lie and be wrong in the next sentence anyway.

There are many forms of forensic science that are employed in corroborating such claims, and while these scientific endeavors are inadequate to fully tell us what happened, they are sufficient to provide us with limited information to assist in the process. The courtroom is not a place where science is ignored or demeaned; it’s simply a place where the limited role of science is understood and acknowledged.”

It is actually not. The only evidence that counts as conclusive in the court of law, is scientific evidence. IF we have a thousand eyewitnesses, all pointing out the same guy, videos of him doing the crime. And so on. If we find that the DNA on the scene is not his, he will go free. In the court of law, DNA is more conclusive than video and a 1000 eyewitnesses. DNA never lies, video and witnesses does.

Our culture trusts scientists far more than it trusts lawyers, that’s a fairly safe statement. When a scientist tells the culture that something is true, it is far more likely to be embraced without challenge.”

By laypeople, sure, but within the scientific community, the competition is ruthless, you get famous by proving other scientists wrong, so, all scientists want to prove each other wrong. Everything in science is challenged, EVERYTHING.

That’s another reason why courtrooms are a far better place to determine what happened in the historic past. When a scientist makes a claim standing in a laboratory, he is often the final arbiter of truth.”

No, he is not. He is ruthlessly peer reviewed by people who which to prove him wrong, until no scientist can find anything wrong with the paper in question. THEN, it is delivered to the public. I personally failed peer review 17 times before passing.

Other scientists may weigh in and agree (or disagree) with the first scientist, but “non-scientist” observers play little role in the process.”

Of course! Just as non-surgeons do not participate in a surgery. We do not want laypeople to have a say in how a bridge s constructed, it would fall down. Why listen to people who have not studied the subject? We are only interested in observers that has an education and understand what it is they are observing, and that has the knowledge to draw conclusion based on evidence.

When a lawyer makes a claim standing in a courtroom, he is never the final arbiter of truth. Other lawyers may weigh in and agree (or disagree), but an entire collection of “non-lawyer observers” play the most important role in the process.”

Exactly, THAT is the problem. Popular opinion makes absolutely no difference, expert opinion however, is central. It is why you do not let your garbageman perform surgery on you. It is not that you mind him or look down at him, it is because he does not have the knowledge needed to perform the task at hand.

Jurors make the final decision in the courtroom and it’s the juror’s decision that is then examined and questioned by the culture. Jurors stand between the claims of lawyers (and their associates) and the culture that is waiting for a decision. There is no such jury standing between the claims of scientists (and their associates) and the culture that is waiting for a decision.”

Yes, imagine if that was true with science, what a travesty! Uneducated people, not understanding the subject or how the evidence would look like, would have a say in what is considered true. Courts has lowered the standards of science, because if they did not, no one would be convicted basically, scientific demands are too high for that.

The daily process of determining truth that occurs in courtrooms across America has been established for a reason. It’s still the single best method of determining what happened in the past. “

Then it should be interesting for Jim to know, that the US court has deemed intelligent design unscientific, and evolution scientific. That is why it is forbidden to teach ID in science class in most states of the US.

Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause.”

No, we do not. For several reasons:

  1. The laws of cause and effects are laws of our universe, before the big bang, they may not apply. At least, one cannot assume they did.
  2. It is INCREDIBLY bad logic, to say that everything needs a cause, and then explain this away with saying that something is uncaused.
  3. We do not know what was before the big bang, it could have been another universe in an eternally repeating process, it could be that there is a multiverse and that this is eternal, it could be that something can come from nothing. And so on.

A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced.”

Exactly… But most scientific experiments are bound to the laws of our universe (or well, all of them).

The very basis of the highly reputed ”scientific method” is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.”

Well, yes, so an UNCAUSED CAUSE, would be deemed very unscientific.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects)”

Which is quite possible. There is nothing speaking against it.

or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything).”

That would go strictly against the rules of cause and effect. One have to choose, either a cause is needed, and then an uncaused cause is impossible, or they are not needed, and then an uncaused cause is not necessary.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.”

Yes, which is ZERO. The universe total energy is ZERO.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.”

Well, transformed, but, close…

The First Law (of thermodynamcs) tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.”

IN ISOLATED SYSTEMS, that is VERY important. The laws of thermodynamics are out the window as soon as energy is added to a system. For example, they do not apply to earth, because earth receives energy from the sun.

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.”

Jim, you JUST SAID, that if we actually examine the EVIDENCE, and trace it backwards, we get to an ongoing chain. This is actually also wrong. The fact of the matter is, that we do not know, and guessing gets us nowhere. There is no evidence of this first cause. There are ARGUMENTS, but no EVIDENCE.

PART 2 – Evidence

God has not hidden Himself from us; all around us we see evidence of His existence. Look, for example, at the worlds He created. “

OK, here is the problem. Existence in all its glory, is the QUESTION we are trying to answer. God is an attempted answer at what caused existence, life, and so on. Science is also trying to answer those very same questions. The point here being, that the QUESTION cannot be used as EVIDENCE, that would be CIRCULAR.

Did this amazing universe just happen by chance? “

We do not know. Anything goes when the rules of our universe no longer apply. There are alternatives to “chance” and “god”. It could be an unknown process that is nowhere close to anything we have imagined today.

Not at all; it would take far more faith to believe that, than to believe God created it”.

No faith is required to say “we do not know”. No faith is required to follow evidence.

But God revealed Himself to us in a far greater and more personal way: by coming down from heaven and walking among us in the person of Jesus Christ. ““

THAT is a CLAIM that requires EVIDENCE. That is, we need EVIDENCE that Jesus was god.

Do you want to know what God is like? Look at Jesus Christ, for He was God in human flesh.”

And the evidence for this is what?

And when you see Him as He really is, you’ll realize not only that God exists, but that He loves you, and He is worthy of your complete faith and trust and commitment. (Billy Graham)”

OK, evidence?

Some say that they just want proof. They want someone to “prove” to them that God exists. But is that really what they want? Would they change their worldview if the evidence dictated? If what they believe is not true, would they really want to know?”


Many have claimed that the evidence for the existence of a loving all-powerful and just Creator is not worthy of their consideration.”

Everything that has evidence is worthy of consideration.

In my atheistic-evolutionary days, I accepted that something could come out of nothing, that life cold come from non-life, yet I could never provide proof for such claims. “

Then why did you believe it Jim? I believe the same things because there is MASSIVE evidence. There are smart and dumb atheists as well, and an atheist accepting evolution without evidence, is a dumb one.

In fact, those popular theories did not even agree with my training and education. Although I would never admit it, I knew the laws of thermodynamics that I studied and applied in my vocation, directly refuted evolutionary and Big Bang theories. “

No they do not. This is the most common misunderstanding among creationists. I could argue these closer, explain that the universe has a total of zero energy (as much + as -), and that it therefore does not break these laws is coming from nothing. BUT, we only need one sentence to destroy this one: THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLY TO ISOLATED SYSTEMS, EARTH IS NOT AN ISOLATED SYSTEM.

Where is this abundant evidence that some suggest? How can some people be so confident about these questions of origin? “

In the case of the big bang, the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation. It exists, and as far as scientists know, there is no other explanation for it than the big bang.

Something coming from nothing works with the laws of thermodynamics since the universe has zero total energy.

When it comes to evolution, there are 4 million pieces of evidence, some of the top ones being:

1: Geographical placement of the living species ( Biogeography – The current and past distribution of species on the planet)

2: DNA. E.g. Our DNA is very close to that of apes, a bit further from that of rats, a bit further from that of reptiles, and so on. Just like we can use DNA to see who is your father, it can be used to see what was your ancestor, one is not harder than the other.

3: Vestigial and atavistic organs – E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

4: Species share similarities that are signs of their common ancestry

5: Species have traits that are the remnants of past generations.

6: Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

  1. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span … i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)
  2. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).
  3. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.
  4. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

7: Genetic evidence. E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes … and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

8: Molecular evidence – These are commonalities in DNA … which is separate from genetic commonalities … much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically ‘typos’) enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the ‘molecular clock’ and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

9: Evidence from proteins Proteins – E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for ‘rhesus monkey’); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision … but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

10: Embryology – E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos

11: Homology – E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

12: Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control – I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

13: The fact that modern medicine works for a large part (Evolution is the presumption, if evolution is wrong, then modern medicine should not work).

14: Chromosome 2.

15: The recurrent laryngeal nerve

16: Fossils becoming more advanced the higher up in the rock-layer they are

17: The recent evolution of the peppered moth

18: The E. coli long-term evolution experiment

19: The culex pipiens f. molestus, a species of subterranean mosquito which diverged from the common mosquito about 14 years ago and is completely reliant on the heat from underground train networks to survive.

20: Nylonase, nylon eating bacteria which again are reliant on a man made product that does not exist naturally

21: Other evidence that confirms the other ones, such as plate tectonics proving Biogeography (nr 1) right.

Here are 260 000 more:

Can evidence alone change a person’s view given a lifelong attachment to his own beliefs? “

If the person is rational, yes.

Hundreds of books have been published over the years that investigate the claims of the Bible. Page after page of historical facts relating to biblical and extra-biblical manuscripts have been documented. “

Yes, and they have come to different conclusions, several of them that the bible is not reliable.

The amount of evidence is enormous. But let’s be realistic, no amount of evidence will convince someone against his will. “

Evidence has nothing to do with will, if there is evidence, and you do not accept it, you are being irrational. For example, to not accept that chromosome 2 is strong evidence for apes relation to man, you are irrational. A rational person needs to accept ALL EVIDENCE as long as this evidence holds up. IF a person says that evidence does not hold up, it is up to the person claiming that to prove it. For example, if Jim here says that Chromosome 2 is not evidence of ape/human relations, he needs to provide EVIDENCE that it is not.

In many cases, they often impose a burden of proof on Biblical matters that they would never impose on issues connected with the worldview they hold. “

WRONG! We hold our own beliefs to the same standards. The person who claims something ALWAYS has the burden of proof. The reason I believe in evolution, is that there is MASSIVE evidence, 4 million of them.

Why do some abandon their long-held bias against something and others will not?”

Rationality. If you are rational you change your mind every time there is new evidence. Nothing is holy. Even if you have believed in something all your life, spent time teaching it, built a career on it. If you are rational you still change your ideas in a heartbeat with evidence.

But can Christianity be dismissed that easily? Many have tried.”

Christianity has not been proven in the first place. There is no need to disprove something that is not proven first.

What kind of book is the Bible? I submit there are only two plausible answers. The Bible is merely a book by man about God, or it is a book given by God through man, to man.

If the first is true, then the Bible is a record of human wisdom marked by human limitations. “

This seems to be the case. It is the DEFAULT stance until there is EVIDENCE. Unless you prove that the book is special, it is not considered to be.

If the second is true, then God is the ultimate author and His word is the last word; a supernatural book, bearing supernatural marks. In a sense, it would contain “God’s fingerprints” for all to see.”

PRETTY BIG IF. Jim provides no evidence so far that it is.

As some of you know, biblical writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very “word of God,” infallible and authoritative beyond anything they themselves could produce. This is an amazing thing for any writer to claim.”

And if you do not prove it, it is a CRAZY thing to claim.

If the forty or so men who penned the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, insane, or both.”

OR, they might have been LIED TO. If we cannot prove any of them correct, it may be anyone of them.

But, if the greatest and most influential book of all ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for anyone to ever find meaning and purpose in this world? “

Well, this is Jim’s personal opinion (it being the best book ever), I would say that hope is quite good subjectively, but we will most likely never find a objective purpose.

Are we just products of a random fusion of electrons destined to be forgotten as we get recycled into the material world around us?”

We do not know… Possibly.


It is often alleged that since the Bible has been copied many times, what we have today cannot be historically reliable. Yet historical MSS research suggests differently. “

Well, all though that is partly true, it is hardly a main-argument against the Bible. We know for a fact that there has been changes in the Bible from the original.

Any doubt by critics regarding the accurate transmission of manuscripts was erased in 1947 with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That actually strengthen the doubts. When we found them, we saw that there had been quite a few changes made between them and the KJV.

Hundreds of scrolls that were buried for nearly 2000 years were found in ancient clay vessels. These ancient scrolls (dated prior to 100 B.C.) were buried in Bedouin caves in the vicinity of Qumran, near the Dead Sea. It can now be demonstrated that the biblical Old Testament (OT) text, except for minor grammatical changes in language, is identical to what we have today. “

That is a lie, several changes has been made in the bible, for example the change from Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Mark 8:28. 2 different places.

All those who had claimed textual corruption prior to this discovery, are now very silent.”

No, they have just said what they wanted to say, and it has not been proven wrong. There is no need to repeat oneself.

Regarding New Testament (NT) manuscripts (MSS), they exceed 24,000. No other ancient writing is close. In addition, all the NT writings have been written within close proximity of Jesus’ death, “very probably between A.D. 50 and 75” (ref: William F. Albright, American archaeologist).”

It is between 50 and 110, but that is NOT close, 1 year is not even that close. 1 month can be considered close. That it has many copies proves absolutely nothing.

These writings were recorded either by eyewitnesses themselves or by those who wrote the accounts of eyewitnesses. “

No, there is one person CLAIMING to be an eyewitness, and that is Paul. The rest 500, is simply claimed to exist by Paul. There is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. Mark, Lucas, Matthey, and John, do not claim to be eyewitnesses. They are simply retelling a story they have heard.

Importantly, these New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of those who lived while Jesus had his ministry. “

No, there is no evidence of this, at least not presented so far.

This is important. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts being circulated. “

Not really. There was no news, no people double checking information, most people could not read. It was extremely easy to lie to people of such a time. I mean, imagine what you could get away with if it was almost impossible to double check the information.

In short, the contemporaries of Jesus could not afford to risk inaccuracies in their writings (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”

In our time, several people have made up evidence in science, and this is in a time when information is ruthlessly double checked. So, in a time when there was MUCH easier to get away with lying, it is likely it happened more often.

Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts of Jesus’ life in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective. “

Maybe they did? It just was not documented because they lost? History is written by the winners.

But these declarations and writings were not contested.”

How do you know? Maybe the critics was killed? Maybe the literature has been lost?

The Christian tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged. The silence of those who lived during the events in question strongly supports the claim that these event descriptions are indeed accurate. “

WHAT? Jim actually argues that because there is no officially documented evidence, Christianity’s claims was never challenged. Furthermore, yes, SILENCE speaks. Philo’s silence for example, a historian living in Jerusalem during the events surrounding Jesus, and who has not written a word about it. Strange that a historian of that time, the most famous one of his time, in that area, would not mention it.

Virtually all major religions – even those opposing Jesus – acknowledge his existence. “

No, that is not true, Islam does, but says he is not god. Hinduism and Buddhism usually accepts many religions. They do not see them as competing against each other. But he is not mentioned in their scriptures, no.

In our court system, historical reliability is determined through the textual transmission of how documents reach us. “

Well, partly.

When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 24,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. Second in manuscript authority after the New Testament is the Iliad with only 643.”

Which proves nothing of course, except the book being popular.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority”

There is no authority in science. Anyone has as much authority as long they bring EVIDENCE. It is all about EVIDENCE, not who puts them forward.

concludes: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

This is a CLAIM/ a QUOTE. Not evidence of course. When are news papers written, the same day or the day after something happens, right? Because 1 whole year, is TOO FAR AWAY to be RELIABLE. The Bible has 50 years at least between the events and them being codified.

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts in the NT was a product of mid-second century A.D. and n(…..) He was forced to conclude that “Luke is a historian of the first rank…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” Because of the accuracy of even the minutest detail, Ramsey finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.”

William Ramsay was a great CHEMIST (so not an archeologist) of the late 1800’s! He is outdated and not an expert on the subject.

Some suggest that the incredible survival of the Christian record is less a miracle than just the senseless expansion of a myth. If that is so, why haven’t other religions – with more prominent leaders, with lifelong ministries, and with less persecution – produced similar results? Good question, but few answers.”

Well, the short answer is, we have seen similar results with Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, the Pyramid texts, and so on.

How could the Judeo-Christian Scripture anticipate scientific discovery thousands of years in advance? Even though the Bible is not a scientific text, it is easily demonstrated that when it makes a statement about science, it is not only true, it is amazing given that it was written before modern science existed. Consider just a few:

  • The earth is round not flat: For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist scripture. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world proving the earth was round. But the round earth was recorded in the Bible 3,000 years ago, long before man discovered it in the 1500s. The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the ”circle of the earth.” Solomon wrote in Proverbs 8:27, ”He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep.” “

“Circle” does not imply a spherical shape. This is REACHING. Also, The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy.”Pythagoras was the first Greek who called the Earth round; though Theophrastus attributes this to Parmenides, and Zeno to Hesiod. So 2600 years ago, the greeks scientifically proved it. And it has been mentioned by the greeks LONG before that.

  • The earth is suspended over nothing: Three thousand years ago the Hindu scriptures recorded the earth was resting on the backs of several huge elephants. The elephants were resting on the back of a very large turtle that was swimming in a sea. Greek mythology claims that the god Atlas was holding the earth on his shoulders. But the Bible in Job 26:7, says, “He[God] stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.” The earth is suspended in space. Nothing is holding it up. Job wrote about the same time the Hindu Scripture was written. “
  • This is an observation most people can do. Once again, the greeks made this observation LONG before that, so did the egyptians. The Mayans were so advanced that they could calculate events in the universe thousands of years ahead.
  • The sun and moon are inanimate: Ancient people were afraid of the sun, moon and stars. They thought they were alive — that they were gods. Eclipses are an example of what people feared. (…) However, in the OT, Jeremiah wrote (10:2): ”Thus says the LORD, ‘Do not learn the way of the nations and do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens although the nations are terrified by them.” God went on to reassure Jeremiah that the universe is under God’s control. Later scientists learned that heavenly bodies were not alive and that man need not fear them. Thousands of years before scientists discovered that the planetary bodies were inanimate, the Judeo-Christian Bible contained this scientific fact.”

Once again, it is not strange that knowledge evolved, even back then. In 5000 bc people worshipped RA, the sun god, through they years, these ideas changed, The romans and the greeks had similar ideas as the ancient egyptians. It is not strange that knowledge had evolved since then. And it is not unique to Christianity. At about the same time, both Hinduism and Buddhists had stopped to worship the sun, and had moved on to more abstract gods.

  • With our latest and most advanced telescopes, the expanse of the universe seems to keep growing. The universe is described as almost infinite in extent in Isaiah 55:9. And according to Jeremiah 33:22, the vast number of stars cannot be numbered. This was written 1000s of years before the telescope was invented.”

And today, we know that is wrong. We actually do know the number of stars, the size of the universe, and even its weight.

  • The law of conservation of mass and energy is an empirical law of physics. It was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz during 1676–1689 who first attempted to form a mathematical expression for this law. In a paper Über die Natur der Wärme, published in the Zeitschrift für Physik in 1837, Karl Friedrich Mohr gave one of the earliest general statements of the doctrine of the conservation of energy. This principle of conservation was alluded to in II Peter 3:7, which was written more than 1700 years earlier.”
  • The bottom of the ocean described: Until modern time people thought the ocean floor was sandy like the desert and saucer shaped—deepest in the middle. But in the 1900s oceanographers found the sea had many deep valleys or canyons. The Marianas Trench in the Pacific is so deep (…) It was 3,000 years ago that the Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea. In Psalm 18:15 (NIV) David wrote of God being the creator of ”the valleys of the sea.” God asked Job (38:16 NIV): ”Have you walked in the recesses [valleys] of the sea?” The prophet Jonah was thrown off a ship and spoke of falling to the bottom of the mountains in the sea (Jonah 2:6).
  • The idea that the ocean floor is flat was made up, in a similar manner to the prevalence of the flat earth. Any observation of the ocean floor, no matter how casual, will reveal that its structure is far from flat. Casual swimmers in the Mediterranean are easily able to spot the underwater cliffs and large rock formations that are abundant in its coastline, and Homer informs us that ancient Greek sailors were well aware of the many dangers that rocks posed, especially around Greece and Italy. Realistically, there are only two choices for predicting the appearance of the ocean floor; it’s either flat or mountainous. Getting it right from a 50/50 chance is hardly impressive, particularly as common sense can inform this opinion quite easily.
  • Hydrologic cycle and paths described in the sea: In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy believed his Bible. One day Maury was reading about the dominion man was given over the animals in Psalm 8. He was amazed that verse 8 spoke of the fish and all creatures that swim in the ”paths of the sea.” ”Paths of the sea”— how could this be? He never knew there was such a thing. He was determined to find them. After years of investigation, Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which are like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as ”the pathfinder of the seas”— ”the father of modern navigation.” Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading Psalm 8:8 which was written 3,000 years ago by King David. In addition, Ecclesiastes 1:7 provides a description of the hydrologic cycle of water, rivers and rain.”

Any experience the Old Testament authors would have had about sea travel would have been confined primarily to the Mediterranean Sea area.  There is a current in the Mediterranean Sea that is caused by the outflow of warm saline deep water across Gibraltar, which is compensated by an inflow of a less saline surface current of cold Atlantic oceanic water.  If this verse is actually referring to currents, there is no reason to assume it is referring to anything other than this current in the Mediterranean Sea.  However, it would not take divine inspiration discover such a current.  A few boat trips in the affected area would soon make it evident.

Regardless where Matthew Maury got his inspiration, he was not the first to recognize the significance of ocean currents.

  • Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus; In the OT Book of Job written thousands of years B.C., God answered Job’s accusation by raising questions concerning the wonders of His creation. Three of these questions found in Job 38:3132, illustrate the dynamic logic conveyed in God’s questions, “Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Can you guide Arcturus with his sons?”
  • – The seven stars of the Pleiades are in reality a grouping of 250 stars. Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction. (..)The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship. Dr. Trumpler said that all this led to an important discovery. Without any reference whatsoever to the Book of Job, he announced to the world that these discoveries prove that the stars in the Pleiades are all bound together and are flying together like a flock of birds as they journey to their distant goal. That is exactly what God said. ”Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?” In other words, Are you powerful enough to keep them bound together so that they remain as a family of stars?”

So a physicist used an oversimplification that fits the Biblical description? Hardly good evidence. Also, we know what binds them together. Also, the egyptians had vast knowledge of the universe, so, this may actually have been knowledge lost and rediscovered.

  • – Garrett P. Serviss wrote: “Arcturus, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second. It could be turned into a new course by a(…) of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention: “The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.”

So once again, a quote by some guy, not really evidence. Just one person’s opinion.

  • The Second Law of Thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy must increase over time. The origin of the second law can be traced to French physicist Sadi Carnot’s 1824 paper Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire. In short, as the universe winds down its entropy increases until there is a heat death sometime in the distant future. The law of increasing entropy is declared in Psalm 102:25-27, “Long ago you created the earth and the heavens as your handiwork but they will come to an end.” This was written thousands of years ago.”
  • The second law does say that this universe will come to an end, BUT:
  • 1) Entropy may decrease in certain areas of an isolates system. IT is as whole it increases.
  • 2) Saying that the world will come to an end is common in all religions, several ones predating Christianity.
  • 3) The second law does not say what will happen ones the universe is in full entropy, it may start over. We do not know (so it may not be the end).
  • 4) The laws of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems, we are not sure that the universe is an isolated system, and we are sure earth is not.
  • The paramount importance of blood in life processes is mentioned in Leviticus 17:11, written thousands of years before modern medicine had discovered its truth.

This was common knowledge long before that. In the old pagan germanic religions for example, as well as in greek philosophy and mythology.

  • Atmospheric circulation is described in Ecclesiastes 1:6, and in Job, written thousands of years ago. Job stated, “[God] made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder” (Job 28:26). Centuries later, scientists began to discern the “decrees [rules] for the rain.” Rainfall is part of a process called the “water cycle.” The sun evaporates water from the ocean. The water vapor then rises and becomes clouds. This water in the clouds falls back to earth as rain, and collects in streams and rivers, then makes its way back to the ocean. That process repeats itself again and again. About 300 years ago, Galileo discovered this cycle. But amazingly the Scriptures described it centuries before. The prophet Amos (9:6) wrote that God “calls for the water of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth.” Scientists are just beginning to fully understand God’s “decrees for the rain.”
  • This is fully observable through the NAKED EYE. You see, when the sun in hot countries are shining on water, you can actually SEE it evaporate.
  • Gravitational field is mentioned in Job 26:7, written thousands of years B.C..
  • IT says: ”He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing. “. Gravitational fields are not “nothing”.
  • Circumcision (

No, at that point, it is at around 60% of what an adult have. IT is however higher than the first 7 days.

Wintrobe’s Clinical Hematology, 11th Edition. J.P. Greer, Foerster J., Lukens, J.N., Rodgers, G.M., Paraskevas, F., and Glader, B., editor. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkens.

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2003).
  2. Furthermore, circumcision has MAJOR health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings. No professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is becoming the norm in the U.S., as parents realize the risks and harms of circumcision.

These scientific statements are not written in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of man’s everyday experience.

The statements are simply not saying what Jim says that they say. IT takes A LOT to reach those conclusions.

Nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

No, they really are not. And these are the part that suits science the best. There are also parts in the Bible about blood rituals to cure disease.

Do you think that could be one of “God’s fingerprints” revealed in His word?

IT is irrelevant what anyone thinks, it is all about evidence. That is the one thing that matters.

Regarding science, it is significant to note that no biblical error/mistake has ever been demonstrated.

Yes, they have apologists, for example, are having trouble with Pi being 3.0 according to the Bible. :

This also includes history, or any other subject for that matter. Of course, many have been claimed but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such allegations.

No, they really have not. Jim however has CHOSEN to cherry pick certain scholars. The darkness at the crucifixion, the rising saints of Matthew, the earthquake, resurrection, and the “crucifixion” itself are mythological events, they were NOT recorded by historians who lived during that period of time. Philo Judaes lived around 50 CE and never mentions the Gospel events; the Roman records of Pilate DO NOT mention Jesus. Thousands of criminals were crucified by the Romans, but no record exists of Jesus, simply because the Pilate did not crucify him. He was saved by God according to Psalms 20:6, Hebrews 5:7, and Al-Quran 4:157. Regarding the alleged “darkness and earthquake in Matthew”, there is not a shred of evidence to support the Gospel story.

Matthew is the only Gospel in the New Testament that records “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents”. We have explicit quotations from scholars to substantiate that “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents” is just another recapture of pagan mythology. The sun-gods of ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt were threatened at birth, and the order was made to kill all the “new-born infants”. The same episode was replayed in the life of Jesus, who is considered a ‘sun-god’ by modern Secular scholars.

The recent silence of modern skeptics reflects that and the silence is deafening.

No, but they have put forward their thesis, and since no one has proven it wrong, there is no reason to repeat oneself. Critics of the Bible are already leading with a 1000 to nothing, we really do not need to point out anything more before Christians proves all these things wrong.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof for the accuracy of Scripture, specifically the New Testament gospels (four books written specifically about Jesus’ life on earth by those around him; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Critics almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact.

The correct default stance is to not lean one way or another. But as pointed out, the Bible is full of scientific and historical errors, the gospels are FULL och contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people ”to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? ”This is Elias which was to come.” Matthew 11:14 ”And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not.” John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 ”And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” Mark 7:26 ”The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 ”Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works.” 1 Peter 2:12 ”Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that … they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 ”Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret.” Matthew 23:3-5 ”Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works … all their works they do for to be seen of men.”

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 ”And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 ”And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?” John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 (”For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 ”Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…” Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the ”other Mary” (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? ”The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die.” John 19:7 ”The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: ”And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11 ”No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? ”all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: ”But I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” 1 Corinthians 7:6 ”But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:12 ”That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” 2 Corinthians.

So, the Gospels are found guilty so to speak.

But here are five reasons why we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

That is NEVER how we think in logic or science. The default stance is to not lean one way or another.

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and the recording of them in the gospel books is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.”

How often do newspapers come out? Usually every day right? That is because the news gets outdated and unreliable really quick. Ever heard the police expression that the trace gets “cold” really quick? One year between the events is WAY too much. The Bible has 50 years! That is over 50 times too much to be reliable!

No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy.”

There are several, yes. Just follow the sources of this link:

Most scholars see it as semi-fiction.

The only places you find such conspiracy theories of history are in sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain.”

No, also from professors of a wide variety of subjects. Also, this is a CLAIM, that is not backed up. Jim just claims and claims and claims. I wonder when the evidence will come?

“When you read the pages of the New Testament, there’s no doubt that these people sincerely believed in the truth of what they proclaimed. “

Which argues absolutely nothing. That can be said about Muhammad as well, but Jim does not believe in Islam, does he?

Ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, skeptical scholars have explained away the gospels as legends, rather like the child’s game of telephone. As the stories about Jesus were passed on over the decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant sage was transformed into the divine Son of God. One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by critics, is that the time between Jesus’ death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen.

One year would be enough, so, there was 50 times the time needed. Remember that there were no newspapers, you could tell people anything.

According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be ”unbelievable.” More generations would be needed.

OK, and one professor saying so, will not make it true. Once again, this is cherry picking. People have become legends in one lifetime. Also, doesn’t that say TODAY? It may have gone much faster in an area where everyone had a low education, there were no newspapers, most could not even read, and so on.

This point becomes even more devastating for skeptics when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’ life. For example, the story of Jesus’ suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather, Mark may have even used an earlier source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must have been written within just a few years of the event. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just a few years after Jesus’ death.

So there may be an older source to the Bible (this is well known among critics of course), it is called the “Q source” by the way, so what?? So several books copied another fictional book? So what?

Similarly, Paul in his letters passes along information concerning Jesus’ teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and post-resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, such as what he reveals in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’ death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.

No, in Paul’s particular case I would go with “liar” to begin with. A guy that claims to have spoken with witnesses, but that provides no evidence for this being true. Some facts are probably historically correct, that is why the Bible is “SEMI fiction”, not pure fiction.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary ”urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the ”vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.”

No, as I said, the Bible is what is known as a SEMI-fictional book. It uses real events and mixes it with fantasy. There are many such books: What is the What by Dave Eggers, The Lotus Eaters by Tatjana Soli, Educating Alice: Adventures of a Curious Woman by Alice Steinbach, A Viagem do Elefante A Viagem do Elefante by José Saramago, The Dharma Bums The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac, In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust, Stealing Buddha’s Dinner by Bich Minh Nguyen, Miami by Joan Didion, After Henry by Joan Didion, What Am I Doing Here? by Bruce Chatwin, Miss Spitfire: Reaching Helen Keller by Sarah Miller, Post Office by Charles Bukowski, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, The Subterraneans by Jack Kerouac, Cheaper by the Dozen by Frank B. Gilbreth Jr, Papa’s Wife by Thyra Ferré Björn, Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth By Apostolos Doxiadis, A Cafecito Story: El Cuento del Cafecito by Julia Alvarez, The Odyssey by Homer, The Iliad The Iliad by Homer, The Aeneid by Virgil, San Francisco by Mark Twai, The Octopus: A Story of California by Frank Norris, Joe Hill by Wallace Stegner, The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosiński, Crossing to Safety by Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose by Wallace Stegner, Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain, The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph by T.E. Lawrence, The Man Who Walked Between the Towers by Mordicai Gerstein, and so on…

Just because all these books incorporate real world events does not make them true as a whole.

  1. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize sacred tradition faithfully. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

This does however in no way argue that the Gospels are true.

  1. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. An example is Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are separated in the Bibles because the church grouped the four gospels together at the start of the New Testament. in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

OK, and how do we know that this is true? No witnesses mentioned by name. This may be enough for someone who already believes, but not for someone who does not. All this is, is a person claiming that something is true. There are thousands of such books. All of these books Jim would call “nonsense”. But not the Bible..

Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’ life, but he did live in Jerusalem at that time and was associated to many followers who were eyewitnesses.

We actually do not know who he was, so, that argues AGAINST the Bible being reliable. Also, a person claiming to have met eyewitnesses, count as ONE secondary source. So Luke is as reliable as all other secondary sources with no real evidence.

We discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: ”we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” ”we remained in Philippi some days,” ”as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities.”

Why is that the most obvious explanation? Because Jim thinks so? Because Jim wants it to be? There is certainly no logical or scientific reason to conclude it.

In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke and Acts were in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry in Jerusalem.”

No, it means that Paul MAY have been accompanied by Luke, and that means we have TWO secondary sources to Jesus life. We have that for the Hindu holy characters as well. But Jim does not believe in them, does he?

Skeptical critics have done back-flips to try to avoid this conclusion.”

Must be really stupid critics since it is in no way indicated to begin with.

They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally, that it’s just a literary device which is common in ancient sea voyage stories.

Which is true. And also, even if Paul and Luke met, that means nothing. Two people meetings and making up a story does not make it true. EVIDENCE is all that matters. And so far, Jim has ZERO

Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on land!”

Which does not add reliability.

The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy (See discussion in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989, chap. 8.). There just was no literary device or way of writing about sea voyages that are in the first person plural–the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction!”

So now Jim is arguing that because a lot of Paul’s voyages took place on land, he cannot have borrowed a literary style from another existing genre of that time. That is called “refuting the example”, a logical fallacy.

There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke and Acts were written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life while in Jerusalem.”

But as pointed out, Paul CLAIMS to have spoken to witnesses, but there is absolutely no reason to believe he is telling the truth.

Who were some of these eyewitnesses?”


Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable.”

And that in no way indicates that the rest is reliable. IF we with a 100% certainly proves that the historical parts of the Bible is correct, that is not even an INDICATION that the mystical parts are. The only things that are proven , are the things that are proven. IF everything in the Bible was proven a 100% true, and the Crucifixion had the same level of evidence as today, it would STILL not be considered more reliable than today! Only the things that has direct evidence is proven. And no one is arguing against that parts of the Bible are historically correct. So far, Jim has not even argued that any miracles was true, he just points to history sometimes correlating with the Bible as evidence that the rest is true, sorry, that is no logical.

This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.

The historical parts, partly, BUT, that in no way indicates the rest, Only observations of a miracle proves a miracle. There is no way to tell if Luke is telling the truth about that part.

Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.”

No, that is illogical. Just because he was speaking the truth at certain times, does not prove that he does at other times. Only the parts that has direct support in history outside the Bible, can be considered reliable in Luke.

On the basis of the five reasons listed, we are justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong.

Which they have at several points. As already pointed out. The date of birth of Jesus differs A LOT between the Gospels. Evidence is all that matters. No matter how reliable the gospels are at certain parts (the parts verified), this tells us NOTHING about the reliability of the parts that are not verified. That I have never lied in my life, in no way argues that my next sentence will not be a lie.

At the very least, we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right.

You should not assume AT ALL at any point.

The person who denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.

The fact that they do not even agree on the date of Jesus birth is quite strong evidence of them not being reliable. And also, I pointed out a large number of historical errors in the Bible earlier or in this text, so we may consider them proven wrong..

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be noted. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 different authors on three different continents, in three different languages, over a period of 2,000 years, addressing life’s most controversial topics, it is clearly one book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

No it is not. God completely changes between the first and the second testament, and the Gospels have severe inconsistencies, as also have been pointed out earlier on.

Imagine how difficult it would be to get just 2 or 3 people to write with agreement on a given subject, especially when they have never known each other and were influenced by different cultures.

Pretty easy if they had each other’s work, can Jim prove they did not? Of course not…

You would think there would be chaos, confusion, and contradictions. How amazing it is that 40 authors and their 66 books remain absolutely consistent and internally harmonious from beginning to end.

There are entire websites just listing biblical contradictions and scientific errors, I have linked a few them earlier on in the paper.

The individual writers, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a book,

Which explains all the inconsistencies.

but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who studies the Bible continually finds remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout, with complexity incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

Yes, people read in hidden meaning in A LOT of books. This does not argue they are true. Evidence is all that counts.

It should not be a stretch of the imagination to say that this amazing collection of scripture and its remarkable message was indeed preserved supernaturally,

Yes, it would be a HUUUGE stretch. Even if they were PERFECTLY consistent, that they had read each other’s work would be a MUCH more plausible explanation.

it was certainly not by man –

That is a CLAIM that Jim has not provided any evidence for. It is an ASSUMPTION that cannot be tested.

as man has continually attempted to destroy it.

And has managed quite well to do so.

Isn’t it possible then that this providence could be a “fingerprint of God”? What other explanation is reasonable? At least give it consideration as you continue to read what else is involved.

For example, that they have read each other’s work, that they were written by just a few claiming to be several, that they were just lucky. All of these are more likely than “god”. In fact, everything is more likely than something not indicated by anything.


The field of archaeology has exploded in the past 150 years. Prior to this, scholars wrote commentaries with limited knowledge of history and archaeology of the ancient world. Today, an explosion of discoveries is occurring and any of these could easily be used to disprove biblical claims. But have they?

WE believe a lot of the history in the Bible is correct, it is the miraculous parts that we find doubtful. And since they are in no way indicated by evidence, there is no need to disprove them to begin with. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.

Instead, the Bible has been proven to be historically reliable by numerous archaeological discoveries.

Historically, partly, there are parts that are historically proven wrong in the Bible as well. There are however no discoveries proving the parts we Skeptics doubt.

Archaeology is providing tremendous insight and, unfortunately for critics of the Bible, these discoveries have undermined the statements of critics. With more than 25,000 discoveries now documented, not one has ever contradicted or denied even one word of the Bible.

No they have not. They have silenced the people that say that the Bible is not historically correct at all, there are still absolutely no evidence for any miracles. And no number of historical facts proven will indicate those. That is, there is no evidence of the important parts.

Let’s take a close look at how history and archaeology combine to confirm the accuracy of the Bible. By the end, I think you will agree that the historical record is obvious and unquestionable. Many of the places mentioned in the Bible can easily be identified, even today.

That is mainly because they have changed the names of places to correlate with history, such as the change from Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Mark 8:28.

Hundreds of archaeological sites have yielded abundant evidence that substantiate the Christian’s claim that the Bible can be trusted.

The only parts of the Bible that is considered logically and scientifically reliable are the parts that has been indicated to be true. Everything else counts as fiction until proven true. Even if EVERYTHING was proven true except the miracles, that would not indicate it was also telling the truth about miracles. I could be truthful for all my life and then start lying. That I have previously been truthful does not prove that I always will be.

Since basically no one is debating the historical parts, I am gonna skip forward, since, I am not even trying to argue against parts of the Bible being historically correct, I am arguing that the Miracle never happened, and the Bible correlating with other history, does not indicate that logically.

  • The Flood of Noah – the archaeological confirmation of the Flood of Noah’s time is enormous.
  • But geology proves there never was a Global flood, and that is conclusive evidence. So that case is closed, there was no global flood (it would be seen in the rock layers). Furthermore, physics proves the flood wrong, that is, there is simply not enough water on earth. I made 4 videos disproving the Biblical flood:
  • Stories of the Nochian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world.
  • That does not speak for it being true. They all give very different accounts of this flood, and it is set in different times. But once agan, geology trumps legends. It is a scientific fact that there has not been a global flood, we have conclusive evidence for that in the rock layers. IT cannot logically and rationally be denied.
  • Sodom and Gomorrah – The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. The modern names are Babedh-Dhra (Sodom) and Numeira (Gomorrah). Both places were destroyed at the same time by an enormous inferno. The destruction debris was about three feet thick. What brought about this awful calamity? Startling discoveries in the cemetery at Babedh-Dhra revealed the cause. Archaeologists found that buildings used to bury the dead were burned by a fire that started on the roof (as recorded in Genesis 19:24). The ancient classics from many cultures, such as the histories of Tacitus (Roman), Sanchuniathon (Phoenician), and Josephus (Jewish), reveal that this disaster gripped imaginations.

Sodom and Gomorrah was most likely hit by a meteor. This has happened a few times in the history of earth, so, not very strange. We can easily figure out what happened. The cities got hit by a meteor, since people did not understand meteors at that point, they thought god rained down fire on them, and that is what they wrote. But the scientific explanation is FAAAAR more plausible. We know for a fact meteor strikes happens.

  • Flood – The most documented biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood. The Sumerian King List, for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time (for details see Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed. The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

But in the case of the flood, we got conclusive evidence from Geology and Physics that it did not happen. That trumps all other evidence. Even if every single book in the world had eyewitnesses of a global flood, Geology would be considered stronger evidence. AS I said, it is conclusive. It is a scientific fact that there has never been a global flood.

  • We can easily see that this is a lie. We have written accounts of several different languages from all over the world that dates more than 7000 years back. Even if language confusion started to happen, it is certainly not an indication of god.
  • Also, onces again, Jim just claims this, he provides no evidence.

New Testament Archaeology

The number of digs and finds in Israel continue to amaze even skeptics. Today, there are thousands of archaeological finds confirming or at least supporting most every event of the New Testament.

Just not any of the events that is connected to miracles.

  • Stable of Bethlehem – Several sources indicate that a cave under the “Church of the Nativity” in Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus (caves were commonly used as stables). The site has never been seriously disputed by archaeologists. Early authors (Jerome and Paulinus of Nola) indicate the site was marked at the time of Hadrian (117-38 AD). Such early identification is strong evidence.

It is SEVERELY disputed, the garden tomb is proven to not be the tomb of Jesus. Bethlehem is not mentioned in history before after Jesus’ death. Even if it was, it is irrelevant. Most people agree that Jesus existed, and that most of the Biblical history happened. This IN NO WAY indicates miracles. THAT is what we want evidence for, not that parts of the Biblical history happened. Most of us agree that it did.

  • The tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. The site of the Church had originally been a Christian place of veneration, but Hadrian (Roman Emperor) had deliberately covered this site (and others) with earth, and built his own temple on top, due to his hatred for Christianity.

The site used to be a temple to Aphrodite. Archaeologists also suggests that the exact location claimed for the tomb would have been within Hadrian’s Temple. The site is currently within the Old City walls, and due to the heights of the terrain, it would be unlikely, from a defense point of view, for the walls to have previously been east of the Church. The tombs western parts are believed to date from the first century, indicating that the site was outside the city at that time, making these evidence questionable at best (Corbo 1981, Bahat 1986, Stern 1993, Colonel 1909, Hachlili 2005).

The list above is a small fraction of available evidence. “

Mainly of historical events, the few ones about miracles, such as the flood, is disproven, which I have provided evidence for.

All of this leads to this important question: If the New Testament writers were so careful to be exceedingly accurate in even the most minor and incidental details, wouldn’t they have been equally or even more careful in reporting on truly significant events, such as the miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus?

Possibly. Jim needs to provide EVIDENCE that this is the case. We NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER assume if we cannot test the assumption. So this is PURE speculation. It is all about EVIDENCE, not assumptions.


The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy that is contained in scripture

First of all, before we start examining this claim, we must first define what is needed for something to count as a prophecy. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.

  1. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Bible itself.
  2. It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if multiple outcomes could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional or not.
  3. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn’t mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
  4. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Unlike any other religious book, it has demonstrated itself to be the Word of God through its ability to rightly predict the future.

IT is wrong on several occasions! Ezekiel 29:8-15, Ezekiel 30:12 and Isaiah 19:1-8 for example.

The predictions of the prophets present a powerful case for the inspiration of the Bible.

Basically all fail to meet the criteria for a prophecy.

Daniel predicted in the year 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel’s promised Savior and Prince (The Messiah) 483 years after a certain future Persian emperor by the name of Cyrus would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins.

Jim claims the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and the Antichrist, in which the Antichrist will enter a third temple and commit a blasphemous act. This is false. According to Daniel 12, the Day of Judgement was supposed to happen 3 and a half years after Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews in the 2nd Century BC. This would make Daniel a false prophet but most Christians still insist that it’s describing a future Great Tribulation. Instead of predicting Jesus, most contemporary scholars think The Messiah in verse 26 (In Hebrew Translations, Messiah is translated as Prince) is Onias the third, a pious religious leader who opposed the Hellenization of the Jews and was murdered. Jews considered religious leaders and rabbis to be ”anointed ones”.

This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

No, it is clearly referring to another situation and it is also not what Daniel says.

King Cyrus of Persia was himself amazed to see that he was named in the Jewish biblical scroll by a prophet writing over 200 years before Cyrus was even born.

Here Jim ignores the well established scholarship that Isaiah is not a single document composed ”more than two hundred years before the events” (incl. by Christians who don’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy), but a composite of at least three different authors writing at different times. It’s hard to astoundingly predict the future when the events you predict are actually in the past.

The vague, and frequently erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others, are not in the same category. “

No, they are a little bit better that the Biblical predictions, more precise and less vague, but they are still bullshit.

In all the writings of Buddha, Confucius, and Lao-tse, you will not find a single example of predictive prophecy.

Because these were HONEST people that did not lie about knowing the future.

Consider the prophecies concerning Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Tyre was to the sea what Babylon was to the land. The great city of Carthage was simply one of the daughters of Tyre, and yet at its height, the prophet in the Old Testament declared that the city of Tyre would be destroyed, never to be rebuilt, and never again to be inhabited (Ezekiel 26:19-21).

Here God explicitly states that Nebuchadnezzar would completely sack and destroy the city of Tyre and that Tyre’s land would never be built upon again. However, this never occurred. After a 13-year siege, Tyre compromised with Nebuchadnezzar and accepted his authority without being destroyed. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later, Tyre still exists.

What happened to the city of Tyre? Ezekiel declared when Tyre was at its height that “they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, says the Lord God…And they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water…And I will make it like the top of a rock…thou shall be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it” (Ezekiel 26:4-5, 12-14). A few years after the writing of this prophecy, the great Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon brought his army to Tyre and laid siege to the city.

No, this is wrong. Several historical sources proves that they made a deal, and that Tyre never got destroyed. Here Jim’s problem is that he ASSUMES that the Bible is correct and that this is therefore a prophecy, but this is something that never happened. This prophecy was straight out WRONG.

But this is just a small glimpse into the hundreds of detailed predictions that are given in Scripture, details upon details fulfilled in recorded history. Yet people still ignore the Bible.

Well, so far, Jim har presented ZERO prophecies, and ZERO evidence for anything supernatural in the Bible.

They say they reject it, which is true, but based upon what?

In this case, based on historical documents that proves the Bible wrong.

Have they investigated it?

Yes, just as I am doing right now. It is just that Christians always turn out to be lying.

Is it a rejection based on rational evaluation or based on emotion?

Yes. It is based in EVIDENCE. In this latest case, the fact that Tyre was never destroyed. And that the whole prophecy is entirely wrong.

Ronald F. Youngblood; F. F. Bruce; R. K. Harrison, eds. (2012). Unlock the Bible: Keys to Exploring the Culture and Times. Thomas Nelson. p. 347. ISBN 1418547263.

  1. Allen, Leslie C. (2008). Jeremiah: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 472. ISBN 978-0664222239.

Could the Bible be right when it says, many will not repent because they love their sin?

Anything could be right. But Jim has presented no evidence that anything like “sin” exists to begin with. So there is no reason to assume he is right.

Why should we investigate the Bible? If there is a God trying to communicate with us as the Bible suggests, then wouldn’t it be foolish not to be interested?

If it was TRUE yes, there just is no reason to assume it is.

But for some it’s a “Catch 22”…they want evidence first,

That is not catch 22, it is “being rational, logical, and scientific”. WE do not assume, we only follow evidence, no evidence = Nothing to follow = No reason to believe.

yet the Bible contains the very evidence they need.

Seems unlikely given that Jim has had quite a lot of space to put such evidence forward so far, but have not.

