What Is Islam Famous For Other Than Violence?

 If I were to ask a Muslim or a Hindui or a Buddhist, "what is the chief message, what is the FAMOUS thing your religion offers or is famous for? Something we all know means something of immense significance."

I propose that nobody of those religions would know what to say. If you ask them what their religion means they usually start mentioning some very small things we all already get along with and know about such as, "it gives respect" or, "it follows these rules, and make you happy"....etc.

BUT BE HONEST, not only do the followers not know what that famous and significant thing is, but NOBODY KNOWS what Islam really means, or Hinduism.

The truth is, ultimately they don't mean anything because they're just invented by men of certain countries long ago.

But if you ask what Christianity means, it has an immensely significant meaning; that God became flesh to die for humanity's sins so as to bring us back to God and set us on a course for an eternal paradise. Jesus dying on the cross, God in human form is FAMOUS. Everyone knows the immensity of this.

Can you say that of any other religion? Not really....ask yourself now.....what do they mean? Think about it! They don't really mean anything because they aren't the true religion.

Think about it, if you were Muslim, converting to Christianity wouldn't be a problem because you would be taking on something with great meaning. But I have never heard of one genuine person that converted to Islam from Christianity because that would be to go from something of immense meaning to something with no meaning.

what do you lose if you leave Islam or Hinduism behind? Just admit it, YOU LOSE NOTHING. But to leave Christianity behind is to lose a true fellowship with God. It is to lose actually knowing God and God knowing you personally. 

God died for us. Is that meaningful? Show me something more meaningful in Islam or Hinduism or any of the false religions you deliberately conflate and lump the true religion in with.

Two Steps To Turn You Off Evolution Theory

If you agree with each step you can't avoid ditching evolution theory. Which technically doesn't make you creationist of course but let's forget that for now. But this requires you be true with yourself.

STEP 1. (let's see if you agree)

Sometimes if not most of the time the only way to show something doesn't exist is to show it's absence where it is not expected to be absent. 

Let's say I claim I have six fingers. If we look in the place where you can't avoid the sixth finger showing itself, then if it is in none of those places there is no avoiding that it does not exist.

So if we search my hands for a six fingered hand but don't find one then it doesn't exist. So like I said, if it's absent then that is the proof it was never there as long as it must be there if it exists.

Imagine in a cluster of trees someone said they saw a ten foot tall yeti five minutes ago. Imagine the ground is wet. We go to investigate. We see our own footprints very clearly yet we weight much less than the yeti. If we find no prints yet we ourselves all create prints and the mud was just as wet when they said they saw the yeti then that absence means there was no real yeti.

Agree with the first step highlighted in blue, yet?

No quite yet?

Someone gives you a paper bag and says they have just poohed in it. You look inside and nothing is there and is smells nice, like donuts. 

Are we in agreement yet?

(step 1 shouldn't be conflated with an argument-from-ignorance where the evidence isn't necessarily expected. We're talking about sure fire stuff.)

STEP 2. If evolution never existed then the only way we can show that is by finding it's absence like with step 1 by looking at an area where it unavoidably must show itself.

Let me make it really easy, if evolution happened, then if we find proof it didn't happen, how could it still have happened? That would be like saying that even though you find the absence of the sixth finger, that the sixth finger still exists. (a contradiction).

So you are now thinking, "how can you provide an example where evolution had to be there but isn't?"

I will now explain how. 

An Icthyosaur was a sea-dwelling reptile. Would you agree that it can't have evolved BEFORE reptiles had evolved from amphibians? Would you agree it can't have evolved during or after the time we find fossils of Icthyosaurs? If so then you agree with me that there has to be a WINDOW OF TIME where it MUST have evolved. That is to say, it is the only possible window of time where it could have evolved if it did. Agree? 

So we have established it MUST have evolved in a certain window of time. There can be no escape from this because evolutionists cannot say that this would be wrong. So we know WHEN it had to evolve.

If we now look at that window of time (as I have already done). Like with the sixth finger, I couldn't find any evolution of an Icthyosaur. 

So let's look for the WINDOW of time for when pinnipeds had to have evolved. (seals, walruses, dugongs, manatees, etc).

When I looked at this window of time in the fossil record, I found many animals fossilised but I found no evolution of pinnipeds. Indeed, the first sign of them is the already, "fully evolved" stage, like with the Icthyosaurs.