It is clear that, if a person takes the time and care to investigate it, he would realize that the Bible could not have been written by mere human wisdom. A thousand detailed predictions written hundreds of years in advance of the events with 100% accuracy are not possible for humans, no matter how lucky and insightful we think we are.

Jim has NOT presented one single prediction that checks up so far, so, this is just Jim lying. IF the Bible had a thousand fulfilled prophecies, Jim would be right, it is just that it has ZERO.

Consider the magnificent city of Babylon, perhaps the greatest city in ancient times. The walls were fourteen to fifteen miles long. The city consisted of one hundred ninety-six square miles of the most beautiful architecture, hanging gardens and palaces, temples and towers. She drew her stores from no foreign country. She invented an alphabet, worked out the problems of arithmetic, invented implements for measuring time, and advanced beyond all previous peoples in science. Yet God said of Babylon when it was the greatest city in the world: “Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isaiah 13:19).

It was a time with many wars. Many big cities was destroyed. So, this fails to meet the criteria of prophecy since it could have been an educated guess.

There are more than one hundred specific prophecies concerning Babylon’s fate. Consider the great walls of Babylon. The historian Herodotus tells us that these walls had towers that extended above the 200-foot walls to a height of 300 feet. The walls were 187 feet thick at the base and enclosed an area of 196 square miles. The city of Babylon was impregnable. But God said of those towers and that city: “The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken…It shall be desolate forever” (Jeremiah 51:58, 62). Is that prophecy vague or ambiguous? In no way!

Vague, no, it is not a prophecy because it could be an educated guess.

Prophecy: Israel would be partitioned by the nations of the world (Joel 3:2).

Fulfillment: On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a motion to partition Palestine into two separate states.

IT is not a prophecy if humans actively can work to fulfil it. They wanted it to be true, so they made it come true.

Prophecy: Israel would be voted into existence by the nations of the world (Ezekiel 38:8).

Fulfillment: On May 16, 1949, Israel was accepted as a member nation of the United Nations.

After serious debate from the jews. They MADE it come true.

That is like a friend of mine saying “in a week, you will eat sushi”

One week later I think: Oh, my friend predicted I would have sushi, let’s make that come true!

That is NOT a prophecy.

Prophecy: Israel would regain her land through warfare (Ezekiel 38:8).

Fulfillment: Four major wars have been fought in the Middle East since 1948. Israel’s highly trained and well-equipped armed forces have successfully defended her territory each time, even against overwhelming odds. The Middle East remains the most volatile and unpredictable region on the globe.

Once again, they fulfilled this prophecy themselves. THEY started wars. And the odds has been on their side since they have been backed by the US! I mean, seriously, not only does Jim not present any prophecies, he also does not seem to know basic history.

To add some opinion, if it was up to me, Israel should be taken from them again, they have proven to not earn such a privilege with their disgusting behaviour towards their neighbors.. That is however not relevant.

Prophecy: Once Israel returned to her Land, she would not be removed from it (Amos 9:15).

Fulfillment: Attempts by the Palestine Liberation Organization to remove Israel from her land have failed miserably—so much so, in fact, that Israel has effectively wiped out the PLO’s stronghold in southern Lebanon and west Beirut. Even many of her Arab neighbors, like Jordan and Egypt, have officially recognized Israel’s right to exist as a free nation.

Israel has been forced to give back land… Also, this is too early to tell. Thirdly, this may still be proven wrong at any point. It is not really a prophecy before the end of times are here.

Prophecy: Israel would regain the city of Jerusalem (Obadiah 1:20).

Fulfillment: On June 7, 1967, the Old City of Jerusalem came under Jewish control for the first time in almost 2,000 years.

By their own power = Not a prophecy, something they fulfilled on purpose so that it would be fulfilled. It is not a prophecy if it is fulfilled on purpose by the very people who claimed they foresaw it. I skip ahead a little bit from here, since there are numerous ones that the Jews themselves has made true, which makes it a non-prophecy.

Prophecy: The cycle of nature would be restored so that rain would fall in its proper season, restoring the productivity of the land (Zechariah 10:1; Joel 2:21-25).

Fulfillment: With the reforesting program changing the contour and character of Israel’s geography in many areas, weather patterns throughout Palestine have been altered. In recent years, rainfall has increased in some areas by as much as 100%. While northern Israel is presently experiencing a drought which has caused the level of the Sea of Galilee to drop to dangerously low levels, this is caused by worldwide climatic conditions, and there is no reason to expect it to continue.

But point being, that as of now, this is a wrongful prophecy UNTIL the drought is over for ever. Globally, we see the opposite, we see nature becoming more and more disturbed.

Prophecy: The nation of Israel would become an exceedingly great army (Ezekiel 37:9-10).

Fulfillment: The raid on Entebbe during the early 1980s was unsurpassed in military strategy, and subsequent strikes into neighboring Lebanon, which virtually annihilated the Soviet-equipped Syrian air force in the process, was an impressive military achievement. The PLO forces, equipped with their Russian-made weapons, were no match for the Israeli onslaught. Current Israeli military might is second to none in the region. It may be truly said that the tactical warfare capability of the Jewish state is among the most sophisticated and effective in all the world.

So, you believe this prophecy is fulfilled by Israel attacking its much weaker neighbors? Israel is strong for ONE reason, the US. Their own military strategy and equipment is laughable. They are strong because of US technology and support. Israel’s army is like nr 10 in the world, so, not very strong (It is a SERIOUS drop-off after the first 3).

Prophecy: The nation of Israel would dwell confidently in their own land (Ezekiel 38:8), “. . . and they shall dwell safely all of them.” The word translated “safely” in the Hebrew text is the word expressing confidence.

Fulfillment: In the 50 years of Israel’s existence as a modern nation, the confidence of the Israelis has been seen to grow consistently, as they recognize that the land that God has given to them will not be taken away.

Too vague. Sorry… How do you even measure it?

For a more comprehensive treatment of biblical prophecy, see Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times by one of today’s premier prophecy scholars, John F. Walvoord. See also for additional details on the amazing accuracy of biblical prophecy.

And if you want to see them debunked, just go to talk origins or rational wiki.

I believe that those who say that the Bible was written by men are simply expressing their own ignorance of the subject.

No, we are following EVIDENCE. So far, after 50 pages, Jim has not presented ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence.

There is nothing like it in all the literature of the world, religious or nonreligious.

This is simply a claim. Hindus, muslims, Buddhists, and so on, begs to differ. Jim has absolutely no evidence for what he is saying, at least not presented this far.

The hand that wrote these Scriptures was the hand of none other than the One who could say, “I am the first and the last; I am the beginning and the end, I am he that knows all things. I am he that declares the things that are not yet come to pass.” But predictions are also promises. God gave us these 1817 predictions in order that we may learn to believe His promises. God promised that the walls of Jerusalem would be rebuilt; that the walls of Babylon would never be rebuilt; that Tyre would be destroyed; that Sidon would continue – so that we may believe His promises.

But Tyre was not destroyed. The city made a deal with the king after 13 years of war, and the city was not destroyed, it still stands. Here you can see it on google maps:,+Libanon/@33.2674019,35.1925496,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x151e7d902f915d95:0xcf0e3fc6fb997408!8m2!3d33.2704888!4d35.2037641

He also promised that whoever believes in his Son shall never die,

But now that we KNOW that he lied about other stuff, why should we believe it?

The truthfulness of those words and the certainty of their fulfillment are attested to by prophecies that have already come to pass. Those who disregard them have no one to blame for their own destruction but themselves.”

Logically Wrong. That people are not convinced by vague, wrongful, or self -fulfilled prophecies, is not their fault. If anything, it is their creators fault.


Although history can never be “proven” to everyone’s satisfaction, enormous statistical probability is often viewed as “proof” by scientists, mathematicians, and our courts of law.

No, they may be considered indications however. Something May be more or less likely.

The prophecies about Jesus contained in the Old Testament were written long before his birth.

As discussed earlier on, there are no such prophecies.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide irrefutable evidence that the accounts were not tampered with over the centuries.

As Pointed out earlier, several parts of the Bible has changed or been added on.

Perhaps the most fascinating prophecies are those regarding Jesus, the promised Messiah, in His first coming (see the following web site for more detail).

OK, this site mentions the following “prophecies” among others:

A prophet like unto Moses (Too vague).

The Messiah would be a descendant of Noah’s son, Shem. (Which is not verified except through the Bible itself).

He will be born of a virgin (Which is a biblical CLAIM, not evidence).

He will come while the Temple of Jerusalem is standing (There was no reason to assume at that time that it would be destroyed, so, not a prophecy.)

He will perform many miracles ( And there is not one piece of evidence of this being true)

IT goes on like this, ”He will be betrayed” it says for example. That would be true for thousands of people. It is not a prophecy if it could have been fulfilled several times.

The point here is, that all ”prophecies” on this page, is either too vague, could have happened several times in history, or is something that people could MAKE true.

The life and role of Jesus were precisely recorded in prophecy written hundreds of years before His birth.

Well, in this case 100’s of people are the messiah, since these so called prophecies could have been true for 100’s of people. Remember, for something to count as a prophecy:

It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.

It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Bible itself.

It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if multiple outcomes could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional or not.

It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn’t mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.

It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

No biblical prophecies fills these demands.

The descriptions of what Jesus would become include the miraculous elements of His birth, His divine nature, and details of His earthly life. Let’s take a close look at just 23 of these prophecies:

  1. His exact ancestors from Adam through David and then ancestors to both Mary and Joseph

Gen 9:26-35:12; Num 24:17; Isaiah 11; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5

This is simply claimed in the Bible. There is no real evidence that it is true.

  1. A virgin would give birth

This is a Biblical CLAIM that it happened. Not something that is evidence.

  1. Precise city of Jesus’ birth – Bethlehem in Ephrathah

But there is no reason to believe it is true! I mean, this is like I say that Gandalf the Grey is real because we know his birthplace was Valor.

  1. The child would be God – Immanuel (God with us)
  2. This is a CLAIM, not EVIDENCE. Christians claim Jesus was the son of god. They have no evidence, it is not a prophecy until you can prove Jesus actually was god.
  3. He would be an eternal Savior

This is a CLAIM, not EVIDENCE.

The Savior would be for both the Jews and the Gentiles

But there is absolutely no evidence that there has ever been a savior to begin with.

He would work many miracles

This is a CLAIM, not EVIDENCE. There is absolutely no evidence of these miracles.

He would suffer greatly

There is no evidence that Jesus did. And even if he did, that is true for MANY people. Not something that would require an amazing guess.

He would be crucified for human transgressions

Thousands were. It is not a prophecy if you could easily guess it.

He would bear the sin of many and be made an intercessor

This is a CLAIM, not EVIDENCE. There is no evidence it has happened.

He would be rejected by His own people

Anyone of anytime could have guessed that someone claiming to be god would be rejected by some people.

The exact day of His arrival into Jerusalem prophesied over 550 years prior; This is the famous and incredible “69 weeks” prophecy of 173,880 days. The complex prophecy was first understood by Sir Robert Anderson who was knighted by the Queen of England because of his discovery. Dan 9:20-27; Neh 2:1-6

The classical Christian theory does not provide a plausible explanation for Daniel’s clear distinction between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. The classical interpretation also ignores the obvious parallels between Daniel 9:24-27 on the one hand, and Daniel 8:9-26; 11:31-45 on the other. Actually, all three passages unmistakably describe Antiochus Epiphanes committing a desolating sacrilege or ”abomination that makes desolate” at the Temple and bringing normal Jewish sacrifices to an end for about three and a half years (cf. Daniel 7:25; 12:6-7,11). Daniel 9 places this event at the end of the seventy weeks, and the other two passages place it at ”the time of the end.” The ”abominations” of ”the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9 are to be understood in the light of the unspeakable blasphemies of Antiochus Epiphanes described in the other two passages (cf. also Daniel 7:8,20,25). To make their scheme work, adherents of the classical Christian theory must interpret verses 26 and 27as references to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The problem here is that the fall of Jerusalem lies thirty-seven years outside of the seventy-weeks scheme. Since ”desolations are decreed,” the Romans under General Titus, ”the people of the prince who is to come,” were to ”destroy the city and the sanctuary” of Jerusalem in 70 AD, long after the seventieth week is over, to punish the Jews for their murder of their Messiah. This is an awkward and arbitrary leap. Another problem with this interpretation is that the Hebrew word here translated in verse 26 as ”destroy” is shakhat. In its various grammatical forms, it only means to ”mar,” ”injure,” ”spoil,” ”ruin,” ”pervert,” or ”corrupt.” This can easily refer to the trashing of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, but not to Titus’ razing of Jerusalem and its Temple to the ground. Dispensationalist Christians like Dr. Harold Hoehner have a totally different theory. They claim the seventy weeks began in 444 BC with the decree issued by Emperor Artaxerxes I in the twentieth year of his reign authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). The obvious problem with this theory is that the seventieth week would then last from 40 to 47 AD–too late to connect with the crucifixion of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD, or with any other plausibly significant event.

He would ride in on a donkey

We have no real evidence of this ever happening. Also, this may be a self fulfilled prophecy. If Jesus knew that the prophecy said that the saviour would ride in on a Donkey, it is likely that he did so on purpose.

Suffers, is rejected

So the Bible claims, but there is no evidence of it. Jesus is not in the record of crucified people.

Crucified, pierced

True for many people. And there is no evidence that it is true for Jesus.

Lots cast for clothing

No bones broken, Given gall and wine, Pierced with a spear, Posterity to serve Him , Betrayed by friend For 30 pieces of silver, Silver cast on temple floor, used to buy potter’s field.

All Biblical CLAIMS. Not evidence it actually happened.

Experts in statistics estimate the probability of all of these prophecies coming true in any one man is about one chance in 1099 – less than the odds of correctly selecting one electron out of all the matter in the universe – or essentially zero without divine intervention.

1) Which experts?

2) Secondly, there is no evidence that these things came true in Jesus. There isn’t even conclusive evidence that Jesus existed to begin with.

But there were over 300 prophecies fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

So far, Jim has failed to bring up one single one that fills the requirements for a prophecy.

And history has proven, without any doubt whatsoever, that they were fulfilled exactly as the Bible had prophesied hundreds of years earlier.

Not a single one put forward so far. Most could have been educated guesses, some are too vague, some are WRONG (Ezekiel 29:8-15, Ezekiel 30:12 and Isaiah 19:1-8 for example), and so on.

In the book, Science Speaks, mathematician and scientist, Peter Stoner, applies the rules of probability to these prophecies. The chances of just eight of these three-hundred prophecies being fulfilled are one in 10 to the 17th power – that’s 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000! In the book, Professor Stoner illustrates: Professor Stoner then took 48 of these over 300 fulfilled prophecies. The chances of 48 being fulfilled are 1 in 10 to the 157 power – that’s 1 in 10 with 157 zeros! Here’s how he illustrates:

The book is debunked here:

Before trusting one word “Profesor Stoner” says, one should reat up on him a bit:

And in case you think Professor Stoner’s statistics are exaggerated or without scientific substance, the ”Foreword” of the book, Science Speaks includes an acknowledgement by the prestigious American Scientific Affiliation stating, ”The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way.”

And if you follow the links above. There are MANY MANY more professors that calls him a complete failure. My favorite comment is by C. P. Swanson, reviewing Science Speaks in The Quarterly Review of Biology: ”…the author has fallen into the commonest error of using only these facts which bolster his hypothesis, and of discarding or controverting those which do not. For example, his discussion of the theory of evolution is not only misleading; it displays an abysmal ignorance of recent evolutionary studies.”

Professor Stoner concludes, ”This is not merely evidence. It is proof of the Bible’s inspiration by God – proof definite that the universe is not large enough to hold the evidence.”

And, he has no evidence at all. It is a claim by a mad man. He bases his ideas on 8 (I think) prophecies that he CLAIM is fulfilled. But as seen in the link above, that is simply a lie.

Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document, there is every reason to expect that the remaining prophecies centered on the Second Coming and Final Judgment will also be fulfilled to the last letter.

Wait a minute. Where is this evidence? I am like 60 pages in and so far Jim has not put forward one single piece of evidence. Seems like Jim is JUMPING to conclusions, or, that is sort of an understatement. Jim has not put forward absolutely no evidence of anything in the Bible being true, and, he concludes that this makes the Bible a 100% reliable, really???

There are many books written on this subject like, “Signs of the End, Tribulation Dooms,” and “The Rapture Promise”. Who can afford to ignore these coming events, much less miss out on the great things offered to anyone and everyone who submits to the control of the Bible’s author, Jesus Christ? Would a reasonable person take lightly God’s warning of judgment?

Everyone who is logical enough to see right through an appeal to fear such as this one.

A test of historic accuracy is that of external evidence. The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the biblical claims. This is often a decisive test of evidence.

And as most know is a fact. There are no books that confirms the Miraculous parts of the Bible. IT is not the HISTORY part that is in question. Jim argues that since historical events can be confirmed, the miracles must also be true. That is extremely flawed logic.

Lie, we have A LOT!

Yet, in those early years we find many references to Jesus and His followers. Jesus is referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament.

No, he is not. But, let’s go through it in detail.

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death. Extra-biblical sources confirm what we read in the gospels. Below are a few of these extra-biblical historical references:

We had famous historians that lived in Jesus time, and close by, Philo for example. And he does not mention Jesus. In fact, not one single person of Jesus’ own time mentions him.

  1. – Historical work referenced by Julius Africanus explains the darkness at the time of Christ’s death as a solar eclipse. While an eclipse did not occur in that period (pointed out by Julius Africanus), a reference to Jesus’ death is presented as fact.

Not an eyewitness, he just retells stories he has heard. So, this is a THIRD HAD SOURCE. Not very reliable.

  1. – This Jewish historian referenced Jesus, His miracles, His crucifixion, and His disciples. Also referenced are James “…brother of Jesus who was called the Christ,” and John the Baptist.

Most modern scholars believe the original text has been changed by Christian editors, also, Josephus can not have been an eyewitness, and therefore, provides only second hand information. Bishop Warburton said the following:

  1. – Writing to dispel rumors that Nero caused the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64, he refers to Christians as the followers of “Christus,” who “had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.” The resurrection was called “the pernicious superstition.”

Tacitus was born in 64 C.E, and is therefore not an eye witness. Also, there is no historical evidence, besides this writing by Tacitus himself, that Nero persecuted Christians, furthermore, there is no evidence that Nero burned Rome, so there would most likely be no need to assign blame in the first place. This is reason enough to doubt Tacitus as a source..

  1. That was over a 100 years after Jesus’ death! No one doubts that there were Christians.
  2. Once again, over a 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. In other words, a useless source.
  3. Hadrian (circa A.D. 117-138) – In response to questions regarding the punishment of Christians who drew people away from pagan gods, which affected the sale of idols, Hadrian commanded that they be “examined” regarding their faith (similar to the response to Pliny the Younger).
  4. Once again, over a 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. In other words, a useless source.
  5. Suetonius (circa A.D. 120) – A historian who wrote about events in the late 40s to 60s. He referred to Christ, the “mischievous and novel superstition” of the resurrection, and Christians being put to death by Nero.
  6. Once again, over a 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. In other words, a useless source. There is absolutely no evidence that Nero persecuted Christians or burned Rome.
  7. Philegon (circa A.D. 140) – Referenced by Julius Africanus and Origen, he referred to the “eclipse,” the earthquake, and Jesus’ prophecies.
  8. Once again, over a 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. In other words, a useless source.
  9. Lucian of Samosata (circa A.D. 170) – This Greek satirist wrote about Christians, Christ, the crucifixion, Christian martyrs, and “novel beliefs.”
  10. Once again, over a 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death. In other words, a useless source.
  11. Iraneus writings does not correlate with reality. The problem is, that the Judea Province of this time only had a united rulership under Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa. According to Luke, Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized and this was in the: ”fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”, which was 29 CE. Even if Jesus supposed birth date was as late as 6 BCE, making Jesus 34 in 29 CE, you do not get to the required minimum of 46 years of age until 41 CE, which
  12. – A Syrian philosopher, he wrote from prison to his son, comparing Jesus to Socrates and Plato.
  13. Over a 100 years outdated. Third or fourth-hand information.
  14. Several passages from the Talmud and other Jewish writings clearly refer to Jesus Christ. References include:
  • The “Hanging” (on a cross) of Jesus on the eve of Passover.
  • Identifying Jesus along with the names of five of His disciples.
  • Healing in the name of Jesus.
  • Scoffing at the “claim” that Jesus was born of a virgin, and implying His birth was probably “illegitimate.”

Talmud has been used as a source for the existence of Jesus. Talmud is referring to ”Yeshu”(Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107, Gittin 56b, 57a ). However, this is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the supposed Christian Jesus. Also, the oldest version of Talmud is still from 300 CE, making it useless as a source.

After many have tried to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, a rational person would have to conclude that there exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering such a superb collection of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made.

The early years of the Roman Empire is one of the best-documented periods of ancient history, they even kept a record on who was crucified (Carrier 2011), Jerusalem was a center of education (Crossan 1996: 94). Philo of Alexandria and Gaius Plinius Secundus were both historians and philosophers active in the area Jesus supposedly traveled at the time when Jesus supposedly lived. None of them mentions Jesus at any point. So it seem like both those 2 are better sources when it comes to the history of Biblical times, than the Bible is.

An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind.

An honest person shouldn’t consider it a good source to begin with. It is semi fiction. Parts fiction, parts history. Until someone PROVES otherwise.

PART 2 – Evidence

o other ancient book is questioned or maligned like the Bible. Critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span between the time the events in the New Testament occurred and when they were recorded. They claim another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made and the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and so-called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.

Evidence that the Bible is true can also be found in the testimony of those who have believed it.

No, evidence = Repeatable observations. People’s personal feelings and experiences are not considered evidence.

Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and restrictions are wise, and it’s wonderful message of salvation through Jesus meets every need for both time and eternity.

That is also true for Mein Kampf.

But let’s face it, without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing. In fact, without the resurrection, Jesus cannot even be called a good man, but a liar. So we ask, are their good reasons to believe the resurrection was true? Here are just a few:

  1. Jesus himself testified to his coming resurrection from the dead.

And for that there is no evidence, at all. This is not evidence, this is a BIBLICAL CLAIM requiring evidence to be believable in the first place.

  1. The tomb was empty on Easter. The earliest documents claim this: ”When they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus” (Luke 24:3). And the enemies of Jesus confirmed it by claiming that the disciples had stolen the body (Matthew 28:13). The dead body of Jesus could not be found. There are four possible ways to account for this.2.1 His foes stole the body. If they did (and they never claimed to have done so), they surely would have produced the body to stop the successful spread of the Christian faith in the very city where the crucifixion occurred. But they could not produce it.

OR, they actually did and it was never written about. OR the book it was written in was destroyed. Does Jim have evidence this is not the case?

Let’s say a body disappears TODAY from the morgue. Is it most likely that it resurrected and walked out of there, or that someone stole it? If we do not have evidence one way or another, I doubt many would go for option 1.

2.2 His friends stole the body. This was an early rumor (Matthew 28:11-15). Is it probable? Could they have overcome the guards at the tomb? More important, would they have begun to preach with such authority that Jesus was raised, knowing that he was not? Would they have risked their lives and accepted beatings for something they knew was a fraud?

People have been willing to die for lies before. Once again, even if their motives was completely MAD, this is still more likely that the body coming back to life.

2.3 Jesus was not dead, but only unconscious when they laid him in the tomb. He awoke, removed the stone, overcame the soldiers, and vanished from history after a few meetings with his disciples in which he convinced them he was risen from the dead. Even the foes of Jesus did not try this line. He was obviously dead. The Romans saw to that. The stone could not be moved by one man from within who had just been stabbed in the side by a spear and spent six hours nailed to a cross.

Yes, this is not very likely. BUT, it is still more likely than him resurrecting. We have seen people survive things they shouldn’t have.

2.4 God raised Jesus from the dead. This is what he said would happen. It is what the disciples said did happen. But as long as there is a remote possibility of explaining the resurrection naturalistically, modern people say we should not jump to a supernatural explanation.

  1. First of all, this is the least likely option of the 4 put forward.
  2. 2) There is also option 5: Jesus fooled the people. That he was a con-man.
  3. 3) No one is trying to naturally explain the resurrection, most modern scientists and rationalists say that the even never took place at all. Either he dies on the cross and stayed dead, or he was never crucified.

Is this reasonable? I don’t think so.

IT is not reasonable to accept the resurrection or the crucifixion of christ happened to begin with since there is no evidence of it. Just claims.

  1. The disciples were almost immediately transformed from men who were hopeless and fearful after the crucifixion (Luke 24:21, John 20:19) into men who were confident and bold witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:24, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:2).
  2. So willingness to die indicates truth? OK, so ISIS must be speaking the truth then? They are willing to die for their beliefs. The disciples could also have been fooled. Maybe they really believed it, maybe they were payed. Point being, people being lied to or payed of, is more likely than people rising from the dead.
  1. Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim.
  2. Exactly, CLAIMED. He CLAIMS he saw Jesus and he CLAIMS that others did so to. But Paul Claiming things really does not make them true. Now, we want the EVIDENCE for his CLAIMS.
  3. 5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.

Then empire-conquering early Muslim Churches must support the reality of Islam. And the Chinese empire-conquering must prove atheism! Does not sound like good logic…

  1. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection.

No, no person’s devotion or conversion could ever count as EVIDENCE. Repeatable observations, that is the only known thing that provides verifiable truths. In that case, that would be true for all religions. What about that Buddhist Monk who burned himself to death? Talk about devotion. Does that prove Buddhism true?

  1. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.
  2. You could argue anything like that! Stalin seems like a believable person therefore, communism is correct. Here is some advice if you ever go out into the real world Jim: Deceivers rarely bear a stamp.
  1. There is a self-authenticating glory in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection as narrated by the biblical witnesses.


The Bible’s unique effect on human life started with those who lived with and knew Jesus.

This is true for all holy books.

Eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ died to tell that story.

ONE person who claims to be an eyewitness and that CLAIMS there were more. That is like me saying I saw a UFO and I also saw 100’s of other people see it.

Jesus’ followers who witnessed his life and resurrection suffered horrible deaths and yet, when given the opportunity to recant, they didn’t. It should be remembered that there have been many people who have died for something they believed to be true. That in itself is not unusual. But no one dies for a known lie.

Well, yes, there are those cases as well. BUT, as a rule people do not. Here is the thing: It is still more likely that people were LIED to, than a man rising from dead. Jim also have not proven that the disciples were not fictional to begin with. It is not hard to make up people that dies for a lie.

This is only an argument if Jim proves the disciples was not fictional and that they were not lied to. I also do not believe they would die for something they knew was not true. But what is the evidence that they did? If Jesus was a fraud, they obviously did not see through his deceit.

So because they were with him for 3 years, they could not have been lied to. IF Jesus was a fraud, it is MORE LIKELY that the people close to him would trust in the lie. The manson Family ffs! People are easily fooled.

Lying would serve no purpose since Jesus’ ministry would then be moot. Yet historical records and reports about the disciples indicated they all died cruel deaths for their beliefs (except one, John). James (brother of Jesus) was stoned, Peter, Andrew, James the son of Alphaeus, Philip, Simon, and Bartholomew were crucified, Paul was beheaded, Thaddaeus killed by arrows, Matthew and James (son of Zebedee) killed by the sword, and Thomas killed by a spear. Each of these disciples spoke and many wrote about the resurrection of Jesus, and they did so as eyewitnesses. “To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:1-3).

Well, this is what the Bible claims. Maybe they were all fictional. The same goes for all similar arguments such as Saul of Tarsus. Maybe he was fictional, and if he was not, he may have been fooled or paid to lie.

Faith versus Evidence

Our desire for evidence is a good reason to investigate the Bible. Even though the Bible is not the only source of evidence, it is a valuable source. Let’s face it, if there is a God trying to communicate with us with the Bible, then isn’t it foolish not to be interested? But for most it is a “Catch 22.” Most want evidence first, yet the Bible contains the evidence they need.

Books are not evidence in themselves, they may be references to evidence. And yes, we always start with evidence BEFORE we believe in something, if we are rational that is. So, BEFORE believing the Bible is true, the logical and rational mind needs EVIDENCE that this is the case. Otherwise anyone could claim anything. WE could claim that the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was inspired by god, but that you only see this once you accept it to be true. But that is just not logical.

Scripture tells us that we will be judged and held without an excuse of ignorance because of the clear evidence seen in creation. When you think about this wonderful and immense universe, can we really say that all this came from nothing? Can we just pass it off and say “it just happened?” Really?

It is not about what we want, it is about EVIDENCE. There is support for the universe coming from “nothing”. There is no support for this creator. Also, this argument is circular. The QUESTION is “Where did all this come from?” Jim is trying to pass of the question as the Evidence.

From a purely human perspective, having more clearly defined evidence of the existence of God is desirable. Many think it only reasonable that this God, if he exists at all, should show himself. He should stick his head in the sky and reveal himself in no uncertain manner.

What’s wrong with that request? The answer is specifically revealed in the Bible. Yes, God thinks of everything. In short, God doesn’t go for it. Here’s why.Even though God is not a physical being (he tells us he is a spiritual being outside of our time and space), if he did stick his “head” through the sky and speak to all the skeptics in this world, saying, “I am God”, and do so in such a way that they would have no choice but to accept that God does indeed exist, then they would have no way to please God. Scripture tells us that within God’s character, it is impossible to please him without faith. It seems he wants us to turn to him based on limited evidence. However, this evidence includes his creation. That is not all that limited. He says it reveals his divine nature and power. He wants our love and trust based on what we see around us.

Then why does he not reveal himself in the same way he did 2016 years ago? You say yourself that the way he appeared last time did not remove the faith of the people of that time, so why not do something like that again?

No, that evidence cannot be taken to the science lab and used to “prove” he is God. But he does not want that kind of proof for us for us to rely on.

How do you know that Jim? Oh, a book says so…

He wants our trust and faith based on something less than absolute.

Once again, how do you know what God wants Jim? Seems like the argument goes: It says so in an old book, so, it must be true.

He desires that our belief in him come from what we see around us that causes us to think there just might possibly be an all-loving and all-powerful God out there that than explains what we see.

If we observe the universe, we see a universe that works very well without a god, so, what we see around us leads us towards the conclusion that there is no god. You see that is the problem. This god that you claim exists, watches me and judges me for not believing in him, when he is the one who set up a universe that works without him.

Now, having said that, he did actually come into his creation 2000 years ago. Many observed him.

Actually, there is ONE person claiming to be a witness, and he claims there are others. But one witness claiming there are others, is still just one witness. More importantly, why doesn’t god show himself in the same way again?

However, he did not come in such a way that would destroy faith. Quite the contrary. Even in his suffering and death, he did not walk the earth for 33 years to shock people into accepting him as God. He came to demonstrate his love and to show his divinity but in a way that would leave room for faith.

OK, so, why doesn’t he do that again?

So, in God’s economy, faith is important. As strange as it sounds, you cannot please God without it.

Maybe God has an agenda? Maybe he NEEDS us to worship him to gain power or something? Ever thought of that Jim, that God is USING you?

Also, what perfect being would require faith? Requiring faith would be an imperfection in itself.

You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible has in mind unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true. In short, it is never a “leap of faith” at all. Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence.

But you do not know Jim. I mean, you have demonstrated that for 60 pages soon. Your lacking knowledge of the surrounding world is quite astounding. I mean, it is actually hard to stay this ignorant.

The challenge for everyone is to look for and examine the evidence – to put down all preconceptions and bias beliefs and objectively explore the claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;

And many did, and came to the conclusion that he is not. But Jim will not accept that conclusion of course. Everyone who does not agree with Jim’s worldview is simply wrong. Jim has no reason or evidence that they are, they just are..

If evidence didn’t exist or weren’t persuasive, former skeptics like myself would never have become Christians. But while no amount of evidence will convince someone against his will, for the open-minded the evidence is more than sufficient to establish belief.

First of all, everyone knows Jim was never an atheist, it is quite obvious. Or, maybe one of those mad atheists believing in Aliens putting us here and such, but I find it very hard to believe Jim once did not have faith in god. Here is the thing, if the evidence was actually that strong, it would convince everyone who actually looked. That is not true in the case of Christianity. It is however true in, for example, the case of evolution. Everyone who actually understands the evidence accepts it.

The Bible is an uncomfortable, yet undeniable book. From beginning to end, what is revealed about God Himself, His creation, His dealings with mankind, and His plans for the future makes sinful human beings squirm. Since we are all sinners, we have all squirmed at one time or another.

No, not really, Personally I just laugh at the level of stupidity in the Bible. I am not worried AT ALL that there might be a hell and so on.

A great deal more can be said. But now that it has been demonstrated that a person can have confidence in the Bible, what are you going to do with that information?

Nothing really. Most of us are quite fine with anyone believing in anything.

The notion that Jesus is the Son of God, a title ascribed to God in human flesh, is radical. Why would God come into his creation as a man? But the Bible is clear. This Son of God was God himself coming into his creation; from Spirit to Flesh.

OK, there is just no reason to actually believe it is true… So far, Jim has put forward no evidence of this.

God tells us that man fell for the deception of Satan and in so doing rebelled against his Creator.

So, being fooled, is the same as “rebelled” to you Jim? How is “being deceived” the same as “rebelling”?

God coming was to provide man with a way out of this mess. He came into his creation and we nailed him on the cross, just as he knew would happen.

But god is all powerful, he could have just waved his hand to make this happen, instead, he chose torture. Why?

Now what is the conclusion in all this? Can’t the Bible be trusted? Can’t we say with confidence that there is indeed information in the Bible that no human could have known?


The evidence testifies to the trustworthiness of the Bible.

The Evidence? So far you have put forward no evidence Jim. You have CLAIMED a lot of things, but everyone reading your text is still waiting for that evidence you claim to have. Evidence of course being defined as “repeatable observations”.

The force of this evidence is cumulative. Fulfilled prophecy,

As Pointed out, there is no fulfilled prophecy. It is either too vague (Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy) educated guesses (that the temple would be rebuilt and destroyed, that there would be unbelievers, that there would be times with more natural disasters) or plain out wrong (Ezekiel 29:8-15, Ezekiel 30:12 and Isaiah 19:1-8 for example). Some are just non-prophecies (Not actually mentioned or misinterpreted), such as

The messiah will be born to a virgin

The messiah will be born in Bethlehem 5.2.1 Oakes

Jesus will be a Nazarene

Jesus will be called out of Egypt 5.4.1 Oakes

Jesus will be pierced

The suffering servant

The great disappointment

archaeological verification,

No, as pointed out, it is VERY unlikely that the Garden Tomb was the tomb of Jesus given that it was outside the city walls in that time. And that we find cities and so on from that time, is not strange, no one is arguing against small parts of the Bible being true.

the Bible’s internal consistency, external verification,

Can not be verified. In fact, large parts of it could be written by the same person posing as different people. We just do not know.

the Bible’s amazing scientific accuracy and foresight,

There are MANY scientific errors in the Bible, Pi = 3 for example. That there was a Biblical flood.

the manuscript evidence,

Isn’t even agreeing with itself? The date of Jesus’ birth differs by 14 years! Lucas says Jesus preached for one year, Johannes says 4 years, and so on.

the willingness of Jesus’ disciples to suffer and die,

IS not unseen in other religions. 911 does not prove Islam correct. And no, this does not mean the disciples were willing to die for a lie, they may have been deceived for example.

and the testimony of Jesus, as the Son of God, all support one conclusion.

CLAIMING to be the son of god. And yes, it supports one conclusion: That the Bible is a very very outdated book that has very little actual effect on human life today. One may call it an extremely outdated science book.

If I was to present these arguments individually, one might be inclined to argue that the evidence was inconclusive. And that is valid. But, all of these evidences, when taken together, build a strong case for its trustworthiness.

Which evidence? Jim has not presented evidence yet, he has presented 60 pages of CLAIMS.

But now isn’t it your turn? Isn’t it time for you to make a decision. Jesus asked all of us a question when he said, “who do you say that I am?” What decision will you make? It is your free choice. He will not force you to put your trust in him. He loves you too much to force you.

He loves you so much that he will send you to torture if you do not love him back. Hmm, Sounds like a psycho girlfriend.

And just living a good life is not enough. You cannot earn your way to heaven.

That is one problem with the Bible. It actually does not matter if you are Hitler, as long as you love Christ. But if you are a good person, in fact, the best person in the world, you still go to hell if you do not believe in Jesus.

We all have an appointment with death. Every day that goes by brings us one step closer to that inevitable appointment, written in God’s divine date book. But what happens after that?

Well, no one really knows, but Jim will most likely claim to know.

What happens after we breathe our last breath, after our hearts pump their last measure of blood, and after our spirits leave our bodies like a vapor? After leaving this physical world, we will enter into a new spiritual world where there is a second, unavoidable appointment written down in God’s date book.

And the evidence for this is what? That a few historical facts are correct does not make everything in the Bible plausible. Just because there is a Betlehem, does not mean there is also an afterlife. Evidence only proves exactly what they prove, nothing around that.

Our God is a God of mercy and grace, but He is also a God of justice and judgment.

He is a god who claims to love, but that sends people who does not love him back to torture. That is some psycho love.

After we die, no second chances will be given.

And why is that? Because god is evil?

The decisions we make on this side of eternity will determine the judgment God makes about our eternal destiny. You see, God has established a holy law, or a standard of perfection. To break God’s law is to sin against God, and to sin against God means that you must face judgment. The problem is that we have all broken God’s law. Therefore, we all must stand before God to be judged (see Romans 14:10).

Yes, we are actually being judged because our great great great great great great x20 Grandmother, at the wrong fruit, because a talking snake told her to. That is fair. I mean, don’t you think that if someone is sentenced to death, we should kill his whole family. Right? That sounds fair! Don’t just punish the wrongdoers, punish their family as well!

If you want to escape the judgment of God, then you must humble yourself and admit you are a sinner in need of forgiveness, repent of your sins (turn away from sin) and put your trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross, because without Jesus, we would have no hope on that day of judgment. To refuse the cross as the instrument of salvation is to choose it as the instrument of judgment.

But that shouldn’t be a problem right? I mean, if you have been a good person, judgement should not be a problem. Oh, yeah, the problem is of course that you are only judged based on one merit, faith in god, you may kill and plunder, rape even, as long as you are really sorry about it and accepts Jesus.

Have you ever thought or heard this? I’ll wait until I am old, then I’ll get right with God. Well, let’s be honest, you may not get the chance. God may just lose patience with you and end your life.

So, god is so evil, that not only does he send people who are rational, and logical, as well as good people, to torture, he actually also kills people before they have a chance of reaching a conclusion on whether god is real or not, just to get to send people to hell.. Evil.

Perhaps you don’t think He would do such a thing. Then read Genesis 38:7 to see how God killed a man who was wicked. Jesus told of a man who boasted that he had so many goods that he would have to build bigger barns. God called the man a fool and took his life that night.

So in other words, Jim wants us to worship and pray to immoral murderers because they are powerful and could hurt us if we do not. Jim sure is a brave person.

Those who say they will repent in their own time lack the fear of God.

Why would you fear someone that loves you? That sounds like a very destructive relationship. Remember, fear and respect cannot really coexist, if you fear god, you do not respect him.

Their understanding of His nature is erroneous. If they caught a glimpse of His holiness, His righteousness, and His consuming justice, they wouldn’t trifle with His mercy.

Well, we know from human history that this is wrong. People have stood up to oppression many times through history, not seldom risking their very lives toing so. This would be no different. God, as Jim describes him at least, is the most evil dictator of all times, maybe the most horrible being ever written about, would you serve such a monster, or would you rather fight for what is good?

Since no one is guaranteed tomorrow, the best way to be prepared for the judgment is to live for God today. For some, that means receiving Jesus today, asking Him to forgive them of their sins, and giving Him control of their lives.

But many people are INCAPABLE to do so, they need EVIDENCE. And the Bible actually says that it is OK to not accept Jesus if the knowledge never reached you.

Time waits for no one. The clock is ticking, and we are all drawing nearer to that unavoidable appointment with God. Think wisely. Weigh the alternatives. Choose for yourself. Decide now whom you will serve.

Serve god, the most evil being in writing, or, serve what is good and just. Hmmm… But it shouldn’t actually be a problem. As I said, the knowledge never reached me, so, the Bible does not require me to have faith, since I never learned about the evidence of Jesus and so on.

I realize what was presented earlier was pretty heavy with all those facts dug out of manuscripts and archeology. Evidence is not all that exciting sometimes, is it?

What evidence? I am still waiting.

So why do people believe what they believe? Why do people reject the message of the Bible and instead, come up with totally unfounded beliefs of their own?

Well, for the exact same reason Jim believes in the Bible and rejects all other “holy” scriptures.

I’ve asked many people in an effort to understand what they believe and why they believe it. Their reasoning is, well, confusing.

Then Jim may be talking to confused people. The reason you do not believe in ANYTHING is always the same: You have not been convinced by the evidence available. They do not believe in JHVH for the exact same reason you do not believe in Allah.

I’ve found the real reason(s) may not be that apparent. The reasons people give have a lot to do with feeling “safe.” They feel comfortable in declaring that their God is the real God and the God of the Bible is just, well, not real.

Just as Jim does with the God of the Bible.

Their God is easier.

In some cases, in other cases not. The Jewish version of god is often more Complex, especially the Kabbala version of it. The Hindus have may many gods, some are more complex, some are less.

Maybe less judgmental; he likely has lower standards.

No, you Christians follow 10 commandments, jews has 613, devout buddhists has over 200.

Who wants a God to exist anyway that …demands?

All believers it seems like. Basically every religion has a god that punishes. Most likely because they miss a father figure.

No one really wants to be responsible to some “higher being” and to his standard of conduct.

Partly true, but most people would also have a problem with non-existence, being dead that is. So, both sides has uncomfortable to deal with.

And no one really wants to feel guilty. Forget it. Let me alone, I am doing pretty well on my own. Besides, I want to live my life the way I want to.

Well, that would be what we call “human rights”.


The Rocket of ignorance, by Lucian MacAndrew.

Imagine a woman, setting herself on fire, because she believes this will
bring salvation to her entire family. Even if unusual today, this costume
is still viewed as something ideal for a Hindu woman. The poison that is
religion infects almost every aspect of life for the majority of people on
this planet. Stoning, honor killings, torture, oppression, war, confusion,
false hope, the list can be made a thousand times longer. Even the people
that can be considered exceptions, where religion did not directly hurt
the infected person, religion still causes basically every infected mind to
throw away their life in the hope that a better one will follow. And for
what? The answer is simple: Nothing. There is nothing religion can bring
you that you cannot achieve without it. Love, compassion, well-being,
empathy, moral, ethics, laws, tranquility. All achievable without religion.


Even fear of death is possible to control without religion. If we want to live in a society based on compassion, science, rationality, and love; religion must be exterminated trough education. As long as religion exist, there is no hope of this future for most people in the world.

This short book examines different aspects of religion. The first chapter deals with what religion is and how it came to be. The second chapter gives a quick overview of where science is today. The third chapter deals with the existence Jesus and is divided into 2 sub chapters, the mythological Jesus and the historical Jesus. The fourth chapter puts forward an alternative interpretation of the Bible. The fifth chapter examines who is getting rich of religion and the sixth gives an overview of the companies associated with the Catholic church. The seventh chapter examines the eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The eight chapter deals with Paul Moser’s evidence for God and the ninth chapter examines nationalism next to religion. The tenth chapter brings up other correlates to religion, such as crime and poverty, and the eleventh and final last chapter draws conclusions from the previous chapters.

Chapter 1 – Religion and its origins………………………………………….4
Chapter 2 – Science today………………………………………………………..6
The Evolution…………………………………………………………………………..6
The birth of the Universe and the M-theory……………………………..7
The Multiverse and its beginning. …………………………………………….7
Chapter 3 – Jesus……………………………………………………………………..8
The mythological Jesus……………………………………………………………..8
The historical Jesus…………………………………………………………………..11
Chapter 4 – Jesus, the fraud……………………………………………………..15
Chapter 5 – The christian corporation. ……………………………………..17
Chapter 6 – The companies associated with the Catholic church…21
Chapter 7 – The eastern religions………………………………………26
Woman in India…………………………………………………………………26
Honor Culture…………………………………………………………………….30
Religious intolerance…………………………………………………………..30
Woman in Buddhism……………………………………………………………32
Chapter 8 – Challenging Paul Moser………………………………………34
Moser’s position (surrounding God)………………………………………..34
Moser’s God…………………………………………………………………………..34
Moser’s evidence ……………………………………………………………………36
Moser’s criticism of scientism and methodological naturalism…..37
Challenging Moser’s evidence…………………………………………………38
Challenging Moser’s criticism of scientism. ……………………………39
Attribution theory ………………………………………………………………40
Sundén’s role theory……………………………………………………………40
Derren Brown …………………………………………………………………….41
Are Paul Moser’s Evidence of God logically sustainable?…………41
Can we assume that God has a purpose? ……………………………….42
Closing thoughts…………………………………………………………………..42
Chapter 9 – Nationalism vs Religion……………………………………….43
Chapter 10- Other correlates with religion……………………………..47
Chapter 11 – Summary, final thoughts, and conclusions…………..50

Chapter 1 – Religion and its origins.
Many scientists, sociologists, and researchers have theorized what the possible ”reason” for religion may be. Peter Berger theorizes that religion is used to legitimate societies rules. Human beings, according to Berger, needs to form a society as a result of our biology (for example, we are in need of adults in the early stages of our lives). The first generations of a society creates its own rules, they therefor do not need an explanation for them. The following generation however, needs something that makes these rules legit. This is where religion comes in, according to Berger. Religion puts societies rules in a cosmic and holy frame by saying, for example, that some kind of punishment awaits the person not bowing down to what can only be described as peer pressure or oppression. Historically there are obvious cases of religious ideas serving the elite, the role of Pharaoh in ancient Egypt for example.

Berger’s theory, however, falls a bit short; since religious ideas usually are not created by rulers nowadays. There are exceptions, the catholic church of today still legitimates its rules with treats of hell, in other words, saying that if you do not follow their way of life, torture awaits you, historically, this torture is not seldom delivered by the same people making (up) the treats. As previously mentioned, Berger’s theories falls a bit short for the reason that religious ideas not seldom are born with people lacking power, his theories also does not explain the reason for belief in God. This is where Freud, Sundén, Shermer, and a few other philosophers comes in. Freud theorizes that God is a substitute for the lost omnipotence of the childhood father. In other words, to deal with the realization that ones father is not all knowing, one creates an omnipotent being, not seldom in the sky, to make up for the lost security of the father-figure. Furthermore, Freud theorizes that man creates God to get a sense of control over the threatening environment (the forces of nature).
Hjalmar Sundén, in simplest terms, theorizes that you see what you expect to see. If a persons mind is set in a religious way of thinking, this person is more likely to see religious patterns in what is most likely natural occurrences. For example, imagine a policeman chasing an armed criminal. If he at any moment sees a small round object (for example a bottle) in the corner of his eye, he would be more likely to interpret this as a gun than someone not chasing an armed criminal.

This goes hand in hand with the attribution theory; when people think they are experiencing God, it is almost always accompanied by an increased heart rate. A religious person would then be more likely to connect this feeling with God, than a non religious person.
In other words, to get a sense of control over what probably is a reason for going to the doctor (increased heart-rate), a religious person may instead interpret a medical condition as contact with God. Chapter 7 explains the Attribution theory and Sundén’s Role theory further.But why would humans act and think like this? The answer may be found in evolution: Michael Shermer theorizes that humans, trough evolution, have become likely to see religious patterns in nature. Imagine you are a human in the early eras of humanity. Suddenly, you hear something rattling in front of you. In this situation, two kinds of mistakes are possible:

Class A: You may assume that there is a rattle
snake in front of you, when there is none. This
would be harmless.

Class B: You may assume that there is no rattle
snake in front of you, when there is one. This
could cost you your life.

This means that trough natural selection, humans have become more and more likely to make Class A mistakes, that is, we are programmed to see patterns where there are none, since that is beneficial to our survival.

So to summarize: Trough natural selection human beings have been ”programmed” to see patterns in nature, with the loss of the all mighty father figure and the urge to control nature, the human mind then turns to God. God is further proven to the religious person trough anticipation and is given more credibility by institutions in society using religion to control the masses.
Chapter 2 – Science today
Certain questions are central in both science and religion. How did life begin? Where does humans and our conscience come from? How did existence and the universe begin? The aim of this sub-chapter is to, in simplest terms, explain where science stands on these questions. This is deemed necessary because these issues must be put into perspective against what we currently know and what we currently do not know.

The Evolution
The theory of evolution explains how life evolved from simple organisms, to advanced organisms, such as humans, by ”natural selection.” Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. Simply described, this means that if certain members of a species, for example, looks 1% more like a leaf, 1% more of them may survive and pass their genes on (mate), in the end resulting in that most members of the species will look 1% more like a leaf. Among these, a few members of the specie may look even 1 % more like a leaf, and the process restarts. The theory of evolution is seen as a very strong theory and virtually the entire scientific community agrees with it (97%). Evidence for the theory of evolution includes the geographical location of the various species, genetics (DNA) and fossils (Dawkins, 1986, 2006). The theory of evolution is accepted by most major religions, even though fundamentalist may see problems in the idea that we are related to apes and that God did not create everything ”as it is”. A common misconception from fundamentalists is that the theory of evolution claims that an ape at some point gave birth to a human. Another misconception is that the theory of evolution has something to do with the beginning of life.

When you look at these symbols two and two, they look practically identical…

….but when looking at the big picture, small changes can make enormous difference.


The strongest theory is that life arose from something that did not live. Experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment (1953) showed that chemical compounds that constituted Earth’s atmosphere in its early years can bind together and create amino acids. Amino acids are found in all cells of living organisms and is believed to be the element out of which life arose. A related theory is that polymerization of nucleotides to random RNA molecules may, according to the hypothesis of the RNA world, have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA enzymes) (Cech 2011).

The birth of the Universe and the M-theory.
If the M- theory is proven correct, there are more universes than our own. M-theory, or Membrane theory, is a development of the 5 original string theories (which were placed in the 10th dimension) and is placed in the 11th Dimension. Simplified in absurdum, the theory says that all matter in existence in its most basic form is strings vibrating on a membrane. Lisa Randall of Harvard University discovered that the weakness of gravity (gravity is weak compared to the other three forces) probably can be explained by it ” leaking ” into our universe from other universes. Big Bang is believed to have been caused by ”waves” on the membrane colliding with each other, these waves consists of other universes. To clarify, Big bang is believed be the collision or the separation of two universes. The Universe appearance, with ” clumps ” of matter, supports this model (Guth, Kaku, Randall 2002).

The Multiverse and its beginning.
The M-theory says that there is a multiverse. This multiverse, we know very little about. However, there are theories in quantum physics that explains where matter comes from. Physicists say that the universe can either be closed, open, or flat. A flat universe has a total of 0 energy, which means that it can come from nothing. Cosmic background radiation is not only strong evidence for the Big Bang theory, but also allows us to measure the total energy of the universe, which is 0. This leads scientists to the conclusion that the universe is flat, and can arise from ”nothing”. The increasing acceleration of the universe is further evidence for this conclusion. It should be mentioned that the M-theory has shown that ”nothing” technically isn’t ”nothing”, but rather particles jumping in and out of our universe faster than we can see them. These particles seem to have the property of being in several places at the same time, many researchers (for example Allan Guth) believe that this indicates multiple universes (Krauss 2012, Guth , Kaku , Randall 2002).

Chapter 3 – Jesus
Jesus is considered to be a religious figure with a lot of evidence to support his existence. But are the sources credible? This chapter is divided into two sub-chapters, The mythological and the Historical aspects of Jesus.

The mythological Jesus.
This chapter investigates the “evidence” available for the resurrection and Jesus’ miracles. Flavius Josephus, a jew and roman citizen born around the time of Jesus supposed death, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews, which contains a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum, the text mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus: ”When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men among us, condemned to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him.” Most modern scholars believe the original text has been changed by Christian editors, also,
Josephus can not have been an eyewitness, and therefor, provides only second hand information.

The fact that many myths similar to the resurrection predates it casts a certain doubt. Almost every mythology has some sort of a resurrection myth, for example; Tammuz, Ishtar, Phoenix, Quetzalcoatl, Xipe Totec, Adonis, Eshmun, Zalmoxis, Osiris, Ouroboros, Horus, Atunis, Lemminkäinen, Adonis, Dionysus, Ouroboros, Orpheus, Persephone, Chinnamasta, Iravan, Barbarika, Heitsi-eibib, Gullveig, Baldr, Attis, Bacchus, Proserpina, Jarilo, Kostroma, Marzanna, Dumuzi, Inanna, and Obatala. Some Deities have an even closer connection to the Jesus-myth. Dionysus, for example, whose father is Zeus, not unlike Jesus whose father is God. Jesus turns water into wine, Dionysus is the God of wine. Dionysus is prosecuted for claiming to be a God, not unlike the trial of Jesus. Besides the resurrection myth, several other similarities can be found between Christianity and older religions, flood myths are occurring in several mythologies, for example, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Many deities makes great sacrifices, for example; Pangu, Purusha,Ymir, and so on.

Robert M. Price claims that if the resurrection could be proven through science or historical evidence, it would lose its miraculous qualities (Price 2005: 14). This however is in no way evidence, just an excuse to believe without evidence. William Lane Craig is another theologian who argues for the resurrection. The first fact according to Craig is that Jesus
was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. He goes on to say that historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence, for example, Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Additionally, as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is according to Craig unlikely to be a Christian invention. As will be pointed out in the next chapter, the gospels are not reliable. The only facts that historians do agree on; is that it is unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian invention, since he was a member of the Sanhedrin (an assembly of twenty to twenty-three men appointed in every city in the Land of Israel.). However, there are no historical evidence that actually proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt, so to call it a fact is to take it one step too far.

The second fact, according to Craig, is that Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on the Sunday after the crucifixion, Among the reasons, which according to Craig have led most scholars to this conclusion, is that the empty tomb is multiply attested by independent, early sources, once again this is mainly referring to the Gospels. That the tomb was discovered empty by women gives additional credibility to the myth, according to Craig:
”In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. ”

It is likely that it was an awkward and embarrassing ”fact” that women were the main witnesses of the empty tomb, however, this certainly does not make it a fact. If you want someone to believe in a lie, it adds credibility to use ”facts” that are a bit embarrassing to you. It is like when Cartman in the TV-series South Park admits to be wrong about there being no ginger animals to add credibility to his main lie, a cow he dressed up to look ginger. Most children above 10 can figure this out, so it is quite likely that the people of biblical times had figured this out themselves.

The third fact, according to Craig, is that different individuals and groups of people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. He argues that Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection guarantees that such appearances occurred:

”Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples
known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger
brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends.”

He continues to say that the narratives in the Gospels provides multiple, independent, attestation of Jesus appearances:

”For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John.”

Imagine if a group of people wanted to make the story of the resurrection up, so they sat down around a table and wrote one Gospel each. If you were one of the persons in this scenario, wouldn’t you refer back to your companions to make it more credible? Craig basically says that because Paul mentions a group of people, who say that they saw the risen Jesus, it is a fact. Who are all these people? Do we have their first hand testimony? No we do not. If someone today were to write that ”500 people saw the aliens invading”, one would demand to actually hear from these people in person, furthermore, one would consider them lying or hallucinating a more reasonable explanations than there actually being an alien invasion. Why would we, or why should we, treat the people in the Bible any differently?

The 4th ”fact”, according to Craig, is that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead, despite having every predisposition to the contrary. The original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead, that they were willing to die for that belief.

People have been wrong before, people have been willing to die for lies. If the stories surrounding the disciples have any truth in them to begin with, there is still the possibility that they were lied to. Just because the disciples thought that they saw the risen Jesus and were willing to die for their beliefs, does not make them true. In that case, the terrorists that performed the 911-attacks must believe in the truth, they were willing to die for

Craig also provides 3 reasons for the gospels not being unreliable despite their inconsistencies; that the inconsistencies are irresolvable rather than merely apparent, which in no way argues for the Gospels credibility; that the inconsistencies lie at the heart of the narrative rather than just in the secondary, peripheral details, which is opinion; and that all of the accounts have an equal claim to historical reliability, since the presence of inconsistencies in a later, less reliable source does nothing to undermine the credibility of an earlier, more credible source, which is true, but in no way an argument for the gospels being reliable. He also claims that inconsistencies in the Gospels have no effect at all on the four facts presented, which is of course ridiculous, if the Gospels are the source, of course it is important that they are reliable. None of the miracles mentioned have any kind of evidence to back them up and and some of them, like turning water into wine, sounds more like cheap magic tricks and can hardly be considered proof of God, personally, I can think of several ways to perform this “miracle”. Pen and Teller catches bullets between their teeth, I guess they represent “super gods”.

Robert Greg Cavin, professor of Philosophy, states that, ”our only sources of potential
evidence, the New Testament Easter traditions, fall far short of providing the kind of
information necessary for establishing the resurrection hypothesis” (Cavin, 2005: 36). Geza
Vermes, biblical scholar, concludes that there are six possible explanations for the resurrection (Vermes additionally states that none of these six possibilities are likely to be historical.), he states as follows:

1. ”The body was removed by someone unconnected with Jesus”,
2. ”The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples”,
3. ”The empty tomb was not the tomb of Jesus”,
4. Buried alive, Jesus later left the tomb”,
5. Jesus recovered from a coma and departed Judea, and
6. the possibility that there was a ”spiritual, not bodily, resurrection”.
(Vermes, 2008: 142–148)
The historical Jesus
Jesus existence has been a topic of debate for a long time, most theologians and historians would agree that Jesus existed as a historical person (Ehrman 2011: 285, Grant 2004: 200, Gould & Burridge 2004: 34). Some theologians and historians goes so far as to say, that any ideas surrounding Jesus lack of existence, are refuted (Voorst 2000: 16, Dunn 2007: 35-36 Stanton 1989: 145). Theologians, however, do not agree on exactly what parts of the biblical stories that are true (Powell 1998: 181). The only hypothesis that holds anything close to consensus among theologians are the stories surrounding Jesus trial and baptism (Dunn 2003: 339, Herzog 2005: 1-6, Crossan 1995: 145). Most theologians and historians would also agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC, in the closing stages of the reign of King Herod, and that he died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and maybe Greek (Green et al 1992: 442, Dunn & McKnight 2006: 303, Crossan & Watts 1999 28-29, Barr 1970: 9-29, Porter 1997: 110-112, Hamp 2005: 3-4). This sub-chapter examines the evidence available for the historical Jesus.

The methods involved in researching Jesus existence are mainly comparative studies between different sources such as; gnostic texts, synoptic gospels, Pauline letters, Talmud, Josephus, Irenaeus and Tacitus (Blomberg 2009: 431-436, Bockmuehl 2001: 121-125, Chilton & Evans 1998: 460-470, Voorst 2000: 39-53). The earliest writings about Jesus — traditionally dated 52-67 CE, earlier than any gospels, comes from Paul of Tarsus (Nongbr 2005: 24-52). There are also over 80 texts that mentions “Chrestus”. (Linck 1913: 106). Many scholars of biblical history believes that the gospels of the Bible are evidence enough to say that Jesus did exist and that his existence can be assumed from them (Guiart 1952: 169). Many theologians would from this also draw the conclusion that it is equally likely that the major themes in Jesus’s life are based in reality, that he most likely were one of the many self-proclaimed prophets of the time and that he probably angered the wrong people, resulting in his death (Dawson 1998, Robertson 1975, Blackhorn 1985).

Chrestus does not have to refer to Jesus, as suggested by certain christian apologists, besides
meaning “good” or “useful” in those days it was also one of the names of the Graeco-Egyptian God Serapis (McClintock & Strong 1894: 259, Porter & O’Donnell 2004: 102). The followers of Serapis were referred to as “Christians” (Giles 1877: 86). References to “christ” does not have to refer to Jesus either, since it is referring to a title. The term is even used about several people IN THE BIBLE! For example when speaking about high priests and kings of ancient Israel (Wright 1995: 296, Pleket & Stroud 2013).

Paul never met or spoke to Jesus, but claim to have met a few of the Disciples, no witnesses are mentioned by name, only that several people have met Jesus. Some theologians also interpret Galatians as Paul mentioning Jesus’s brother (Ehrman 2003). But is Paul a reliable witness? Is there no possibility that he was just an attention-seeking liar motivated by something entirely different than faith? This is a question that cannot be answered by any means available today. It is however clear that Paul letters is not evidence enough to say, with any certainty, that Jesus existed.

The authors of the four canonical Gospels (The Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John.) are not eye witnesses, they are merely retelling stories that they have heard. They also never identify themselves explicitly, making them questionable as sources. Most of the information in Matthew and Luke comes from Mark, making it quite logical that they would agree on some points. Despite of this, the Gospels still disagree on several facts, even on the time of Jesus’ birth! Furthermore, parts of the Gospels were added on later, such as Mark 16 and John 8: 2-11. As if this was not enough to question the Gospels reliability, The King James authors changed certain stories so that the Bible would correlate with reality, for example the change from Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Mark 8:28.

The earliest source of the Gospels that exists is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, dated to
somewhere between 100 CE – 150 CE, depending on which researcher you ask. In other words, the earliest sources are still approximately a 100 years younger that the supposed life of Jesus. The early years of the Roman Empire is one of the best-documented periods of ancient history, they even kept a record on who was crucified (Carrier 2011), Jerusalem was a center of education (Crossan 1996: 94).

Philo of Alexandria and Gaius Plinius Secundus were both historians and philosophers active in the area Jesus supposedly traveled at the time when Jesus supposedly lived. Non of them mentions Jesus at any point. Philo was living in (or near) Jerusalem when Maria gave her virgin birth and when the Herodian massacre occurred, when Christ made his entry into Jerusalem, when the crucifixion, supernatural darkness, and the resurrection of the dead took place. Isn’t it strange that a historian wouldn’t mention these events especially when living right next door? Isn’t it strange that not one single historian of Jesus supposed time, ever mentions Jesus? The Gospels describes Jesus as very popular, and still there is not a word of his existence before 93 CE, Jesus, a leader of the people, isn’t even mentioned in the records over crucified people, this is indeed very strange. Matthew and Luke do not agree on when Jesus was born. Matthey says it is between 6-4 BCE wile Luke says no earlier than 6 CE (with a reference to Quirinius). According to Irenaeus ( in Demonstration) Jesus got crucified under Claudius Caesar (41-54 CE) (Carrier 2011, Goodblatt 2005). ”For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.”
– Irenaeus (130-202 CE)

The problem is, that the Judea Province of this time only had a united rulership under Herod theGreat and Herod Agrippa. According to Luke, Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized and this was in the: ”fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”, which was 29 CE. Even if Jesus’s
supposed birth date was as late as 6 BCE, making Jesus 34 in 29 CE, you do not get to the required minimum of 46 years of age until 41 CE, which requires the Caesar to be Claudius (41-54 CE) and the Herod ”king of the Jews” to be Agrippa I (42-44 CE). This leaves the problem of Pontius Pilate, who had been recalled to Rome in 36 CE. Also, with a Herod ”king of the Jews” in charge, Pontius would be unnecessary. Irenaeus goes on to say:
“But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar”
(180 CE). Irenaeus actually is saying that Pontius is working under 2 different Cæsars during the days of Jesus, this is simply incorrect, making Irenaeus doubtful as a source.


The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus was born in 37 CE, well after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus, which means that he could not have been an eyewitness. His book Antiquities was not written before 94 CE. Most historians and even biblical scholars agree, that the mentioning of Jesus actually is a forgery (Price 2003, Carrier 2012, Efrón 1987, Flavius 90):

”If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly
conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses
could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could doit, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Bishop Warburton, Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. 4).

Tacitus was born in 64 C.E, and is therefore not an eyewitness. Tacticus mentions “Chrestus” in the follwing passage:
”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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”

First of all, there is no historical evidence, besides this writing by Tacticus himself, that Nero
persecuted Christians, furthermore, there is no evidence that Nero burned Rome, so there would most likely be no need to assign blame in the first place. This is reason enough to doubt Tacticus as a source..

Talmud has been used as a source for the existence of Jesus. Talmud is referring to
”Yeshu”(Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107, Gittin 56b, 57a ). However, this is actually a disciple of
Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the supposed Christian Jesus. Also, the oldest version of Talmud is still from 300 CE, making it useless as a source.
The Garden Tomb may be considered evidence by some theologians, these however, are basing this on nothing. The Garden Tomb is a rock-cut tomb which was unearthed in 1867 and has subsequently been considered by some Christians to be the site of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. The supporters of the Garden tomb being evidence are basing this on its closeness to Golgata, and also that it looks like described in the Bible. Most modern scholars, however, finds that there are several factors that does not add up: The site used to be a temple to Aphrodite. Archaeologists also suggests that the exact location claimed for the tomb would have been within Hadrian’s Temple. The site is currently within the Old City walls, and due to the heights of the terrain, it would be unlikely, from a defense point of view, for the walls to have previously been east of the Church.The tombs western parts are believed to date from the first century, indicating that the site was outside the city at that time, making these evidence questionable at best (Corbo 1981, Bahat 1986, Stern 1993, Colonel 1909, Hachlili 2005). So when it comes to archeological evidence, there are none, also, historians and archeologist are having trouble finding any traces of the city of Nazareth. Nazareth is in fact not mentioned by name in any pre-Christian Palestinian, Greek or Roman texts but appears for the first time in the 4th century BC.

All these facts considered, the existence of the historical Jesus is doubtful at best.


Chapter 4 – Jesus, the fraud
Given that the evidence for Jesus existence does not hold up, I would like to offer an alternative theory. We know that Christianity became, and still are, one of the strongest groupings on this earth. During the reign of Rome, Christianity became one of the main tools for several aspects of power. It is possible that a group of people decided to make Christianity up, since obviously, there was something to gain from it. The family tree of the earlie popes are basically unknown, for all we know, they may actually have been connected, or even related. Linus, the second pope (According to Iraneus) we basically know nothing about. We do not know if he fadered any children. The same can be said about Anacletus, the third pope. Pope Clement (88 – 97) seems to be the first pope with strong evidence to support his existence. What if a group sat down at a table, and decided to make this story up. First of all, they would claim that there were different sources, you cannot prove that a group of people did not all sit in the same room making this story up together. They found this guy named Jesus, who was willing to be a part of the conspiracy, and with different methods they convinced people that this person was able to perform miracles. We have all seen magic shows, who is to say that Jesus didn’t know a few cheep magic tricks, such as turning water into red liquid, which with the right manipulation convinced 12 people (disciples) that Jesus was the son of God. Chapter two explains how the timeline surrounding Jesus trial doesn’t fit into history. It is possible that the whole trial was made up. Internet and the worldwide media did not exist in this time, most people could not read, people got the news by hearing it from the neighbors. It is said that it is proof for Jesus miracles that his disciples was willing to die, what if they were fooled? All that would be needed now would be someone to say they saw the risen Jesus. If the Bible is partly true, one of the first persons to see the risen Christ was a prostitute. Do you find it completely impossible that a prostitute could be payed to lie? There is no proof that all the witnesses to Jesus miracles were not payed to lie. So what is more plausible? That someone rose from the dead, or that a group of people were fooled or payed off?

It is also possible that Jesus was completely made up, the first christian texts are dated to 52-67 BC. To make this story convincing for future generations, it is not that strange of an idéa to ”hide” a few documents for future generations to find, in various places in Arabia (No doubt this is more plausible than God hiding dinosaur skeletons to test our faith). This fits chronologically with the generation of Pope Clement’s father (we do not know anything about the families of early popes, they may have been related).

In other words, it is not impossible that Christianity was invented by an illuminati-group, possibly lead by Pope Clement’s father, we can only speculate surrounding why, maybe to give power to future generations. There are also theories that Jesus were invented by the Romans to make the Jews more passive. It is possible that this is not the truth, there are 100’s of possibilities. But can you prove that this is NOT the case? If you cannot, then you at least shouldn’t exclude it as an explanation. And it is a far more plausible explanation than God getting himself murdered for our sins in the form of a man. It is possible that this is the case, but without any proof, it is far more likely to be a fraud than a miracle.

To put it another way, Christianity is nothing but a company or a corporation, and the Christian faith is the product. The following chapter will examine how this company has become one of the strongest powers on planet Earth.


Chapter 5 – The christian corporation.
Small parts of this chapter are copied, I could not find the author of certain articles and since the aim of this book is to inform, there was no reason for changing the texts that much. If you which to have your name on the list of sources, give me a message.

As previously mentioned, it is hard to say exactly how Christianity got started. What we know, is that in a short time after the earliest sources are dated, Christianity grew into one of the most powerful companies on earth. In 313 Rome had become Christian. Emperor Constantine immediately started using violence to spread Christianity. By the 600’s, large parts of Asia, the Arab continent, and Europe was under the rule of Christianity.

The Church now began aiming on ruling of the world. The state became the protector. With this came power and wealth. Accumulation of the latter was no longer performed for the purpose of helping the poor, but to grant a life of luxury to the people in charge. Pagan temples were transformed into Christian shrines or destroyed. Their properties were confiscated by the Church. The wealth of competing religions was stolen, their clergy dismissed and/or persecuted, or in many more cases, killed. The Roman Catholic Church next started buying real estate and governmental posts.

This however, was not enough. The Catholic church next claimed to have found the remains of St Peter, which according to the church could remit sin. Once it became known that the relics of St. Peter, when combined with the spiritual power of the pope, could do so, Christians started pilgrimages to Peter’s shrine, giving earthly treasures of money, silver and gold, or deeds of real estate, to the church in order to get a chance to partake in the spiritual treasures of St: Peter. This is how the pilgrimage to Rome, called the Pardon of St. Peter, was initiated. This is not totally unlike the Buddhist tooth-relic, which has brought in a lot of money for the Burmese government.

In 774, Charlemagne, the king of France, approved the Papal states. The company of Christianity, however, wanted even more. The pope and his men concluded that the newly born Papal States were too small for them, the representatives of St: Peter. These territories had to be extended to match Peter’s spiritual imperium. The pope demanded that he and the other leaders of the church would be granted the ownership of whole kingdoms and empires. They presented the Donation of Constantine. Claiming that it was written by the Emperor Constantine himself. The document put the popes above kings, emperors and nations and made them the legal heirs to the territory of the Roman Empire. The Donation of Constantine states as follows:

• Constantine desires to promote the Chair of Peter over the Empire and its seat on earth by
bestowing on it imperial power and honor. (Making the pope the heir to the Roman Empire)

• The Chair of Peter shall have supreme authority over all churches in the world. (Including
those of another religion).

• It shall be judge in all that concerns the service of God and the Christian faith. (Making
Christianity the law, and the pope the judge, disagreeing with him meant becoming an

• Instead of the diadem which the Emperor wished to place on the pope’s head, but which the
pope refused, Constantine had given to him and to this successors the phrygium – that is, the
tirara and the lorum which adorned the emperor’s neck, as well as the other gorgeous robes
and insignia of the imperial dignity.

• The Roman clergy shall enjoy the high privileges of the Imperial Senate, being eligible to
the dignity of patrician and having the right to wear decorations worn by the nobles under
the Empire.

The offices of cubicularii, ostiarii, and excubitae shall belong to the Roman Church.
• The Roman clergy shall ride on horses decked with white coverlets, and, like the Senate,
wear white sandals.

• If a member of the Senate shall wish to take orders, and the pope consents, no one shall
hinder him. (leaving the Senate at the mercy of the pope)

• Constantine gives up the remaining sovereignty over Rome, the provinces, cities and towns
of the whole of Italy or of the Western Regions, to Pope Silvester and his successors.
(Which made the pope the territorial sovereign of Rome, Italy and the Western Regions).
Now the popes reigned as absolute temporal rulers above the law. The emperors served under the popes. This however, was still not enough. The popes continued to expand their territory. Gregory VII (1073), for example, concentrated spiritual and political jurisdiction in himself, to better administer the Western Empire as a fief of the papacy. He asserted temporal supremacy over the whole Byzantine Empire, including Africa and Asia, wile declaring that his ultimate goal was simply the establishment of the universal temporal domain of St. Peter. His successors continued his work. Pope Urban II decided to bring under subjection the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, including the areas of land controlled by these. The reason given was the liberation the tomb of Christ (Which of course could be made into a huge source of income).

Pope Innocent II (1198-1216) said that as the successor of St. Peter, he was the supreme
head of the true religion and the temporal sovereign of the universe. By the end of his reign, the Vatican had become the temporal ruler of Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Bohemia, Servia, Bosnia, Bulgeria, and Poland. The Greek Orthodox Church was ”compelled” to acknowledge the Catholic church’s supremacy.

In the 1300’s, Pilgrimage had become a very steady income for the church, and since the saintswent on multiplying with each generation, their shrines did likewise. And for every shrine thechurch made more and more money, not surprisingly, the church did not mind making peoplesaints. Europe was full of shrines, and pilgrimages were a regular thing for centuries. On the side of that, the church started abusing Indulgence, meaning that you basically could pay for salvation.For the next seven hundred years, taxes, plundering and tributes flowed in from all over Europe. Non-Christians and even Christians of the “wrong kind of Christianity” were killed and their property confiscated. In 1929, the Church received compensation for its lost land in an agreement with the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. Under the Lateran Accords, it was paid around $92 000 000 and, in return, recognized the fascist government:

• A political treaty recognizing the full sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican
City, which was thereby established, a document accompanied by the annexes:

• A plan of the territory of the Vatican City State

• A list and plans of the buildings with extraterritorial privilege and exemption from
expropriation and taxes

• A list and plans of the buildings with exemption from expropriation and taxes

• A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See
following the loss in 1870 of its territories and property. (The Italian state agreed to pay
750,000,000 lire immediately plus consolidated bearer bonds with a coupon rate of 5% and
a nominal value of 1,000,000,000 lire. It thus paid less than it would have paid under the
1871 Law of Guarantees, which the Holy See had not accepted.)

• A concordat regulating relations between the Catholic Church and the Italian state
(The Times, 12 February 1929, Pollard, 1929–32: 43, Whittam, 1995: 77, Robbers 2006: 1007)
Using Mussolini’s millions, and the money gathered trough years of oppression, the church discretely started to invest even more.

The Vatican has gone to huge efforts to preserve secrecy about these investments. The St James’s Square office block was bought by a company called British Grolux Investments Ltd, the same company also holds the other UK properties. Published registers at Companies House do not disclose the company’s true ownership and doesn’t list the Vatican. Instead, they list two nominee shareholders, both Catholic bankers: John Varley, recently chief executive of Barclays Bank, and Robin Herbert, formerly of the Leopold Joseph merchant bank. Company House files disclose that British Grolux Investments inherited its entire property portfolio after a reorganization in 1999 from two predecessor companies called British Grolux Ltd and Cheylesmore Estates. The shares of those firms were held by a company based at the address of the JP Morgan bank in New York. Ultimate control is recorded as being exercised by a Swiss company, Profima SA. British wartime records from the National Archives in Kew confirm that Profima SA is the Vatican’s own holding company, accused at the time of ”engaging in activities contrary to Allied interests”.

Nowadays, the Economist estimates that annual spending by the American church is around $170 billion (2010). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1 million people. In 2011, the Holy See brought in $308 million in revenue, with $326 million in expenditures, for a deficit of about $18 million, according to Catholic News Service. The Vatican’s portfolio includes property in London, including the building housing Bulgari Jewelers and apartment buildings in Paris and Switzerland. Catholic groups also have huge investments in Philippine companies. More than $11,487,542 worth of San Miguel Corp’s shares, for example, are owned by 3 Catholic groups: El Superior de la Corporacion Filipina de Padres Agustinos Recoletos, Superior de la Corporacion Archicofradia de N.P.J.N de Recoletos, and Carmel of the Divine Infant Jesus of Prague. Aside from banking, the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines also has investments in mining and construction. The Vatican’s treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. Without a doubt, the Catholic church is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth.

A lot of money goes into the Vatican Bank, Officially called the ”Institute for the Works of
Religion”. The Vatican Bank is a privately held firm run by a CEO who reports to a committee of cardinals and the Pope. It has about 33,000 accounts and a distribution network in more than 100 countries. The Vatican Bank has been accused of money-laundering and collaborating with the mafia, and before that, with the Nazis and Fascists. For example, in 1978, Roberto Calvi (known for his involvement with the Catholic church) and the Vatican Bank, together with the mafia, collapsed a company called Banco Ambrosiano by giving out fake loans to dummy companies owned by the Vatican Bank, the Vatican provided the letters of credit. Roberto Calvi was murdered in 1982 by mafia members. The 2012 release of leaked documents known as the Vatileaks affair showed that the bank was still struggling with corruption, apparently transferring tens of millions of dollars to America to help them pay and cover up child sex abuse charges. Many Archbishops also have large private investments in the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). As per law, the top 100 owners must be declared. 3 Roman Catholic Archbishops are on that list. Nr 5 is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, under account number 18001784, with more than 300 million shares. As of May 2011, this is valued at more than 389,000,000 USD. And as mentioned earlier, he is not alone:

-Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao, Cagayan – owns 856,639 shares of SMC worth $2,159,658
-Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia de Vigan – owns 428,067 shares of SMC worth

According to Avro Manhattan, ”The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, and with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. At a conservative estimate, these amount to more than 500 million dollars in the U.S.A. alone. He goes on to say that The Catholic church, once all its assets has been put together, is the most formidable stockbroker in the world, and that The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence.


Chapter 6 – The companies associated with the Catholic church
Small parts of this chapter are copied, I could not find the author of certain articles and since the aim of this book is to inform, there were no reason for changing the texts that much. If you which to have your name on the list of sources, give me a message.


Lets get back to the companies in the Chapter The Rothschilds, a family of bankers, has their hands in just about everything. Among other, the company Glencore. Glencore is a Swiss multinational commodity trading and mining company. It has been accused of illegal dealings with rogue states, to apartheid in South Africa, had business with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and has a history of busting UN embargoes to profit from corrupt or despotic regimes. According to CIA, Glencore paid $3,222,780 in bribes to obtain oil in the course of the UN oil-for-food program. Swiss public television reported that allegations of corruption and severe human rights violations were being raised against Glencore on account of their mining activity in Colombia, in 2006 (Long 2005). Glencore also has questionable investments
in Bolivia, Ecuador, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hambros Bank mainly have investments in Diamonds. Hambros is closely tied to De Beers, a cartel of companies that controls world wide diamond mining, diamond shops, diamond trading and industrial diamond manufacturing sectors. Mining takes place in Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa, among other places. Just as Glencore, De Beers took advantage of Appartheid in South Africa. De Beers officially always took the position opposed to Apartheid. However, De Beers clearly took advantage of Apartheid to provide the company with cheap labor for its mines. De Beers also forcefully relocated indigenous San people in Botswana to take advantage of their diamond reserve by having their water supplies cut off, they have been ”taxed, fined, beaten, and tortured (Survival International. 17 July 2010, Telegraph (London). 17 July 2005. Retrieved 23 July 2009, Leithead ( 2003), BBC news 2009, Mail and Guardian. 8 July 2005.)

The following is parts of an article printed in The Guardian:
”Although De Beers argues that Mobutu was Zaire’s legitimate leader, the company was at the
heart of an industry that was notoriously corrupt in a country that came to epitomise graft. Much of the diamond revenue went into Mobutu’s pocket, and that which did not was of little benefit to Zaire as a whole. Many would argue that diamonds did the country untold harm by perpetuating Mobutu’s control until he was finally brought down by a foreign invasion. But Zaire was more than a source of mines for De Beers. It also served as cover for buying valuable gems from Unita rebels in neighbouring Angola who used the money to fund one of the longest and most brutal wars in Africa – one which is still being waged today. (De Beers has maintained it was never aware that diamonds it obtained originated from Unita.) Unita sold Angolan diamonds to Lebanese middlemen in towns such as Tshikapa. De Beers swept them up, all the time insisting it had no knowledge of their origin. But few people in Tshikapa, and certainly not the Lebanese diamond buyers, were in any doubt about where the stones came from or who was selling them. De Beers for years denied it could tell the origin of such ”blood diamonds” and therefore it could not be accused of knowingly funding Unita. Now – with a threat to the whole international diamond trade from public concern over its role in fueling brutal civil wars in Angola, Sierra Leone and Congo – De Beers claims exactly the opposite. It says it can identify the origin of the gems when they are compared to diamonds from the same so-called pipe, and that it can therefore certify which stones are not ”blood diamonds”. (The whole article can be found here:

The day this text is being written (as i’m sitting here rather uncomfortably in my sofa), an article in the paper announces that the US justice department convicted General Electric Co and DeBeers for conspiracy to raise prices in the $500 millions-a-year industrial diamond industry. ”The indictment charges GE and DeBeers, which account for 80 percent of the industrial diamond market, with conspiring to fix and raise prices worldwide.”

In 2007, the WDC announced that nearly 100 percent of rough diamonds in the market were
certified conflict-free. But external sources indicate that the problem is far from solved. The
international NGO Human Rights Watch revealed that serious human rights abuses were occurring in the Marange diamond fields of Zimbabwe. Documented abuses included forced labor, torture, sexual assault, and murder of villagers. Yet because the Zimbabwean governments were deemed “legitimate” by the KPCS, and because the abuses were committed by state sanctioned armed forces, the Kimberley Process monitoring body did not address the matter. Martin Rapaport, a key figure in the development of the KPCS, resigned from the World Diamond Council in February 2010, calling the KPCS and the WDC a “sham.” In December 2011, Global Witness announced it would no longer support the Kimberley Process. The Founding Director of the organization Charmian Gooch stated that , “The fact is that most consumers still cannot be sure where their diamonds come from, or whether they are financing armed violence or abusive regimes.”

Credit Suisse, a Bank in Switzerland, was under investigation between 2008 and 2012 in Germany, Brazil, and the United States for the use of Credit Suisse accounts for tax evasion. In May 2014, the company pleaded guilty to decades of conspiring to help US citizens ”hide their wealth” in order to avoid taxes, and agreed to pay $2.6 billion in fines. The bank has also been proven to be one of those banks that gained money from fooling Jews out of theirs during the Holocaust. In 1934, a year after Hitler’s rise to power, the Swiss legislature passed a law guaranteeing anonymity to anyone who transferred their savings to a Swiss bank. Soon deposits were coming in from all over Europe, particularly from Jews who feared that the Germans would plunder their savings. (Switzerland News.Net, Meyer 1899, Meier 2012)

However, there was a conspiracy between Nazi Germany and Switzerland to lure Jews under cover of confidentiality, to send their money to Swiss banks, who sent the details back to Germany. Who then forced the Jews to ”donate” their savings under torture in the concentration camps and death camps. ”The offer of the three Swiss Banks – Union Bank of Switzerland, Swiss Bank Corporation and Credit Suisse to pay $600 million to Holocaust victims is insulting. 90 percent of the money represent interest over a period of over 50 years that the Banks refused to acknowledge that there was any money to return.” (
The Morgan bank, or JP Morgan Chase, is today one of the biggest banks in the US. Among other things, this bank has using customers’ margined securities as collateral for cash management loans, sex discrimination charges, inaccurate reporting, unfair labor practices, incorrectly charging clients for storage of precious metals, misrepresenting auction rate securities, misconduct in the handling the accounts of 90 Rochester, NY-area retirees, insider trading, prohibited trading activity in oil, electricity price-fixing scandals, and three separate violations of exchange rules, on its ressume. JP Morgan Chase is in control of General Electric, U.S. Steel, International Harvester Company, and International Mercantile Marine Co. GE is giving rise to large-scale air and water pollution. Based on year 2000 data, researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute listed the corporation as the fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year (2,000 tons) of toxic chemicals released into the air. GE has also been implicated in the creation of toxic waste. According to EPA documents, only the United States Government, Honeywell, and Chevron Corporation are responsible for producing more Superfund toxic waste sites. (The New York Times. March 15, 2011).

USS Researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute have ranked U.S. Steel as the eighth greatest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States (down from their 2000 ranking as the second-greatest). In 2004, the city of River Rouge, Michigan and the residents of River Rouge and the nearby city of Ecorse filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for ”the release and discharge of air particulate matter and other toxic and hazardous substances” at its River Rouge plant. In 2005, the Illinois Attorney General brought suit against U.S. Steel for alleged air pollution in Granite City, Illinois.The Company has also been implicated in generating water pollution and toxic waste. (Political Economy Research Institute 2010, Charfoos & Christensen, P.C. Archived 2007, U.S. Steel Fact Sheet from Charfoos & Christensen, P.C, American Metal Market, 19 Sept. 2005) Morgan Chase is also connected to the Transcontinental Railroad which was incredibly hurtful to Native Amaricans. International Harvester Company has a lot of money in arms trade, connecting the Morgan Bank to that as well.

The First National Bank of New York, or “Citibank”, is the consumer banking division of
financial services multinational Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812. As of March 2010,
Citigroup is the third largest bank holding company in the United States by total assets, after Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. It has among other things been tied to money laundering and is further more associated with J.P Morgan Chase. The company has been accused of foreign currency fraud and has also been involved in illegal economical activities, such as with one hand selling a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand betting millions of dollars that they would (NY Times).

Another example is when the bank offered 40,000 frequent-flyer miles with American Airlines to anyone opening an account. Only the bank didn’t tell new customers that they had to report 2½ cents per mile as income to the Internal Revenue Service (

Shell is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. It is one of the few companies that has its own category on wikipedia for just its immoral activities
Shell conspired with the government of military dictator Sani Abacha to kill author Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni citizens involved in a nonviolent campaign against oil waste dumping in their homeland in the Niger Delta. Nigerian troops used violence to suppress protests, while Shell resisted pressure to use its influence to improve the situation. In November 2013, Amnesty International accused Shell of falsification of statements about its environmental impact in the Niger delta. Shell is guilty of more than 50 years of unsafe drilling and frequent oil spills and gas flarings in Nigeria, which have had a disastrous effect on the environment and on human health. Shell lobbied the Government to send millions of pounds of weapons to Nigeria that may have fallen into the hands of militants guilty of human rights abuses, no measures were put in place to prevent arms falling into the hands of militant warlords and human rights abusers. It was impossible to tell where weapons provided by the UK to help protect Shell eventually ended up. (Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2009, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP News Centre, August 4, 2011, The New York Times May 22, 2009, Ben Amunwa June 10, 2009. Reuters, Nico Colombant February 25, 2012, Washington Post. Associated Press. 6–7 Nov 2013, The Guardian 7 November 2013, The Independent 2014, This is money 2014).
Shell Puget Sound Refinery, Washington, was fined $291,000 from 2006 to 2010 for violations
of the Clean Air Act, making it the second most fined violator in the Pacific Northwest. As of
2011, it was listed as a ”high priority violator”. Bridgeport’s facility had been recorded to
produce an average of about 170 tons of volatile organic compounds per year. This modification
has the potential to produce 30 tons more per year more of the polluting emissions. Shell is also a mayor poluter in the arctic regions (Scoreboard. 1999. Retrieved 2012-02-27, EPA Region 1 1999, McClure & Stiffler 2011, Hsu, NPR 2012, PBS Newshour 2013).

General Motors Company is and American company and the world’s second largest automobile manufacturer (after Toyota). General Motors is responsible for the worlds largest overall carbon burden (29.6%). GM’s 2000 model year sales accounted for 30% of total CO2 emissions from the US light duty fleet.1. (Environmental defense fund, epoch times 2014, Bloomberg 2012, Chicago tribune 2011).

Bethlehem Steel Corporation was America’s second largest steel producer and largest shipbuilder. (The morning call 2014). Bethlehem Steel started producing weapons in the 1800’s and was the nation’s top military contractor from the late 30’s and forward.


Chapter 7 – The eastern religions
Small parts of this chapter are copied, I could not find the author of certain articles and since the aim of this book is to inform, there were no reason for changing the texts that much. If you which to have your name on the list of sources, give me a message.

The abrahamic religions are often criticized in western media, and by all rights, they should be. However, in western society, eastern religions are often left uncriticized, maybe because we see more immigration from the ”abrahamic world” than from Asia. This is harmful to society. It is important to understand that all religious ideas are harmful, not just the ones being emphasized by media. This chapter will focus on the negative sides of Hinduism and Buddhism.

In northern India, it is not unusual for a woman to get married at the age of 11, and it is seen as a disgrace to have a pubertal daughter who is not yet married off. In large parts of Asia, arranged marriages occur at a very young age. Desirable women in hindu society often get to marry someone in their own age, but if you are crippled, blind, ugly, and so on, reality looks a bit different. (Hawley, 2006).

A Hindu woman is not allowed to mention her husband’s name, this dishonors him. Women who are unfaithful are not seldom killed by their own fathers, and before marriage it is common that the stepfather may ”inspect” his new daughter in law through various tests. In northern India, woman have to move from their village after being married, often around the age of 11. The rest of her life will be spent with a whole new group of people, not seldom in slave-like conditions. In the majority of Buddhist cultures the woman is also considered deeply inferior to men. Violence against women is common in Buddhist culture. Over 20% of the Buddhists believe that a woman lacks the discipline and intelligence to achieve salvation, in other words, woman are considered stupid. Around 70% of women in India are victims of domestic violence, a crime against a woman is committed every three minutes, a woman is raped every 29 minutes, a dowry death occurs every 77 minutes and cases of cruelty committed by either the husband or relative of the husband occurs every nine minutes (Ganguly 2012, Chowdhury 2006, BBC News. 2006-10-27).

Sexual violence within marriage is common, around 20% of men admits to forcing their wives or partners to have sex, a new case is being reported every 20 minutes. According to a BBC report in February 2013, over 7,200 children are raped each year in India. Underage victims who do report the assaults are often subjected to mistreatment and humiliation from the police. Just a few days ago (2014), a rural court ordered the gang raping of a woman as punishment for being unfaithful (NBC news 2014-01-23, Infochange Women 2013, Bhayana 2011, Meenakshi 2012, Mohanty 2013, India tribune 2012-09-11, CNN. 2013-09-14, Geeta 2013)

The role that gender plays in health care can be determined by examining resource allocation within the household and public sphere. Gender discrimination begins before birth; females are the most commonly aborted gender in India. If a female fetus is not aborted, the mother’s pregnancy can be a stressful experience, due to her family’s preference for a son. Once born, daughters are prone to being fed less than sons, especially when there are multiple girls already in the household. As women mature into adulthood, many of the barriers preventing them from achieving equitable levels of health comes from the low status of women and girls in Indian society, particularly in the rural and poverty-stricken areas. Numerous studies have found that the rates of admission to hospitals vary dramatically with gender, men are visiting hospitals more frequently than women.

This occurs because women typically are entitled to a lower share of household resources and thus utilize healthcare resources to a lesser degree than men. A study by Choi in 2006 found that boys are more likely to receive immunizations than girls in rural areas. This finding has led researchers to believe that the gender of a child leads to different levels of health care being administered in rural areas. Nutrition plays a major role in and individual’s overall health; psychological and physical health status is often dramatically impacted by the presence of malnutrition. India currently has one of the highest rates of malnourished women among developing countries. A study in 2000 found that nearly 70 percent of non-pregnant women and 75 percent of pregnant women were anemic in terms of iron-deficiency. One of the main reasons for malnutrition is gender specific selection of the distribution of food resources. Cardiovascular disease is a major contributor to female mortality in India. Women have higher mortality rates relating to cardiovascular disease than men because of differential access to health care between the genders. One reason for the differing rates of access comes from social and cultural norms that prevent women from accessing appropriate care.

For example, it was found that among patients with congenital heart disease, women were less likely to be operated on than men because families felt that the scars received from surgery would make the women less marriageable. Furthermore, it was found that families failed to seek medical treatment for their daughters because of the stigma associated with negative medical histories. A study conducted by Pednekar in 2011 found that out of 100 boys and girls with congenital heart disease, 70 boys would have an operation while only 22 girls would receive similar treatment. Indian women have higher rates of suicide than women in most developed countries. Women in India also have a higher rate of suicide compared to men.The most common reasons cited for women’s suicide are directly related to depression, anxiety, gender disadvantages and anguish related to domestic violence (Raj 2011, 2011, Balarajan et al 2011, Patel 2002, Sen 2012, Choi 2006, Tarozzi1 1992- 2005, Jose 2008, Chow 2012, Ramakrishnan 2011, Pednekar 2011, Research and Practice 99.7 2009). Literacy for females stands at 65.46%, compared to 82.14% for males. An underlying factor for the low literacy rates are parents’ perceptions that education for girls are a waste of resources as their daughters will eventually live with their husbands’ families and they will not benefit directly from the investment (Census 2011).

Sati refers to a funeral practice within some Asian communities in which a recently widowed
woman sets herself on fire, typically on her husband’s funeral pyre. One recent example from India occured in 2008, when 75-year old Lalmati Verma allegedly jumped onto her husband’s funeral pyre. Roop Kanwar (c. 1969 – 4 September 1987) was a Rajput woman who burned herself to death on 4 September 1987 at Deorala village of Sikar district in Rajasthan, India. At the time of her death, she was 18 years old and had been married for eight months to Maal Singh Shekhawat, who had died a day earlier. Several thousand people attended the sati event. After her death, Roop Kanwar was hailed as a ”sati mata” – a ”sati” mother. The event quickly produced a public reaction. (The New York Times, 1987″. 20 September 1987.)
The tradition of ritual suicides by widowed women is still respected in certain communities of India and, despite long ago being prohibited, such cases continue to occur. The Hindu tradition of Sati, has been outlawed in India since 1829. However, that did not completely eradicate the practice. A recent example is the case of Sharbati Bai. When her husband died, the 60-year old decided to kill herself. Luckily for Sharbati, villagers stopped her in time. Sati is supposed to be voluntary, but there have been accounts of women being forced or druged. In Hindu tradition, Sati is an act of piety, and is said to purge a woman of all accumulated sin. Sati still occurs occasionally, mostly in rural areas. Around 40 cases have occurred in India since its independence in 1947, the majority in the Shekhawati region of Rajasthan. The last clearly documented case was that of previously mentioned Roop Kanwar. However there are claims that other more recent deaths have also been cases of Sati. On 18th May 2006, Vidyawati, a 35-year-old woman allegedly committed sati by jumping into the blazing funeral pyre of her husband in Rari- Bujurg Village, Fatehpur district, located in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 21 August 2006, Janakrani, a 40-year-old woman, burnt to death on the funeral pyre of her husband Prem Narayan in Sagar district. The villagers of Devrala have erected a makeshift shrine to Roop Kanwar. So even though the practice itself is banned, the glorification of Sati lives on. In fact, India has at least 250 Sati temples, including 11 in the district of Sikar alone.The priest of one such temple, Makhan Sharma, says that once a woman becomes a Sati, she attains healing powers. Women who commit Sati are worshipped as Sati Devi or a goddess.