Let's look at more windows;

Between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards?. We don't! Pre-bat transitionals had to have evolved after mammals had evolved from reptiles, so between the Triassic and the Tertiary we expect to see how bats became bats, through transitionals leading to bats, we don't BUT we do see many fossils preserved in the Triassic and Tertiary including bats, full designed for flight. 

Now here is the thing, there are many windows that overlap, so it makes the fossil problem even worse because it's not as though you could expect a complete absence of evolution of many forms in one era. They should be there like the sixth finger.

Evolution is reasonably absent. You won't find one difficult anatomy that became something VERY different, represented in the fossil record in terms of proving there was a viable route to that new phenotype.

Evolution's Plasticity Should Be An Embarrassment To Science

 Realistically evolution cannot be defined as science because it's plasticity will not allow falsification.

I will list all of the things that they say fit with evolution.

Firstly evolution was supposed to be diversity, so homologies fit with evolution. So can we falsify it if there is are two homoplastic organisms? No, because it's simply called, "evolutionary convergence". So both homology and non-homology are considered evolution. 

Conclusion; cannot falsify

Then there is the issue of timing. If evolution happens slowly it's evolution(Darwinism), if it happens quickly it's evolution (hopeful monsters).....so then if evolution doesn't happen at all can I falsify it? No, because it's called, "evolutionary stasis". (which in fact is an oxymoron)

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about the designer standard for evolution, what do we expect it's design to be like, brilliant, average or poor? ALL of them. Whatever you find becomes the prediction for evolution. They argue bad design in order to say God can't have designed life but if you show them a good design then it is expected from millions of years of perfecting by evolution. Whether the design standard is brilliant, average or poor it's evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about transitionals? Intermediates? If I find some is it evolution? Yes. If I change my mind like with whales and they become artiodactyl ungulates rather than mesonychids, is it still evolution? Yes. Is it evolution if we find no transitionals at all which is pretty much the case once we rule out the few fashionable candidates? Yes, it's still evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about studies on micro-scale evolution such as chichlid fish? If micro changes don't seemingly have any direction towards macro scale anatomical overhauls of phenotype is it evolution? "Yes, because evolution doesn't have to take any direction". So if we find direction it's evolution, we find no direction it's evolution? yes.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about things out of place? What if we find something existing earlier than it's alleged ancestors? Do we push back evolution or falsify it? It's pushed back. So if the story fits it's evolution, if it doesn't fit it's pushed back so it's still evolution. 

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

what about if we find soft tissues that are much likelier to be thousands of years old? In that case it's some sort of preservation. So if it's soft young tissue it's still an evolutionary timescale just like if there is the expected decay to the point none is left. Yes, meaning yet again ANY outcome is automatically somehow evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about vestigial features or junk DNA? If we find purposes for those features, implying they are not leftovers of evolution, is it still evolution? Yes, and you can just argue that the portion we don't know the function of yet are leftover (argumentum ad silentia), So if we find function it's evolution and we don't find function it's evolution and if it's a mixture of both it's evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about devolution? What if we only find evidence of major characters being lost rather than gained such as the loss of horse's toes, the loss of eyes in fish or the loss of beetle's wings? Then devolution becomes your evidence of evolution!

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

FINAL CONCLUSION; So how do scientists CLAIM they are able to falsify evolution? By abusing hindsight! They choose the kinds of falsification where they say that uncovering a certain fact would certainly falsify evolution-theory, however the hindsight they have from their knowledge of the facts means that they simply know they will never uncover such a fact. (selecting falsification that isn't proper falsification)

In simple terms, to summarise; Evolution can be fast slow, absent, divergent or non-divergent, it's history present or not present, it's remains fitting as evidence of youth or great age, it's transitionals one group or another group later on or non existent, it's design can be brilliant, average or rubbish and it can be found in the right place, wrong place or nowhere at all and devolution can be your evolution. It's leftovers can be genuine leftovers or functional characters or a mixture of both and there isn't any scenario which cannot be argued to not be evolution. 

That is not a science-theory, it is an all-encompassing naturalist ideology designed to replace an omniscient God by having all of the answers in His place.

Why Anything Exists

 There are always reasons why things happen. You will not be able to think of one thing that ever happened without a reason. Think about it. Try and think of something that happened for no reason. Even if someone is killed on the road accidentally, there will be a reason why. The reason might be that they didn't look and stepped into the road. The reason may be they miscalculated while J-walking. The reason may be it was dark and they were drunk.