Caste is a type of hierarchical social groupings that exist within the Indian caste system. People are born into a caste and are obliged to live in it all their life. People live in the caste they are born into (there are a few ways to change caste, marriage for example). The caste system controls social norms and customs, and perhaps above all, ones occupation. In Rigveda, which is an important Hindu writing, people are divided into four “varnas”, casts. This gains further support in the Bhagavadgita. The system has changed over time, like all other religious systems. Hinduism divides the population into four main social classes, where the Brahmins or priests are on the top, followed by kshatriya (nobles and warriors), Vaishya (merchants) and Shudras (workers). In contrast to the higher castes, people of the working class are excluded from the study of the Vedas (scriptures). A shudra lacks the right to visit a Hindu temple. He is expected to perform only those jobs that are considered unworthy for members of the higher castes. There are also those who are outside the caste system, Dalits, the untouchables, the lowest class of the system. The untouchables generally have professions considered unclean within the higher castes, such as leather working, sanitation, and handling corpses. Even within this marginalized group in India, there are classes. The absolute bottom of the Dalit-caste are the Bhangis; even within the Dalit-class there are groups avoiding contact with them. Bhangis may traditionally only work with cleaning the latrines or with handling dead bodies. The stools are carried in buckets on their heads. A child born in a Bhangi-family will itself become Bhangi. In many villages, the Dalits do not have access to temples and in some cities, may not vote. According to Hindu priests, they have themselves to blame. They are in their present situation due to bad deeds in previous lives. Within the Dalit-group there are ”eunuchs” which have been castrated in cruel rituals. Many of them are beggars or prostitutes.

In October 2002, five Dalits was lynched in the state of Haryana by a crowd after accusations that they had killed a cow. Touching a Dalit, or even touching an object that a Dalit has been in contact with, gives bad karma, and it requires numerous purification rituals to get ”clean” again. Around 17 percent of India’s population are Dalits, around 170 million people. Generally, Dalits live all over India apart from the rest of society. A very small number of the Dalits has managed to acquire a high status occupation such as doctor or lawyer. Although the authorities have introduced quotas to colleges for the Dalits, they are fighting to be accepted, and the discrimination continues. In the larger cities, you can be anonymous. This is good for the Dalits. In the big cities, willingness to work may sometimes mean more than social class. However, 80% of the Indians live in rural areas, where the national laws are of less importance.

It is not uncommon for bhangis to convert to Islam or Buddhism to get rid of discrimination, this means to relocate, since those who know you are bhangi will still treat you like that.

Being a Dalit means being constantly exposed to a kind of invisible, socially accepted discrimination that began the day one was born. The other children, born in higher castes, do not eat lunch at the same table as you and you are not allowed to drink water from the same tap as others. Later on in life, your sallary is so low that it is an economic impossibility to let your children go to school. It is thus extremely difficult to break out of the system. Efforts have been made to improve sanitation systems in India, including laws that ban the construction of dry toilets and the manual removal of human waste. However, Bhangis, who are numerous throughout India, continue to work in their traditional roles and they continue to face severe social barriers, discrimination, and hate crimes. Discrimination against Dalits is forbidden by Indian law, but the discrimination continues. In 1995, India elected a Dalit president, but this has not led to improvements for the Dalits in general. The living conditions for the Dalits vary from state to state . Although India has banned discrimination based on caste, abuse in the form of beatings, destruction of property, torture, and arbitrary arrests are common.

The annual reports from the State Commission shows that Dalits are subjected to violence and violations of human rights on a large scale. During the period of 1981 – 2000, a total of 357,945 crimes against Dalits were reported. The lawyer Ambedkar, who wrote India’s constitution, said that the only way to get rid of caste discrimination was banning Hinduism.

Honor killings have been reported in the northern regions of India, mainly in the Indian states of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, as a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance, and sometimes, for marrying outside their caste or religion. The Indian state of Punjab has a large number of honor killings. 34 honor killings were reported in the state between 2008 and 2010: 10 in 2008, 20 in 2009, and four in 2010. Haryana is also known for cases of honor killing, mainly in the upper castes of society. Bhagalpur in the eastern Indian state of Bihar has also been known for honor killings. Recent cases include a 16-year-old girl, Imrana, from Bhojpur who was set on fire inside her house in a case that the police called ‘moral vigilantism’. The victim had screamed for help for about 20 minutes before the neighbors arrived, only to find her burnt body. She was admitted to a local hospital where she later died from her injuries. In May 2008, Jayvirsingh Bhadodiya shot his daughter Vandana Bhadodiya and struck her on the head with an axe. In June 2010 some incidents were reported even from Delhi. In June 2012, a man chopped off his 20-year-old daughter’s head with a sword in Rajasthan after learning that she was dating. He told the police that his daughter Manju had relations with several men. He had asked her to change her ways several times in the past. However, she did not obay. Out of rage, he chopped off her head with a sword. A young couple who were planning to marry were brutally murdered in Garnauthi village, state of Haryana on 18 September 2013 due to having a love affair. The woman, Nidhi, was beaten to death and the man, Dharmender, was dismembered alive. People in the village and neighboring villages approved of the killings (Mayell 2008, Daily Life in India 16/6 2010, 23 June 2010, Reuters 16 May 2008, United Press International 12 February 2009, Kumar 2009, Monsters and Critics 14 June 2008, ABC 18 June 2012, Huffington post 18 June 2012, Zeenews India 17 June 2012, BBC 20 September 2013). Anti-Muslim violence in India has occurred periodically since 1947, mainly in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus. Most incidents have occurred in the northern and western states of India. Among the largest incidents were Bihar, in 1946, Nellie in 1983, and Gujarat in 2002. The roots of this violence lies in India’s history, stemming from lingering hate toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country’s British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population. Many scholars have described incidents of anti-Muslim violence as politically motivated and organized, often preferring to call them acts of genocide, rather than mere ”riots”. According to political scientists, organizations with roots in Hindu nationalism have played an important part in the incidents of anti-Muslim violence. In particular, organizations associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Hindu nationalist organization founded in 1925. RSS is the parent organization of the Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar network, in which, among other things, India’s largest opposition party, BJP, is included. Most senior figures in the BJP have had their ideological training in RSS shakhas), such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal are all considered to have a central role in the violence. The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh, have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy. Hindu right-wing politicians will often legitimize situations of mass violence against Muslims as a natural reaction to actions performed by Muslims in the past and the present. Over 10,000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim violence since 1950.

There were 6,933 instances of communal violence between 1954 and 1982 and, between 1968 and 1980, there 530 Hindus and 1,598 Muslims killed in a total of 3,949 instances of mass violence. These incidents have been described as a new form of state terrorism, stating that these are not ”riots” but ”organized political massacres”. In 1989, there were incidents of mass violence throughout the north of India. When RSS was founded in 1925, the organization saw itself as having the role of protecting Hindus against Muslims, and since its first involvement in Hindu/Muslim confrontations in the 1927 Nagpur riots, it has formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India. Those who carry out these attacks are portrayed as ”heroes” who have defended the majority from ”anti-nationals”. One reason given for anti-Muslim violence is that Muslims are viewed as suspect and their loyalty to the state is questioned. According to Omar Khalidi, Anti-Muslim violence is planned and executed to render Muslims economically and socially crippled andas a final outcome of that economic and social backwardness, assimilating them into the lower classes of Hindu society. (Puniyan 2003: 153, Brass 2003: 65, Riaz 2008: 165, Cohen 2013: 66, Riddick 2006: 118, Ganguly 2007: 135, Engineer 2002: 5047-5054. Smith 2005: 11–12. Metcalf 2009: 117. Holt 1977: 117. Sikand 2004: 126. Ghassem-Fachandi 2012: 2, Jaffrelot 2011: 376, Pennington 2012: 32, Dhattiwala 2012: 483–516, Brass 2005: 60, Pandey 2005: 188, Chandavarkar 2009: 29, Tambiah 1997: 321, Brass 2004. Jaffrelot 1996, Sarkur 2007: 187, Brekke 2012: 86–87, Puniyan 2003: 12–13, Hefner 2006: 23, Puniyan 2003).
Cultural nationalism has also been tied to instances of violence carried out by Shiv Sena, a fascist political party. They initially claimed to speak for the people of Maharashtra, but their rhetoric quickly turned into violence against Muslims. They were complicit in the violence in 1984 in the town of Bhiwandi, and again in the violence in Bombay in 1992 and 1993. In both of these cases, Sena had help from the police and local officials. Violence has been incited by Sena in 1971 and in 1986. Hindu nationalists also use the subjugation of India by Muslims as an excuse for violence. Their view is that the Muslims has raped Hindu women and destroyed places of worship. They believe that the Muslims are allied to Pakistan and are possible terrorists and therefore, the Hindus must take revenge for these past wrongs and win back their pride. Muslim’s high fertility rate has been a recurring theme in the Hindu rights rhetoric. They claim that the higher birth rate among Muslims is part of a plan to turn the Hindus into a minority within their own country. In the state of Assam in 1983, the Nellie massacre transpired. It has been described as one of the largest and most severe atrocities since World War II, with an estimated death toll of 5,000, the majority of which were women and children. During the 1969 Gujarat riots, it is estimated that 630 people lost their lives. In 1980 in Moradabad, an estimated 2,500 people were killed. Local police were directly involved in planning the violence. In 1989 in Bhagalpur, it is estimated nearly 1,000 people lost their lives in violent attacks, believed to be a result of tensions raised over the Ayodhya dispute (Hindu nationalists are angry that a mosque is the largest building in town). The destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindu nationalists led directly to the 1992 Bombay Riots. BBC correspondent Toral Varia called the riots ”a pre-planned pogrom,” that had been in the making since 1990, and stated that the destruction of the mosque was ”the final provocation”. Several scholars have likewise concluded that the riots must have been pre-planned and that Hindu rioters had been given access to information about the locations of Muslim homes and businesses from non-public sources. This violence is widely agnolished as having been orchestrated by Shiv Sena, a Hindu-nationalist group.

It is said that the police were fully aware of the Shiv Sena’s capabilities to commit acts of violence. Since partition, there have been several acts of mass violence carried out against Muslims in Gujarat. In 2002, in an incident described as an act of ”fascistic state terror”, Hindu-extremists carried out acts of extreme violence against the Muslim minority population. The starting point for the incident was the attack on a train, which was blamed on Muslims. During the incident, young girls were sexually assaulted, burned or hacked to death. These rapes were condoned by the ruling BJP, whose refusal to intervene lead to the injuring of over 200,000 people and several thousand deaths. Chief Minister Narendra Modi has also been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have the police and government officials who took part, as they directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to the extremists (Chandavarkar 2009: 29, 114, Kaur 2005: 160, Kaviraj 2010: 245, Etzion 2008: 123–124, Weigl 2012: 19, Jaffrelot 2011: 384, Sikand 2004: 121, Ghosh 2004: 312, Hussain 2009: 261. Khalidi 2009: 180, Engineer 1991: 209, Metcalf 2009: 31, Varia 2007, Ogden 2012, Tambiah 1997: 254, Blom Hansen 2001: 137. Singh 2009: 248, Tilly 2006: 119, Holst 2004: 149. Raman 2009: 210. Gangoli 2007: 42. Shani 2007: 70. Campbell 2012: 233, Murphy 2011: 86, Ghassem-Fachandi 2012: 2).

Twin explosions occurred on Samjhauta Express around midnight on 18 February 2007. Sixty-eight people were killed in the fires and many more were injured. The deed has been linked to Abhinav Bharat, a Hindu fundamentalist group. The Ajmer Dargah blast occurred on 11 October 2007, outside the Dargah. On 22 October 2010, five accused, of which four allegedly belonging to the Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh were arrested in connection with the explosions. On 29 September 2008, three bombs exploded in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra, killing 8 people and injuring 80. Three of the arrested persons were identified as Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, The Mecca Masjid bombing occurred on 18 May 2007 inside the Mecca Masjid, a mosque in Hyderabad. Fourteen people were reported dead in the immediate aftermath.The 1984 anti-Sikhs riots or the 1984 Sikh Massacre were a series of pogroms directed against Sikhs in India, by anti-Sikh mobs, in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. There were more than 8,000 deaths, including 3,000 in Delhi. Anti-Christian violence in India refers to religiously-motivated violence against Christians in India, usually perpetrated by Hindu nationalists.The acts of violence include arson of churches, re-conversion of Christians to Hinduism by force and threats of physical violence, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, raping of nuns, murder of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries. From 1964 to 1996, at least 38 incidents of violence against Christians were reported. In 1997, 24 such incidents were reported. Since 1998, Christians in India have faced a wave of violence. In 1998 alone, 90 incidents were reported (Human Rights Watch 29 September 1999, Stanley 1999, Hindustan Times 2007, Mohan 2011, The Indian Express 2010).

Women in Nepal (Buddhist country) are generally subordinate to men in virtually every aspect of life. They have limited access to markets, productive services, education, health care, and local government. Malnutrition and poverty hit women hardest. Female children usually are given less food than male ones, especially when the family experienced food shortages. Women usually works harder and longer than men. The economic contribution of women is substantial, but largely unnoticed because their traditional role is taken for granted. When employed, their wages normally are 25 percent less than those paid to men. In most rural areas, their employment outside the household generally is limited to planting, weeding, and harvesting. In rural areas, women are employed in domestic and traditional jobs, as well as in the government sector, mostly in low-level positions.

So what does the peace loving Buddah have to say about this? In the Anguttara Nikaya (5:33),
Buddha tells women that they should be obedient to their husbands, please them, and to not make them angry through their own desires, as well as get up before them and go to sleep after them. Furthermore, the Buddha offers advice to married women in the Anguttara Nikaya (7:59; IV 91-94), from the Pali canon, where he tells of seven types of wives.

1. The destructive-wife (vadhaka or vadhakabhariya: alternate translations include
“troublesome-wife” and “slayer-wife”) – she is described as pitiless, fond of other men and
neglectful, even contemptuous, of her husband;

2. The thievish-wife (chorisama or corabhariya: an alternate translation is “robber-wife”) – she squanders the family wealth and is dishonest with her husband, especially as regards money;

3. The mistress-wife (ayyasama or ayyabhariya or ”swamibhariya”: alternate translations
include “lordly-wife”, “master-wife” and “tyrant-wife”) – she is shrewish, rude and
coarsely-spoken when it suits her, lazy and domineering.

4. The motherly-wife (matusama or matubhariya) – she treats her husband like her son in every way, being compassionate and kind, as well as caring responsibly after his wealth;

5. The sisterly-wife (bhaginisama or bhaginibhariya) – she defers to her husband as she would
her older brother. She is modest and is obedient to her lord and master (her husband) and
wishes to please him in every way;

6. The friend-wife (sakhibhariya – sakha means “intimate friend”, as opposed to “acquaintance friend”; an alternate translation for sakhibhariya is “companion-wife”) – she loves her husband as he is her best friend; through friendship and love she is devoted to him;

7. The slave-wife (dasisama or dasibhariya -dasi in Pali appears to mean “slave-woman” or
“slave-servant”. She is patient, unangered, and submits to him even when he is mad. She
obediently receives physical punishment whenever her husband so desires to deliver it, and
is unquestionably submissive to him (Bodhi 2005, Saddhatissa 1997, Thera 1996, Paul & Wilson 1985)
Chapter 8 – Challenging Paul Moser

Religion can make a rational person loose his, or hers, rationality and logical thinking, as well as his/hers ability to evaluate sources. To demonstrate this, I have chosen Paul Moser, a seemingly logical, intelligent, and rational person who has lost touch with rationality most likely because of his religious beliefs. Paul Moser is the last person (to my knowledge)
that ”scientifically” tried to prove the existence of God (not counting people on the verge to insanity, such as creationists). Paul Moser is an American analytic philosopher who mainly discusses issues relating to religion.

He is also the former editor of the American Philosophical Quarterly. Moser has written a number of books (The Severity of God 2013, The Evidence for God 2010, The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology 2008, The Theory of Knowledge 1998, Philosophy After Objectivity 1993, Knowledge and Evidence 1989, Empirical Justification 1985), which primarily all affect the character of God and the evidence for this God. This section will focus on challenging The Evidence for God. The evidence for God In The Evidence for God, Moser puts forward what in his opinion is a new perspective on the question of Gods existance. Moser argues that if we are open to them, his book presents undefeated, authoritative evidence for the existence of God (2010: 263). This evidence is according to Moser not speculative, but
morally and existentially challenging (2010: 1-2). Moser also presents criticism toward empirical science, or rather against what he refers to as scientism.

Moser’s position (surrounding God)
Although Moser is careful not to say too much about his own beliefs in God (he usually expresses himself ”if there is a God”), on a closer examination, it is however clear that he is a believer, examples of his faith can be seen on the pages; 200, 207, 208, and 230 in The evidence for God (2010). With this in mind, Moser’s cautious stance can often be disregarded.
A statement as follows: ”A perfectly loving God would seek to transform the will of wayward people and thus make them evidence of his own reality” (Moser 2010: 16)…. Can hence be interpreted as: ”God is seeking to transform the will of wayward people and thus make them evidence of his own reality” In other words, many of Moser’s cautious statements about God becomes clear positions, if you keep in mind that Moser himself actually believes in the God he describes.
Moser’s God Moser opposes a deistic aspect of God, in other words, a God that is transcendent and who does not interfere (Moser 2010: 30). He opposes views on God as the first mover, because this God would not be worthy of worship since there is no reason to attribute such a God with perfect morality. Such a God is not ones personal agent. Aquinas God is therefor not a God worthy of worship, according to Moser (Moser 2010: 153-154 ). Moser also believes that the ontological arguments for God falls short because of God’s dignity and illusive nature (Moser 2010: 158). A God that is loved as a result of fear is also not worthy, according to Moser (Moser 2010: 23 ), which excludes many versions of the Abrahamic God. Moser also criticizes belief without evidence (2010: chapter 2), but says that God exists outside the boundaries of science (Moser 2010: 73). Moser interprets ”God” as a title rather than a person. It is unclear whether Moser sees God as the creator of existence, but he implies it ( Moser 2010: 27-28), this however is of no importance for Moser’s faith. God, according to Moser, is an individual, intentional, personal, agent worthy of worship (Moser 2010: 23, 33 , 73, 162-163). An invisible spirit with the characteristics of a perfectly loving authority possessing perfect morality (Moser 2010: 13).

Moser considers monotheism to be more probable than polytheism, since we already are struggling to find a single worthy candidate for the title of God (Moser 2010: 237). Moser’s God has a practical interest in human behavior (Moser 2010: 26, 37) and wish to influence certain wills, such as the will to do good and the will to love; and also to remove hatred and other negative emotions from the human mind (Moser 2010: 43). A God that excludes one man from salvation by his own will is in Moser’s opinion not worthy of worship (Moser 2010: 244). With his morally perfect character, God is forgiving towards everyone (including enemies) (Moser 2010: 44) and unselfishly wants the best for everyone (Moser 2010: 25). God would, according to Moser, seek companionship with those who tries to improve their morale towards the divine, since this would be what is morally best for them (Moser 2010: 144), this interaction must be voluntary (Moser 2010: 26). Moser theorizes that it is possible that God want to make it clear that he is not a scientific object, and hence, humanly controllable; and that God for this reason, is not viewable trough scientific methods (Moser 2010: 73). According to Moser, God is illusive, in other words, it is according to Moser possible that God is intentionally hiding (Moser 2010: 14, 28, 142). God is not an object that can be observed but is described as a moving target (Moser 2010: 29). On several occations, Moser compares God with a rescuer (eg 2010: 185), it is however unclear what this means. It could mean that God is the savior from death. Moser suggests that belief in God leads to an afterlife, since God would want ”divine love” in man to last forever ( Moser 2010: 217). It is also implied that eternal death is the result of not following God’s call (Moser 2010: 245). One can conclude that belief in God, in Moser’s opinion, is the way to immortality.

The Christian/Jewish God is considered worthy by Moser (Moser 2010: 143) and both the Bible and Jesus is referred to on several occasions (2010 : 23, 25, 29 , 33, 172, 175, 196, 229-230 , 257, 259). The guiding force that is God, is according to Moser of the same type, as the force that guided Jesus (Moser 2010: 148). Jesus himself is described as a perfect man in the image of God (Moser 2010: 227). Believing in Jesus is not a requirement for salvation, according to Moser (2010: 248). On closer examination, it is clear that it is not really the Christian or the Jewish God that Moser finds worthy, but rather the God described by Jesus. The God of Adam is described as unworthy, further supporting this thesis (Moser 2010: 259). Jesus is correcting verses that has been misinterpreted by humans (Moser 2010: 236). Moser argues, that the verses in the Bible that describes a morally perfect God, are more credible than those who describe a vindictive or jealous God (Moser 2010:237). According to Moser, God wants man to be the proof of his existence (2010:26, 215). To interact with God on his terms is to enter in a morally transformative stage that aims to remove selfishness and pride (Moser 2010: 35).

To summarize, Moser sees God as the advanced, illusive, creator of existence. An authoritative, guiding, personal, force; that is perfectly loving, has perfect moral, that is forgiving, good and necessary. God has a personal interest in humanity and has a hand in human affairs. God is the path to an afterlife and exists outside the boundaries of science. The God of Jesus is in Moser’s opinion worthy of the title.

Moser’s evidence
The evidence for God aims to prove that a deliberate, morally perfect agent, worthy of worship, exists (Moser 2010: 38). What Moser is looking for is in other words actual evidence of a being with perfect love and perfect moral (Moser 2010: 24). Moser puts forward an analogy between the question of God’s existance, and being lost in the wilderness, located in a cottage (which you have found). Option 1 is to despair and say that there is no way out (atheism), Option 2 is to wait passively (agnosticism) , Option 3 is to take a chance on finding a way out of the wilderness (faith in a religious sense) , or Option 4, to seek evidence (of a way out / for the hypothesis of God’s existence). Option 4 is divided into two:
A) With a neutral view on purpose (science) or
B ) With an including view on purpose (Moser’s approach)

The difference between options A and B is compared to finding a hand-drawn map in the cottage where you are located. From alternative A’s point of view, the map is useless since it clearly does not match the surroundings exactly, alternative B instead argues that the map may have the purpose of guiding a lost group out of the wilderness, and that even though it is not perfectly consistent with the environment, it may still be useful as a means to find a way out of the wilderness (it is implied in other words, that scientific evidence ignores the fact that god may have a purpose). Com-radios found in the cottage is another analogy put forward by Moser: Seen from a strictly neutral view on purpose, they are not very helpful. But if you include a purpose, that a ”savior” has placed them there to help, they could be of far greater use. And just as you have to set a com-radio to the right frequency, you have to have the ”right frequency ” in order to distinguish the evidence for God. Just as a savior does not adapt the channel on their Com-radio to find people in need, it is man who must adapt our view of evidence to God’s terms. If you feel you have authority over the evidence (compared with scientific evidence), one will not find God. In other words, God chooses how he reveals himself. (Moser 2010: 2-10, 14).

Moser poses the question: Is there anything in theology that is independent from man, that is discovered rather than invented? If God exists, what is his character, how does a perfectly lovingand perfectly moral God behave, and what would the evidence for such a God look like (Moser2010: 14, 17 )? Moser argues that God might want to make it clear that he is not a scientific object and hence humanly controllable, it is therefore possible that God wants to hide himself from science (Moser 2010: 14, 28 , 73, 142). The evidence must be consciously accessible to humans (Moser 2010: 142 ). If God exists, he would, according to Moser, have hidden evidence for us to find (Moser 2010: 30). God would, according to Moser, give us evidence in a form that represents his selfless and loving nature (Moser 2010: 15 ), the evidence should have the same character as the subject (Moser 2010: 38). A worthy God would not provide scientific evidence for its existence but would seek to transform people by motivating them (Moser 2010: 26). This evidence differs from observable evidence, as these do not require a transformation of the mind in God’s direction ( Moser 2010: 37).

The evidence must in other words be morally beneficial to humans (Moser 2010: 39).
Moser puts forward that since human communication has a purpose, people have a purpose, human purpose explains many human behaviors that have no other explanation. Moser questions why the same should not apply to God. According to Moser, God has a definite purpose; this purpose is to guide people to himself, therefore, the evidence must also have this effect (Moser 2010: 27). A perfectly loving God would seek to, without force, transform the will of wayward people and thus make them evidence of his own existance (Moser 2010: 16). The proof is directed toward the heart, in shape of a vocation to man to enter into communion with God, with the goal of transforming man towards God’s perfect love ( Moser 2010: 36-37 ), this call includes self-improvement (Moser 2010: 148 ) and to give up selfishness ( Moser 2010: 196). God’s call is proof enough of God’s existance, according to Moser (2010: 230).

What could this call be? According to Moser, the evidence is the feeling of selfless love. Moser puts forward that we do not possess selfless love by nature and goes on to say that some people uncritically assumes this. In Moser’s opinion, the evidence speaks against that we are born with this ability. He puts special importance in the argument that if humans naturaly possessed this ability, the world would look differently (Moser 2010: 203). According to Moser, to express perfect love, humans require a moral force beyond us (Moser 2010:203). When we become acquainted with this love, we become acquainted with God (even if the individual does not always understand it) and through this acquaintance, we experience “the transformative gift” (Moser 2010: 201-202).

The transformation towards God that some people displays is according to Moser evidence of this God (Moser 2010: 50). People of faith is thus the proof, as they reflect God’s selfless love (Moser 2010: 264). Moser puts it as follows:
1) If a person experience ”the transformative gift” (ie, is experiencing selfless love) this is the result of the authoritative power of a moral perfect, unselfish, loving God .
2) I have been given this gift voluntarily.
3) Therefore, God exists. ( Moser 2010: 200 )
Moser adds that one should not ignore that he himself did not experience his experiences as
hallucinations or dreams, and hence should not assume that this is the case (2010: 208). Moser goes on to point out that if all evidence must be carefully and scientifically examined (for example, by questioning the credibility of a personal experience), one can not demand that the evidence must not be circular (Moser 2010: 188). With this in mind, according to Moser, if we are open to them, we now have undefeated, authoritative, evidence, for the existence of God (2010: 263). This evidence is according to Moser not speculative, but morally and existentially challenging ( 2010: 1-2). Through divine hope, people experience God’s love, and in turn reflects this on to others, in Moser’s opinion, this should be considered as evidence. We ourselves become personal evidence of God’s existance by reflecting the reality of God on to others. We do this by developing morally toward God’s moral perfection and selfless love. In other words, in cooperation with God, people become the evidence of God’s existence (Moser 2010:1-8, 15, 27, 25, 30).

Moser’s criticism of scientism and methodological naturalism
Moser criticizes empirical science and scientism several times in The Evidence for God, saying that these philosophies have a narrow view of reality (Moser 2010: 73):

1. Empirical science is incomplete and hence has no monopoly on knowledge, how to acquire it, and what is genuine. Moser also question if science should be limited to empirical data (Moser 2010: 70.79 )?
2. Moser also question when something is to be concidered empirical science. He argues that
psychological and sociological sciences are included, which are not always empirically
verifiable (Moser 2010: 65). The same goes for the mathematical formulas which according to
Moser, are often accepted without being empirically verifiable (Moser 2010:7) The question of
what counts as material is also mentioned (Moser 2010: 66).
3. Moser asks “what in natural science demonstrably excludes God?“ (Moser 2010: 73) and goes on to point out that empirical science is neutral surrounding God (Moser 2010: 79).
4. Moser critisizes methodological naturalism which asserts that, ”The only approved methods for achieving knowledge are empirical scientific methods”. According to Moser, there is no empirical evidence to support this claim. Moser argues that this claim rather is philosophical. Scientism therefor falls on its own terms, according to Moser (2010: 76-77 , 80, 84).
5. Moser criticizes the exclusion of God-experiences from science (2010: 85)
6. Moser argues that senses are evidence (2010: 191).
7. Moser argues that everything that indicates what is truth should be regarded as evidence (2010: 150).
8. Moser argues that there is no evidence for nature being blind and without purpose (2010: 170).
9. Moser does not believe that one can make the assumption that existence has no purpose ( Moser 2010: 10).
10. Moser believes that empirical science is looking for God in the wrong place (Moser 2010: 27) and that one must look for God outside the boundaries of science (Moser 2010: 14, 28, 29 , 73, 142 170).

Challenging Moser’s evidence
Moser believes that monotheism is more believable than polytheism, since we find it difficult to even find one worthy candidate for the title God (2010: 13). But if we could find one worthy candidate, would that not increase the probability of similar beings existance? For example, one could compare God with ghosts. If we managed to prove that one ghost existed, would that not make it more likely, rather than less likely, that there were several of them out there?

Moser suggests that God has a practical interest in human beings and their behavior (2010: 26, 37), but how can Moser know that? He himself says that man can not fully understand God (2010: 254-255 ). If God exists, that does not mean that humans are important, this is an assumption without any basis from Moser. Moser believes that it is likely that if the reception and development of divine love leads to an afterlife, then God would want this love to be eternal (2010: 217). On the other hand, Moser says that we humans can not understand God (2010: 254-255). If we can not understand God , how can we know what he wants?

The Christian/Jewish God is referred to, by Moser, as worthy of being worshiped (2010 : 143) and the Bible and Jesus is referred to on several occasions (2010 : 23, 25, 29 , 33, 172, 175, 196, 229-230 , 257, 259). On closer examination, it is clear that it is not really the Christian or the Jewish God that Moser finds worthy, but rather the God described by Jesus. The God of Adam is described as unworthy, further supporting this thesis (Moser 2010: 259). Jesus is correcting verses that has been misinterpreted by humans (Moser 2010: 236). One could see it as Moser believing in the parts of the Bible that fits his own views of God, while other parts are ignored and considered misinterpreted. Moser further argues that the verses in the Bible that describes a morally perfect God, are more credible than those who describe a vindictive or jealous God (Moser 2010: 237). But is there really any reason to believe this? Moser says that the world would look better if humans were more loving and less selfish (2010:203). If God is in control, does it not seem more likely that he is vindictive and petty, when we look at the results? One of Moser’s main points is that God wants man to be evidence for his existance (2010: 26, 215), this is an assumption, as previously mentioned, even Moser himself says that we can not understand God. Moser states that God has provided evidence for us to find, and that they are consciously available to man. He goes on to say that a worthy God would give evidence in a form that transformed mankind toward God’s essence, the evidence should therefore be morally beneficial to man (2010: 26, 39 , 142).

According to Moser, one can not assume that God does not have a purpose, and that we therefore must seek God on his own terms (2010: 2-10, 14). For Moser’s thesis to be sustainable, one must, in other words, assume a purpose. An important follow-up question is of course: Can we assume that God has a purpose? A credible theory, presents evidence that leaves little or nothing to pure speculation. Moser basically puts forward that one need to acknowledge the evidence in order to see them. Moser argues that the evidence is directed towards ones heart (2010: 36-37). But what does this mean?

The heart can not feel emotions, for example, when people have ”a broken heart”, this is in fact not connected to the heart, but to the brain. So what does “evidence aimed towards the heart“ really mean? According to Moser, God’s call is evidence enough for the existence of God (2010: 230), this call is the selfless love which those who found God reflects. Selfless love does not exist naturally in humans according to Moser, but must come from God (2010: 201-203 ). Moser’s arguments for Gods existance, all rest on this assumtion:

1) If a person is given ” the transforming gift” (ie, is experiencing selfless love ) this is the result of the authoritative power of a moral perfect , unselfish, loving God .

2) I have been given this gift voluntarily .

3) Therefore, God exists. ( Moser 2010: 200 ) The question then becomes whether unselfish love exists naturally in humans or not. The discovery of mirror neurons argues against Moser’s view. Mirror neurons are neurons that reacts when an individual performs a certain action or when the individual sees the same action being performed by another individual. Mirror neuron thus reflects the behavior of another animal or individual as if the observer himself were performing it (Keyser 2010). One of the results gained from this, is the ability for compassion. In other words, we humans (and many other animals) are programmed to be empathic (Rifkin, 2009: 84). With this in mind, it is an unsubstantiated assumption that unselfish love could not exist naturally within us all. If unselfish love is favorable for our species, which Moser himself says it would be (2010: 201-203), it is entirely possible that it is a part of our evolutionary process.

Moser adds that one should not ignore that he himself did not experience his experiences as
hallucinations or dreams, and that one can not assume that this is the case (2010: 208). Moser goes on to point out that if all evidence must be carefully examined (for example, by questioning the credibility of personal experiences) one can not demand evidence that is not circular (Moser 2010: 188). First of all, it should be mentioned that people who are, for example, psychotic, rarely are aware of their condition ( To point out that you yourself perceived your experiences as real, is hence not a valid argument. It is up to Moser to prove that his experiences are not hallucinations. He starts at the wrong end when he assumes that his experiences are something that can not have scientific explanations. Furthermore, Moser should be criticized for his statement concerning circular arguments. You can, and should, require evidence to be both examined in depth and to follow logical rules.

Challenging Moser’s criticism of scientism.
Moser argues that empirical science is incomplete, and hence does not have a monopoly on knowledge. Moser also question whether science should be limited to empirical data (Moser 2010: 70.79). The problem with Moser’s argument is that he does not present an alternative method for acquiring knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, empirical scientific methodes are the only methodes to prove if something is correct or incorrect. Moser also questions when something is to be considered empirical science. He submits that the psychological and sociological sciences are included, which are not always empirically provable (Moser 2010: 65). According to Moser, the same goes for mathematical formulas that are often accepted without being empirically verifiable (Moser 2010: 7). Moser’s critique is only half justified. It is true that both psychology and sociology has theories that can not always be proven by scientific method , but large surveys can indicate what is true in both these examples. Mathematics is a representation of nature, not just imaginary numbers without meaning. Moser underestimation of mathematics is therefore questionable.

Moser asks the question ”what in science excludes God?” (Moser 2010: 73), and goes on to point out that empirical science is neutral surrounding God (Moser 2010: 79). Moser is right that science has not disproved God. That science is neutral surrounding God, however, is not true. Suppose someone were to say that there was an invisible particle moving faster than light. Then the burden of proof is on this person, it is not up to the scientists to first disprove this particle. It is impossible to disprove something that has not been proven to begin with. This does not mean that science remains neutral to this particle, the initial position is that this particle does not exist, until evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. The same applies to the question of God’s existance. Just because science has not disproved God, does not mean that science is neutral to the existence of God. So far, Scientific research has indicated that God is not necessary for either the existence, the universe, nor life. Ockham’s razor, a principle in scientific method, comes in useful: It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions, may ultimately prove correct, but in the absence of certainty, the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Moser criticizes methodological naturalism/scientism which asserts that ”The only approved methods for achieving knowledge are empirical scientific methods”, since there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Moser adds that this claim rather is philosophical and that Scientism thereof falls on its own terms (2010: 76-77, 80, 84). Moser is partially right, however, the previous statment requires only a small modification to make the claim of methodological naturalism’s functional: ”As far as we know, the only safe effective methods of reaching knowledge are empirical scientific methods.” Moser also criticizes the exclusion of personal experiences of God from science (2010: 85). Science however, excludes these for good reasons. Both Sundéns role theory and the Attribution theory presents more plausible explanations for these experiences than Paul Mosers supernatural explanation:

Attribution theory
The Attribution theory says that human beings have a fundamental need to make the world intelligible and therefore controllable. Individuals interpret their own experiences and behaviors with this as a basis. The reason for this is the human need to have control over life. As a result, humans assume that God, chance, fate, or misfortune, is the cause of various things in life. Example: Imagine a person experiencing rapid heartbeat after a revival meeting. Instead of interpreting this medically, the human mind sometimes interprets the situation as a God-experience to regain control over it (Geels, 2006: 65-74). Thus, according to this theory, religion fills a human need, something that is supported by the theories saying that religious ideas may have been advantageous for our survival and may therefore, be a part out of our evolution.

Sundén’s role theory
Sundén theorizes that perception is selective and that the selection mechanism is governed by our expectations and partly by the situation (In simpelest terms, you see what you expect to see). This is called ”perceptual readiness”. Sunden theorizes that you can have a secular, non- religious interpretation of the world, or a religious interpretation of the world. Phase shifting is when an individual is switching between these two frames of mind. According to role theory, knowledge of the religion in question is required to have a God-experience. Without taking on the role from a religious tradition, the world remains profane. The management of external stimuli is greatly affected by what a person expects to experience, this is usually called anticipation . Preparedness for the interpretation of stimuli can be general and/or specific, a particularly high level of preparedness may lead to important information (that doesn’t fit the world view of the individual in question) being misinterpreted or weeded out. When a person moves between specific roles, different frames of reference; different interpretation patterns of stimuli are being actualized. Human perception is highly selective. Sunden argues that religious experiences occur when ”a common world of things” is being interpreted with a religious frame of mind. The individual receives, interprets, and supplements stimuli in the light of their expectations, their readiness, and the current situation. The role of God come to life when humans anticipates (expects) divine action in their everyday environment (Geels , 2006: 75-90).

In 2012, Derren Brown succeeded in evoking a divine experience in a middle-aged woman by influencing her subliminal perception.

Moser argues that the senses can be evidence (2010: 191). But senses can be fooled, anyone who has ever been to a magic show knows this. Moser also argues that anything that indicates what is truth should be regarded as evidence (2010: 150). Moser is correct in this, but how can one know if something indicates the truth without being able to verify it?  If you like Moser believe that emotions and experiences can indicate the truth, there should also exist a method to determine the veracity of these experiences. Without such a method, Moser’s experiences must be considered equally credible as those who experience Jesus telling them to kill in his name. Just because Moser’s experiences results in a ”healthier” view of the world, does not mean that they are more credible.

Moser also argues that there is no evidence for nature being blind and without direction (2010: 170). Moser also believe that one can not make the assumption that existence has no purpose (Moser 2010: 10). That ‘s right, God may be behind evolution, and existence, but without any evidence, there is no reason to believe such things. Imagine a person hammering a nail into a wall. Once this individual has completed this task he may ask himself the question; ”why is the nail hammered into the wall?“. The obvious explanation would be that the nail is hammered into the wall because this person just hammered it into the wall, there is no reason to seek any further explanation as to why the nail is hammered into the wall. Ockham’s razor comes in handy once again. There is no need to look for alternative explanations for something that can already be explained by logic and science. There is no evidence that nature is blind and without direction, but there is no reason to believe otherwise, given the evidence that we have. Moser believes that empirical science is looking for God in the wrong place (Moser 2010: 27) and that one must look for God outside the boundaries of science ( Moser 2010: 170). The problem with Moser’s reasoning is that demonstrably, there is nothing outside the boundaries of science. One can make assumptions and speculations, but presently, that is as far as one can get by such reasoning.

Are Paul Moser’s Evidence of God logically sustainable?
Moser evidence stands and falls on the assumption that unselfish love cannot exist naturally in humans. Moser provides no concrete evidence for this being true, but argues that the world would have been different if this was the case. When Haiti in 2010 was struck by a serious earthquake, a large part of the world’s population reacted in an emphatic manner. How can Moser explain these reactions? If unselfish love is favorable to us, which Moser expresses that it is, then it is possible that unselfish love could be explained by the theory of evolution. In my own opinion, people have the ability to love unselfishly without any help from God. Lust for power or wealth may, however, suppress our empathic drives if strong enough.

Can we assume that God has a purpose?
In order to assume a purpose, one must first know exactly what God is. Moser speculates around how a worthy God would look and act, however, provides no evidence at all that this is actually God’s character. If God is the first movement, or the quality that makes life worth living (which is the view of Reconstructionist Judaism), then God does not need to serve a purpose. The question is whether there is a reason to ascribe God attributes such as ”loving”, ”interested in humanity“ or “good“.

Closing thoughts
I myself do not know whether God exists or not. I also do not know how that God behaves or thinks, if he exists. However, I know that the universe is unimaginably big, and that the chances for exterestial life out there is relatively good, which also leads me to question that man would be of any interest to God. When I am looking at the world it does not seem to be the product of a good being. This thought can be countered with the ideas of free will, but then one must also ask the question: Could God not have given mankind free will, but made us reluctant to perform evil deeds? And wouldn’t a good God at least have distributed resources equitably across the planet so that everyone had the same chance of a good life from the start? One could counter this argument by saying that God is testing us, but if God is omniscient, he already know the outcome, which still means that some people do not deserve a chance in God’s eyes.

Chapter 9 – Nationalism vs Religion
Not many people objects to critisism towards political extremist parties, such as Natzi-parties, but some how, and for some reason, religion, according to many people, is beyond critisism, this chapter compares National socialism with fundamental Christianity.

1) God / Geographical borders God, just as grographical borders, is a human figment, which is given enormous importance by both groups. Also, nationalists views geographical borders in much the same way as religious fundamentalists views God. People with in these borders are considered supperior, much in the same way as religious people often consider themself to be a choosen people.

2 ) Antichrist / Anti-white .
A common expression among Christian fanatics is ”Antichrist”, referring to anyone who supports theories that contradicts the Bible (in other words, virtually all scientific theories). Anti-white is used in exactly the same way but to describe all supporters of multiculturalism. The fundamentalists of the religion of nationalism, the Nazis, usually believes that everyone not supporting their views are anti-white. Anti-white is also used by Nationalists to describe Anti-racists, not understanding that there already is a word for anti-white, “racist”. The moment you become anti-white you stop being anti-racist. One cannot possibly be both at the same time. Usually, these arguments are used as ad hominem attacks, but not infrequently, both anti-white and anti-christ are used in a way meant to falsify the source in question. Eg : ”The source is not credible because it is anti-White / inspired by satan / antichrist ”. This is called a “genetic fallacy”, a conclusion suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin, rather than its current meaning or context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. Sometimes, the anti-white/antichrist-arguments are used as red herrings, in other words, to draw attention from the argument in question. A red herring is usually seemingly plausible, though ultimately an irrelevant, diversionary tactic.

3) Conspiracy theories
Religious fundamentalists often point out that the scientific community is hidíng or ignoring evidence for creationism. For example, it is argued that leading scholars conspire to keep evidence hidden. Similarly, nationalists talk about how organizations that collects statistics sweeps numbers under the carpet, and how media and scientists are trying to hide ”the truth about multiculturalism. That there is a hidden jewish agenda that only they can see trough is another common statement from the national socialist’s side.

4) Pseudoscience
As most people know, research is supposed to be neutral. Science is supposed to be the search for truth. ”Researchers ” in fundamentally religious movements, however, perform their research the other way around, they have already decided what the answer is, and hence ignores any research that does not conform the predetermined outcome. The same is true with nationalists, they have decided in advance that : All muslims are radical, that multiculturalism contributes to crime, that Africans have lower intelligence than the rest of us, and more. All research that contradicts the predetermined outcome, for example Jonas Otterbäck’s research on European Islam, is ignored.

5 ) Mental Filters
Freud and Sunden, among others, talk about mental filters. Both groups in question clearly shows how they filter out any information that does not fit in to their worldview. Often, evidence is dismissed using arguments like ”but you are anti-white and want to hurt me/my people, alternatively ,” you are inspired by Satan and out to harm the Christian community”.

6) Obsolete or falsified science
The few times that actual evidence is presented by the fundamentalist side, they are almost exclusively around a 100 years old, written before genetic engineering was even invented and that says “there is no evidence supporting the theory of evolution”. Quote mining, and research that has been falsified multiple times, are also common elements. The same tendencies, even though not quite as extreme, are seen from the Nationalist side. Nationalists usually use research from the 60-70’s (probably since the last few surveys that “proved” the desired outcome was written back then). For example, when it comes to IQ and ethnicity, Nationalists still use “The Minnesota transracial Adoption Study”, already falsified by Scarr , S., (1976) , Waldman (1992) and Waldman (1994). Just to be clear, this is what most scientists stands behind: “Heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, all peoples ”possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture” and ”racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.” (PA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 569–570. 1996.)

7) Bias Sampling
Is a sample collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected. Both groups often use this “technique” to prove people’s, or groups of people’s, opinions . On the webpage ”Answers in Genesis” there are quite a few good examples. An example from the nationalist side is a survey that shows that nearly 40 % of Britain’s Muslims want to see people executed for abandoning Islam. This survey examined only Muslims under 20 years of age from a specific group of Muslims. This is the same as walking into a KKK-meeting, asking them what they think about african americans, and then rely on that these numbers, will reprecent the rest of the population.

8) Context and misinterpretation.
To quote things out of context or to misinterpret the conclusion from a scientific survey is common in both groups. In the case of fundamentalists, it usually involves quoting researchers saying that the theory of evolution does not hold up (usually the scientist in question clarifies their stance in the following sentence, but this part is of course not quoted). When it comes to nationalist, a good example is when they are trying to prove that multiculturalism is the same as genocide by misinterpreting the law: “…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; ‘
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
Act C refers to situations such as the trial of tears, but nationalists interpret it to mean that the ”race mixing” that occurs in a multicultural society counts. Also point D is believed to be going on according to nationalist, what they do not understand is that it is refering to acctually preventing births (who would have guessed that the author ment what he was writing), not that media is friendly towards interracial relations.

9) Denial of the theory of Evolution / Denial of the Holocaust
Denial of miscellaneous facts that has such strong support that it becomes ridiculous to deny them is common in bouth groups. The theory of evolution and the Holocaust are the most usual ones. Both are being denied with the same type of arguments: The evidence is not evidence. Fossils, DNA, Geographical placement of the species, doesn’t prove evolution, and mountains of hair, Nazis that have confessed, pictures, documents, witnesses, and so on, in no way proves the Holocaust according to these groups.

10) Both groups use logical fallacies
of the type Ad Hominem, Red Herring, Strawman, cum hoc ergo propter ho, ad populum, argument from emotion, and arguments from guilt, to an almost unrealistic level. Insulting you personally, avoiding answering sound arguments, puting words in ones mouth, believing that two things happening at the same time must be connected, and above all, telling you about different doomsday scenarios, and how it is your fault that they will come to pass.

11) Illogical arguments beyond direct logical fallacies.
Many fundamental Christians put a lot of emphasis on Christianity’s views on love and forgiveness, as an argument for why their religion is superior to other religions (and of course their religion is not a religion, it is the truth!). At the same time they express an almost sadistic delight in saying ”you will go to hell.” Nationalists say that the reason that Islam / Muslims should be focused on (hated) over other religions, is that the Muslim community is larger and more active in the western world than for example, Hinduists are. In the same sentence they tell you how Islam is less moral (for example) than other religions based on how Islam is expressed in Saudi Arabia. So the muslims in the west should receive a negative focus, because there are a lot of them, but the islam that is dangerous is mainly the Islam in the arabic countries. So they receive this focus because there are many of them here and they behave badly in other parts of the world.

12) Closed groups.
Both nationalists and religious fundamentalist groups tend to be very closed , in other words, both groups are expressing a cult behavior. What are the possible explanations for this pattern? My personal guess is that it comes down to intelligence, something not entirely unsupported by the research community : ”Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative Ideologies ? Because Such Ideologies feature ”structure and order ” that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world ”
-Dr . Dodson ( Brock University) .

”Ideologies get rid of the messiness and Impose a simpler solution . So , it May not be surprising That people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to Simplifying Ideologies .
” -Dr . Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia

As stated in the beginning of this chapter, Nationalism is under heavy critisism every day, while religion seems to stand above the realm of critisism, for some reason it is not OK to critisize someones religion. However, nationalism is in every way a religion, and national socialists are the fundamentalists of the religion. Geertz defines religion as follows:

“Religion is a system of symbols that contributes to establish strong, pervasive, and enduring
sentiments, as well as motivations, in humans, by creating notions related to
reality, and by dressing these notions up in such an aura of factuality, these sentiments and
motivations appears extremely realistic.”

Nationalism fits into this description in every way. So if nationalism is not above critizism, why should religion be?

Chapter 10- Other correlates with religion

Religion correlates with higher rates of violent crimes (Zuckerman 2009). According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as of April 27, 2013, 0.07% of the inmates are atheists, 28.7% Protestants, 24% Catholics, 5.5% Muslims, and 3.1% American Indians. In addition 3% of the inmates listed “other” as religious affiliation, and 3.44% “unknown”, these may have religious affiliation and didn’t want to declare it, or they might not. 17% of the inmates reported no religious preference. If we take a look at Intended murder rates, we get the following results (darker collors = more murders):

As can clearly be seen, religious countries tops the list. There are exceptions, such as Saudi Arabia, this could have 2 reasons, either the country has incredibly harch punishments, or murders are not getting reported to the authorities.


In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53 out of 63, In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined results regarding whether IQ relates to denomination and income, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than agnostics, 3.82 points higher than liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than other religious persuasions (Nyborg 2009). The authors also investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the 137 countries investigated, only 17% had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted virtually all higher IQ countries. The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant” (Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg 2009). Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God.” A study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010 also stated that atheism correlates with higher intelligence (Kanazawa 2010: 33–57, Science News 24 February 2010,


As can clearly be seen, religious belief correlates with poverty. The only exceptions are the countries rich on natural resources, such as oil.


As can clearly be seen, atheism correlates with hapiness.

Life expectancy

As seen in picture above, life expectancy correlates with religios belief, the more religion, the less life expectancy.


Chapter 11 – Summary, final thoughts, and conclusions.
Chapter 1 and 2 implies that there is nothing supernatural occuring surrounding religion. Trough natural selection human beings have been ”programmed” to see patterns in nature, with the loss of the all mighty father figure and the urge to control nature, the human mind then turns to God. God is further proven to the religious person trough anticipation and is given more credability by institutions in society using religion to control the masses.

Chapter 3 to 6 explains how the ”proof” and sources supporting Jesus existance and miracles does not hold up, and he is one of the strongest ”proven” religious figures in history. With this in mind, there are several possibilities; Jesus may have been a fraud, fooling gullable people out of their money, he may have been insane, or more likely, entirely made up. Today, Jesus is a product fueling a multi-billion-dollar industry. This industry has arms reaching in the direction of basically every atrocity on the planet (possibly into space as well, we cannot completely ignore the possibility that this JHVH-guy actually may exsist), from the weapons industry to basically every human right violation existing.

Chapter 7 brings the light to religions that people in the west have a supprisingly possitive view of, the eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism. As a result, many ideas from these religions are incorporated into new religious movements in the west, known as ”new age movements”. Chapter 7 clearly shows that the religions of the east are among the most oppresive to women and that these religions creates intollerance and irrationalism.

Chapter 8 challanges Paul Mosers ”evidence” for God. The point of this is to point out that religion can turn a rational intelligent person into a person arguing like a 10-year old.

Chapter 9 compares religion to nationalism.Religion is for some reason beyond blame. You have to tolerate a persons religion. However, nationalism is under constant critisism, by all rights, but is in basically every way comparable to religion. One may go so far as to say that nationalism is a religion.

Chapter 10 deals with other correlates to religion, poverty, violence and crime, among others. The results indicates that religion correlates with basically every negative element that exists on this planet. Thats why this short book is named ”The rocket of ignorance”. Religion is powered by poverty, war, and starvation, supports apartheid, the holocaust, fascism, pollution, pedofilia, rape and murder, and attacks rationalism, science, and justice. What would the world look like without religion? Of course, one can only speculate, but first of all, we would not have the conflict between the jews and the arabs. The jews have been offered land several times between the destruction of ancient Israel and the creation of modern day Israel. They had to have their holy land, which have resulted in a war that has been going on for over 50 years now.

Without religion, people would not have idiotic ideas of a martyr’s paradise and a better place after death, this would not eradicate war, but would at least make people more reluctant to die for ridiculous ideals. Most terrorist groups would not exist, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have happened, there would be no creationists blowing up abortion clinics or trying to keep science out of school. There would be much less hate towards homosexuals, women would not get stoned for making their own choices, no fanatics would knock on your door offering salvation, and so on. Over 90% of the worlds population is religious, so religion will most likely exist for a long time forward. But there are things we can do in the present. First of all, religious groups should pay taxes not recieve them. Religious movements are companies that makes money, often alot, on products that cost them no money and that offers nothing to the buyer. There is no logical reason for not taxing these movements.

Make the laws surrounding what should be taught in school clearer, the teaching of evolution theory should be law everywhere, and it should be forbidden to teach creationism in school, except in education surrounding the subject religion. Forbid religious symbols in public places. Religion is something private. Just as it’s not the propper place for brutal BDSM-sex in a childrens program, public areas are not the place for religion. What you do in your own home is your private buisness, in public certain things are not acceptable, and religion should be one of these things. Point out foolishness. Religion has been ”beyond critisism” for too long. When an idea is retarded, it should be critisized, it should not be accepted just because it is someones belief. The earth is not 6000 years old, noone flew to heaven on a winged horse. These ideas should be compared to believing in santa. If a grown up person told you that he/she believes in santa, you would mock this person, or at least laugh at it or question it, God is in no way different. We have a collective responsibility, do not ignore yours.

All articles and sources retrieved 2014-06-25

Jose, Sunny, and K Navaneetham. ”A Factsheet on Women’s Malnutrtion in India.”
Mirror Neurons
Siskinds Law Firm. June 11, 2004.
”$20 million Settlement Announced in Class Action with Shell”
Books and studies
Allison, Gregg (2011). Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Zondervan.
American Metal Market (19 Sept. 2005)
Aquinas, Thomas. (1265-1274). Summa theologiae
Bahat, Dan. (1981) Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?, in Biblical
Balarajan, Y, S Selvaraj, et al. (2011) ”Health care and equity in India.” Lancet.
Barr, James (1970) Which language did Jesus speak, Bulletin of the John Rylands University
Blackhorn (1985) Death and Deification
Blom, Hansen, Thomas (2001). Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay.
Princeton University Press.
Blomberg, Craig L (2009) Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
Library of Manchester,
Bockmuehl , Markus (2001) The Cambridge Companion to Jesus
Bodhi, Bhikkhu (2005) In the Buddha’s Words, Wisdom: Boston,
Brass, Paul R. (2005). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India.
University of Washington Press.
Brass, Paul (2004). ”The Gujarat Pogrom of 2002”. Social Science Research Council.
Brass, Paul R. ”On the Study of Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide”. University of Washington.
Brass, Paul. ”Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide in Contemporary India: From Partition to the
Brass, Paul R. (2003). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India.
University of Washington Press
Brekke, Torkel (2012). Chris Seiple, Dennis R. Hoover, Pauletta Otis, ed. The Routledge Handbook
of Religion and Security. Routledge.
Burridge, Richard A. & Graham, Gould (2004) Jesus Now and Then
Campbell, John (2012). Chris Seiple, Dennis Hoover, Dennis R. Hoover, Pauletta Otis, ed. The
Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. Routledge.
Carrier, Richard (2011) ”The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed)”
Carrier, Richard (2012) ”Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic”
Cavin, Robert Greg, (2005) ”Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection
of Jesus?” In Price, Robert M.; Lowder, Jeffrey Jay, eds. . The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the
Grave. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Cech, T.R. (2011). The RNA Worlds in Context. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
University of Colorado, Boulder: Colorado
Choi, Jin, and Sang-Hyop Lee. (2006) ”Does prenatal care increase access to child immunisations?
Gender bias among children in India.” Social Science and Medicine. 63.
Chow, Clara, and Anushka Patel (2012) ”Women’s cardiovascular health in India.” Heart. 98.
Chilton, Bruce, Evans, Craig A. (1998) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of
Current Research
Chandavarkar, Rajnayaran (2009). History, Culture and the Indian City (1st ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, Stephen P. (2013). Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum. Brookings
Institution Press.
Colonel, Claude R (1909) The City of Jerusalem
Corbo, Virgilio (1981)The Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem
Craig, William Lane (1979). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Library of philosophy and
religion. Macmillan.
Craig, William Lane (1991). ”The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe”. Truth
Journal. Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company : New York
Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne.
Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the
Gospel Story
Crossan, John Dominic, Watts, Richard G. (1999) Who Is Jesus?
Dawkins, Richard (2006) The Selfish Gene 30th anniversary edition. Oxford University Press
Dawson, 1998 Sociology of New Religious Movements;
Dunn, James D. G. (2003) Jesus Remembered
Dunn, James D. G. (2007) ”Paul’s understanding of the death of Jesus” in Sacrifice and
Redemption Cambridge University Press
Dunn, James D. G. & McKnight, Scot (2006) The Historical Jesus in Recent Research
Efrón, Joshua (1987) Studies on the Hasmonean Period Brill Academic Pub
Ehrman,Bart (2011) Forged: writing in the name of God
Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Oxford
Engineer, Asghar Ali ( 2002). ”Gujarat Riots in the Light of the History of Communal Violence.”.
Economic and Political Weekly 37 (50).
Engineer, Asghar Ali (1991). Communal Riots in Post-independence India. Sangam.
University Press, USA.
Etzion, Amitai (2008). Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. Yale University Press.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, (April 27, 2013)
Flavius Josephus, Testimonium Flavianum
Flavius Josephus. Catholic Encyclopedia.
Gangoli, Geetanjali (2007). Indian Feminisms: Law, Patriarchies and Violence in India. Ashgate.
Ganguly, Rajat (2007). ”Democracy and ethnic conflict”. In Sumit Ganguly, Larry Diamond, Marc
Geisler, Norman L. (1999). Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Books.
Geisler, Norman L. (1999). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Johnston, G.A (Ed) (1915).
Selections from the Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense 41
Geels, Dhattiwala, Raheel; Biggs, Michael (2012). ”The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence The
Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002”. Politics & Society 40
Ghosh, Partha S. (2004). Ranabir Samaddar, ed. Peace Studies: An Introduction To the Concept,
Scope, and Themes. Sage.
Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis (2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim
Violence in India. Princeton University Press.
Giles, (1877) Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. II
Goodblatt, David (2005) ”Dating Documents in Herodian Judaea” in Herod and Augustus: Papers
Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June
Graham, Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus Oxford University Press
Grant, Michael (2004) Jesus
Green, Joel B, McKnight, Scot, Marshall, Howard, (1992) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
InterVarsity Press
Guth, Allan. Kaku, Michio. Randall, Lisa. et al (2002) Parallel universes.
Guiart, Jean (1952) ”John Frum Movement in Tanna” Oceania Vol 22 No 3
Hamp, Douglas (2005) Discovering the language of Jesus
Hachlili, Rachel. (2005) Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple
Hefner, Robert W. (2006). Robert W. Hefner, Muhammad Qasim Zaman, ed. Schooling Islam: The
Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education. Princeton University Press.
Holst, Arthur (2004). Merril D. Smith, ed. Encyclopedia of rape. Greenwood.
Holt, Peter M. (1977). Peter Malcolm Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, ed. The Cambridge
History of Islam (New Edition ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Watch (1999) ”Anti-Christian Violence on the Rise in India”.
Hussain, Monirul (1 February 2009). Sibaji Pratim Basu, ed. The Fleeing People of South Asia:
Selections from Refugee Watch. Anthem.
Irenaeus (c180 CE) Demonstration (74)
Irenaeus (c180 CE) in Against Heresies 1:27:2
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2011). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2011). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996). The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925-1990s:
Strategies of Identity-Building, Implantation and Mobilisation. C Hurst & Co.
Kanazawa, S. (2010). ”Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent”. Social Psychology Quarterly
73 (1): 33–57.
Kaviraj, Sudipta (2010). The Imaginary Institution of India: Politics and Ideas. Columbia
University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1763) The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the
Existence of God
Keysers, Christian (2010). ”Mirror Neurons”. Current Biology 19 (21):
Kaur, Raminder (2005). Performative Politics and the Cultures of Hinduism: Public Uses of
Religion in Western India. Anthem.
Khalidi, Omar (28 December 2009). Shiping Hua, ed. Islam and democratization in Asia. Cambria
Köstenberger , Andreas J., Kellum , L. Scott (2009) The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An
Introduction to the New Testament
Lewis, Clive Staples. (1942-44) Mere Christianity. Harper Collins Publishers
Levine, Amy-Jill et al. The Historical Jesus in Context Princeton Univ Press
Linck, Kurt, (1913) De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Iesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis,
Lynn, Richard; John Harvey and Helmuth Nyborg (2009). ”Average intelligence predicts atheism
rates across 137 nations”. Intelligence 37: 11–15.
Manhattan, Avro (1983 ) The vatican billions
Massey, Gerald (1886), The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ, Star Publishing Company,
Springfield, Mass.,
Meier, Henri B.; Marthinsen, John E.; Gantenbein, Pascal A. (2012). Swiss Finance: Capital
Markets, Banking, and the Swiss Value Chain. John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, B. H.; Dietler, Hans (1899). ”The Regulation and Nationalization of the Swiss Railways”.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage) 13
Metcalf, Barbara D. (2009). Barbara D. Metcalf, ed. Islam in South Asia in Practice. Princeton
University Press.
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. (2001) Riddle of Resurrection: ”Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient
Near East
McClintock, John; Strong, James (1894) Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature Volume 2
Murphy, Eamon (2011). Richard Jackson, Eamon Murphy, Scott Poynting, ed. Contemporary State
Terrorism: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1888). Twilight of the Idols
Nongbr, Brent (2005) ”The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the
Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98
Nyborg, Helmuth (2009). ”The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white
adolescent Americans”. Intelligence 37: 81–93.
Ogden, Chris (2011) . A Lasting Legacy: The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance and India’s
Politics. Journal of Contemporary Asia. Vol. 42, Iss. 1,
Pandey, Gyanendra (2005). Routine violence: nations, fragments, histories. Stanford University
Paul, Diana Y., Wilson, Frances (1985). ”Traditional Views of Women”. Women in
Buddhism:Images of the Feminine in Mahāyāna Tradition. University of California Press.
Pennington, Brian K. (2012). Brian K. Pennington, ed. Teaching Religion and Violence. Oxford
University Press.
Patel, Vikram, Merlyn Rodrigues, et al. (2002)”Gender, Poverty and Postnatal Depression: A Study
of Mothers in Goa India.” Am J Psychiatry. 159.
Pednekar, Mangesh, Rajeev Gupta, et al. (2011) ”Illiteracy, low educational status, and
cardiovascular mortality in India.” BMC Public Health.
Porter, Stanley E.; Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Wendy J. Porter (eds.) (2004) Journal of Greco-
Roman Christianity and Judaism – Volume 1, 2000.
Porter, Stanley E. (1997) Handbook to exegesis of the New Testament
Plattner. F The State of India’s Democracy. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S (2013) ”Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702).” Supplementum
Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill
Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
Price, Robert M., ”The Empty Tomb: Introduction; The Second Life of Jesus.” In Price, Robert M.;
Lowder, Jeffrey Jay, eds. (2005). The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Amherst: Prometheus
Powell, Mark Allan (1998) Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man
from Galilee
Pollard , John F (2005) The Vatican and Italian Fascism, 1929–32: A Study in Conflict. Cambridge
University Press
Puniyan, Ram (2003). Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths. Sage.
Raj, Anita. (2011) ”Gender equity and universal health coverage in India.” Lancet.
Raj, Anita. (2011) ”Sex selected abortion in India.” Lancet.
Raman, Sita Anantha (8 June 2009). Women in India: a social and cultural history. Praeger.
Ramakrishnan, Sivasubramanian, Rohan Khera, et al. (2011) ”Gender differences in the utilisation
of surgery for congenital heart disease in India.” Heart. 97.
Riaz, Ali (2008). Faithful education: madrassahs in South Asia. Rutgers University Press.
Rifkin, Jeremy (2009). The empathic civilization : the race to global consciousness in a world in
crisis. Polity: Camebridge
Riddick, John F. (2006). The History of British India: A Chronology. Praeger.
Robertson, R (1975) Religious Movements and Modern Society;
Robbers, Gerhard (2006) Encyclopedia of World Constitutions Infobase Publishing
Russell, Bertrand (1952-1997). Collected Papers, Vol. 11. Routledge: London Sartre, Jean-Paul
(1943). Being and Nothingness. Kensington Publishing Corporation:
Saddhatissa, Hammalawa (1997) Buddhist Ethics, Wisdom: Boston,
Sankt Anselm. (1077–1078). The Proslogion
Sarkur, Tanika (2007). Taisha Abraham, ed. Women and the Politics of Violence. Har Anand.
Science News (2010). ”Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in
Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds”. ScienceDaily.
Sen, Gita, and Aditi, Iyer. (2012) ”Who gains, who loses and how: Leveraging gender and class
intersections to secure health entitlements.” Social Science and Medicine. 74
Shani, Giorgio (2007). Sikh nationalism and identity in a global age. Routledge.
Singh, Sujala (2009). Elleke Boehmer, Stephen Morton, ed. Terror and the Postcolonial: A Concise
Companion. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sikand, Yoginder (2004). Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith
Relations. Routledge.
Smith, Glenn (2005). Asvi Warman Adam, Dewi Fortuna Anwar, ed. Violent Internal Conflicts in
Asia Pacific: Histories, Political Economies, and Policies. Yayasan Obor.
Sonali Wayal. Maryam, et al. (2009) ”Suicidal Behaviour Among Female Sex Workers in Goa,
India: The Silent Epidemic.” Research and Practice. 99.7
Sorell, Thomas (1994). Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science, Routledge Stenger,
Stern, Ephraim (1993) New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,
Stratton Hawley, John (2006) The life of hinduism
Stenger, Victor (2007). God, the Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
Prometheus Books
Tacitus’ (2000) Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans
Tambiah, Stanely J. (1997). Leveling Crowds: EthnoNationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence
in South Asia. University of California Press.
Tarozzi, Alessandro. (2012) ”Some Facts about Boy versus Girl Health Indicators in India: 1992—
2005.” CESifo Economics Studies.
Thera, Piyadassi (1996), The Buddha’s Ancient Path, Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy,
Tilly, Charles (2006). Regimes and Repertoires. University of Chicago Press.
Vardaman, Jerry, Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1989) ”The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus”
in Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies
Van Voorst , Robert E. (2000) Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient
Evidence Eerdmans Publishing
Vermes, Geza (2008). The Resurrection: History and Myth. New York: Doubleday.
Vinay Lal. ”Anti-Christian Violence in India”. Manas: India and Its Neighbors. UCLA College of
Letters and Science.
U.S. Steel Fact Sheet from Charfoos & Christensen, P.C.
Warburton (Bishop), Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I,
Weigl, Constanze (2012). Reproductive Health Behaviour and Decision-making of Muslim Women:
An Ethnographic Study in a Low-income Community in Urban North India. Lit Verlag.
Whittam, John (1995) Fascist Italy. Manchester University Press
William R. Herzog (2005) Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus
Wikström, Owe (2006). Den religiösa människan, en introduktion till religionspsykologin. Natur &
Kultur Geisler
Wright, Stuart A (1995) Armageddon in Waco University of Chicago Press
Zuckerman, Phil (2009) Sociology Compass (Pitzer College) Claremont, California

11 February 2005
15 August 2011
24 February, 2003
20 September 2013.
7 February 2013
26 October 2006.
The Chicago Tribune
23 June 2011
September 14, 2013
14 Mar 2013
The cutting edge
June 25 2014
The Diplomat
April 14, 2012

India’s Shame

The Economist
18 August 2012
Epoch Times
12 April, 2013
6 November 2013
19 June 2012
The Guardian
7 November 2013
9 November 2000
21 January 2013
The Independent
8 November 2013
The Morning Call
Mail & Guardian
8 July 2005
The Natural Sceptic
28 July, 2013
National Public Radio
7 November 2011
National Post
8 March 2013
Wealth of Roman Catholic Church impossible to calculate
Outlook India
19 July 2010
PBS Newshour
17 September 2013
16 May 2008
10 June 2009
6 Jan 2013
The Indian Express
1 November 2010
The India Tribune
9 November 2012
17 July 2005.
National geographic
12 February, 2002
23 Jan 2014
Switzerland News
20 May, 2014
The Telegraph
25 June 2014
The Times
12 February 1929
The NY Times
May 22, 2009.
March 15, 2011.
”Design of G.E.’s Mark 1 Nuclear Reactors Shows Weaknesses”. The New York Times.
6 November 1999
20 September 1987.
October 29, 2011
Los Angeles Times
October 4, 2005
June 9, 2009.
The Times Of India
16 August 2009
14 January 2011
25 March 2009
29 December 2012
Hindustan Times.
20 February 2007
United Press International
12 February 2009
United Nations Environmental Programme
August 4, 2011
Voice Of America News
25 February2012
Brown, Derren. (2012) Fear and faith part 2

Dawkins, Richard. The enemies of reason, part 2.

Kaku, Michio, et al (2002) Parallel Universes part 1

Krauss, Lawrence (2012) A universe from nothing.

On the Morgan Bank Controversies.
On Glencore controversies
On Caste (hinduism)
On Dalits (hinduism)
On Bhangis (Hinduism)
On Eneborg, Mohammad Muslim (Swedish text)
On Yeshu (Rabbinic literature)
On Political Economy Research Institute and Toxic 100
On proposals for jewish states
Surrounding pollution
GM Reaches $23.8 Million Pollution Settlement With U.S.
”Poisoned Places Map”.
EPA (1999)
”EPA Issues Notice of Violation to Shell Oil and Motiva in Bridgeport” (Press release).
Scoreboard. (1999)
”Air Pollutant Emissions Report: SHELL OIL CO”.
Surrounding human rights violations
Shell in Nigerian arms controversy as campaigners accuse it of doing little to prevent weapons
falling into the wrong hands
Holocaust Money in Swiss Banks
Chronology of Events Surrounding the Lost Assets of Victims of Nazi Germany
SOUTH AFRICA’S DE BEERS: The most unethical corporation in the world.
Swiss Banks Continue Hiding Nazi Gold
Swiss bank money repaid to Holocaust victims
The Bloody Truth About Conflict-Free Diamonds
Credit Suisse Helped The Nazis Steal In Europe Now They’re Trying To Steal From Jamaicans
Surrounding other controversies
Citibank Accused of Tricking New Customers about “Free” Frequent Flyer Miles
The finances of religion
Investments in the Roman Catholic Church
Catholic Church has billions invested in BPI, Philex, San Miguel

Catholic Church has billions invested in BPI, Philex, San Miguel

Ethical Investments
Catholic Church’s stock investment
How Churches Invest Their Money

How Churches Invest Their Money

The Secret Finances Of The Vatican Economy
Investing in the Unspeakable
US Catholic Church a $170 billion business
The Catholic Church is the Biggest Financial Power on Earth
Indian women still commit ritual suicides
Practice of Sati still prevalent in India
SATI – India’s Best Kept Secret
NHS Direct Wales on Psychosis.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Metaphysics
William Lane Craig’s site
Anthony Flew on the resurrection of the Jesus
Egypt Travel Guide on Serapis/Sarapis
Mumbai riots a planned, perfected pogrom?
Honour Killings in India
Bill in Parliament to curb honour killing
Ogad Singh, India Man, Reportedly Beheads Daughter In Rage Over Lifestyle
Man beheads daughter in gory Rajasthan
Indian men most sexually violent, says survey of six developing nations
Census of India 2011: Child sex ratio drops to lowest since Independence

Debunking Why Creationism is Real Science by Antonio DeAguiar

The original text from Antonio can be found here:

”Genesis chapter 2 verse 7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Yeah, quoting the Bible is not science.

”All the raw elements that humans are made from are found on Planet Earth.”


”The human body consists of cells made
of 65-90% water by weight making the human body’s mass of mostly oxygen followed by Carbon which refutes biological evolution if the Earth had the alleged reducing atmosphere without Oxygen. The mass of the human body is made up of mostly six elements: 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen, 1.5% Calcium, 1.0% Phosphorus. The balance of elements is shown for you to read.”


”As humans can be resuscitated by mouth to mouth ventilation; God pushed the first breath of life into the lifeless trillions of microorganisms which was the lifeless corpse of Adam that God intelligently made from raw elements to make him a living being.”

And the EVIDENCE for this CLAIM is what? No one is arguing that if this hypothetical god exists, he could have done this. But Anonio needs to provide evidence both that this god exists, and that he actually DID do this.

”Nucleic Acids, DNA and RNA, are made of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and hydrogen. This disproves the notion of an early reducing atmosphere. Oxygen is essential to the Nucleic Acids”

No it is not, Adenine – C5H5N5 = (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen) is the first base nucleotide, Only adenine is required to make the amino acid ”Lysine”. Lysine is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins.
This video explains chemical evolution and how it works:

”but oxygen would prevent the materialistic notion of the chance assembly of cellular life.”

Oxygen in earths atmosphere is created by cyanobacteria, so, life on earth came before Oxygen.

”Proteins cannot evolve
Douglas Axe Explains Molecular Evolution”

This is what Douglas Axe says:
”… So, really, you put all that together, we now understand something about digitally-encoded information in cells, encoded in the genome. We understand why it’s there: to encode proteins. And we understand how the proteins function to do the chemistry of life. And we also have the ability to measure, to some degree, how much information is there. If you put all that together, we now see something that looks very much like human designs, where we use digitally-encoded information to accomplish things, and we know that it’s impossible to get information on that scale through a chance process that Darwinism employed.

This is false. We don’t ”know” any such thing. Axe cannot point to a single paper in the peer-reviewed literature that correctly explains why one can’t ”get information on that scale through a chance process that Darwinism employed”. This is just something that creationists repeat over and over again without real justification.

”Glory to God/Yahweh, the one who causes all things to be.
Their hearts are darkened, and their minds are shut, and the theirs ears are dull, and their eyes are dim that they can’t know or understand or heed or appreciate all the evidence that only supports God and His Worldview. They cannot and will not be able to present evidence to the contrary. This is why they can only lie and suppress the truth, Real Science.

This god, JHVH, do some AWFUL things in the Bible, really not the kind of being you want to worship:

Matthew 19:12 says it is OK to shop of your penis to keep you from sinning.

Genesis 38. God kills Judah’s son, so Judah tells his other son to have sex with his dead son’s wife. However, he ”pulls out”, which god did not like, so god kills him. So the wife disguises herself as a prostitute and have sex with Judah (her father in law) instead. This incest baby is an ancestor of Jesus. (Judah btw wanted to burn her alive until he finds out he is the baby daddy).

2 Samuel 12:11-12
God orders the gang-rape of David’s wife (with an audience), then David orders that the girls must be sent to lifetime in prison for being raped.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a father cannot prove his daughter is a virgin (by presenting bloody sheats), she may be stoned to death.

Exodus 4:24
If you have a foreskin, you deserve to die.

Esther 12:17
David selects his wife trough an involuntary sex-contest.

1 Samuel 18:25
David buys a woman for 200 foreskins.

”The Deep Time Lie concocted by the atheists that evolutionism needs is yet again falsified by the empirical evidence of side by side Uranium 238 and Polonium 210 Radiohalos in metamorphic granite that demonstrate over 100 million years of decay measure at today’s rate happening in just a few days.”

Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).

”Noah’s 3 sons and daughter-in-law’s had to repopulate the earth [Gen. 9:18-19] 18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark [on the Mountains of Ararat, modern day Turkey] were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated] the genetic analysis of the male Y chromosome confirms a recent Adam via Noah of all males. ”

The Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally. The title of ”Y-chromosomal Adam” is not permanently fixed to a single individual, and shifts over time as human inheritance and our knowledge of human ancestry changes. The current Y-chromosomal Adam is estimated to have lived 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.

It is sort of funny that someone denying evolution, would argue that all the different ethnicities have a common ancestor. It is also funny, that someone would use an example that requires the human race to be at least 200 000 years old whilest claiming the human race 6000 years old.

”There are three main lineages of Mitochondrial DNA: dubbed by Evolutionists as Haplogroups “M”, “N” and “R” which are nicely corresponding to the three wives of Noah’s three sons and have very little mutational difference between each other that confirms the short period from the creation of Adam and Eve about 1056 years before the flood of Noah.”

Once again, these are not referring to one person… The ”mitochondrial Eve,” to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today’s mtDNA. She may not even have been human.
The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor (”Y-chromosome Adam”) lived an estimated 84,000 years after the ”mitochondrial Eve” and also came from Africa (Hawkes 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001).
The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results (Awadalla et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 1999). But these challenges have themselves been questioned (Kivisild et al. 2000).
”on the linear rate of “rapid speciation” since the Global Flood using the actual MtDNA change rates for animals and humans which nicely confirms a genetic bottleneck for all extant creatures that are descendants of the few representative Kinds at the taxonomic level of Family in most cases that God sent to the Ark for survival by being on the Ark and those off the Ark for the marine kinds.”

The interesting thing with believing this, is that if Noah had to bring all kinds, that is, around 7000 according to answers in genesis, and we have around 16 million species today if we are very restricted in our definitions (so at least 16 millions), that is like 4 new species a year! THAT, is rapid evolution.

”Intrinsic Radiocarbon in all the alleged ancient material falsifies the deep time claims of the atheistic pseudoscience of Evolutionism and Uniformitarianism.”

Already debunked here:

”Radiocarbon is detectable by very accurate instruments in all the alleged ancient material that Evil Evolutionists/Atheists claim according to arbitrary Evolutionary time lines to be more than 60 Million years old.”

Which is explained by contamination from the air..

”This empirical evidence/data reduces the age of all the alleged ancient materials to much less than 60,000 years since according to the alleged half-life of 5730 years for C14 there should not be a single atom of C14 beyond 60,000 years.”

Well, first of that is explained by contamination, but more importantly, we have MANY radiometric dating methods, and if we get different results with different methods, we do not trust the results, but the assumption usually leanes towards the results that correlates whith each other.

”Intrinsic Radiocarbon is measurable by very accurate instruments [Accelerator Mass Spectrometry] in all these alleged ancient materials in alleged layers that are 100’s of millions of years old i.e. Coal, Bituminous Coal, Coal Tar, Diamonds, Oil, Natural Gas, Marble, Graphite, Foraminifera, Coke, Fossil Wood, Anthracite, Calcite, Whale Bone, Dolomite, Wood, and Dinosaur Fossils. If the Earth was even 60,000 years old not a single atom of C14 would be detected.”

Already debunked here:

”These findings are withheld from the public and were barred from the abstract when presented at the Geophysics meeting this past August 2013.”

So how did Antonio find out about them? Super-advanced spying technology, directly from god?

”The Bible describes two dinosaurs according to eyewitness narrative that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. Recent evidence of soft pliable blood vessels, collagen protein/sequence and blood components found inside a T-Rex bone also confirms a young Earth and the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs as well as the Global Flood catastrophe since the un-mineralized tissue was found that couldn’t survive longer than a few thousand years as confirmed by lab testing.”

The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.

”Professor of Geology at University College of Swansea Derek Ager (1923–1993) said about the evidence of polystrate fossils:
“… we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes…we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed…” Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, London, pp. 46–47, 1987″

First of all, outdated source. Secondly, it is a quote mine..  You can find the rest of the text here:

“[Charles] Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that…all past processes acted at their current rates (that is, those observed in historic time)… This extreme gradualism [concocted by Lyell to deliberately silence the historical record in Genesis compiled by Moses] has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than they were not gradual.”
Allmon, W.D., Director of Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University. “Post Gradualism”, Science 262(5130):122, October 1993.”

This is just wrong. The reason we have excluded such events as the flood, is that there is no evidence of the flood, and there is also, MASSIVE evidence against it, such as 2 billion cubic kilometers of water missing, and that there is no rock-layer showing global flooding.

Secondly, Charles Lyell is EXTREMELY outdated (he died in 1875).

”The information/instructions/commands in view in biological systems are the SEMANTIC COMMANDS between the Sender and Receiver of the instructions which both must understand. In the Genome Program of Life for every Kind of organism, the Sender is God who used a chemical based medium i.e. A,G,C,T in DNA and inc. U for RNA.”

This is a CLAIM requiring EVIDENCE. Antonio sure likes to claim and guess.

”The Genome Program of life has this code specified by the billions of base pairs that the RECEIVERS which are nano-scaled biological machines that translate and obey the commands that God specified.”

True, except for the ”God-part” which is pure speculation.

”This highly ordered system can’t tolerate noise pollution; it has systems [“blue prints”] to compare to remove errors. Mutations are 100% deleterious or neutral”

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

– Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
– Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
– Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
– A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
– Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
– In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

– Lactose tolerance – why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
– Antibiotic resistant bacteria – at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.
– Radiation resistant fungi (and perhaps other lifeforms) inside Chernobyl
– ”German Superboy”, an individual example of a human mutation that not only doesn’t cause any visible disfigurement or impairment, but if anything will probably make it easier to maintain a muscular physique and/or low weight. These are characteristics that could be considered desirable in the modern day, when food is abundant.
– The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous). The mutation also confers resistance to plague and smallpox while increasing susceptibility to west nile virus.

”and can’t produce semantic commands or specify a program.”

Once again a CLAIM not backed up by EVIDENCE.

”Gene duplication, transposons and polyploidy are methods by which existing semantic commands are utilized and are not the source of Semantic Instructions.”

Once again, a CLAIM not supported by EVIDENCE.

”Information can’t exist without intelligence.”

Once again a CLAIM requiring EVIDENCE.

”Language is not material; it is immaterial.”


”Einstein’s Gulf says materialism cannot cross over to ideas, instruction, emotion, opinion, language. These things can only come from GOD who is the intelligence/being that made humans in his likeness to have these abilities.”

Once again a CLAIM requiring EVIDENCE.

”Chemical reactions are by design as God purposed. What behaves predictably, and purposefully is by design.”

Once again a CLAIM requiring EVIDENCE.

“The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems.”

Yes, but unsolved problems does not mean ”god did it”.

”The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced!”

WE all know there are holes in scientific knowledge. We for example do not know exactly how RNA and DNA first came into existence, this of course only argue one thing: That we do not know, nothing else.

”This presents a paradox of the chicken and egg variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile. “  John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), Organization and the Origin of Life, Origins, Vol.4, No.1, 1977, pp.3031.”

True, but that we have not solved in means absolutely nothing. It just means that we do not know. It does not imply god. A few 100 years ago, we did not understand comets, that did not mean they were created by god.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at”

The paper itself contains no data at all — no experiments, measurements, or observations — but it is full of novel acronyms. Apparently, all you need to do to make it as a big time creationist is to make up new words and phrases and string them together. His other papers seems to be impenetrably glib papers full of pretentious acronyms, posing as an expert on biology while saying nothing credible about biology at all. IT is pure pseudoscience providing absolutely no evidence or repeatable tests.

”The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings.”

Which evolution does not even try to answer. So it is a flaw of evolution, that it does not answer something it is not trying to answer? Evolution tried to answer why there is VARIETY, not the origins of life.

”It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium”

Well, all chemicals are codes in the same way DNA is. Some are more advanced, some are less. Also, that it has never been shown, is no reason to ASSUME the opposite (that intelligence is required).

”and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p.124.  Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000)”

Werner Gitt is a retired German engineer, not an expert on evolution.


Antonio keeps claiming so, but does not seem to realize that quoting people out of context, or quoting people that are not experts, is not evidence. No quotes are evidence.

”We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology. What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle. Denton, p.329.”

Once again, this is SPECULATION. It does not put forward any EVIDENCE.

“Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.”

And all experts on the subject, say it was caused by a NON-RANDOM natural process. As soon as you see someone say ”random” when it comes to evolution, you know the person does not know the subject at hand. This is true in this case as well, Wickramasinghe is a mathematician/astronomer (not an expert on the subject)  Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, so, non of them are experts on the subject. Which should be quite obvious since they obviously believe chemists are talking about a random process.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.”

Not True, it is just highly unlikely, but it can have a NATURAL beginning, NATURAL does not mean RANDOM.

”Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”  Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 148.”

Richard Dawkins explains why this is a misunderstanding of how evolution works:

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed.”

This is a CLAIM, not evidence.

”We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.”  Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 150.”

Once again, these guys are not experts on biology or chemistry. They are Astronomers and mathematicians.

 “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.”  Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 141.”

Once again, these guys are not experts on biology or chemistry. They are Astronomers and matematichians. Just laypeople on this subject. You may as well ask any random highschool-student.

“… there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. … There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.”

And then he goes on to explain why this is no problem for evolution:,+all+30+volumes+of+it,+three+or+four+times+over.+…+There+is+++enough+storage+capacity+in+the+DNA+of+a+single+lily+seed+or+a+single+salamander+sperm+to+store+the+Encyclopaedia+Britannica+60+times+over.&source=bl&ots=xLaICmy-HR&sig=WFT6SGCcRE_o3KmGLv4oI4lqi_I&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipnaKlseHPAhVFEywKHfWJApkQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=there%20is%20enough%20information%20capacity%20in%20a%20single%20human%20cell%20to%20store%20the%20Encyclopaedia%20Britannica%2C%20all%2030%20volumes%20of%20it%2C%20three%20or%20four%20times%20over.%20…%20There%20is%20%20%20enough%20storage%20capacity%20in%20the%20DNA%20of%20a%20single%20lily%20seed%20or%20a%20single%20salamander%20sperm%20to%20store%20the%20Encyclopaedia%20Britannica%2060%20times%20over.&f=false

“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.”

Lee Spetner is physicist, not an expert on biology or chemistry, a layperson on this subject.

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.” Gisela Storz, “An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,” Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.”

OK, so what?

 “The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.”  Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.”

OK, so what?

“… non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ‘junk DNA’] have regulatory roles.” John M. Greally, “Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,” Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.”

OK, so what?

”The Evolutionary pseudoscientists claim that dentation, the type of teeth, dictates diet and scorn that God originally made all land animals to live on a vegetarian diet. This is silly since it’s the digestion system that extracts the essential nutrients from the food and not teeth or talons.”

And lions, for example, do not have what is necessary to process Mushrooms. So…

”Meet ‘Little Tyke’ the Lioness that would not eat meat or a drop of blood, but grew to a healthy weight on a vegetarian diet. Another such Lioness (Lea) raised in Italy was an Italian pasta lover. Then there’s Dante the vegetable loving cat. Consider the Palm nut vulture with talons and a beak like an eagle but is vegetarian and thrives on Palm nuts.”

Humans can eat gravel, and dirt, it is just not good for us. Little Tyke DIED.
Cats cannot make their own Taurine (, and they need it in their diet or they will die young.

”Speaking of the future Kingdom of God to come ruled by Jesus, the returning Messiah, Isaiah 11:6-9  speaks of this restoration 6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea.”

Once again, a Biblical CLAIM with no evidence. Guesses and speculations.

Then comes a list of Hovind-videos. I see no need to debunk them, since that is already done so many times, Talk Origins debunks basically every argument he has on this page:

”Carl Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) May 23, 1707– Jan. 10, 1778  a Swedish Creationist Christian of the 18th century was a Botanist, Physician, and Zoologist who used a binomial nomenclature on the basis of genus & species designation to classify flora and fauna in a hierarchical system that made him the father of modern taxonomy and ecology.
Contrary to evolutionists that have hijacked his work to say otherwise, the nested hierarchical outcome of his analysis best reflects a typology of the flora and fauna of God’s divine plan and not evidence of evolution”

He is several hundred years outdated. Antonio just keeps on CLAIMING things.

”The shared physical characteristics reflect design suited for the environment and purpose and abilities that the Creator God purposed for each kind of organism.”

It LOOKS like that. But the argument from design is debunked hundreds of times. So, I feel no need to do that. Richard Dawkins book ”the blind watchmaker” is probably the most famous one.

”His systemization of the organisms parallels God’s creation account with Kinds due to kingdoms as with birds of the air, aquatic fish and sea monsters, creeping things such as insects and worms, beasts of the fields being the quadrupeds etc. with variation or sorts under each kind as limited by inter-fertile reproduction.
Evolutionism was concocted by evil lying Atheists without any knowledge of DNA/Genetics/Genome without any evidence, logic and without using the scientific method”

Claims, claims, and more claims. Where is the EVIDENCE?

”The Canidae kind is very famous to demonstrate the variation/sub-species of the Biblical Kind; dogs, jackals, dingoes, wolves, foxes, coyotes are inter-fertile confirming that they are of the same Biblical Kind.”

And the ”dog kind” became all of these in just a few thousand years?? That is RAPID evolution you are talking about! With that speed, we would expect to see 4 new species every day.

From   wikipedi .org/wiki/Inter-species_mating
”Fertile canid hybrids occur between coyotes, wolves, dingoes, jackals and domestic dogs.”

Yes, there are cases, so what? They have not drifted very far a part yet.

”By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God”

Faith = Acceptance without evidence. So, what is said here, is that by GUESSING, we ”understand” that the word was made by god.

”Source of Semantic Instructions/Commands in the Genome Program of Life and its corruption since creation.”

Once again a CLAIM with no evidence.

”Semantic instruction/commands are between a sender [God or humans that specify the commands by a communication code utilizing a medium] and the receiver/s [biological machines or electro-mechanical machines such as a PC, PLC etc as an analogy using machines contrived by humans]. Semantic commands/instructions inside every cell is not a prediction of the patently absurd and ridiculous atheistic pseudoscience/notion of materialism/naturalism/evolutionism i.e. the atheistic dogma/philosophy of mindless and lifeless chemical explanations only without a superior intelligence/being we call God.”

Once again a CLAIM with no evidence.

”The semantic commands/instructions in the genome program of life written for every kind of organism were only once specified during the creation week by God.”

Once again a CLAIM with no evidence.

”Genesis 2: 1-4  1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created,…”

Once again a CLAIM with no evidence.

”God establishes the 7 day week with a day of rest, a heritage from God and not based on His planetary ordinance. God creates all that exists from what did not exist before creation, and ended the work of creation and rested from his self-sustaining world. Using the Tablet Theory, God’s  eyewitness account of creation which started with Genesis 1:1 ends with His sign-off  verse Genesis 2:4a  “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created “

Once again a CLAIM with no evidence.

”Creation had to be within a short period of time to enable the self-sustaining cycles of life that are meshed with the lunar and planetary cycles that govern them. These life cycles are key for the biomass that supports the habitable environment of the Earth and the symbiotic relationships of all life on and in it.”

There is however no evidence for this GUESS.

”The failed Biosphere II experiment proves”

A failed experiment is simply a failed experiment, it proves nothing.
Secondly, in science, evidence INDICATES, nothing is ever proven, it is all about plausibility.

”that unless the Earth’s ecosystem is maintained within important levels continually, biological life will end for the most fragile life forms within days and in weeks  to months for the more hardy.”

Jupp, which is not evidence of god. In fact, why would god make the system fragile to begin with?

”The Strong Anthropic Principal”

Is philosophical, not science.

”Isaiah 45:18
18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.”


”The testable prediction based on God’s claim:”

Ah, finally, some evidence, ooor?

”Because the Earth is uniquely created for life, it will be shown that many innumerable parameters and relationships necessary for life to be possible and sustained in the physical habitable environments will be discovered and that should those parameters be sufficiently changed that life forms will die and or become extinct and will not be replaced. Life is indeed fragile; 90% of the known species of flora and fauna is lost and more are being lost without replacement which falsifies Evolutionism.”

WHAT? Even if all life died, it would not falsify evolution. The rest is just claims. Not evidence. Earth is in fact quite hostile to life, not to talk about 99,9% of the universe. The mass extinctions is a part of evolution theory.

”Some have suggested that there are over 400 parameters necessary for life on Plant Earth, I suggest that it will be discovered that the number of simultaneous finely tuned parameters are much higher that make our Planet Uniquely Habitable.”

So? The universe is immensely big, even if the odds are one in 10 billions, those are GOOD odds considering the size of the universe.

”The Strong Anthropic Principle in Order and Short Duration of Creation. Why does all the evidence support God’s word/claims yet the alleged modern ”Science” fails to accept the truth.”

The reason we do not accept, is that there is absolutely no evidence. The Strong Anthropic Principle is PHILOSOPHY, not SCIENCE.

”The Deep Time Lie concocted by the atheists that evolutionism needs is yet again falsified by the empirical evidence of side by side Uranium 238 and Polonium 210 Radiohalos in metamorphic granite that demonstrate over 100 million years of decay measure at today’s rate happening in just a few days. Thus the radiometric dating game using unverifiable assumptions has this evidence that refutes the assumption of decay rate constancy in history unaffected by any catastrophic events and such causes.”

Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998). So, no, it is not evidence of creationism. It is evidence that Antonio has not done his research.

”Biblical kinds that are very closely related were prohibited by God [Leviticus 19:19] in cross-breeding because God knows that it introduces weakness as discovered with hybrids.”

Once again a claim with no evidence. That is, that it is caused by god.

”The Biblical Kind is akin to Family in modern taxonomy but can be below or above this level.”
Making it UNSCIENTIFIC to begin with. Antonio of course says this to be able to move the goalpost.

”We can only speculate about the mechanisms that God used to curtail human life span from nearly 1000 years to 120 years.”

There is no evidence of humans EVERY living past 130.

”The life span decay curve has been linked to genetic entropy which may have been accelerated after the Global Flood that collapsed the protective water canopy shielding solar/cosmic rays.”

Speculation upon speculations… Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome is a creationist anti-evolution book written by geneticist John C. Sanford. The book claims that mutations and natural selection do not account for the information in the human genome and that instead of evolution these mechanisms are causing devolution. It however, puts forward NO EVIDENCE.


Or, for a stronger source:

”Mutation will cause the death of the species.”

So, HIV immunity and strong bones is bad? Both caused by mutations. Natural selection weeds out bad mutations and keeps the good ones.

”Mutations are causing human intelligence to decrease since the peak when humans were created 6000 years ago.
Crabtree, G. R. 2013. Our Fragile Intellect. Part I. Trends in Genetics. 29 (1): 1-3.
The human genome adds about 60 new mutations to the gene-coding DNA regions each generation. Using this rate Crabtree calculates that “every 20-50 generations we should sustain a mutation in one copy of one of our many ID genes.” … “in the past 3000 years then (~120 generations), each of us should have accumulated at the very least 2.5-6 mutations in ID genes.” Accordingly, the human intellect “perhaps reached a peak 2000-6000 years ago.””

This is a LIE. The FLYNN EFFECT is documented and means that every generation is a little bit more intelligent than the last.

”Mitochondrial Eve is genetically confirmed to be about 6500 years old using the actual mutational rates and not the re-scaled version used to fraudulently support deep time.”

The ”mitochondrial Eve,” to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today’s mtDNA. She may not even have been human.The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor (”Y-chromosome Adam”) lived an estimated 84,000 years after the ”mitochondrial Eve” and also came from Africa (Hawkes 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001).The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results (Awadalla et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 1999). But these challenges have themselves been questioned (Kivisild et al. 2000).

”Noah’s 3 sons and daughter-in-law’s had to repopulate the earth [Gen. 9:18-19] 18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark [on the Mountains of Ararat, modern day Turkey] were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated] the genetic analysis of the male Y chromosome confirms a recent Adam via Noah of all males. There are three main lineages of Mitochondrial DNA: dubbed by Evolutionists as Haplogroups “M”, “N” and “R” which are nicely corresponding to the three wives of Noah’s three sons and have very little mutational difference between each other that confirms the short period from the creation of Adam and Eve about 1056 years before the flood of Noah.”

Already answered the last time I debunked Antonio:

“The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the chicken and egg variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile. “  John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), Organization and the Origin of Life, Origins, Vol.4, No.1, 1977, pp.3031.”

We all know we have holes in our knowledge. We do not know how DNA came to be exactly, this is not really a problem, a theory does not have to be a 100% complete.

”The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p.124.  Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000)”

We can see already in the first sentence that this is bullshit. Evolution has no view on the origins of life, it is a whole other field. Also, this is an ARGUMENT. Arguments are never evidence.

”Life only comes from Life, the parental life form and not from nonlife, nor does intelligence come from the unintelligent, nor does Design/Contrivance without the Designer/Contriver, nor does morality from what is amoral, nor does sexual reproduction from non-sexual reproduction, and so on to refute Evolutionism.”

So, Claim without evidence, + a few more claims without evidence = Evolution is refuted. Strong arguing here!

Antonio keeps saying that intelligence is needed, but provides no evidence.

”Global Warming/Cooling or Climate Change:
Greenhouse gases are normal. Humans and animals breathe out the “greenhouse gas”, Carbon Dioxide [CO2], and pass flatulent, methane, another more potent greenhouse gas. Therefore, 7 billion people and an unknown amount of animals breathing every few seconds and passing gas are normal and essential to life. Declaring CO2 a pollutant is patently absurd. The fact of the matter is that Global Warming and Climate Change are normal. The Climate Changes with the Seasons and Solar Flare cycles etc.”

Sure it is normal. That does not mean that humans do not play a part in speeding it up or that the effects will not be catastrophical.

 ”What is the ideological agenda/propaganda of the Global Warming and Climate Change agenda?”

To warn people…

”Dangerous pseudoscience exists wherever an Ideology i.e. Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism, Uniformitarian Geology, and Evolutionism is trying to rule over Empirical Science.”

According to basically all scientists, evolution IS empirical science. Antonio needs EVIDENCE to change that.”

LOL, sure, of course Global warming is not our fault, it is not like we are polluting!

”All claims of climate change due to very recent and very limited human activity is rubbish.”

Of course letting tons of pollution out in our atmosphere is completely safe! Antonio says so!

”Climate Change/Global Warming is normal since the Ice Age about 4000 years”

Normal yes, but not in this speed.

”ago and is powered by only one heat source i.e. our SUN.”

IF it was only the sun, shouldn’t earths temperature be constant?

”There is no other heat source capable of the glacial melt and subsequent sea level rise of about 130 Meters.”

The sun is not enough at this range. Green house gases KEEPS the heat on earth, THAT is the problem (unless you live where I live, then you say GOOOO global warming).

”The high energy density of fossil fuels is needed to power air travel, freight of products/food, etc.”

Yes, but they also ruing the planet.

”There are no climate change scientists that have been monitoring the climate change for 4000 or more years.”

No need, we can see what climate there was a billion years ago by looking at geology amongs other sciences.

”All scientist are born not knowing anything from birth and learn for other humans born ignorant.”

We TEST things in nature, we do not just tell eachother stuff in science.

”Spencer plagiarized God”

You need to prove god exist to claim that.

”Mendel’s laws of genetics with modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species.”

They are a part of the theory of evolution.

”Genes, the units of heredity, are reshuffled from one generation to another in new combinations, but not different genes.”

Yet Antonio has been speaking about gene-duplication earlier on, which produces new genes and adds information.

”The different combinations produce variations within each kind of life, as in the canidae kind.”

Jupp, but Antonio provides no evidence that there is a limit to the level of change.

”The logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.”

No, that is just a lie.

”Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries as set by God.”

They confirm the opposite. WE have observed speciation. There is no evidence that there is a barrier. So, no, just, no..

”all that are inter-fertile whether naturally or by artificial breeding including sterile offspring confirm the Biblical claim that they reproduce after their Kind with sorts/sub-species. The Law of Biogenesis and Mendelian Genetics also confirm God’s claims/Design.”

So 2 laws that are a part of evolution-theory, disproves evolution? AHA… Logical.. Secondly, all offsprings do not become infertile when interbreeding.

“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.”

That is not what experiments such as the long term e-koli experiments shows us, no.

”Speciation is not Evolution.”

Antonio claims so, however, every single expert on the subject say he is wrong. So we have a choice, trust all experts, or trus Antonio knows better than them all.

”Evolution from pond scum to all that ever lived never happened historically and thus has no forensic evidence or eyewitnesses, defies scientific laws and principles and therefore, cannot be studied and cannot be reproduced as required by the scientific method.”

Debunked in my last post

”Shares the John pedelton video.”

John Pendelton is not a biologist or a chemist, he is a hired actor.

Biological Evolutionism Never Happened [7 Statements Evolutionists can’t answer and prove otherwise]”
Biological Evolutionism from the alleged common ancestor of all spontaneously generating aka abiogenesis in Pond Scum [Darwin’s warm pools of water with chemicals etc.] that then allegedly transmuted aka Macro-evolved into all the life forms that ever lived as fraudulently depicted in phylogenetic trees:
1- never happened historically,”

CLAIM with no evidence.

”2- thus cannot have eyewitnesses,”

So, we start with the conclusion? I though it would be more logical to start with observations instead of the conclusion ”evolution is not true, therefore, there cannot be evidence”.

We can argue against Antonio with the same logic: Since the Bible is not true, there can be no evidence of it…

”3- and thus left no forensic evidence,”

”Evolution is not true, therefore, there cannot be evidence”, Antonio ones again starts with the conclusion.

”4- and therefore, was never studied as it allegedly happened,”

”Evolution is not true, therefore, there cannot be evidence”, Antonio ones again starts with the conclusion.

”5- defies scientific laws and principles,”

No, the law of biogenesis DOES NOT say that chemicals cannot bind to become more advanced (abiogenesis), and the laws of thermodynamics does NOT apply to earth, since earth is not an isolated system.

”6- and therefore, cannot be reproduced materialistically.”

”Evolution is not true, therefore, there cannot be evidence”, Antonio ones again starts with the conclusion.

”7- This makes Pond Scum to all that ever lived Evolutionism,:”

CLAIM, not evidence.

”a- an atheistic myth concocted by reprobate atheists,”

Actually, mostly by Christians.

”b- not even a working hypothesis much less a scientific theory,”


”c- the religion of the atheist,”

Once again, mainly CHRISTIANS.

”d- force fed to KIDS/PUBLIC as an alleged FACT using evidence hijacked by atheists with pseudoscientific claims /LIES/Hoaxes/Fraudulent claims and fraudulent/fabricated evidence

That is true with all school subjects. WE force them to learn what evidence has shown us so far.. IF they turn out to be wrong, we teach them the new facts.

”What are and how are/were fossils made?
Fossils are things encased in rock/stone/mud/amber/ash etc. To encase a fossil of soft tissue flora or fauna or tracks and swimming tracks in rock, rapid burial by mineral rich water borne sediment is needed without subsequent disturbance by environmental erosion and requires the death of living organisms that could dig them out or find them to scavenged them i.e. bioturbation of all types must be prevented as occurred with the Global Flood of Noah.”

Such a flood could have caused fossils, yes. There is just no evidence of such a flood ever happening. In fact, 2 billion cubic  kilometers water are missing for it to even be considered.

”The Global fossils in the Global Fossiliferous Sedimentary Layers by the trillions are formed by the Global Flood of Noah as God purposed when He wanted to destroy the Earth and all land dwelling air-breathing creatures.”

A CLAIM without evidence, once again…

”This Global watery catastrophe trapped/buried dead or dying flora and fauna suddenly by many layers of mineral rich water borne sediment which were not subsequently scavenged by animals/insects/bacteria etc. to eliminate the flora and fauna.”

The big questions here for creationists, is: Why didn’t one single animal try to swim, but instead ordered themselves according to biological advancement.

”Fossils are not made by evolution or Uniformitarian Geology”

No one claims they are.

”and thus are not evidence of Evolution or a chronological history of evolution over deep time.”

Logical fallacy, your premise does not match your conclusion. That evolution does not make fossils, does not imply that fossils are not evidence of evolution.

”This is self-evident using the Law of cause and effect.”

LOL, no, this has nothing to do with cause and effect. Even if evolution cannot caused fossils, fossils can still be evidence of evolution.

”Furthermore, there were ZERO transitional forms when Darwin needed/expected innumerable evidence in the fossil record and there are ZERO transitional forms 150 years later after more than 250,000 cataloged fossils in the intervening years showing no evolution/chance and only stasis.”

Yes there are:
Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Cephalopods, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus,

Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus
Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis,
Lepidopteran, Melittosphex, Sphecomyrma
Eophyllium, Protoclaviger, Attercopus, Eoplectreurys, Pikaia, Conodont,
Haikouichthys, Arandaspis
Birkenia, Guiyu, Chondrichthyes, Cladoselache, Dalpiazia, Cyclobatis,
Andreolepis, Amphistium, Eobothus,
Leptolepis, Anguillavus, Hippocampus sarmaticus, Hippocampus slovenicus,
Nardovelifer, Eomola, Corydoras revelatus, Ruffoichthys, Palaeoperca,
Trachicaranx, Histionotophorus, Eolactoria, Proaracana, Gazolaichthys,
Psettopsis, Pasaichthys, Eozanclus, Cretatriacanthus, Nardoichthys,
Protozeus, Archaeozeus, Cooyoo,
Protriacanthus, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik,
Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton,
Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Gerobatrachus, Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus,
Vieraella, Eocaecilia, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Westlothiana,
Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Odontochelys, Proganochelys, Eileanchelys, Eupodophis, Najash, Anqingosaurus,
Dallasaurus, Palaeosaniwa, Gangiguana, Cretaceogekko, Darwinopterus,
Pterorhynchus, Proterosuchus, Marasuchus, Asilisaurus, Spondylosoma,
Eoraptor, Pisanosaurus, Thecodontosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stenopelix,
Yinlong, Guanlong, Falcarius, Scelidosaurus, Probactrosaurus,
Pelecanimimus, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx,
Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis, Ichthyornis, Waimanu, Elornis, Colymboides,
Mopsitta, Masillaraptor, Primapus, Protoclepsydrops, Archaeothyris,
Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Biarmosuchus, Cynognathus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon,
Yanoconodon, Kollikodon, Djarthia, Eritherium,Miacis,  Heteroprox,
Eotragus,Protylopus, Hyrachyus,  Heptodon, Hesperocyon, Eurymylus,
Onychonycteris, Purgatorius, Sivapithecus, Kenyapotamus, Eomanis,
Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus,
Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Pezosiren, Prorastomus,
Protosiren, Eotheroides, Halitherium, Puijila, Potamotherium, Enaliarctos,
Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus,
Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis.

”The reason that there ZERO forensic evidence from Pond scum to all evolutionism is because it never happened”

Once again, Antonio starts with the conclusion. Real science looks at evidence, and then draw conclusion, Antonio starts with the conclusion that evolution never happened, and therefore draws the conclusion that there cannot be evidence. We can do that with anything. ”Christianity is not true, therefore, there are no evidence in the Bible”.

”Fossilized Swimming Tracks of floating dinosaurs tiptoeing in mineral rich sediment are evidence of the Global Flood of Noah”

It may as well prove that there used to be a lake at that spot that has dried out. Or a LOCAL flood. No one is denying that floods happen.

”Mineralized fossils include incomplete mineralization as with the soft pliable tissue in the T-rex bone found by Schweitzer.
“Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies.  Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make.  Also in 2009, the team of Dr. Phil Wilby discovered a fossilized squid that contained a sack of ink so well-preserved that it could be used in a pen for writing, found in rock that is considered to be 150 million years old.  In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters.  Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded.”

This is explained though, by the fossils being encased in Zink and other metals. Such encasing can cause basically limitless preservation.

“The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-Rex dinosaur femur bone was reported in the journal SCIENCE.  This is an outstanding find because collagen, being a soft tissue present in most animals, is supposed to decay in a few thousand years.”

UNLESS incased in Zink or similar. A more interesting thing here, is that science magazines puts forward everything, even things that points in a new direction. Creationism, would NEVER put forward ANYTHING that did not correleate with the Bible.

”When fossils are hijacked as the alleged evidence for Pond Scum to all evolutionism it is done fallaciously for the following reasons:
a- spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis does not make fossils.”

Which in no way argues against EVOLUTION (since evolution starts when life is already present), also, even if evolution or abiogenesis does not make fossils, fossils may still be evidence of them. One does not exclude the other.

”b- natural selection does not make fossils.”

True, every evolutionist agree. This changes nothing when it comes to the science surrounding evolution though. All evolutionists agree that Evolution, abiogenesis, or natural selection, does not make fossils.

”c- descent with modification does not make fossils.”

Agree… But fossils can still be evidence of decent with modification. One does not exclude the other.

”d- rare deleterious mutations do not make fossils”

Once again, true.

”e- Just-so atheistic, Darwinian storytelling and Lamarckistic notions/ideas/stories do not make fossils.”

True. So, now Antonio have said 5 things that all evolutionists agree to.

Thus under the Law of Cause and Effect, all of the above is not the cause of the global fossiliferous sedimentary layers enveloping the planet as one consolidated rock without bioturbation and with trillions of fossils of flora and fauna including fossil fuels.

LOGICAL FALLACY, your premise does not match your conclusion. That Evolution does not make fossils, does not mean that fossils cannot be evidence of evolution.

Debunking ”The Laughable Age of the Universe by wild guesses and Modern Pseudoscience” by Antonio DeAguiar

This article debunks Antonio DeAguiar’s so called evidence against the Big bang, evolution, and abiogenesis (
For you who are lazy, we can summarize this whole paper in just a few words:
Antonio DeAguiar CLAIMS a lot of things, and he backs these claims up with nothing but quote mining and speculations without any evidence at all.
He also seems to have misunderstood what ”evidence” is, since he obviously consider missing evidence to be counter evidence.

Arguments surrounding the age of the universe and the big bang.

”Note, the following unverifiable assumption used to date the universe:
– that the Big Bang happened even though it defies scientific laws and principles”

Antonio will have to provide EVIDENCE for this. Right now (and trough this whole paper), he just keeps on claiming such things without in any way proving himself true.

”and is falling out of favour due to many contradictory issues”

It is still accepted as the number one theory on the origins of the universe, if not, present the new theory.

”and many ad hoc rescue notions like Dark Matter/Energy”

Antonio will need to provide EVIDENCE for this claim. Just claiming that Dark matter and Dark energy is not there, will make no difference to anyone.

”- that the one-way speed of light from a star to the observer on planet earth is known and a constant”

It is, BUT, you also have to take relativity into account (that close to a clack hole, time slows down), which we do when measuring the universe.

”even though it cannot be measured/verified and that lab testing shows that the speed of light can be slowed and sped up”

No, it says that GRAVITY can speed up and slow down time, not the speed of light.

”- that the expansion rate of the Universe was a constant and that measurements are accurate even though a red shift can be due to other reasons”

No one is saying the expansion rate is constant, in fact, every single scientist say it is not, BUT, this does not mean it cannot be calculated.

Also, what are these other reasons for red-shifting? Once again, Antonio just claims things.

”- that the distance of stars are accurately known even though parallax is not an accurate method and is very limited in range”

We have so much more that Parallax. We have Angular distance and Red shifting for example, among with a large variety of other methods, all giving the same results.

”and that all the celestial bodies are careening is space in unknown chartered orbits”

Antonio is once again making a claim and does not provide any evidence at all.

”- that star brightness and mass/density can be used to determine the distance of the stars even though this assumed method cannot be verified”

Of course it can be verified. We have MANY methods of measuring distance, and when they all give the same results, it is verified.

”- that distant stars can be resolved with a telescope when all the celestial bodies are careening in space (as is our solar system) in uncharted orbits i.e. the light from distant stars that are careening in space cannot be resolved if the speed of light is not instantaneous”

Antonio will once again have to provide EVIDENCE for this claim.

”There are several uniformitarian measurements perfectly supporting a Young Earth”

Such as? No examples are given of course..

”and Universe that contradict the alleged age of the universe (and Earth)”

According to who? Oh, people with no education on the subject, that’s right…

”such as Lunar Recession”

Debunked here:

”Short Period Comets”

This is a classic Hovind argument, a true liar who’s only objective is to steal money from morons (creationists). The projected life span of one short-period comet, that of Halley’s comet, is 40,000 years (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.339). Thus, we can forget about Dr. Hovind’s 10,000-year figure! A comet’s actual life span  depends on its size.

”Spiral Galaxies”

Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy’s disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years. The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.

The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics (Carlberg et al. 1999).

”Saturn’s rings”

Saturn’s rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn’s history. Saturn’s moons shepherd the particles that make up the rings, preventing them from drifting and maintaining the gaps between the rings. This shepherding may allow the rings to be much older than 100 million years. (However, the color of the rings suggests not much more than 100 million years’ worth of accumulated dust.)
Thompson, Tim, n.d. Answers in Genesis and Saturn’s rings.’s_rings.htm
”volcanic activity of various moons”

Would prove exactly what???

”the actual Magnetic Field Decay of Planets recently measured”

The earth’s magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth’s history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth’s interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field’s polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006). Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth’s interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth’s core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser’s dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the ”current” caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling’s theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

”See comments from scientists about the Big Bang being busted:”

These are of course 99% quote mines, as we all know, Creationists are incapable of being honest, so, such things happen, lets go trough these quotes!

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that
the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.”

He formulated the steady state theory, now rejected.

“Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense
pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility
that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.” Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol.
393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

Yes, there are more than one theory.. The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the
universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred
to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology. Over 99% of all cosmologists accept it. So, yes, there are around halv a percent of scientists that does not accept it,
but to say that ”cosmologists” as a whole has rejected it is a straight out lie.

“In fact, studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud.” [Patterns that repeat on all scales are called fractal.] Francesco Sylos Labini, as quoted by Marcus Chown, “Fractured Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 163, 21 August 1999, p. 23.

This article does not argue against the Big bang, it is a quote mine:

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into
the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of
thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-
beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.”

We can easily see that this is creationist bull-crap, since it argues the laws of thermodynamics would be relevant on something that is not a closed/isolated system and also that entropy evenly increases. IT does not, it increases as a whole, but can decrease in certain areas.

The quote is from a person lacking education and that has a clear agenda:

He also has no relevant education:

“The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73.”

It WAS not. Now it has been included. This article is 13 years old… Since then, the standard model has been confirmed by the finding of the Higgs particle.
”The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.”

Redshift is a SCIENTIFIC LAW!

We also has several other methods for measuring distance, such as Angular distance, that confirms redshifting correct.

“The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.”


“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet
been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.” Ibid., p. 25.”

The Higgs particle is such a prediction. So yes, it has. It even won a Nobel price recently.

“And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures.” Van Flandern, p. 33.”

Yes, that is how science works, we adjust our theories according to our findings.

“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.” Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.

Once again, this does not argue against the Big bang. OR the age of the universe. We all know there are holes in scientific knowledge.

”The original Big Bang model had a number of serious and even fatal difficulties, including its own version of the ”starlight and time” problem known as the horizon problem. In an attempt to solve these issues, secular scientists proposed an ad hoc ”tack-on” to the model called inflation. Inflation was originally said to be an extremely rapid but brief growth spurt of the universe that occurred shortly after the supposed Big Bang, although secular cosmologists now tend to view it as the cause of the Big Bang itself.”

Inflation has evidence and is today the only theory that explains the uniformity of the universe.

We also have alternatives to it, since we are not sure:

”An article on titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’”

LOL, Big bang has support by millions of scientists. So, it is cute that 33 of them do not agree, and it is quite normal in science as well. Also, the letter was written before the LHC confirmed the Big bang by finding the higgs-particle. The letter is based on inflation, dark matter, and dark energy not being observable. Which is partly true (it was also true for black holes until recently, they were assumed mainly on Einsteins equations), but it does not question big bang theory as a whole, which is originally based on the galaxies moving apart, which is a fact.

”The open letter includes statements such as:
•‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’”

Without them, the big bang still stands. We just have to adjust the theory if that turns out to be the case. Every scientists is in agreement that we do not fully understand the universe. The big bang is originally based on the galaxies moving apart, this does not change if Dark energy, matter, and inflation turns out to be wrong.

”•‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic”

Inflation was thought out in the early 1980s, dark matter and energy even later on. So the Big bang was the strongest theory for 60 years, before we even theorized about them. So of course big bang is not out if these were proven wrong.

”•‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’”

What are this guy talking about? Experimental physics, a whole field, contains ONLY such ideas. Things that cannot yet be observed.

And it is questioned! But so far, 99,9% of all scientists say it is the most plausible model.

”•‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.”

The cosmic background radiation was predicted to exist, before it was found. And even before it was found, it was said it would exist, and be strong evidence if ever found. Well, we found it, and the prediction checked out. Another prediction is the Higgs-particle, now observed in the LHC and given a nobel price for its discovery.

”Lawrence Krauss is exposed as a liar in the link below to a technical paper where the primordial lithium problem falsifies his claim that the Big Bang myth made the prediction to support the theory ops I meant myth/atheistic pseudoscience. He was aware of the problem before writing his book of twaddle.”

So I guess he is out of academia? Because otherwise, this would mean that no one cares about creationists and creationist sites, hmmm…””

Observations of lithium-6 in metal poor stars suggest this isotope was produced in large quantities during Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the reaction has never been measured inside the Big Bang nucleosynthesis energy range. A team from the Helmholtz Zentrum

Dresden Rossendorf (HZDR) have recently measured this for the first time
in experiments conducted at LUNA, Gran Sasso.Scientists used LUNA (Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics) to reproduce the nucleosynthesis of lithium by firing helium nuclei at deuterium in order to reach energies similar to those just after the Big Bang. They then measured how much lithium formed and confirmed the theoretical predictions, which differ to the observed lithium concentrations found in the Universe.

“For the first time, we could actually study the lithium-6 production in one part of the Big Bang energy range with our experiment,” said Daniel Bemmerer, who has also study the production of lithium-7.

So, to sum it up, The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

1)  Einstein’s general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

2) The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

3) The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

4)v The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

5) The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

6)  The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. This is well documented and easy to double check.

”Big Bang nucleosynthesis from empty matter-less/energy-less nothingness is ridiculous i.e. you cannot make elements with elements before elements exist”

This is a CLAIM for which Antonio provides no evidence. It is COUNTER INTUITIVE, agree, but that does not mean it is not true.

”you cannot use collapsing stars to make stars. This is patently absurd, as absurd as you being your grandfathers father.”

When start explode, they produce a Nebula, Nebulas when set in motion (a spin), grows in density, and collapses into stars. An observed phenomenon.

Arguments for the Global flood happening

”The undeniable scientific and empirical evidence for the Global Flood of Noah:
The Global Flood of Noah was about 4300 years ago. Using 3 fertile couples and an average annual growth rate of 0.48% yields the 7 Billion people on earth by 2012.”

But population does not grow steadily, it grows expediently and has spiked because of modern medicine (based in evolution). In the 1300’s, we were less than a billion people.

Population Estimates: Year One through 2050 A.D.

”The Global Flood of Noah, the population/genetic bottleneck confirmed.
Use: P(t) = P(0)*(1+0.0048)^t = 7 Billion
P(0) = 8 (Noah and his family i.e. 7 others)”

Does not take modern medicine and expediential growth into account, just a thousand years ago, we were less than a billion humans. See source above.

”t=4300 years since flood to 2012 at world population of 7 Billion
Annual Growth Rate would be = 0.47997926135/100
Now show how the growth rate since the alleged appearance of the genus Homo 2.5 Ma ago according to the absurd notion of evil evolutionism produces ridiculously low growth rates which then demand ridiculously long life spans/survival rates that are impossible.”

What is impossible, is 8 people surviving the flood and becoming the whole population of Egypt + Slaves in less than a 1000 years. That means every woman must have given birth to over a 100 babies a year.

Arguments against Evolution:

”1- never happened historically,
[ According to evolutionism’s fairy tale that humans were not around to witness”

Wrong from the very beginning, we witness it all the time, evolution is all changes, not just big ones. WE do however not live long enough to witness large changes, the whole history of humanity is not enough to do that. Science also does not say that you must directly witness an event, it is the evidence that must be observable, not the even in itself.

”the alleged primordial soup spontaneously generated aka abiogenesis”

Abiogenesis is no part of evolution of course, they are not even in the same scientific field (Biology and Chemistry is not the same). Several experiments indicate that abiogenesis is correct however, such as the Miller Urey experiment that naturally produced Amino Acids..

”of the alleged first common ancestor of all from nonliving and mindless chemical elements that then transmuted aka macro-evolved”

There are several such experiments, but no, Abiogenesis is not a complete theory, but it is the only one we got on the origins of life.

”into all the life forms that ever lived. DUH THESE ALLEGED HISTORICAL EVENTS NEVER HAPPENED]”

OK, so Antonio CLAIMS it never happened, but provides no evidence.

”2- thus cannot have eyewitnesses,
[Humans were not around as the fairy tale claims, thus it cannot be a witnessed event]”

This is also true with the creation in genesis.. So, this argues against that as well. And that someone wrote in a book that god told them this is how it happened, is of course not evidence of it. In science, we of course only need to witness the evidence, not the event itself, just as in a trial.

”3- and thus left no forensic evidence,[Since evolutionism never happened, there can be no forensic evidence.”

But since there is MASSIVE evidence, that must mean that it happened then. Searching PubMed, there are over 150 000 articles providing well documented evidence:

”Fossils are not evidence of evolutionism since evolution does not make fossils i.e. Natural Selection”

This makes no sense at all. Natural selection is not the same as evolution, and of course evolution does not make fossils, fossilization does. But they can still be evidence for evolution. The evidence in fossils are mainly based on us seing a progression the higher up the rock layer we get. We do not find mammals before dinosaurs, and so on.

”very rare and deleterious mutations, descent with modification, and Lamarckism does not make fossils. A global watery catastrophe did.”

No one say they make fossils. So, this argues nothing.

And if a global flood caused the fossils, why didn’t one single one of them try to swim and save themselves? Instead, they ordered themselves according to biological advancement. That seems like weird behavior, but that is what we see in the fossil record, and would have to be true if the flood myth was true.

”4- and therefore, was never studied as it allegedly happened,
[Since it never happened historically, and thus could not have eyewitnesses or leave forensic evidence, then evolutionism cannot be studied using the scientific method.]”

So the argument is, ”it never happened, therefore, it cannot be observed”. Hmm, seems like Antonio starts with the conclusion, not the evidence.

”5- defies scientific laws and principles,
[ There are many that are defied and not just entropy”

Entropy would only be a problem if earth was a closed system since entropy can be overcome by adding energy. And I know, Kent Hovind says adding energy cannot counter
Entropy, but, that is how computers and TV work, we add energy to organize electrons. So if one says that Entropy cannot be overcome by adding energy, one better not write it on a computer, since computers are impossible in such a scenario.

”The absurd notion of biological evolution from nonliving and mindless chemical elements defies these scientific laws, principles or theorems”

OK, now lets see what Antonio has figured out by misunderstanding scientific laws and facts…

”1st (law of thermodynamics)

In physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. But earth is not an isolated system, it gets energy from the sun, hence, is not closed. One may argue that the universe is closed, but we do not know that (it is not observed, and has not been proven one way or another).

” 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics [Conservation of Energy; ever increasing Entropy/Biological Entropy respectively”

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. Once again, this is only true for ISOLATED systems, Earth is not isolated, we do not know if the universe is either.

”Law of Biogenesis [Life from nonliving materials is impossible I.E. ABIOGENESIS formerly Spontaneous Generation is impossible materialistically]”

Abiogenesis is NOT the same as spontaneous generation. The law of abiogenesis tells us that COMPLEX life can only come from other life (which spontaneous generation said was possible). It says nothing about chemicals not binding together to become more and more complex until it finally became a DNA molecule.

”Information Science & Theorems”

Debunked here:

”Mendelian Genetics”

Mendel’s laws are a part of evolution, so, this makes no sense.

”-Breeding Limitations [Variation limited to within Biblical Kinds; no cross breeding between Kinds possible]”

Evolution does not say that cross-breeding between ”kinds” is possible.. Evolution says that all ”Kinds” gives birth to the same ”kind” with small variations.

”-Haldane’s Dilemma”
Haldane’s dilemma is a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators, it does not argue against evolution. Note that Haldane’s model assumes independence of genes at different loci; if the selection intensity is 0.1 for each gene moving towards fixation, and there are N such genes, then the reproductive capacity of the species will be lowered to 0.9N times the original capacity.

”-Chemical Laws”

Which ones? I mean, LOL, nice arguing.

”-The Law of Cause and Effect”

Evolution IS cause and effect. If this is an attempt to argue the big bang. Cause and effect are technically laws of motion, and they may not apply before the big bang.

”-This is my own law that follows that I need to give a good name for:
Only what is alive and possesses intelligence can contrive things i.e. technologies, dwellings etc. and living organisms/creatures.”

And what support does this law have in science? And how can it be mathematically expressed (a law must be mathematically demonstrable). This is a CLAIM, not a LAW.

”6 and therefore, cannot be reproduced materialistically.”

Once again, a CLAIM, not evidence.

”[Since evolutionism never happened as it defies scientific laws and principles”

No, they defy Antonio’s misunderstandings of them…

”then biological evolutionism from Pond Scum to all that ever lived cannot be reproduced materialistically.]”

Of course it cannot. And it is not something that is needed to do to prove something. I wonder if Antonio can reproduce the Biblical creation…

”7 This makes Pond Scum to all that ever lived Evolutionism,:
a- an atheistic myth concocted by reprobate atheists”

It has nothing to do with atheism, the majority of supporters are Christians, not atheists. So, if anything, it is a Christian myth.

”b- not even a working hypothesis much less a scientific theory,
[ Without actual phenomena occurring in real time that is repeating testable and observable, a hypothesis and a scientific theory is impossible.]”

It is supported by basically every scientist and have around 4 million pieces of evidence. I think everyone wants Antonio to disprove all this evidence before making these claims.

”c- the religion of the atheist,”

No, mainly of Christians if anything.

”d- force fed to KIDS/PUBLIC as an alleged FACT using evidence hijacked by atheists with pseudoscientific claims /LIES/Hoaxes/Fraudulent claims and fraudulent/fabricated evidence”

Yes, this is true, it is law to teach it to children, and it will stay that way if the best Creationists can produce are people like Antonio.

”e- Hence the Evil Atheistic ilk have brought upon the modern world the Dark Ages of deception and pseudoscience using atheistic pseudoscience/LIES.”

Well, we actually have a better life now than any time in history, so, than you atheism in that case?

”f- Therefore, future generation will look upon the generations since Briton’s reprobate family commencing with Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin as the
beginning and source of the grand Cosmo-genic lie that deceives the whole word that the Bible mentions occurs in the latter days.”

Well, the Bible is not really reliable, for anything.

”Charles Lyell’s [1830-1833] lied for Darwin’s Evolution that was devastated by the Cambrian Explosion evidence”

The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem for evolution. Since fossils are not really important for it. For some reason, most likely a lack of bones, fossilization was very rare before the Cambrians. Not strange, and not a very big gap, we have several precambrian fossils connected to animals that still lives.

”Despite all the assumptions that cannot be verified making radiometric dating unscientific”

There are hundreds of different radiometric methods, that also can be confirmed by non-radiometric methods. To say they are unscientific, is to deny one of the fundamental forces of nature (Weak Nuclear force).

”the contradicting results when a rock is measured with multiple systems”

BY creationists that have no idea what they are doing, not when done by experts.

”the issue of Intrinsic C14 in all the alleged ancient materials and the many uniformitarian lines of evidence falsify deep time such as the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field, ocean salinity, erosion rates etc.”

Not according to any scientists though, but sure, according to lay-people not understanding the subejct, at all.

”the so-called scientific community boasts the Earth is 4.54 Ga and the gullible media and institutions of learn tow the line. That’s “modern science” for you. The grand empirical scientists, Newton and Einstein are in shock. ”

Yes, I believe they would be in chock that creationism is not yet gone.

”below are many failed predictions of Evolutionism.”

Would prove nothing. If prediction fails, a small part of a theory is proven wrong, and are therefore no longer a part of it.

”The Evolutionist/pseudoscientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, pseudo-scientifically claimed with his famous maxim, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” a statement paying homage to Evil Evolutionism.”

But it is not a prediction. So, Antonio is now even showing a lack of understanding for English.

”Ask yourself, how can any Real Scientist produce this work and believe this work as fact and deceive the public with these so-called sciences/facts? ARE YOU AT ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE?”

Well, they/we can because we have such massive evidence that every scientist on earth (basically) is convinced. We use evolution PRACTICALLY, so, that is sort of the
ultimate conclusive piece of evidence. To deny evolution is to deny the existence of vaccines.

”Some of the fraudulent atheistic pseudoscience popularized for Evil Evolutionism to DECEIVE THE PUBLIC/KIDS”

Yes, it is. Just like the Bible is taught to kids by Christians. So, do not throw rocks. Main difference here being, that we are simply showing kinds observable

evidence for evolution, we do not tell them what to believe, just where to look.

”-Vestigial organs [180 such organs now all proven functional; evolutionist don’t volunteer to remove them.]”

Why would anyone volunteer for an unnecessary surgery?? We do remove these organs from time to time when needed, so…

”-Whale Vestigial hind legs [are only hips bones not attached to the spine are used to attach male sexual organ ]”

So, the male sexual organ, in whales, is attached to a bone? Strange, considering no otehr penis in the animal kingdom is.

”-Abiogenesis [Formerly Spontaneous Generation is impossible materialistically]”

This is just a CLAIM that needs evidence.

”-Transmutation aka macroevolution [Unseen & no evidence and impossible]”

Once again, just a claim, no evidence for the claim. Even if it was never observed, it would not be impossible. So, what is the evidence that it is?

”-Phylogenetic trees, cladograms, cladistics [Purely imaginative deception based on the presumption of pond scum to all evolution]”

So, what we can see with our own eyes at museums does not exist? Also, god cannot be observed, but, of course that is different, LOL.

”-All missing links [all hoaxes or false claims]”


”–The Walking Fish hoax. Tiktaalik is a lobbed fin fish and doesn’t have a waist girdle with legs & feet bones, muscles & nerves etc. It’s been falsified by modern discoveries of tracks and fish in other layers.”

This is a CLAIM with no support in science. Tiktaalik is also a PREDICTION. We said it would be a ”fish” looking like that, and where it would be, before we found it.

”Evolution doesn’t make fossils so fossils aren’t evidence of evolution but of a global catastrophe.”

No one claims fossilization is evidence of evolution. Antonio obviously do not understand what fossils are supposed to prove within evolution. It is hard to argue against things you have no idea what they mean, of course.

”– Evil lying evolutionists are trying to force feathers onto dinosaurs [large lizards].”

No, it is based on chemicals in their skeletons only found in animals with feathers.

”“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’
is going to change that.” -Dr Alan Feduccia”

So CLAIMS Antonio.

”–“Lucy and her “child” look like extinct apes after all [Deliberate illustrations depicted Lucy as a very feminine upright human with human feet, hips, long legs, and whites of the eyes. This deception is still going on in Museums.]”

Lucy did walk upright based on the evidence we have. So, it is not deception, it is what we know by evidence. It may be wrong, but we only use the evidence we have.

”–Horse Series [Fraudulent and still in museums]”

Antonio CLAIMS they are fraudulent, but provides no evidence, I am starting to see a pattern here..

”–Whale Evolution [Pseudoscience based on no evidence, and fraudulent claims about cheek, and ear bones]”

Antonio CLAIMS they are fraudulent, but provides no evidence that they are. These are just the opinions of a person with no education on the subject.

”–Piltdown Man [Fraud]”

Yes, discovered to be a fraud by EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS when finding THE REAL LINK (Homo Erectus).

”–Minnesota Iceman [was clearly a gigantic hoax]”

The Minnesota Iceman is a sideshow exhibit., LOL.. It was never used as evidence, it was featured at carnivals and such.

”–Nebraska man [that now-discarded pig’s tooth that was reconstructed by some to look as though it came from a primitive evolutionary ape-man]”

Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant ”ape of the western world,” and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake.

”–Java man [was trumpeted around the world as indisputable proof of human evolution]”

And still is..  Java Man (Homo erectus erectus)is the popular name given to early human fossils discovered on the island of Java (Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892. Led by Eugène Dubois, the excavation team uncovered a tooth, a skullcap, and a thighbone at Trinil on the banks of the Solo River in East Java. Arguing that the fossils represented the ”missing link” between apes and humans, Dubois gave the species the scientific name Anthropopithecus erectus, then later renamed it Pithecanthropus erectus.Eventually, similarities between Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man) and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) led Ernst Mayr to rename both Homo erectus in 1950, placing them directly in the human evolutionary tree.

”–Homo habilis > Junk category mixing some human and some ape fossils [Now an ape Australopithecine]”

Homo habilis (meaning ”handy man” or ”able man”) is a species of the tribe Hominini, during the Gelasian and early Calabrian stages of the Pleistocene period, which lived between roughly 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago. IT is still considered a link between ape and human and Antonio saying it is not will not change that.

”ergaster/erectus/Ardipithecus, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus afarensis/africanus/boisei/robustus > Extinct ape”

Humans are apes according to biological classification today. But it is an early link between apes and humans. IT is an extinct ape, just as humans would be if we went extinct.

”–Pan troglodytes & Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei, Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii (orangutan) > Living ape”


”–Homo floresiensis [diminutive human with Down Syndrome/Microcephaly], Cro-Mgnon, Neanderthalensis/Heidelbergensis/sapiens/Denisovan [Neanderthal male and female DNA confirms they are human as did, ritual burial, jewelry, musical instruments]> ALL Human”

So, all fossils found, are of people with syndromes and chromosome disorders? Seems strange that we only find these and not ”normal” humans if we look in the rock layer
of that time and place. We have 9 of them.

”God made them fully formed & functional.”

A CLAIM that requires evidence of this god and of creation. According to Antonio’s own level of requirement, they must be directly observed if not to be deemed a fairytale.

”Evolution doesn’t make fossils.”

Every scientist agree, and yet, they accept them as evidence for evolution. Maybe Antonio misunderstood something?

”– ‘One of the best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record has recently been exposed as more atheistic pseudoscience. Paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922 claimed that the ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. About three generations of so-called science students were taught this pseudoscience.”

Science is wrong sometimes. I do not know this particular case, but, if a case would be wrong, it is not evidence against evolution, of course.
”-Chromosome 2 fusion [Argumentum ad Ignorantium based on the blind ridiculous notion of Evolution”

No, based in:
1) Humans have 1 chromosome less that apes.
2) Humans are missing 2 chromosomes that apes have.
3) Humans have a chromosome that looks exactly like the 2 missing ape-chromosomes that has merged.

I mean really Antonio, put 2 and 2 together.

”The latest research of the alleged fusion site clearly shows that there’s no evidence of a head to head Telomere fusion that occurred with the alleged evolution”

Which research? Antonio of course does not refer to that… (Since it does not exist most likely).

”The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work.”

BUT we use it practically to save billions of lives trough GMO and Vaccines. Strange that it is a lie, considering that things built on this lie works..

”And that is interesting. Because from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanisation of
a pre-human.”

So because we have a Chromosome that is identical to the 2 missing ape chromosomes that has merged, we have evidence that we hare not related. STRONG fucking arguing!

”-Junk DNA [Argumentum ad Ignorantium based on the ridiculous notion of Evolutionism. There’re no vestigial/Junk DNA; the pseudo-genes have critical regulatory function.]”

Which function? Once again Antonio claims things, things that would not disprove evolution even if true..

”- ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms.”

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates, and they comprise up to 5–8% of the human genome (lower estimates of ~1%). They are not EXPECTED in all lifeforms, so that they are not, does not prove evolution wrong.

This argument is debunked here:

”To quote Dr. Max, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth… Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

Humans and some Apes share 97% of their genes, they do share ”errors”. So, this makes no sense.

“It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.”

This argument is debunked here:

”After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs.”

And with the discovery of them, it got stronger. They are considered EVIDENCE for evolution by basically all relevant experts.

”-regarding the alleged 98% similarity between chimps and humans [It’s a deliberate deception ignoring the majority of critical regulating genes and using only a select coding region of about 3% which also considers some differences as intron or exons. Using all the chromosomes/genes there is only about 70% similarity due to common physical terrestrial living and processes, the 900 million gene differences gives Humans abilities approaching the image of God. The Chimp and Human “Y” Chromosome have large differences.]”

But the main evidence from DNA is that the further away from us an animal are, the more unlike is the DNA. So, that is not really important information if correct. All though I trust the calculation of experts over Antonio, especially after the calculation on earths population growth earlier on.

”-Pseudo-scientifically claiming Mutations are the “Engine of Evolution”

No one is claiming that, but they are a part of it.

”[In actual Fact Mutations or Noise Pollution/Corruption of the genome program of life for every kind of creature i.e. biological genetic entropy is ultimately causing the extinction of species, and in the meantime some 4600 catalogued mutations in humans are causing defects/deformities, disease, syndromes and death.]”

Yes, there are defects, but since these are hereditary, there is not really that much of a risk of them becoming dominant in a population.

”-Punctuated Equilibria/Equilibrium is an ad hoc rescue mechanism for the record of Stasis/No CHANGE/NO EVOLUTION i.e. from the absence of evidence in the Global Fossiliferous Sedimentary Layers by Communist/Atheist/Pseudoscientist Steven J. Gould”

1: What Gould says is not that animals are static, but that the fossil record is incomplete.
2: What is your EVIDENCE that he is wrong?

”Tax dollars pay for Evil Atheists to concoct just-so-stories which others use in Children’s story books [The Wonderful Egg] to indoctrinate the very young to accept the LIE of Evolutionism.”

Children have a great learning capacity, so of course we start EDUCATING them at a young age. Basically every creationist is a creationist because he/she has been brainwashed by his/hers parents. The difference between religion and science however, is that in science, we teach the children to figure out what is true for them selves, this is unlike ”Chris Camps” that are nothing put brainwashing facilities.

Point being, we do not teach Children evolution is true, we show them the evidence, and let them take a stance for themselves.

”-Industrial Melanism is another fallen icon of fraudulent/criminal Evil Evolutionary atheistic pseudoscience. This experiment wasn’t naturalistic at all in the
capture and release of the moths, they were artificially affixed on surfaces for photos, the two varieties i.e. White and Black still exist as they always have, and
their percent population in white and black still varies without industrial pollution.”

This is a CLAIM, so, of course we will believe in Antonio, WHEN HE BRINGS EVIDENCE.

”-Bad Design is used by Evolutionists in an Argumentum ad Ignorantium fashion and is self-refuting since the argument is from Design which can and does include “Bad”
or less the perfect design in human contrivances. The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is one such argument from ignorance that is used without understanding why the
nerve needs to take a longer route as the result of the growing process of the development of the embryo to baby while maintain it alive”

Which is STUPID design. IF a creator created us, and he put the RLN in this way on purpose. The creator is RETARDED, there is no other way to put it. The RLN makes PERFECT sense in the light of evolution, but it makes ZERO sense if we had a creator, it is an incredibly flawed design.

”What kind of God has thoughts to be searched by human minds and that he considers to have made the universe? Newton and many founding fathers of the scientific
method/revolution did the same?
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The
rest are details.” ―Albert Einstein

Einstein is using ”God” metaphorically. He is extremely clear that he does not believe in any sort of a personal god:

”It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have
never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world
so far as our science can reveal it.”

”The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings.”

That is in NO WAY connected to evolution. Evolution starts when life starts. And it is not a flaw to abiogenesis either, we have very promising evidence. Also, ”information” in this sense, is carried by all chemicals, not just DNA. DNA just have more because it is a more complex molecule that has had a lot of time to accumulate particles.

”It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself”

DNA is not a code, it is LIKE a code. But so are all chemicals. One have to choose:
1) DNA is a code, but then a code does not need a creator (until we prove they all had one).
2) A code needs a creator, but then you have to prove that DNA was created to call it a code.

”in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”

This is the Big bang we are talking about, it created the forces of nature. This means, that no laws are of any consequence before it. Cause and effect may be out, and so on. We just do not know.

“Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.”

Yes, but the odds for all other explanations are even lower, so, it is still the best explanation we got.

Also, no one say it was a random process. Evolution is not random, why would abiogenesis be? That it is RANDOM is an ASSUMPTION that Antonio has not proven.

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.”

Why? Also, the choice is not between ”god” and ”random”. Evolution is a NON-RANDOM natural process. So we can have order without intelligence.

”Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare”

Randomly, no, but with a type of natural selection, the way evolution works, they could. Lets say that I must randomly write the sentence ”Hello good sir”, but, just as with evolution, the successful mutations are selected for by nature:

Hfdskn (There I got the H, so now, as with evolution, all my random klicks starts with H)

Hefafnl (There is the E, so now, as with evolution, they all start will ”He”)

Heloadwihfh (There we got the next one)

And so on.

“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes”

This is a CLAIM, not evidence. Antonio sure like making claims.

”As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. ”

What is the evidence for this claim?

”We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.”

Which there is absolutely no evidence for. It is a pure GUESS.

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.”  Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 141.

No one said it was random. Natural does NOT mean random.
This is Richard Dawkins explaining just this:

“… there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. … There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.”

Yes, and then Dawkins goes on to explain that this does not argue against natural origins, you little quote miner you…,+all+30+volumes+of+it,+three+or+four+times+over.&source=bl&ots=xLaICdA0JQ&sig=SmlBGul-SD6mn9XjhMAQoPdutog&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw4c_06d7PAhXDB5oKHSxhBNgQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=there%20is%20enough%20information%20capacity%20in%20a%20single%20human%20cell%20to%20store%20the%20Encyclopaedia%20Britannica%2C%20all%2030%20volumes%20of%20it%2C%20three%20or%20four%20times%20over.&f=false

 “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

Point mutations ALTER information, they do not remove or add. Duplication events, however, do add information. And we have documented several of those.

– Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
– Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
– Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
– A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
– Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
– In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation.”


“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.”

Yes, it may be. We are just not sure. But it in no way argues against evolution or abiogenesis.

”The semantic commands/instructions in the genome program of life written for every kind of organism were only once specified during the creation week by God.”

This, of course, is a CLAIM, requiring evidence. Extraordinary evidence according to Antonio himself, since this is an extraordinary claim.

”Since man’s rebellion, corruption of the genome/DNA [mutational load of approximately 4600 cataloged mutations] has occurred.”

Mutations are not corruptions. They are simply different. Saying mutations are corruptions only proven Antonio has no idea what a mutation is.

”The defects, disease,”

Are weeded out by natural selection.

”syndromes, deformities, and deaths that occur due to these ”mutations” are post creation and possibly mostly attributable to human foolishness either ignorant or deliberate .i.e. aberrant sexuality, abject hygiene, forbidden diets and abuses of drugs, exposure to man-made compounds/drugs and industrial environmental exposure to carcinogens, mutagens, etc.”

Well, sure, some of those could cause mutations in the offspring, but no matter how you live, mutations will always happen every time any lifeform reproduces.

”The Global warming gang and the deluded that hop on board to be politically correct or for political points i.e. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, B. Obama and company i.e. liberal media like CNN are promulgating the LIE.”

Well, earth, globally, is becoming warmer every year, that is a fact. Anyone can actually double check these facts.

Debunking of THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA by Lloyd Pye

Observe that I am only debunking the parts of the paper that makes any sense at all, there are parts that are not in here because of their extreme lack of reason. I really had nothing to argue against.
”Now another grand old ”certainty” hovers over history’s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few (or many) pages that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every ”expert” in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick–which should always be the case, but frequently isn’t–Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving towards extinction.”
OK, we start of with a lie right away.. Evolution has support by 97,5% of all scientists today, and is considered one of the strongest explanations in science history..
Of course it can be proven wrong, but we do not ASSUME it will be before it is.
Today, evolution is PRACTICALLY used when making Vaccines and GMO as well as computer codes, it is HIGHLY unlikely that something that is being practically used turns out to be completely false.
”Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist.”
No one says so. BUT, basically every person who challenges evolution lacks education. If we look at statistics, low IQ strongly correlates with the areas where people do not accept evolution.
”Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called ”Intelligent Design”,”
This would be basically the same thing as creationism. Most ID-supporters still say that earth is 6000 years old, however, since this article seems to argue against that, I assume this article argues that the earth is older than that.
Point being however, that ID is based purely on assumptions.
Honest science starts at ZERO, we do not assume. ID starts with the assumption that there is a creator.
”which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its side.”
No, it really does not, but lets see if this article fails to such facts forward just as all the other articles, lets give it the benefit of a doubt..
”The ID-ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly complex, it could never have simply ”come into being” as Darwinists insist.”
First of all, EVOLUTION is not connected to the origins of life, even if Darwin loosely speculated surrounding origins.
Also, that life is irreducibly complex is an CLAIM. For it to be valid, EVIDENCE is required. So far, this is just a claim, not evidence.
”Actually, the ”life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules” dogma is every bit as absurd as the ”everything was created in six days” dogma,”
Both are counter intuitive. But the latter lacks all evidence, the first one we have many indications of, such as the Miller Urey experiment which created amino-acids, the building blocks of life.
There is a vast difference here. The first is sayin that complexity can be added on to chemicals, something we witness all the time. The latter say that a magical being (for which origins there is no explanation) created earth, something that no observations supports in any way. OR alternatively, that aliens did it. But we lack all evidence of those as well.
”which the ID-ers understand and exploit.”
Exploit, not understand.
”But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of God (by whatever name) or ”by means of outside intervention”,”
For which there is no evidence. It is an untestable ASSUMPTION. But lets try it, for something to count as scientific, it needs to be falsifiable, what evidence would disprove this creator? If the answer is ”nothing”, we know it is not a scientific theory. The same goes for Aliens.
”Similarly, the very idea that humans might have been created by extraterrestrials(…)Know What has the widest array of facts on its side and has the best chance of being proved correct in the end.”
There are no facts supporting aliens putting us here, but, lets see what is being put forward later on, my mind is open.
”Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to challenge evolution openly. Dogma is dogma in any generation.”
Science is very open to criticism towards evolution, so it is not the same. BUT, science will always discriminate against ideas lacking EVIDENCE. TODAY, evolution is practically used and we have around 4 million pieces of evidence for it, so, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it will be proven wrong.
”Darwin’s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for life’s stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough verifiable trees. ”
True, that says nothing about what we know about evolution today however.
”Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence that his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of ”transitional species” in the fossil record.”
IT should be noted that today, we have an abundance of those, and DNA has also made them unnecessary. Here is a list of transitional fossils though:
Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Cephalopods, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Lepidopteran, Melittosphex, Sphecomyrma
Eophyllium, Protoclaviger, Attercopus, Eoplectreurys, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis Birkenia, Guiyu, Chondrichthyes, Cladoselache, Dalpiazia, Cyclobatis, Andreolepis, Amphistium, Eobothus, Leptolepis, Anguillavus, Hippocampus sarmaticus, Hippocampus slovenicus, Nardovelifer, Eomola, Corydoras revelatus, Ruffoichthys, Palaeoperca, Trachicaranx, Histionotophorus, Eolactoria, Proaracana, Gazolaichthys, Psettopsis, Pasaichthys, Eozanclus, Cretatriacanthus, Nardoichthys, Protozeus, Archaeozeus, Cooyoo, Protriacanthus, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Gerobatrachus, Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus, Vieraella, Eocaecilia, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Westlothiana,  Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Odontochelys, Proganochelys, Eileanchelys, Eupodophis, Najash, Anqingosaurus, Dallasaurus, Palaeosaniwa, Gangiguana, Cretaceogekko, Darwinopterus, Pterorhynchus, Proterosuchus, Marasuchus, Asilisaurus, Spondylosoma, Eoraptor, Pisanosaurus, Thecodontosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stenopelix, Yinlong, Guanlong, Falcarius, Scelidosaurus, Probactrosaurus, Pelecanimimus, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis, Ichthyornis, Waimanu, Elornis, Colymboides, Mopsitta, Masillaraptor, Primapus, Protoclepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Biarmosuchus, Cynognathus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Kollikodon, Djarthia, Eritherium,Miacis,  Heteroprox, Eotragus,Protylopus, Hyrachyus,  Heptodon, Hesperocyon, Eurymylus, Onychonycteris, Purgatorius, Sivapithecus, Kenyapotamus, Eomanis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Pezosiren, Prorastomus, Protosiren, Eotheroides, Halitherium, Puijila, Potamotherium, Enaliarctos, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus, Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis.
”Those were needed to prove that, over vast amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into other, ”higher” species.”
And the fossil record does, it is just that we have much stronger evidence than that nowadays.
”in every case those ”missing links” have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds.”
There has been frauds, but that does not remove the hundreds of real ones.
”An excellent account is found in Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans.”
Of course not! Just because one or two scientists are dishonest, says nothing about the rest of them or about science as a whole. Today, peer review has made faking evidence almost impossible.
”They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.”
That is simply not true, we DO NOT NEED a single fossil to prove evolution. We have enough evidence without them, for example, Biogeography, DNA, Homology, Embryology, and immunology.
Not only have we found what we need in the fossil record, we can predict where we will find something in the fossil record before we find it, the finding of tiktaalikis such an example.
”The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing”
Yes, which is absolutely no problem for evolution as a whole. At all. If we had ZERO fossils all together, evolution would still be strongly supported by, for example, DNA and Biogeography.
”Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists.”
Because scientists understand the process of the scientific method, other occupations, usually do not.
”Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here.”
No examples of such species of course, I wonder why?
”In some cases, they can’t even be here.”
Such as?
”Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public.”
Such as?
”There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.”
Such as? Which facts?
”Many have ”wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others–like many common vegetables–have no obvious precursors.”
SUCH AS???? Seems like this article is simply claiming things, but provides ZERO examples.
”But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc. is a profound mystery.”
No it is not! They turned that way because of selective breeding from the farmers! This is a well known fact of history.
”No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones.”
Yes they can!
(Observe that the article has many sources, I am using Wiki as a reference to them, not as the actual source.)
”The emphasis here is on ”conclusively”.”
Ah, then this is nonsense, since science does not consider anything conclusive.
”Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses, grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.”
Well, The World Health Organisation does. A pretty big exception to this argument.
”Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones and different- colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas.”
Ah, the usual argument that lifeforms can change a little bit, but not a lot.  That is sort of like saying that a man can walk a step, but not a mile. I mean, this argument actually says that lifeforms adapt to a certain point to their environment, but then say: ”Hey, lets stop adapting now”.
”On the other hand, those New Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the ”official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains and cereals growing around them into their domesticated ”cousins”. Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles!”
Eh, no, trough the exact same process as we do it today. They selected the best plants and had them pass on their genes. I mean, it is not hard. What happens on the inside may be complicated, but to make it happen, we could train chimps for.
”Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles.”
No, it really does not. It requires a process that basically every uneducated farmer knows about and are actively using.
”The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans.”
According to the standards of today, not the standards of that time. Just 200 years ago, there was almost worldwide starvation, you ate what there was to eat. They still contain minerals and nutrition.
”The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers.”
We had tools quite early on. We have found needles that are over 50 000 years of age..
”They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible.”
We could also boil and crush things quite early on. Or swallow it whole. It is still better than starving.
”Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. ”
Humans ARE animals. If it can feed animals, it usually can feed humans as well. We do not eat grass because we do not like it, it is not because we cannot eat it.
”So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough and nutritionally inappropriate for humans.”
This is a claim that is not backed up in any way. It is also unreasonable to think, that in times when food were not as abundant as today, humans wouldn’t lower their standards.
”They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and overhauled at the molecular level–which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.”
No, selective breeding really does not take a genius farmer. We have been doing it for many thousands of years. Dogs are a good example.
”Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans.”
Sounds much more likely than ”it is impossible”, doesn’t it?
”And how did they do it?”
The same way we do it today, selective breeding.
”By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties!”
Which is done by selective breeding. This article make it sound hard, but all it really involves is shaking a male-plant over a female-plant.
”Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with seven chromosomes to their current 42–an expansion by a factor of six.”
By basically shaking plants over other plants based on which plant had the features they were looking for. Uneducated drug-dealers do this all the time when growing weed.

”But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the ”abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them.”So these plants did not fossilize.. Nothing strange about that. Fossilization is very rare.

”It is as if, dare I say it?, they were brought to Earth by something akin to You Know What.”
No, missing fossils is not evidence of aliens nor god. They are most likely simply missing because fossilization is rare. Nothing missing is evidence of anything.
”If so, then it could well be that they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.”
Sure, it could be that way, but there is absolutely no reason to suspect or assume so.
”However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.”
If shaking plants over each others are ”miracles” to the author, that will have to stand for him…
”Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes”
It most likely put a little food on their table from the starts, even when wild. Trough this process, they got more and more. The article seems to be arguing that the humans of that time had high class demands on their food.
”It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely, more absurd, scenario”
Well, both god and aliens would do the trick. They both seem more unlikely than humans shaking plants over each other.
”yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many ”six day” Creationists to shame. Why? ”
Well, because it is a natural explanation requiring very few assumptions (well, that humans of that time were able to shake plants). Unlike the idea that Aliens or god put us here.
”Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You Know What for a more logical and plausible explanation.”
Since that would be a pure assumptions based only in speculation, that would require strong faith in either the supernatural or the extraterrestrial, no, that is not more plausible or logical.
Science makes one assumption, that humans of that time could shake plants.
The theories put forward here, requires the assumption of either god or aliens.
”To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e., genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple.”
This is just wrong. Natural selection can cause everything artificial selection can.
”Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent.
Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians.”
Well, no, they were actually about as smart as we are, just with less education. But they had as great a chance to figure this out as a modern day human. These ”Barbarians” built the pyramids.
”Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were ”created” by the earliest farmers all around the world.”
So? That argues only that they used good plants to breed from the start, most likely based on what could be eaten.
”Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.”
It fits perfectly, it is basically a description of selective breeding, but, as usual, these articles tend to lie…
”Botanists know they have a serious problem here”
Then they would say so!!!
”but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention–by God or You Know What–can be considered under any circumstances.”
Of course they can. When you people bring EVIDENCE that they exist. Not ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE. A crashed UFO, a video of God creating, or some sort of evidence that natural laws had been broken. But as usual, the author have nothing.
”That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists”
Of course, it IS what is known as the ”scientific method”. Of course all scientists are behind it. In other words, bring evidence, or be prepared to be rejected. There is absolutely no evidence of god or aliens, no UFO’s, no measurements of god, nothing inductive at all.
”to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.”
This is not strange. Many plants are hard to domesticate for a various of different reasons, many mushrooms are good examples. This means we still cannot do anything with selective breeding, but it in no way implies aliens or god. It also does not evolution is wrong.
”So, in addition to enlarging, softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers also had to figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.”
OR, they choose plants that were not that bitter to begin with. OR, they ”played trough the pain”, that is, ate stuff that did not taste good. When we invented coffee, it supposedly tasted just awful.
”In short, there is not a snowball’s chance that this happened as botanists claim it did.”
Well, lets use logic here. We have this idea, that we know that humans can do, and we know humans have all materials needed to do so (what botanists say).
We have another idea, that has absolutely nothing supporting it, no evidence, some arguments, but, not evidence (what this article puts forward).
”As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the ”big four” of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among other animals. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes.”
The process is complicated to understand, but not to perform. Just make animals fuck.
”The only ”tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors.”
Exactly, something anyone could perform.
”As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case”
We have bred Foxes to be very close to dogs in just 10-20 generations, So, no, this is just not true.
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D
”Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a ”final model”
Why? They could already eat the wild boar, why is it strange that they tried to breed it more tame??? The same goes for basically all animals we have selectively bred for. And no, it does not take thousands of years, big changes can happen quite quickly trough artificial selection.
”to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.”
20 generations is the time it took to make Foxes close to dogs by selecting the mst tame ones.
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D.,
”This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct”
No, it really was not.
”However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding.”
So you have no idea how it was done, but it was not done by this known process that we know can cause just this? OK!
”Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals.”
Which is done by making them fuck. It is complicated on the inside, but not hard to make happen. Same goes with plants. It is hard to understand in on a genetic level, but it is not hard to shake plants over each other.
”(In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors.) But with animals, something more, something ineffable,  must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile.”
We did just that with selective breeding in just 20 generations (around 20 years).
Early Canid Domestication: The Fox Farm Experiment, p.2, by Lyudmila N. Trut, Ph.D.
”To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities”
Shaking plants is a ”modern ability”? Making animals fuck is a modern ability???
”so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.”
LOL, yeah, they only built the pyramids, but NO WAY they can shake plants and make animals fuck!
”There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them, and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested they were all, every one, genetically identical with each other!”
This is a LIE. Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien who performed the research said they were strangely CLOSE, not identical. He also EXPLAINS this: some time in the past cheetahs went through a population ”bottleneck,”
Dr. Stephen J. O’Brien of the National Cancer Institute.
”The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by something now known as the ”bottleneck effect”. What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population–which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates–at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now, they have all shared the same restricted gene pool.”
Sounds more likely than ”Aliens did it”.
”Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation.”
BUT, even if we do not know what caused it, it is still a better explanation that ”aliens” or ”god”. Since it requires very little assumptions, unlike aliens and god.
”So, as unlikely as it seems, the ”bottleneck” theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.”
Well, since the alternatives are much less likely. We have the option between ”unknown natural event that however is not that strange in itself”, or ”beings not supported by any evidence at all came here to experiment on them”.
”Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: ”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house.”
God and Aliens would both be as extraordinary as can be. But, of course the author accepts these without any evidence at all. The bottleneck theory isn’t even an extraordinary claim!
”It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those ”bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the cheetah.”
Once again, it is the most likely explanation that requires the least number of assumptions and has the greatest amount of evidence.
”The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.”
Well, that is sort of a misunderstanding partly. There really is no clear line when one animal becomes another. But yes, around 200 000 years.. So what??
”Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of ”bottleneck effect” they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs.”
Which is a working explanation for this phenomenon.
”By doing so, they left paleontologists still able to insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannas of Africa as long ago as five million years, but that between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago ”something” happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to reproduce from a small population of survivors.”
Sounds more likely than god or aliens.. It is really not that strange that a species go extinct or close to extinction, we know it happens, no assumptions. This is unlike god and aliens, that is something we do not know that it exists.
”That this ”something” remains wholly unknown is a given”
Well, there are quite a few things that could bring a species close to extinction. So, not that strange that we do not know exactly what.
”although Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood.”
Which we know for a fact that it was not, since we can see in the rock-layers that no such thing has happened in the last 6000 years.
”But because they refuse to move away from the biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously.”
At least that is correct….
”Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans.”
That is actually not a problem. That there are holes in our knowledge does not take away the things we do know.
”Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm.”
Eh, no, we count as ”apes”. Not outside at all.
”Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued that we do not belong on Earth at all”
Scientists do not argue that, no, they explain it by most humans loosing the gene causing that level of aggression, which is a theory with less assumptions than aliens or god.
”because we do not seem to have developed here.”
Eh, we have fossils going from ape to humans, we share 97% DNA with chimps, Chromosome 2, the Laryngeal nerve, and so on. We belong very well.
”We are taught that, by every scientific measure, humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially chimpanzees and gorillas.”
Yes, the evidence for that is MASSIVE. Mainly Chromosome 2, DNA, and the Laryngeal nerve.
”This is so ingrained in our psyches that it seems futile even to examine it, much less to challenge it. But we will.”
Yes, scientists do that all the time. That is how we have gathered 4 million pieces of evidence for evolution. Here are 270 000 well documented ones:
”Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones.”
Which would fit perfect with evolution considering our much less active lifestyle.
”For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every ”pre-human” ancestor through to Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.”
Our bones are not exact copies. But for example, the hands are extremely similar, so is the skull, the feet, and so on. Homology is considered strong evidence of human evolution.
”Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates.”
Which once again fits perfectly with evolution considering our migration to less forest covered areas and our less active lifestyle.

”Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow, getting ”better” made us much, much weaker.”Evolution is not about getting better, it is about getting more adapted to the environment one lives in. Humans, because of our intellect and our environment, did not need as strong muscles and bones.

”Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth.”
Our skin is perfectly adapted. Black skin can stand the strong sun of Africa, and white skin only NATURALLY exist where the sun is too weak for normal skin to take in its D-vitamins.
”It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved.”
We started out as black. White skin is an ADAPTION to the weak sun of the north. Black people living, for example, in Sweden, experience a lack of D-vitamins during the winter.
”All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.”
Because we are adapted to live in areas with much weaker sun, like Sweden.
”Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body-hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest hair is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our back.”
Which fits perfectly with humans ”standing up” early in our evolution. Switching the focus of the sun-light from the back, to the front.
”Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lie flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called ”contracture”. In humans, the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to the propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air, it is minimal at best.”
Soooo? We all agree we are not identical to chimps. So what is the point?
”Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made, apart from the general parts being the same.”
Which is EXACTLY what ”similarity” means. So, you are saying they are actually similar, since it has the same general parts. Other, further away animals, do not..
”Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.”
Luckily we have DNA, showing us we are EXTREMELY alike.
”Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say ”improved” or ”superior” is unfair and not germane, because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)”
Our brain has the same parts as a monkey brain basically, so, this is just wrong.
”Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal; primates are quadrupeds.”
Yes, a merging between 2 chromosomes, resulting in chromosome 2, caused humans to stand up. Also, apes can stand on two…
”That says more than enough.”
Yes, but it does not say that we are not related or do not belong.
”Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primate throats. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position”
So, a 4 cm drop, is a COMPLETE change to this author?
”Sex. Primate females have oestrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no oestrous cycle in the primate sense.”
Around 2 weeks after menstruation, you cannot get a human female pregnant because there is no egg in there! So, no, wrong again.
”They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache!)”
Apes have sex for fun as well, and also masturbates. So.. If you believed that argued against our relations, the fact that you are completely wrong should speak for evolution.
”Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes!”
This is one of the absolutely strongest pieces of evidence for human relation to apes. If we have one less, and are related, then, chromosomes must have merged. Meaning, that one human chromosome, would look like 2 ape-chromosomes stuck together, and there it is, chromosome 2 in humans!
Also, there seem to be a misunderstanding that more chromosomes means more advanced, which is not true.
”This begs the question of how we could lose two full chromosomes”
One, and it happened because they merged, and we have conclusive evidence of this happening (we have found the merged chromosome in humans).
”–which represents a lot of DNA–”
It represent a gene duplication (which is observed to happen many times) with some point mutations on the copied gene. Not strange at all.
”and in the process become so much better. Nothing about it makes logical sense. ”
It all does. It is just that you need education of some kind to understand that…
”Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often, parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely, so wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how they remain so widespread.”
IT is explained by human society. For a long time, we have not killed the less fit. Resulting in more errors, since the most fit, are not the only people who gets to mate.
”Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimpanzees by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s three billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs”
Yes, but that is not a problem. Every single human have around 150 of them that are unique. So, in just 10 generations, we have 1500. In a 1000 generations, 150 000.  10 000 generations, 1,5 millions. And this is just within one family. If they mate with someone that is not, that would bring in several million new mutations. So, 30 million is really nothing. It is not even a little strange, and the difference is minimal.
”and to any You Know What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.”
Yes, 1-3%… AS you said. 30 million base-pairs is just 1% difference. That is why evolution takes such time…

”To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check The Scars of Evolution by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and those of domesticated plants and animals, see Everything You Know Is Wrong.”Elaine Morgan concludes, at the end of her book: ”This study provide abundant evidence of humanity’s history. Like all species on this planet, we are not unique special creations. We are one end result of a long process of mutation sieved through selection, a countless series of adaptive compromises and tradeoffs.”

So yes, read that book if you want references proving this extremely bias and crappy essay wrong.
”When all of the above is taken together”
We have a HUGE number of misunderstandings surrounding evolution…
”the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals and humans–it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Design proponents. None of them can explain it, because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms.”
Well, it is to everyone with some education, but, sure, if you are a dirt farmer who only knows evolution by what his mother taught him, then sure, it cannot be explained.
Observe, that this entire essay has only put forward speculations and arguments, not one single piece of evidence that proves its stance correct, so far at least, but we’re getting close to the end.
”We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own backyard.”
Every scientist admits this. Evolution however, we do understand.
”Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.”
What truth? This paper has put forward no evidence for any stance at all, and has put forward no evidence against evolution.
”My personal opinion”
Really does not matter….
”which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins”
Seems like it is rather based on not doing any research at all.
is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated animals.”
That is not really a great discovery. It is quite obvious. It also has several promising explanations, such as genes and intelligence.
”I believe that what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and that modern scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation or the courage to seek it out. But for now, they don’t, so, until then, we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of some day getting them to notice our complaints and address them. In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated.”
Still no evidence….
”Future editions of Icons of Evolution will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals and humans.”
This essay puts forward no evidence for such a claim. So, it is based on absolutely nothing.
”All that will be required for the truth to come out is for a few ”insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.”
No, all it requires is EVIDENCE, from ANYONE!

Debunking of darwin conspiracy dot com

”What is the origin of life?

Most scientists admit they do not know.

But all atheists think they do”

OK, so a straight out lie as a first argument. No, atheists can believe a number of different things surrounding the origins of life, most admit to not knowing.

”all atheists have one and only one theory to explain the origin of life.”

Nope. Atheism only means you do not believe in god. Some atheist believe life had natural origins, most say they do not know, some think Aliens put us here.

”Every single atheist claims that life began purely by chance”

Nope, they do not. How do I know? Because I am an atheist and I do not say that. Most scientists believe that there was some sort of ”pre-evolutionary-process” that caused the first life (abiogenesis), evolution is not random, so why would this process be? I believe (but do not know) it was a naturally guided process, just as natural selection guides evolution.

”and there is no God.”

Yes, finally something that is correct, an atheist do not believe in god, that is all. Besides that, an atheist may believe ANYTHING.

”But if life could originate just by chance,”

No one says that, and ”chance” is still more likely than ”god”.

”then God could also originate just by chance.”

Sure, I agree to that. There just is no evidence of god.

”The atheists’ theory that life began by chance on Earth was well presented by George Wald in his book “Origin of Life” when he wrote:
“The important point is that (….) and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”
In other words, atheist George Wald and all other atheists postulate that life began by chance.

No, HE personally does. He speaks only for himself, all though many people probably share his views.

”and the existence of life was accidental and there is no God or Creator.”

No, we do not believe in god because there is no evidence for god, there is no second reason needed.

”If life was formed by chance, then God could have also been formed by chance, and therefore there could very well be a Creator.”

Yes, now you just have to provide EVIDENCE for this creator. That he MAY have been created by chance, does not mean that he was.

”George Wald was a professor at Harvard University so we guess he must have exhibited some intelligence – but he was obviously not intelligent enough to realize that his “the impossible becomes possible” theory backed him into a corner such that he would have to admit that God was also possible.”

I think most atheists would say god is possible, there is simply no reason for believing in one.

”Atheists claim that over the course of billions of years, “the impossible becomes possible.” We say the possible includes God.”

The difference being, that the theory of evolution has MASSIVE evidence, this creator has absolutely none supporting his existence.

”In fact, God is much more likely than man because GOD HAD more than NINE BILLION EXTRA YEARS to be formed by chance”

BUT, there is no evidence that he did, there is quite strong evidence man actually came to be. No matter how likely you say it is, you have no evidence of this being.

”whereas life on Earth only had less than 4.6 billion years.”

Only?  Haha, yeah, only 4, 600 000 000 years, that’s like yesterday!

”Here is why God had nine billion extra years to come into being:”


”Scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old”


”and our Sun is only 4.6 billion years old.”


”This means that God had over 9 billion years to develop itself before our Sun was even born.”

Aha, but then you are saying god did NOT create the universe then? Since it formed before he did? But was rather something that EVOLVED into the being it is now?

”Atheist Harvard professor George Wald, the revered leader of modern atheist thinking, wrote that in two billion years, anything that can happen will happen.”

Well, he said ”is very likely”. It is all about the odds. If the odds is one in a billion that something will happen, it will happen in one out of a billion attempts. That is what odds describe.

”God had 9 billion years to be formed before Earth even existed.”

OK, think I just answered this?

”God had 9 billion years to develop and advance Itself before our Sun even got started.”

OK, waiting for the actual evidence here. You do know that arguments are not evidence?

”So, according to the atheists’ own “reasoning,” in 9 billion years, God not only is a certainty, God also became Supremely Powerful.”

So, god is an evolve being that is not from earth, now it sounds like you are describing an Alien. I think most atheists can agree it is possible that a super evolved alien lifeform may exist out there. But there is still no EVIDENCE of one.


You can not talk ODDS after something has already happened, we know humans exist, we do not know that god exists.

”You Can Bet Scientists Lie About Anything Related to Evolution and God”

Mhmm, lets see what evidence is presented for this claim…

”Most of the time, scientists are not liars and are genuinely trying to discover and understand the laws of the universe.”

Creationist scientists being one of the exceptions… No evidence of the above claim of course..

”But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it.”

And of course examples of this would be nice…

”For example, until 1956,”

Ok, here we go..

”scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes.”

Examples of this would of course be good, but lets trust that it is true..

”But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.  Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans”

Yes, which today, when we have a greater understanding of it, is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution (chromosome 2). That is, if humans have one less, 2 had to merge, so one chromosome should look like 2 merged ape chromosomes, and chromosome 2 does.

”During the first half of the 20th century, that fact would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes.”  We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce.”

So, you call a reduction from 24 to 23 a reproduction? IT was actually a MERGE.

”During the first half of the 20th century, there was a ferocious war between evolution theory and creationism and Darwin’s supporters were extremely hard pressed to “find the missing link.” Darwinians could not find the missing link so they simply fabricated one by faking the Piltdown Man skull.”

And then other SCIENTIST debunked it because it did not fit into the findings in nature, we did not evolve intelligence first, we evolved walking on two first. Creationists had nothing to do with debunking it.

”Darwinians also were determined to hide any evidence”

Then how was it proven wrong? (But yes, ONE GROUP did so, not academia as a whole).

”that contradicted their beloved evolution theory.”


”That is why atheist scientists simply concocted a lie and told us apes and humans both have 24 pairs of chromosomes.”

No, we didn’t know better back then, sadly, since us having 23 is one of the strongest evidence we have for ape to human evolution (which is a weird word since humans are still apes).

”An atheist scientist named Theophilus Painter took the lead and published a paper in 1921 claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.”

And now, we know better. Science is an ever changing field, we change with the evidence.

”Other atheist scientists “confirmed” this in other scientific papers.”

Because that was what science thought back then, no one has said science is absolute truth.

”It was not until 1956 that the fraud came to an end because evolution theory had gained enough support to not need to be buttressed by the 24 chromosome lie.  The “apes and humans have the same number of chromosome lie” had done its damage to the truth”

But the fact that we have 23 is even stronger evindece for evolution, so that makes no sense.

”Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all pointed to the “24 chromosome lie”

Reference? Also, Hitler was Catholic.

”as a reason for them to ban the teaching of creationism from German, Russian and Chinese schools.”

Well, you really do not need a reason (they certainly did not) for doing so, it is a proven lie.

”It is worthy to note that even now, scientists are prevaricating about this matter and they insist they did not lie to us about humans having 24 pairs of chromosomes.  Instead they tell us they made an “understandable mistake” and it was very difficult to accurately count all the way up to 24 pairs of chromosomes.”   

Which would be true. There is no reason to lie. IF they wanted to prove evolution, us having 23 chromosomes among which one is 2 merged ape-chromosomes, is stronger evidence than if we had 24.

”It is absurd for atheists to assert that the counting of just 23 pairs of chromosomes was so difficult that none of them could do it correctly for over 30 years.”

NOW it is quite easy, it was not back then. How about you take a look at an image of DNA and tell us what you can see? Can you even understand simplifications as this one?:

”Guess what? They had no trouble counting the much larger number of chromosomes for other animals, such as dogs who have 39 pairs.”

Yes, they had.

”We are trained scientists and everything you read on this website is based on the latest scientific discoveries”

That is why it has ZERO references to modern science?

”published in the most respected peer reviewed scientific journals.”

OK, lets see if you deliver on this further down, one may hope. So far you had quote mines or outdated scientists.

 ”Nothing we write on this website is based on the Bible or any religious beliefs.”

Doubt that, but OK..

”But we are persons of faith and proud of it.”


”In fact, we have no doubt we are better scientists because we embrace Divine Providence”

So you believe making untestable assumptions makes you better scientists? This is what is known as ”bias”.

”as did all fifty-six Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence.”

White slave-owners agreeing it was OK to own black people, OK, great group to listen to.

”The only goal of this website is to use scientific methodology to seek the truth and the truth is there have recently been earth shaking scientific discoveries in genetics that now proven Darwin was wrong because:”

OK, here it comes, the evidence, or?

”“Ape to human evolution” is impossible – recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.”

No reference of course, and that human and ape DNA is far apart is just ridiculous.

“One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another.”

No, evolution is based on cells being UNABLE to make perfect copies of themselves, so there are small changes. This does not change in asexual reproduction (I have no idea what bisexual reproduction is).

”This website will provide you with details from peer reviewed scientific journals to support all this.”

Strongly doubt that.

”If you are wondering why you have not read about any of this, it is because a very powerful Darwin Conspiracy, led by atheists, has suppressed the truth about evolution theory and fed us lie after lie after lie for over 100 years.”

Who would have money enough? We already know that companies such as McDonald, Coca Cola, and the Tobacco industry, failed to bribe the scientific community as a whole, which is why we know they are unhealthy. Where does all this atheist-money come from?

So no, thanks to peer review, we know this is utter bullshit.

”The Darwin Conspiracy has both faked evidence”

No, single scientists did.

”The Piltdown Man is an example of the power of the Darwin Conspiracy”

But, it was proven wrong by DARWINISTS! So, how does that fit?

”Researchers in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.  The more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes.”

Not according to experts on genetics, but sure, why not trust a website instead of all the people actually working with this?

”We wish to reiterate and emphasize that this website will inform you about the latest scientific discoveries based on peer reviewed research papers published in the most respected scientific journals.”

So far, no references to such.

”Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the ”genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical.” The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for ”ape to human evolution” theory to adequately explain.  For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

Which, according to 99,5% of the experts on the subject (Actual numbers), in no way changes that we have 98% of our DNA in common. This is YOU people personally reinterpreting scientific findings to suit your own presumptions.

”Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict ”ape to human evolution.”  One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development.  This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.  Yet ”ape to human evolution” requires apes and humans to be able to add genes – for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.”

And yet, we have millions of examples of it:
– Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
– Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
– Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
– A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
– Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
– In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
– Lactose tolerance – why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
– Antibiotic resistant bacteria – at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.
– Radiation resistant fungi (and perhaps other lifeforms) inside Chernobyl
– ”German Superboy”, an individual example of a human mutation that not only doesn’t cause any visible disfigurement or impairment, but if anything will probably make it easier to maintain a muscular physique and/or low weight. These are characteristics that could be considered desirable in the modern day, when food is abundant.
– The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous). The mutation also confers resistance to plague and smallpox while increasing susceptibility to west nile virus.
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

”Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent ”ape to human evolution” from ever taking place.  One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.”

LOL. There are several, cell division being one. Maybe look up the basics of genetics?

”But ”ape to human evolution” relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions.”

Which is done trough ”mutations”. This is 5th grade science you don’t understand here.

”New genes are required in order to have morphological changes”

And here is a page explaining to ninth graders how that happens:

”such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains.”

We have evidence of it happening of course:

”So called ”gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.”

Yes, it is…

”Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through ”gene duplication,” this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.”

Every human ever born has done so, we all have mutations. So, this is just a really stupid claim.

”Darwin Buster Four:  Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes.”

Yes, 2 merged, and are today one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR evolution:

”Darwinians claim that ”chromosome fusion” of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  But there is not one example of ”chromosome fusion” in mammals.”

Humans ARE an example. How the fuck can one say we have no examples, when SPEAKING of such an example!?!

”Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a ”fused chromosome” but this is an out and out lie.”

I can find nothing about this, but, if scientists say it, in fact, if a high school stundent says it, it is more believable than this website.

”They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are ”translocations”

Which IS caused by merging:

”and not fused chromosomes”

Yes that is the cause of Robertsonian Translocations, see above…

”and does not result in a change in the chromosome number.  Besides, scientifically derived facts refute ”chromosome fusion” can occur in apes or humans.”

And yet, ,you provided an example of it yourself.  Chromosome 2 in itself is also an example.

”We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters.  Each one busts and invalidates ”ape to human evolution.”

LOL, noooo..

”But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin”

Darwin is completely irrelevant for science today.

”And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.”

Well, they do, they just fail in reaching that level.

”Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.”

Do you have any EVIDENCE of this? That is all that matters really.

”This is why we created this website.”

No, you created a website to spread Christianity in the cover of science.

”We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about ”ape to human evolution” theory.”

OK, a good start would be to bring any information that SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW ABOUT.


OK, lets count the misunderstandings, just for fun.

”Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape”

No, error 1. We share a common ancestor with the African ape (and with all apes).

”Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).”

Not only human and apes, between human and say, bananas as well.

”They have claimed for decades that the ”genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

It still is…

”They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome.”

Well, close enough…

”The biological instrument for ”ape to human evolution” is changes in the genome, especially the genes.”

And we see that every time any lifeform multiplies.

”Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes’ genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in ”ape to human evolution.””

Jupp…. Your evidence against that being what?

”Darwin’s supporters boast that there are ”genes that make us human” and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.”


”In summary – Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes’ genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

And have proven so….

”But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of ”ape to human evolution” is contradicted by scientific facts.”

So why do basically every scientists still believe it? Oh, because of a conspiracy of course.. I have however already explained why such a conspiracy is impossible. The paper is referred to further down, and this is NOT the conclusion of it.

”Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove ”ape to human evolution” is impossible.”

OK, lets see…


You are referring to a study by Roy Britten that says we are 95% alike.

1) That does not disprove evolution in any way.
2) That is still just ONE scientist, listen to the great majority of scientists instead.


Evolution can explain fungus to human evolution, 3% less alike REALLY is not a problem for the theory.

”Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.”

Yes, that is the whole point of science that creationists are missing..

”One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.”

You see, you already disproven that you understand science in this very sentence, they were not lying, if it turns out our DNA is a little less alike, then the scientists was a little bit off, and we change the theory a little.

If future studies show Roy Britten’s study incorrect in the future, it will change back to 98%. But THAT new science you will not accept, since you think science is complete as soon as it has proven what YOU PERSONALLY want.

”During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome.  For example:”

(OK, lets see what you got)..

”In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled ”Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content.” (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)”

And what does the paper say? Well, it says: ”… the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour.”

IT did not disprove evolution, it provided further understanding of it. Once again, this website has proven to be run by dishonest people with a clear agenda. .

”The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of ”ape to human evolution.” ”

And they provided an EXPLANATION that did not mean dismissing evolution to the phenomenon, as quoted above.

 ”Nonetheless, they found that:
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome.  Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. ”

True, here is the study:

It is just that you are lying about the conclusions.

”Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.”

Yes it does, it is called ”evolution”. And that is not the conclusion of this papers, the conclusion was: ”It is caused by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behavior.”

”That is obviously baloney – there is no way that could have happened.”

Then how come we can fully explain it? IT is because of   the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behavior.

Maybe read the papers you are referring to before assuming they prove your point?

”This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes.”

Yes, so what? Between human and Fish there are thousands of genes that needs to be added, and we see no problems with this from a scientific point of view, so why would 41 be a problem?

”In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.”

No, that is not how it works, and we know the reason this happens. It is because cells cannot make perfect copies of themselves, DNA cannot either, every time a living being multiplies there are mutations.

”But apes do not have any ”gene generating system.””

A gene is a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product, so, adding genes is the same as changes or addition to DNA.
In genetics, an insertion (also called an insertion mutation) is the addition of one or more nucleotide base pairs into a DNA sequence. This can often happen in microsatellite regions due to the DNA polymerase slipping.

That would be an addition to DNA = addition of genes.

”Nor do apes have a ”gene insertion system.”

”This means that ”ape to human evolution” theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.”


”This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves ”ape to human evolution” is impossible”

No, it is an absolute misuse of scientific papers in hope to twist things your way. Dishonest, and disgusting.

Debunking Debunking of The Atheistic World View is Driven by Emotional and Psychological Preference, Not the Scientific Method. By Abu Iyaaḍ

*If it is rationally acceptable for atheists to believe that universes can bring themselves into existence from nothing*

That is in no way connected to atheism, atheists can believe ANYTHING surrounding this, just not that god did it. So, an error in the first sentence.

”despite the absurdity of this claim”

A claim atheists are not making, but a HYPOTHESIS suggested by some scientsts, that is however being proven more and more.

*then believing in the purposeful creation of this universe by an all-powerful, all-knowing creator has greater rational justification.*

Well, that the universe came from nothing has scientific support such as the amounth of energy in the Universe, Creationism has absolutely no evidence at all.

*All humans are born with a hard-wired belief that the universe is ordered, purposeful and originated by a creator*

Which we can explain with the theory of evolution, it is beneficial to see patterns where there are none, so we have evolved a brain repeatable to religion.

*The simplest of observations upon the marvels of life and the universe support this belief.*

Nope, not one single piece of evidence, which will be proven by this paper puitting forward ZERO of them.

*This can be denied on grounds of emotion and arrogance but not on rational or scientific grounds.*

Yes it can: Creationism has ZERO evidence, therefore, there are ZERO reasons for accept it.

*In addition, the fundamental assumption behind all scientific observation, analysis and inquiry – without which it cannot take place – is design, order, regularity*

This is simply not true. It is true that we are LOOKING for order and regularity. What we do not do is making the HUGE logical jump that this would require intelligence.

*The Messengers of God were sent to guide people to detailed knowledge about the requirements which follow naturally and rationally*

No evidence for this CLAIM. They may as well have been mad.

*Based on research at Oxford University by Justin Barrett and Olivera Petrovich. See Children are born believers in God, Telegraph, 24th November 2008 and Infants have natural belief in God, The Age, Australia, 26th July 2008.*

This is a quote mine, they presented evidence that children as young as four years of age differentiate artificial and natural objects and prefer the explanation that God, rather than human beings, created those natural objects. That is of course not evidence of god. It is evidence of brainwashing.

*2 The science used to contradict this relies upon a prior assertion that materialism (naturalism) is true.*

No, it is based on EVIDENCE. If there is absolutely ZERO evidence that there is a god, natural explanations are what we are stuck with.

*Materialism is not proven by science*

That is NOT how it works. The material world is however absolutely proven true beyond any reasonable doubt, AND, we have absolutely ZERO evidence of anything outside the material world, so we do not ASSUME there is anything there.. IF we find EVIDENCE of something outside the material world, then we will change our minds. But as of now, the material world is the only world that has any evidence to support it.

*but is an assumed starting point*

NO, it is not the starting point. It is the only world we have EVIDENCE for. We start at ZERO, and then we look at evidence, so far, we have no evidence for anything outside the material world.

*Thus, worship of causes and effects is futile.*

It is not worship, it is simply following the evidence without making HUGE jumps to a creator.

*The tendency to see purpose and design in the universe cannot be erased even after extensive brainwashing with materialist beliefs.*

Which can be explained by evolution. So, we have a natural explanation where we understand basically every step, or magical force. I am gonna stick with not making the HUGE jump to magical force.

*The staunchest of atheists find it impossible to avoid the use of language which assumes design, order and purpose in the universe.*

Language adapts slowly. So yes, there are words that are hard to substitute, this only proves a large part of language was invented by people that where religious.

*They claim that there is only an illusion of design, indicating that they are either lying or do not trust their own physical senses – a sign of madness.*

The latter, your physical senses are not to be trusted. Ever been to a magic show? Those are evidence that your eyes can easily be fooled.

*Materialism and Naturalism Are Psychologically and Emotionally Preferred World Views*

Later on, this paper says that we are programmed with the belief that we have a creator (among other things) as evidence for Allah, which would be synonymous to  Emotionally Preferred World Views, which is here being criticized.

*Right at the top in the atheist pyramid – the first of its three levels – are an extremely small minority of very intelligent, non-deluded, unpretentious, honest Atheists. They make the frank admission that science and its methods do not compel us to accept materialism*

They still say that we should accept what we have EVIDENCE for. So, materialism is the only option.

*Richard Lewontin is a famous evolutionary biologist and he wrote, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.*

I hate when creationists quote mine, scientists have no commitment to materialism, there just is no evidence for anything else. So in a way, it is the only choice as a scientist. There are competing theories (contradictions), but as soon one is actually proven true, the other one goes away. That would be the case with evolution, there are no longer competing theories, because evolution has beaten them all. THIS is what he is saying.

*It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.*

EXACTLY, and this is important: Since nature sometimes is counter-intuitive, we NEED science. We cannot just think to find the explanations, we need to test it, and we need to accept what these tests shows us no matter if it is insane. IF experiments shows us the universe came from nothing for example, then it makes no difference that it sounds insane, we need to follow the evidence, THIS is what he is saying. It is really disgusting when creationists twist scientists words.

*Morever, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”*

BECAUSE god has no evidence. THIS is what he means, once again.

*Thomas Nagel, a well-known atheist philosopher is also at the very top of the pyramid where honesty has some value.*

The last example of course, was not honest, the scientist was, just not how his words was twisted to fit the authors point. The author of this paper is a very dishonest individual. Lets see if he does the same with Nagel.

*He says that materialist explanations of the universe and origins of life grant psychological relief for sufferers of the ‘cosmic authority problem’ – which is a mental condition atheists suffer from but which few are honest enought to admit. He writes, “I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.*

You mean the exact same thing the religious are suffering from? That is, to WANT there to be a creator? So this argues neither side. Yes, we all want our believes to be true.

*It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God!*

Those are completely synonymous. And it is no different from the religious people wanting there to be a god.

*My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.*

And also for religion. Yes, we all want to be correct. Scientists however, follows evidence, and admits themselves wrong in a second if evidence proves that.

*One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.*

Well, it does. Of course the author provides no examples, but lets use ”moral”: Moral is beneficial for survival = Can be explained by evolution. Everything that is beneficial for us can be.

*Darwin enabled modern secular culture to have a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world…*

Which he did with EVIDENCE, the thing this paper so far has failed to bring.

*Darwin did not eliminate the fundamental features of purpose and design in biological systems.*

Yes, he did, according to 97% of the world’s scientists.

*These features are still present 130 years after his death and will not be eliminated any time soon by fairy-tales arrogance or sophistry in reason.*

That many people believe so, in no way makes it true. Logic is a bitch..

*Darwin enabled the re-expression of a paganistic naturalist religion*

It is not a religion by definition since there is no belief in the supernatural.

*All biological organisms have an in-built, purposefully designed and programmed capacity to adapt and undergo change within defined boundaries.*

First of all, what are his evidence for these boundaries? It is not in DNA at least, no bounderies there, we cal slice basically anything.

Secondly, we fully understand this capacity, and it requires no supernatural explanations, the explanation is that DNA-molecules does not make perfect copies of themselves.

*Before science and its mechanisms come into play a prior rational choice has to be made. Either it is reasoned that a designer is behind this which is the default hard-wired position confirmed by observation and sound reason.*

It is not confirmed by observation, what observations? And that we are ”hard-wired” is perfectly explainable by evolution, just like every other instinct.

*Or it is reasoned that matter self-organizes through random undirected processes.*

No, it is not. Evolution is not random. And since we do not know WHY the big bang happened, we cannot say if it was random or not.

*This is a deviation from common sense*

No, it is simply wrong. No one said it was random. It is a false dichotomy. The two choices are not ”intelligence” or ”random”. Evolution is neither.

*It is only after this choice has been made that science and its mechanisms come into play.*

No, Science start at ZERO, then look at the evidence. We do not start with the assumption of materialism, it is simply what evidence shows us so far. There simply is no evidence of a creator.

*Few atheists are willing to admit that this indeed the case.*

Well, that is because it is wrong logically from many perspectives.

*Michael Ruse is an ardent evolutionist and philosopher of science. He is also another honest man. He writes, “Evolution is a religion.*

He is a biologist, he is not an expert on the subject of atheism  nor religion (which would be in the field of religious science/studies). He is a layperson on this subject, and if he says so, he is wrong, according to every definition of ”religion”.

*This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.*

Well, today we have around 4 million pieces of evidence pointing that way. Embryology and Biogeography being two of the strongest. I am not quite sure how much evidence something needs before it is considered believable in this guy’s world. But in any way, it still does not meet the criteria for being a religion.

*I do nevertheless think that often Dawkins and company show the sociological characteristics of the religious…*

No examples of this of course.

*so the New Atheists loathe people like me who (like them) have no religious belief but who think that science as such does not refute religion.*

Actually, very few scientists, not even Dawkins, says it does. But god has to move all the time as we discover new evidence. He went from being ”on that mountain” to being ”in heaven” to being ”beyond reach in any way”.

*Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion – call it a secular religion, if you like – out of their science.”*

That would be the opposite of religion.

*misrepresent science and its findings.*

That seem to be exactly what Muslims are doing all the time, or, not just Muslims, religious. Also, that is why we have PEER REVIEW. And no, those are not only performed by a closed group of the scientist in question’s best friends.

*These are people like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others.*

OK, so the first person, voted by scientists as ”humanity’s greatest thinker 2013” and has changed the field of biology, the second one is fairly likely to win a Nobel price at some point, is there a need to go on?

*They assert a level of confidence for their naturalist or materialist religion that is unwarranted and are motivated largely by emotional arguments involving morality, calamities, suffering and evil.*

Eh, no, that is YOU guys…

*They conceal or misrepresent the current status of scientific knowledge about the universe and life.*

They really do not. When they do not know, they usually say that. Scientists are not ashamed of not knowing everything.

*Whilst claiming to be driven by science and reason, they are in reality driven by psychological reasons. They are affected by the cosmic authority problem*

Well, partly, sure, just as the religious are (they want it to be a god), but that really is not evidence for or against god.

*but are not frank enough to admit it like the genuine and honest atheists at the top.*

Most do, yes.. Hitchens was fully open with it, he said those direct words, ”I do not want god to exist”. But this does not prove atheism wrong. There is still no evidence for god.

And we have all heard the answers to my argument, ”Existence, life, and so on, is evidence”. No, they are the QUESTIONS that you are trying to use god as an answer to, it is CIRCULAR to say it is the evidence.

*Despite the sophistication with which their conjectures are presented, their saying ultimately reduces down to the emotionally appealing belief of self-creation and self-organization of matter.*

No, it does not. That you do not understand the process and simplify it in absurdum is not evidence of anything.

*The universe created itself from nothing*

No one said it created itself, that would imply it was concious. Something led to the universe being created, we do not know exactly what.

*and the attributes of knowledge, will, power and wisdom that are normally ascribed to a creator*

Yes, but not by experts, by religious people who is simply GUESSING.

*They are ignorant of the fact that the atheist position is simply an emotionally preferred world-view*

No, it is the only logically and scientifically defendable position on god. No evidence = No reason to believe.

*Amateur atheists like Dawkins continue to support their naturalist religion through discredited claims.*

Such as? There are of course no examples.

*At present, evolutionary biologists are racing to put another plausible theory on the table which they refer to as the “extended evolutionary synthesis” – as a means of keeping the naturalist religion alive and well.*

That is how science works yes, it is a constantly changing field that will always keep changing.

*and not a scientifically validated truth.*

Science do not work with absolute truth. It works by getting closer and closer.

*This is not to imply that truths can only be validated by science.*

Of course not, the truths you like of course can. This would be emotionally guided selection on your part.

*Cosmic Authority Syndrome: The Mental Condition Underlying Atheism.*

You mean the exact mental condition causing the statement before this one?

*In the atheist mindset, the true underlying issue we are dealing with is the cosmic authority syndrome, an emotional condition representing a deviation from the human hard-wired default of believing in a supreme authority over the universe.*

First of all, there is really no such thing as an atheist mindset, since ”atheism” is describing a not-state.

Secondly, hard-wiring does not indicate truth. We are build to walk the steps of Africa, not to figure our the universe.

Also, this is as true for the religious side, they also WANT there to be a god, so, it really is not an argument.

*The greatest sufferer of this condition was Pharoah to whom Moses was sent.*

Oh, the guy who god made it so that he would refuse him, so that he could punish Pharaoh? Yeah, fair guy this god.

*Those in the second level of the pyramid are of this type, they are in denial about what truly and really motivates their position.*

Well, if you ask most atheist, and just not base your ideas on one guys assumptions, most atheists will tell you that since there are absolutely not one shred of evidence for god, there is simply no reason to believe in god.

No matter if someone wants god to exist or not, there are not one single piece of evidence for god.

*The issue of design and creation is not really under dispute. Everyone, including the atheist, believes in design and creation.*

No… SCIENTISTS (it has nothing to do with atheism) believe that things LOOK designed for reasons we can fully explain. Since we can fully explain why things LOOK designed, but are not, and there is ZERO evidence of the opposite, the rational stance is tha naturalistic one.

*The issue is to whom or what should the qualities necessary for producing the inherent design, sheer complexity and magnitude of life and the universe be ascribed. Naturalists play word games and ascribe creative power to “nature” and say design is only apparent.*

No, not creative power. The forces of physics can for example put 2 chemicals at the same place given enough time, and chemicals can combine on their own, they just do it. That is not creative power, it is the power of making things end up in the same place.

*The inherent properties of things (“nature”) do not have any creative power in their own right. But human disposition, observation and analysis, sound reason, the revealed Books and the messages of all the Prophets are in agreement that there is actual design leading to a creator.*

And they are wrong. You would say that the Hindu scriptures are wrong on the exact same grounds I say these scriptures are wrong.

*Methods of Proving God’s Existence*

*The evidence for a creator possessing knowledge, power and wisdom amongst many other attributes of perfection is varied and abundant and does not lie in any one particular thing or method.*


*The method of the Qurʾān is the use of self-evident truths*

And there are basically no self evidence truths. A self evident truth, is really a truth where the empirical evidence is really obvious. But they are rarely self evident, usually, they are just easily observed.

*(bayyināt) and signs (āyāt) and evidences (barāhīn).*


*The knowledge of each individual person that he was non-existent and did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which he comes to be is a self-evident truth. Every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being.*

It is actually not self evident, we know it because of observation. We have observed that humans come to life trough birth, as far as we have seen, no human has caused his own existence (Time travel may change this if we ever invent it), trough these observations we conclude that this statement is correct.

*This extends to all living beings in the universe, they did not originate themselves.*

As far as we have observed at least. If we ever do we will have to change our mind on that.

*This verse demonstrates through a series of rhetorical questions that the knowledge that man did not create the universe in which he resides is another self-evident truth.*

It is sort of self evident, but it is so because of observation, all though obvious ones, for example, we know that the unvierse is much older that humanity, so we cannot have created it.

Here is the kick though, if you told a CHILD that humans created the universe, he would believe it, and if you even made him believe that straying from this belief would result in torture, he would refuse to look at evidence that would disprove this obliviously wrongful idea.

*Likewise, the knowledge that the universe did not create itself is a self-evident truth.*

That the universe created itself is not likely, no, no scientist suggests that so.. I have never heard anyone suggest it at all.

*Likewise, the knowledge that multiple universes do not come into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self-evident truth.*

Well, the universes yes, BUT, whatever these universes are floating around in we know absolutely nothing about, the laws of physics may not apply to it at all, it may be eternal, it may be able to create itself.

*All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive, necessary, self-evident and not does require any empirical evidence for it to be considered true.*

No such things. Without empirical evidence, we have not CONFIRMED it true, if the truth is self evident, there will be OBVIOUS evidence for it. IF there is no evidence, it is not self evident.

*Therefore, there are only three possibilities. Either ”nothing created something else*

Which Quantum physics has proven possible. That is, that quantum fluctuations caused nothing to turn into something. Since the universe has a total of zero energy (as much positive as negative), it would not break the laws of thermodynamics.

Or to put it in mathematical terms:

po[ρt]=exp[-1/ђ∫dᶾk/2πρṫ(k)√IkI2+ 2ρt(k)]

*or ”something created itself”*

No one believes that.

*or ”something created something else”.*

Absolutely no evidence of that. But is is possible. That this something would be intelligent, is however HIGHLY unlikely.

*When each of these three possibilities are presented, all people of sound mind (even honest atheists) will say the latter, that ”something created something else”*

Many do. The HUGE logical jump comes when this something is attributed with intelligence. There may for example have been something like the universe before our current universe, that collapsed and caused the big bang. That would be something creating something.

*This is intuitive*

Well, yes, but that is not a good thing. The reason we need science is because intuition is useless when it comes to getting closer to truth.

*rational and in accordance with the sum of human observation and experience.*

We have never ever observed something like a universe get born, so there are ZERO observations that are in accordance with this, except maybe recently in the LHC.

*This “something” that did the creating is Allāh, the Lord of the worlds*

And there comes the HUUUUGE logical jump.

First of all, it could have been ”something” that did not have intelligence, a pre existing state to the current universe.

It could also have been all the other million of gods that humans believe in. Or even one humans have never conceived or worshiped.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that indicates Allah had a part in it.

*First, all humans are programmed with this belief.2 “The innate disposition upon which Allāh created mankind, let there be no change in Allāh’s creation” (Qurʾān 30:30). This innate disposition is known in Arabic as the fiṭrah and every child is born upon it.*

Every child is not born with it. Children of atheists that never get taught about god has no belief in one. And every singe child that is religious, has the same religion as its parents. This is evidence of brainwashing, not Allah.

*Allāh created mankind with an inclination to believe in Him*

And the same can be said about any other god in any other religion.

*and the desire to show gratitude and devotion to Him alone*

This is simply a lie, most children in India feel a desire to show gratitude and devotions to many gods. Most children in Japan feels gratitude towards Buddha for showing the way, and so on.

*Second, observation compels this belief. Atheists do not deny this.*

And this is most likely something that will be followed by quote mines or at least misinterpretations, but I keep an open mind until the evidence are in..

*Richard Dawkins admits, “I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something.*

Well yes, the universe is amazing, most people can agree to that.

*I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it.*


*We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life.*

Still true, all though you may read to much into ”religious”.

*And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.*

That would be a reverse version of the cosmic authority problem, to WANT to worship something. That is not evidence that this something exists of course.

*To escape from what belief in a creator necessitates (to show gratitude and devotion to this creator for the innumerable benefits one enjoys) a make-believe story is told: Matter self-creates and self-organizes to produce trees, birds, humans, airplanes and the Internet by random undirected processes*

No, that is an oversimplification. Matter did not self-create, something caused it (quantum fluctuations has the strongest evidence as of now for being the cause) it does not self-organizes to produce trees, birds, humans, airplanes and the Internet by random undirected processes, EVOLUTION is guided by natural selection.

*To Dawkins, it is a blind watchmaker who, without intent and purpose and in complete oblivion to what he is*

He is referring to the forces of physics…

*Based on research at Oxford University by Justin Barrett and Olivera Petrovich and refer also to Humans may be primed to believe in creation, New Scientist 29th February 2009.*

No, this is once again a horrific misrepresentation of science, Petrovich explains in her research that children see gases and chemicals as ”god”.

”I’ve also established that children’s natural concepts of God aren’t purely anthropomorphic. They certainly acquire a conception of God-as-man through their religious education, but no child actually links the representation of, for example, God-as-Jesus with the creator of the world. Rather, their images of God the creator correspond to abstract notions like gas, air, and person without a body. When you press them, they of course fall back on what they’ve been told, saying things like, “I know he’s a man because I saw him on the telly,” or “He’s just like my daddy.” These are very rational responses, but they’re not natural conceptions formed by children. Rather they’re imposed by the culture in which the children live.”

*and is all that they have to offer in response to the compelling rational argument through the evident design in creation and life.*

In science, it is really SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (=Repeatable observations) that counts, not intuition.

*Third, at the point of certain or impending death – when all the ways and means and material causes and effects are cut off – an atheist is consumed by the hope that rescue is still possible and a motion of appeal arises in his heart towards an object or being from which relief is anticipated.*

Yes, that is in our nature, it can be explained by evolution and in no way indicates god.

*This activity in the heart may or may not be vocalized, but it is a type of inward invocation.*

And where is your evidence that this is simply not caused by chemicals in your brain?

*Fourth, the immediate and natural anticipation of justice by an infant (or child or adult) when oppressed or harmed is proof of hard-wiring with an objective standard of justice*

Which once again can be explained by evolution, which has evidence, unlike god.

*that emanates from another being [Allāh]*

And for that, there is no evidence. Children have morals -missing information or arguments- —-> Allah. There is a jump there..

*Fifth, the collection of all independent or intertwined systems of material causes (asbāb) and their effects (musabbabāt) are evidence of their originator and determiner who must be external to the sum of them.*

It is evidence SOMETHING caused  all these things to happen, it is absolutely no evidence that this cause has intelligence. The cause is the forces of physics.

*so is He not worthy of gratitude and devotion in exclusion to the deities you fabricate with your own hands?*

Well, they are said to have done the EXACT same thing, every single arugment put forward works as well for Vishnu, or Shiva, Or kali, so, you have not really proven anything so far, and ABSOLUTELY not which god was responsible if any.

*And if you marvel at what you create with your own hands with knowledge and skill, then you ought to marvel at the handiwork of the creator*

Well, it is actually quite unimpressive. Most the universe is deadly to life, most life is stupidly ”designed”, starvation, lack of resources, and so on, I am NOT impressed. If this was created, it is a really half ass job.

*the merging of technology with biological systems and the study of biological organisms to develop better design protocols and to make technological innovation are clear and undeniable evidences of purposeful design in biological life.*

No, it is evidence of US understanding life quite well and can ADAPT our technology after that.

*You cannot study DNA for example without being astounded by the amazing level of design.*

Complex does not mean designed.

*Where there is design, a designer follows*

Question-begging. DNA is a something complex not created by a conscious mind but by a natural process; that’s what you should be looking to refute – you can’t put your conclusion in your premise.

*by necessity in human reasoning.*

Human reasoning is not the way to truth, sorry. EVIDENCE is, and sometimes, they prove our reasoning WRONG.

*This reasoning is not falsifiable.*

And then it is also not provable nor scientific, and can be dismissed straight away.

*Atheists know this argument is logically compelling and cannot be easily undermined.*

Darwin did it like 150 years ago so, no, that is jsut not true.

*Unable to refute it on purely rational grounds*

We do not need to, we have EVIDENCE pointing the other way. And if we cannot prove nor refute something, then we do not know.. And that is OK.

*their position is to offer an alternative, competing way of looking at the universe*

It is really not a competition, creation has absolutely no evidence and the natural explanations has massive. It is like a fight between a worm and a tiger.

*It created itself and self-organized in a random, undirected way to produce galaxies, stars and planets and all diversity in life, but without intending to do so*

No, no physicist says that. Except the last part, there is no intention in nature, that is true. Especially the first part is completely wrong.

*These are only some of the many varied types of evidences for a creator.*

None presented so far, but lets see…

*Belief in a creator has never been denied by the vast majority of mankind*

Which is an ”argumentum ad populum”. A logical fallacy, it makes no difference how popular an idea is, popular opinion means nothing, EXPERT opinion however does.

*This is monotheism (tawḥīd) and is the justice and balance upon which the universe is established.*

OR polytheism according to a large part of the world’s people that you have failed to prove wrong. Or atheism, which you may have provided a reason for, but not any evidence against. That some atheists does not want there to be a god, does not mean there is one.

*This was the core message of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muḥammad (peace be upon them all) and is the foundation of Islām.*

Those are people that are either fictional or lived over a thousand years ago, and why listen to them over people with a 1000 years of more knowledge?

*Richard Dawkins admits this in his book The God Delusion*

No, he does not.. But provide a quote mine why don’t you?

*The worship of others – be they humans, the planetary bodies including the Earth, sun and moon, the forces or the elements, trees, stones, even the Prophets themselves or the righteous living or dead – is the greatest injustice (dhulm).*

According to a book that claims the moon is further away than the stars.

*In Islāmic terminology it is referred to as associationism. It is a violation of the truth upon which the universe stands and persists.*

But, why should we care at all about most 2000 years old ideas???

*When a religion is founded upon worship of other than Allāh or is named exclusively after an individual – a prophet or otherwise – or after a race, or after an element amongst the elements or a force amongst the forces, or a cause amongst the causes or an effect amongst the effects, or any part of what is referred to as nature, it is known not to have come from Allāh.*

Which seems to be a good thing…

*Besides the name of Islām, the names of all religions are contrived and invented and do not reflect the true*

And they all say the same about your religion. And you have as much evidence for your religion, and they have of theirs (which is absolutely nothing).

Debunking Paul Greene’s ”A time of change”.

I have now read Paul Greene’s book ”A time of change”, focusing on his evidence against evolution, and these are my conclusions (I start with them before going into detail):

Paul’s book completely fails to answer or provide evidence for anything at all. Most strong evidence for evolution is not even dealt with, such as Biogeography, Chromosome 2, and inner organs. It mentions DNA, but in no way disproves what it shows us, it questions the fossil record without understanding how it is supporting evolution, a large part of the book centers on Darwin’s doubts about evolution, which is totally irrelevant today. The book promotes some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo explanation close to the idea of the ”first mover”. In short, the book is a laugh riot, and is worth reading for the laugh, but it contains absolutely no evidence against evolution, and absolutely no evidence for an alternative theory.

*Chapter 7*

*Indeed, not every single anthropologist and molecular biologist on the planet is endorsing the claim made by the Darwinists that gradual evolution is a solid.. True, there are 3% of all scientists that does not, and among scientists in relevant fields, there are 0,5% questioning evolution. So, it is like listening to the scientists saying smoking is harmless.

*no one knows exactly how many dissenters are out there and which side has the majority. What we do know is that only a few scientists are speaking out in support of evolution* In fact, there are over 4000 scientists just named ”Steve” that speaks out in support of it. According to studies, 99,5% of all biologists support evolution.

*They tell our children in schools all scientists are on the same page when it comes to Darwin’s theory of evolution, and that is utterly false*
True, 3% are not… And 0,5% of the relevant scientists are not.

*since a rational logical interpretation of known facts, as well as genuine science strongly suggests the Darwinian gradual evolution is not a possible course of action in nature*
Logic is useless without evidence. It doesn’t matter that nature is contra intuitive, we can only follow the evidence. ”Something from nothing” is also contra intuitive, but that is where the evidence points.

*evolution for being an unscientific proposition and for coming in conflict with both logic and the scientific method of research are secular scholars*
This is of course only true according to laypeople.. Also, evidence outshines logic.

*To begin with, contrary to the general perception created by neo-Darwinists, there are quite a few versions of evolutionary theory vehiculated today among evolutionists*
This is not contrary to the general perception. The overall idea that we are related to all living things and that we all come from simple beginnings and so on, is shared by basically every scientist, there are however disputes within the theory between gradual change and sudden appearance, but both these theories agree that evolution happens.

*Every single one of them is a wild assumption*
Well, not one of them actually. This is one of the many claims in the book that is backed up by absolutely nothing.

*Evolutionists claim, or used to, that lizards turned gradually into birds, yet no one has observed that happening or has proof it did. *
Using this logic, it would be impossible to solve most crimes, since no one saw them. Most of us however, know that we can look at evidence, mainly DNA, the fact that late dinosaurs had feathers, and the fact that some could fly, along with the many similarities between reptiles and birds, and draw conclusions from that.

*The evidence we have forces us actually to reject that claim.*
This is of course a lie..  And Paul of course does not back it with evidence.

*The famous fossil known as Archaeopteryx, for example, a theropod bird dinosaur that lived one hundred and fifty million years ago represents proof birds are distinct species that were present on Earth simultaneously with and independent of other species of dinosaurs.*
There is no reason for me to debunk already debunked ideas, so. here you go:

*Darwin himself was constantly finding evidence his theory was not a correct interpretation*
Which is of course totally irrelevant, it was over a 100 years ago..

*Today’s neo-Darwinists, on the other hand, make it look like he never doubted himself.*
This is also a lie, we are sure today, Darwin was not.

*he (Darwin) admits that the criticism of his theory proffered by other scientists “is probably valid.”*
And he was wrong…

*he was unable to produce physical evidence for what would have been an “intermediate between living species or groups*
WE of course have a massive amounth today: Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Cephalopods, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus
Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Lepidopteran, Melittosphex, Sphecomyrma
Eophyllium, Protoclaviger, Attercopus, Eoplectreurys, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis
Birkenia, Guiyu, Chondrichthyes, Cladoselache, Dalpiazia, Cyclobatis, Andreolepis, Amphistium, Eobothus,
Leptolepis, Anguillavus, Hippocampus sarmaticus, Hippocampus slovenicus, Nardovelifer, Eomola, Corydoras revelatus, Ruffoichthys, Palaeoperca, Trachicaranx, Histionotophorus, Eolactoria, Proaracana, Gazolaichthys, Psettopsis, Pasaichthys, Eozanclus, Cretatriacanthus, Nardoichthys, Protozeus, Archaeozeus, Cooyoo,
Protriacanthus, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Gerobatrachus, Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus, Vieraella, Eocaecilia, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Westlothiana,  Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Odontochelys, Proganochelys, Eileanchelys, Eupodophis, Najash, Anqingosaurus, Dallasaurus, Palaeosaniwa, Gangiguana, Cretaceogekko, Darwinopterus, Pterorhynchus, Proterosuchus, Marasuchus, Asilisaurus, Spondylosoma, Eoraptor, Pisanosaurus, Thecodontosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stenopelix, Yinlong, Guanlong, Falcarius, Scelidosaurus, Probactrosaurus, Pelecanimimus, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis, Ichthyornis, Waimanu, Elornis, Colymboides, Mopsitta, Masillaraptor, Primapus, Protoclepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Biarmosuchus, Cynognathus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Kollikodon, Djarthia, Eritherium,Miacis,  Heteroprox, Eotragus,Protylopus, Hyrachyus,  Heptodon, Hesperocyon, Eurymylus, Onychonycteris, Purgatorius, Sivapithecus, Kenyapotamus, Eomanis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Pezosiren, Prorastomus, Protosiren, Eotheroides, Halitherium, Puijila, Potamotherium, Enaliarctos, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus, Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis.

*Today’s evolutionists claim they do have those intermediate species. They do not, and it is not like they do not know they do not have them.*
(See list of the ones we do have above, we have pictures and DNA analysis of them all of course, confirming what we already knew.

*They present distinct species that went extinct without ever evolving into anything else as transitional species*
Every single one in the list above evolved into something else, and we have several itermediate forms to prove it, between basically every species.

*and they hope they can get away with that on account that they are the “experts.*
Well, of course the experts chance of making a correct interpretation of evidence is vastly supperior to a laypersons. That is the whole point of education.

*In reality, more than one hundred fifty years after Darwin published his book, there is zero proof the transition happened.*
According to 97% of the worlds scientists, it is one of the absolutely strongest theories in all of science. You people choose who to believe, basically every scientists, or layperson Paul Greene.. People who spent their lives learning and studying DNA, or, Paul..

*Any so-called inference in Darwinism is actually a huge leap of faith, and Darwin himself admitted to that.*
Darwin did, then we collected evidence for 150 years, and now, it is not a leap of faith anymore, it is proven fact (and the theory of evolution explains this fact).

*Pauls keeps on repeating that Darwin doubted evolution*
Which of course is irrelevant, that was a 150 years ago, he didn’t know better.

*In a 2009 book called The End of Darwinism, Eugene D. Windchy writes*
A self published book by an anti-evolutionist enjoying basically no support at all because of its total lack of evidence:

*To this day, though, they have no idea how the first amoeba came into existence or how it turned into a fish.*
How life came to be is not a question for evolution, how it turned into a fish is well understood.

*Nevertheless, they claim in front of their trusting audiences, which includes the tuition paying students of our schools and universities they have lots of evidence for that, when in fact they are unable to produce the record of a single credible case of real transmutation.*
Except the around 300 specific cases I provided above.

*There are scientists out there who not for a moment consider gradual evolution to be a valid explanation for the origin of life forms*
There are also scientists saying that smoking is not dangerous and that the earth is 6000 years old, there are always cooks.

As basically every ”evolutionist” will tell you, just because evolution happens to be proven correct, does not mean we should form our society in that way. This is such a classic argument that it actually got its own name ”the Hitler fallacy”.

*One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that proves Darwin’s assumptions are a fallacy has left many scientists of the time with no other choice but to declare evolution by the way of natural selection a theory dead on arrival. We are talking here, again, the fossil record found in the geological layers of the Cambrian. This was a major problem then, and it remains a major problem today. Recent findings by Chinese scientists J. Y. Chen from Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology, and Zhou Qui Gin, research fellow at Chenjiang Fauna confirmed that Darwin’s ‘tree of life” was turned completely upside-down by the fossil record, and that, as Gin would declare, “animals did not develop gradually, they appeared suddenly.” (Icons of Evolution, DVD, ColdWater Media) How sudden, that is still a matter of debate, yet no one is disputing the fact that it happened much faster than originally thought.*
Today, we can of course explain this, since this is done som many times before, I simply link you good folks to talk origins:

*Since it utterly disproved his claim that existing species were the result of a long process of gradual evolution and natural selection, Darwin was very concerned about the fossil record. His hope was that, in time, this problem would be somehow solved. It wasn’t. In fact, as anthropologists were unearthing more fossil deposits all over the world, it became an even bigger one.*
This of course does not take away the evidence from Biogeography and DNA, fossils simply confirms this, and so far, have not found one single fossil which we could not explain.

*Once he acknowledges that “species of the same group,” species supposedly related that according to his theory would have taken millions of years to develop appear in the same geological layer, that they belong to the same period, he seems to realize there is nothing out there that can prevent a rationalistic mind from concluding that similar life forms were appearing more or less spontaneously and simultaneously on Earth within a relatively short time.*
Which of course is explained:

*Darwin admits practically the Cambrian fossil record was proof life did not appear gradually on Earth*
Now however, we know better. We also know that it is classic to argue against the fossil record if you know nothing about evolution, most of us know that fossils are far from the strongest evidence.

*the fossil record of the Cambrian strata shows that (..) the Cambrian life forms have become extinct, and that they did not evolve into other species, as assumed by Darwin.*

*Secondly, life has not appeared gradually on our planet but in sudden bursts of diversified, distinct complexity and form.*
Gould claims so, but most evidence speaks against him. The strongest evidence for evolution is not the past, but the species that lives today.

*This strong possibility creates another problem for the theory of evolution, especially since we know that some of the today’s species have remained unchanged for over 100 million years.*
This is of course not strange at all for someone familiar with the theory. IF there is no need for adaption, no natural selection (which is basically the case with humans today), evolution does not happen.

*Another almost 100-million-year-old life form that according to our scientists remained unchanged all this time, as in unevolved, is the famous Salty, the Australian salt-water crocodile. Many other hundred million years old fossils of big and small animals having well defined characteristics suggests they too did not evolve from other species. They seem to have appeared relatively fast, and it looks like from the beginning they were more or less the well-defined complex organisms with multiple interrelated functions we see today.*
Which as previously explained, is not strange or contrary to evolution theory in any way.

*there are no transitional species in the Cambrian fossil record.*
Evolution stands without one single fossil, the only debate is exactly how it happened. Fossils are made under extreme circumstances, we are lucky to have them at all, but, we do not need them to prove evolution.

*The question is, does a group of life forms become “stronger” when we eliminate its physically weaker members?*
Yes, and also, evolution has nothing to do with becoming stronger or better, that is a common misconception and one of the reason we don’t let laypeople do their own interpretations.

*Does that prevent other “weaker” individuals from being born into the same species?*
In time, yes. Obviously, otherwise dog breeding wouldn’t work.

*He fails to explain what a species “slightly better-endowed” and a “species slightly less well-endowed” stands for*
No he does not, it means less or more fit to survive.

*but, as we know it, for various reasons, some of which are still unknown to biologists, within a certain community of organisms, weaker individuals appear all the time.*
But not less fit, unless natural selection is eliminated such as in the case of human society.

*As anyone can see, the idea advanced by Hitler in the above passage is identical to the one advanced by Darwin in the Descent of Man.*
So?? Is the Author of catcher in the rye in anyway responsible for the death of John Lennon?

*According to Darwin, Mother Nature presents all species with only two options: you either die, or you cause the weaker one to die*
Wrong, another misconception. The options are ”to adapt if needed or die”, not to ”die or kill the weaker”.

*The theory about species evolving into other species by the way of gradual mutations and natural selection remains to this day an unproven assumption,*
DNA proves we are all related (all life), in the exact same way DNA can prove that you are a father to a child. Biogeography proves changes in the gene-pool because of environment, fossils confirms this to be correct, along with a shitload of other evidence.

*nothing about biological gradualism passes the test of reason, rational logic, and commons sense.*
And, as most educated people know, evidence outshines logic and sense.

*Neither creationists nor evolutionists offer a credible answer to the question of the origin of life in general and of man in particular.*
That is because it is not a question for evolution. To criticize evolution theory for not not answering what the origin of life is, is like criticizing a chef for cooking a beef that is not a sandwich. Evolution is not trying to answer what the origin of life is.

*Indeed, natural selection is a reinvented gimmick,*
To accept natural selection is to accept 2 statements, and to deny it, is to deny any of these statements:
1) Dead things do not give birth
2) There are individual factors that may increase your odds of survival in nature. For example, to be quicker may increase your chance of survival.

*many among today’s neo-Darwinists have actually stopped claiming natural selection was a player in their otherwise imaginary process of gradual evolution.*
Nope.. There may be individuals, sure, but many, no.. That is simply a lie that is not supported by any evidence in the book.

*After all, they know very well natural selection is a figment of an evolutionist’s imagination.*
In that case, they would not study it. This is one of many examples that gives us a hint of Paul’s actual knowledge of the subject.

*Something no Atheist evolutionist cares to mention while holding Darwin to be his hero and the theory of evolution fact*
Here is another example of Paul not understanding science. Evolution IS a fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact. It is obvious that he things that there is a hierarchy in science, and that a ”fact” is on the top. This is of course not the case. This is one reason we seldom let laypeople get a say in a scientific discussion.

*In reality, the DNA carries a program that triggers a process meant to produce an identical copy of an already existing life form or organ. As a result, life forms cannot achieve new parts by the way of a natural process.*
The fact is that DNA does NOT make perfect copies of itself, this is the main cause of evolution. So this whole argument just falls apart, this is why you need knowledge of a subject if you want to criticize it.

*Proving this is precisely the case, devices associated with the DNA are making sure significant errors, as in mutations that may result in a substantially different biological structure would never occur. If an error does occur, that significant aberration from the original genetic code would result in a malformation, which is certainly not advantageous for the species.*
Most mutations are of course not beneficial to a species, this is where natural selection comes into play.

*As even famous evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould had to admit, to have new parts added to an existing biological system, the entire organism will have to change simultaneously, and that is biologically and genetically impossible.*
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term ”information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

*They claim they can yet evolutionists are unable to explain how evolution works its miracles.*
Paul is of course not very specific, but no, basically every person with a decent education knows we can explain evolution in detail.

*What are the chances, though, this path of development was taken randomly by nature? Practically, zero.*
A person who knows logic, knows that it is meaningless to talk about odds after something has already happned. Imagine I throw a ball into the wall, when I do, I will hit certain atoms. If I were to throw that ball dor a million more years, I would never hit the exact same atoms again, but still, I did this impossible task on the first attempt.

*Before we farther expose the lack of credibility characterizing the theory of evolution, the reader must be reminded that Darwin did not even attempt to address the essential question of how the most rudimentary forms of life have appeared.*
Because that is not what evolution is trying to explain. It is so very clear that Paul Greene does not even know what evolution is.

*Common sense dictates though that in order to have species evolving from a common ancestor you need to have first a common ancestor, and yet the theory of evolution does not explain how he got his original progenitor.*
Since this is not what evolution is trying to answer. AS I said before, this is like criticizing a beef for not being a sandwich.

*However, it is not their imaginary common ancestor. Thanks to the relatively new science of quantum physics, as well as to the Greek sages of the old, we know that the entire universe is made of particles and energy. This is our real common ancestry, and not the one proposed by neo-Darwinists.*
This in no way contradicts Darwinism of course, particles starting to form more advanced ones happened before evolution started. This is classic new-age bullcrap.

*In response to the false claim of absolute unity among scientists regarding the concept of biological evolutionary gradualism*
No one claims absolute unity of course, but, as I have provided a source for above, it is supported by 99,5% of every person highly educated on the subject.

*Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim that one should not be allowed to question evolutionary theory in science class*
This is of course another lie/misunderstanding. Scientists encourages you to question, if you bring evidence that supports your claim, Paul Greene has so far failed to do so.

*Biologists uncover facts about the structural and functional aspects of life forms. They do not have though a monopoly on how those facts are to be interpreted.*
Well, yes they actually do. Just as certain people has a monopoly on constructing and building bridges. WE do not want a person not understanding the laws of motion building bridges, and we do not want people not understanding biology to interpret the evidence. Why? Well, because education severely increases your odds of interpreting something correctly. I can for example give someone who knows nothing about math an equation, and he may be chance just blur out the correct syllables to solve my equation, but the chance of someone knowing math doing it is far greater.

*Among others, they are in a position that theoretically allows them to decide for all of us what theories we must teach with sanctity in our schools and universities as absolute truth*
Theories are of course never defined as absolute truths, you can hear that by the very name. We teach evolution as the best supported explanation for what we observe. And we will change our minds if new evidence are put forward. And also, of course scientists decides what we teach in school, who else should? Someone who doesn’t understand the subject. Imagine just letting anyone making changes to the design of a bridge!! We would have a 100 000 death a year just from falling bridges.

*Someone like Richard Dawkins, for example, who makes public appearances after public appearances to promote Darwin’s theory as fact*
He does in fact not. Evolution is a fact, we observe it all the time. The theory of evolution explains how the fact evolution works, and why. WE do not teach the theory of evolution as a fact, we teach it as the best explanation, we do however teach that evolution is a fact, since it is a fact that we observe it all the time.

*They seem to be convinced they can get away with it because, after all, they are “scientists,” and they are against religion, or sort of*
Nope, this is simply an incredibly idiotic statement.

*The evidence, however, is clearly stacked up against their claims and as a result, religion remains the untreated cancer of civilization Earth*
First of all, there is no evidence stacking up on evolution, and Paul provides no such evidence, secondly, religion was around long before the theory of evolution, how could it possibly be responsible? Once again, Paul is just being illogical.

*University of Otago published a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In it, he demonstrates what it was known for almost one hundred and fifty years: there is no evidence supporting the conclusion reached by Darwin and promoted today by neo-Darwinists as fact.*
Once again, there is no need for me to debunk this, since it is already done:

*At the same time, the evidence we do have proves Darwinian evolution could not have happen in nature.*
Paul of course does not provide any of these evidence, but he keeps on claiming it.

*As a result (of money being a factor), we could be in a better position to reach sound conclusions than the ideologically biased biologist with impressive credentials teaching outdated data and an erroneous interpretation of facts at a higher education institution.*
This is obviously written about a person who does not understand how ”peer reviewing” works. You see Paul, all theories goes to rigorous periods of testing by other people, a lot of other people. In fact, anyone attending any university in the entire world could write an official peer review of any theory. So it is quite impossible to get bias trough it.

*Once again, there is no need to wait millions of years for molecules to cluster up into body parts by chance when the DNA produces that orderly, efficiently, and much faster. As a result, the key to solving the mystery of the origin of life is to unveil the origin of the DNA and of the information stored in it.*
DNA technically can, as we see in selective breeding, it is just that it does not, because naure is way slower that us. Once again, Paul also argues the origins of life, which most educated people know is a warning sign when it comes to argue evolution, since evolution theory in no way is even trying to anwer that question.

*There is no evidence to support the story put forth by the evolutionists about how the eye and all the other super-complex, interdependent and irreducible organs were formed.*
Perhaps Paul should introduce himself to Wikipedia? We have massive evidence supporting our claims.

*The eye, however, is not an independent life form, and it could have not evolved on its own, as the story told by evolutionists implies.*
This is in no way what the theory of evolution imply, once again proving Paul really has no idea what he is talking about.

*Based on what the theory of evolution says, we would have to assume that while some molecules were allegedly figuring out how to assemble themselves into the final version of the eye, they were predicting that, one day they would assemble into two eyes of a certain similar size and color. Meanwhile, another group of molecules that somehow knew the eyes were coming, began to assemble into a skull with precisely two symmetrically positioned eye-sockets.*
This is of course a huge misunderstanding of how evolution works, as can be seen in the link above. Of course there was not 2 individual group of cells spontaneously forming 2 similar organs on two different sides of a body/head. No one is claiming that! Once again, Pauls lack of knowledge is simply darling.

*They would match the size of the eyes the other group of molecules was putting together gradually and randomly.*
And what is Paul’s evidence for this claim? Oh, nothing at all, he does not provide any evidence.

*The only thing scientists were able to do, so far, was to acknowledge its existence, take note of its complex structure, and list in owe its amazing properties. Other than that, in this instance too scientists have produced a number of conflicting opinions with regard to the origin and the function of the DNA.*
This is simply not true.. Once again, Paul is referring to an extreme minority of scientists.

*So who or what created the DNA? Who are its mysterious designers and programmers? At least the evolutionists are unwilling to go as far as to declare the DNA was put together by the way of natural selection. Remaining silent about the origin of the DNA, however, does not help much their cause.*
We know of course that DNA is a result of the physical laws as well as environment. Where DNA came from is not a question for evolution to answer, but, most evolutionist would indeed say that it came to be trough a version of natural selection, so once again, Paul is wrong about basically everything.

*Our dictionaries tell us information is a mark of intelligence.*
This is known as ”the fallacy of evocation”, Paul is confusing different definitions of ”intelligence”.

*So, again, where does the information stored into the DNA come from?*
The laws of physics and simple chemicals and gases, at least as far as the evidence goes.

*We can either embrace the belief that information was somehow randomly produced during the alleged process of gradual evolution, and we have zero evidence it happened or that is possible, or we could look into the possibility that the information was beamed down into our world from outside the so-called material. After all, there is information all over the universe, everywhere around us. Information, not accidental mutations, is what creates life forms.*
First of all, evolution is not random, that is the first evidence of Paul being confused here. And it does not get better from there, from that, some real hippie-shit follows that lacks any sort of evidence, at the same time, Paul criticizes the lack of evidence for evolution, which of course is simply a result of Paul not looking into it. And lastly, the fallacy of evocation is committed again.

*It is neither rational, nor logical to assume this complex, irreducible, well-thought assemblage of molecules and proteins into structures that work with information the same way a computer works with software is the result of gradual, random mutations caused by an illusory process of adaptation and preserved by the way of what practically is an imaginary natural selection.*
No it is illogical to assume anything, but we do not assume evolution, it is something we have proven and something we can fully explain.

*No doubts about it, though, there is no such thing as a supernatural creator god that makes DNA and RNA.*
I would personally say that there most likely is no god, but, Paul once against claims actual knowledge where he has none.

*According to some evolutionists, we have lots of transitional life forms. If that were true, it would mean incomplete batches of information were once stored into the DNA,*
This is of course a huge misunderstanding of how DNA and evolution works. Transitional forms was not incomplete forms, that is a classic creationist misunderstanding.

*Richard Dawkins was asked during a taped interview to give an example of a naturally produced mutation that resulted in an increase of information that was beneficial to the species, he lowered his head and went silent for a long time.*
Well, allow me then: The mutation that causes immunity to HIV in certain humans is beneficial and adds information. So, there you go Paul, I am BTW quite sure Prof.Dawkins knows about that.

*Louis Pasteur in the nineteenth century conducted studies that proved, according to them, abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation is not possible in nature, and that living organisms develop only from other living organisms, something called biogenesis.*
Actually, he proved that complex life could not come from non living materials. The theory of biogenesis is not in conflict with the theory of abiogenesis.

*Closing thoughts*
As mentioned in the beginning of this text, Paul fails to provide any sort of evidence for anyone of his claims. Making this book pure pseudo science, if even that.

Debunking ”Atheists exposed” surrounding Sweden

This is a debunking of the following article:

”For hundreds of years Sweden was a bastion of Lutheranism, a major Protestant branch. Since the 1960’s the Swedes have moved away from the religion of their ancestors toward agnosticism and atheism. At present, stats reveal that only a minority of Swedes are still practicing Christians.”
So far correct…

”In spite of their high  level of unbelief, Swedish crime rates have been relatively low for decades.”
True, it has gone up now parallel with religious immigration. Statistic from Swedish prisons shows that the most people in Swedish prisons are religious. And no, I am not against immigration anyway. You have to take the good with the bad.

”The country has moved toward socialism”
Social liberalism… Sweden is close to Canada in politics.

”and has created a social safety net like few others.”
Still true..

”What unbelievers were not acknowledging was the fact that much of the good in Sweden was in part the result of Christian cultural values having been preserved, even though God was being set aside”
No unbelievers are denying this. WE are well aware of our history being Christian. Swedish Christianity however, was very influenced by the old Norse religions. The Swedish Christian Bible actually has direct quotes from it. Also, there are no examples, what values in Sweden are Christian?

”But over the years those values have been eroding and a culture of selfishness and hopelessness has taken their place.”
WE are ranking nr 8 on the world happiness report, USA, a Christian country: 15

”Sweden is now slowly moving toward a nightmarish future.”
Well, we are actually one of the few countries not in economical crisis.. We have low crime, free education, free healthcare, and so on.

”A quick perusal of recent Swedish societal trends, as shown by the following articles, clearly indicate that secular Sweden is no longer Heaven on earth.”
Unless you know of something called source criticism. Refer to real statistics, not to media! Media’s primary goal is to SELL, not to provide truth.

”Casual sex ‘common’ among Stockholm youth”
Seems like a good thing? I like sex, if there is no god, then multiple sex-partners is not a bad thing, it is only a bad thing from a religious point of view. From a non religious point of view, it is awesome!

”and only one in four used a condom”
Exactly, because atheism does not say condoms are the devil’s tool, some actually use them, unlike countries in Africa, where Christianity has forbidden them.

”Swedish teen girls ‘getting more violent”
Well, these are actually not Ethnic Swedes, but immigrant teen girls in the suburbs. Most of them religious.

”Violence among Swedish teenage girls is on the rise, new statistics show, having increased by
about 50 percent since 1994.”
Once again, parallel with religious immigration. We can see that by looking at the areas these crimes are being committed. Fittja, Rågsved, Skarpnäck, Rinkeby, Alby, Södertälje, Rosengård, all areas where mainly religious immigrants live. (Swedish article, the areas listed are all areas like these). But as I said, I am not against immigration because of this, most immigrants in Sweden are good people.

”Swedish bestiality ring exposed”
Yes there are crimes in most countries. Catholic priests fucks children, that is far worse than this. Also, it is a CRIME in Sweden, and most countries, so I really do not see the argument.

In the US however, Bestiality Is Legal in the Same States That Ban Same-Sex Marriage. FACT.

”A Liberal Party member of parliament has called for Sweden to ban sex with animals.”
Well, it has actually been illegal indirectly for a long time, since it is illegal to hurt animals. This is referring to trials that argued that sex with big animals did not hurt them, however, it is now completely illegal, so, it seems like we are moving in the right way.

”More Swedish children dependent on benefits”
Partly a misunderstanding, they all get it per law. If you have a child, you get money every month from the government until the child turns 15 when the money starts going directly to the child. Since children study for a long time in Sweden (at least until 19), these are important.

”The number of Swedish children living in families that depend on long-term financial benefits has
increased by around 10,000 in just over four years to about 54,000 children, government agency
figures show.”
Once again, parallel with religious immigration. Once someone has a Swedish citizenship, we call them ”Swedes”, at least in statistics, and we give out A LOT of citizenship. Ethnic Swedish kids does not have that much problem with this. (10 times more immigrants (mainly muslims and Oriental Christians) gets welfare next to Ethnic swedes).

Also, unlike the US, in Sweden, you can actually survive on your welfare check. It is on a minimum of 1000 dollars, and that is if you live with your parents, are over 18, and got no job.

”Three Gun Crimes a Day in Sweden”
What is that compared to the US, a Christian country? (Most of these are BTW simply owning an illegal gun).

”Gun smuggling on the rise in Sweden: police”
Once again, parallel with religious immigration. And basically everyone arrested on these charges are religious immigrants (once again, I am still behind having a large immigration, the problem in Sweden lies in that many areas of Sweden do not accept that many, resulting in immigrants all being clumped together in the same area, making them outsiders. (something I am against, but that is sadly politically incorrect to even discuss in Swedish politics, resulting in a racist party on the rise.)

”Firearms are becoming more readily available in Sweden with smuggling increasingly difficult to control”
Basically not one single ethnic swede arrested on these charges. It is the religious people in Sweden behind this, mainly from the Balkans, Even if Sweden is mainly atheistic, the more-part of the people in prison are religious.

Sweden remains one of the countries with the least gun crimes. And basically ALL of them are committed in areas where most are religious. I live in one of these..

”Swedish cities, primarily Gothenburg and Malmö, have been the scene of several shootings in recent months.”
LOL, in Gothenburg, there is an ever ongoing MC-war, these exist in most western countries. Malmö is the place where the more-part of the religious immigrants live.

”Witnesses to a shooting in a Malmö car park on May 11th described the killing as an ”execution” in what
was apparently a hit with links to organized crime, an increasing problem in both cities.”
Performed by religious groups. Or, rather criminals that are religious. (86% immigrants live there, mainly from strictly religious countries).

”Methamphetamine Increasingly Common in Sweden”
This is true in all of western EU. Even the religious countries AND the US.

”Older Swedes are Drinking More”
Yes, we are a country enjoying our alcohol… This is actually because the old people having it quite well even when too old to work, so they can afford it. I drink every day, but not to get dunk, but because I enjoy a beer after work and a glass of whine to my meals.

”Concerns are growing about increased alcohol consumption among Sweden’s retirees”
These concerns comes from Christians who also believes that it is best to not give that much painkillers to people dying, cause they should be sober. Something that is luckily changing parallel to the growing atheism.

”Every fourth Stockholm retiree consumes alcohol at a hazardous level…”
IF you consume 1 50 cl 5% beer/day, you count as an alcoholic according to ”Socialstyrelsen”.  Sweden is one of the best countries on earth, BUT, we have downsides, one of these are the idiot-views within certain parts of the Swedish system, for example the people promoting our incredibly harsh laws surrounding drugs (resulting in Sweden’s addicts having a high mortality rate.)

”Cocaine Use Spreads in Swedish Cities”
Once again, not really a problem in that aspect. Most atheists believe in the humans right to their own body. If an adult Chooses to use drugs, it is their choice.

”More Drug Users Behind the Wheel”
How the hell is this parallel with atheism? Then again, one could say that about basically all of these articles.

”Young Swedish Women Kill Themselves More Often”
True in all the western countries. All western countries has unrealistic demands on women. One of those tradition we have left from Christianity.

”Health Fears for Swedish Youth”
Once again, these are people that are afraid that the youth are acting exactly like themselves when young. Also, this is true for basically all the world, mainly religious countries.

”At the same time, more children and young people are overweight.”
Look at the US!!! A largely religious country where half the people are obese! And even more of the Children. And in what parts, well, the religious parts are also the fattest states. Sweden remain one of the healthiest countries on earth.

”Criminal Gangs Show no Signs of Leaving Sweden”
Of course not, once you get here you do not wanna leave.

”Police say it is difficult to estimate the number and size of criminal gangs in Sweden since membership”
These are mainly gangs with RELIGIOUS afflictions, most Swedish gangs have. Some MC gangs, such as HA, does not, many Bandidos-members do, the gangs in the suburbs are basically all religious immigrants.

”Gangs make headlines almost daily with stories of drug busts, brutal attacks on business owners unable to pay off debts, and bloody gang wars.”
If this argues against atheism, doesn’t it argue even more against Christianity, since the situation is MUCH more severe in a Christian country like the US, Mexico, and South America, as well as southern Africa.. I mean, I live in one of the worst parts of Sweden and feel perfectly safe. IF YOU lived in Harlem (and you are white), you would not.

”Swedish Women Committing More Violent Crimes”
And if we look where these crimes are committed, it is basically all in the religious suburbs, and in schools, by religious girls.

Also, it is actually a sign of feminism.. The views of women in criminal gangs have become better. From being fuck-toys to being useful members.

”Christian Democrats Announce Plan to Save Marriage”
This is the only party in Sweden against women’s rights and the right to abort. Luckily, they most likely won’t last much longer, you need 4% to get into the government, now they are at 3.2 (but they got in last election, barely).

”One Million Swedes on Benefit”
This is partly a GOOD thing. It sucks that the work market is ruthless, but it is a good thing the atheist government supports those who have a hard time (something the US, a Christian country, does not).

Also, in the US, you cannot survive flipping burgers, you can in Sweden because of our high minimum pay, Sweden $13.52/hour + free education and healthcare + medicine. Next to the the US: $7.25/Hour and expensive healthcare, medicine, and education.

”Abortion Increase Blamed on Declining Use of Pill”
Once again, a womens right to their body.. So, a good thing.

”Swedish health authorities are growing increasingly concern about the mental health of the country’s
young people, according to a new report.”
Well, high international demands, it is rough on the kids. My parents could basically walk into any job and just get it without education, or work themselves up. That is gone, you need to succeed in education. Which sadly has deceased the mental health of some young people.

Lets end this debbate surrounding Doctor Gould

Creationists have for a long time claimed that Dr Steven Jay Gould basically argues creationism, this is of course built on quote-mines and cherry picking, lets explore the creationist claim:
The most commonly used quote-mine by creationists is:

”Failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them (fossils) is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory
as we understand it.”

Creationists cut it of there, but he actually goes on:
”Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”


”Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. …. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock .”

Gould is simply arguing that the fossil record has a lot of holes, that in no way argues against evolution, science deals with the evidence we HAVE, not the evidence we so not have. This becomes clear from this quote:

”For if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.”

To close this debate once and for all, this is Gould’s opinion in creationists using his work to support their claim:
” It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know”

/Lucian Macandrew