But if there was no reason, then it wouldn't have happened because nothing can happen without a reason. Therefore there always must be valid reasons for something to happen. (important to remember)

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST?

There are three possibilities we can round it down to.

1. There was nothing at all. Then something popped out of nothingness. (magic)

2. Nature is eternal, it was forever cause and effect, turtles all the way down.

3. There is something inherently eternal that exists, that created nature. (technically you cannot prove this is God, but there has to be something that has a reason to be eternal that is beyond nature and our understanding)

Those are basically the three logical possibilities. I am arguing that because number 3 makes the most sense that God is there and always existed. I am arguing that God (or something like God technically) makes the most sense, I am not arguing that I can prove it is the Lord like I believe it is, I am just saying that of those three possibilities it seems 1 and 2 can be ruled out.

So the explanation which is true has to be predicated on a good reason because everything has a reason to happen. Because we do exist, and life and the universe does exist then there MUST be a reason why.

Number 1 doesn't provide a real reason; no matter what they tell you about a big bang or whatever gibberish they believe, the fact is if nothing at all exists there would be no reason for something to pop up out of it. Saying, "it just did" counts as, "no reason". This means number 1 MUST be false. Something would not come from nothing for no reason and this explanation can be regarded as belief in magic. Magic is reasonably false. There must be a reason and this offers no reason. There can also be no reason offered that would make sense because if nothing exists at all why would anything then come from it? It only makes sense that nothing would breed nothing. There is nothing for something to come from with number 1. It is the dumbest belief of the three and you can't put scientific varnish over it because there must be genuine reasons for something to happen and in this instance there can't be a reason for a false thing called magic, to occur.

Number 2 is a bit of a better explanation than number one because the nothing-problem is dispatched, however is the problem really gone pertaining to there being a reason for an eternal universe? Why would it be there anyway? Why would it exist? There seems to be a play on magic again because if there is no reason for it to exist in the first place then it can't be true. "It was just always there" is a non-answer and provides no real reason. Why would matter, or anything else, be there to begin with? There really isn't a good answer that is possible, therefore it cannot be true because things only happen for a reason. In fact there would just be nothing, just like if there was no reason for a car accident then it wouldn't have happened. 

This is why materialism, naturalism, atheism, is a generally poor answer,(not that the pride-filled liars of new atheism would ever be honest enough to admit to it) because it cannot give us proper reasons why things happen. It is the same with life's design and the intelligibility of the universe, you have to believe it is incidental but there is just no valid reason why designed parts of a cell would collect together over time and lead to a living, functional cell. What is the reason that would happen with natural chance? There really isn't a good reason, and a lifeform wouldn't "desire" to exist until it existed. Even if you propose something like a meteor delivering the correct concentration of left handed aminos to create a homochiral protein why would nature stop the protein from breaking down long before there was a functional cell? It's pretty much a totally FOOLISH belief to just go with credulity in this science-fiction offering because there are always reasons for why things happen and this provides none. You may counter, "an extraordinary series of events were the reason", but rationally there is no reason to believe in the invokation of super-improbable scenarios that only depict a fantasy world where the improbable events are so fantastical that they are no different from a miracle in their scope. And if they are equal to a miracle then why object to an actual miracle?

Number 3 seems to make the most sense. (Admittedly we can never fully make sense of these things because of the limits of our intellect). But it makes for the most consistent answer that God is the answer, because God is eternal. Even in Genesis God says of Himself, "I am that I am", which implies that God is saying, "I exist" or, "I am existence itself". This is consistent if there is a perfection to God where an eternal nature is unavoidable. Why does anything exist? Because I AM (existence itself) creates other things that exist. It also solves the nothing problem. There could never have been nothing because of the aforementioned reasonings. Therefore the reason why God is always there is because of His character/nature. God is inherently eternal being existences it's very self. God always was existing, and other things that exist only exist because God does.

This seems more satisfying than the other two answers. And the mark of a good answer is that it also gives answers to other problems that tie up the loose ends.....it answers for why the universe has intelligibility and life has design. The first two answers cannot give good reasons.

Given Enough Time 'The Improbable Becomes Probable' Addressed

 Not only do some things not become probable, they're reasonably always going to remain unreal even if not technically impossible. 

The atheist evolutionist uses this reasoning, with an implicit argument so that people are forced to think the following; "if it's not impossible then it's only a matter of probability, and therefore no matter how improbable given enough time or numbers it becomes probable."

However, I question the premise that, "if it's not impossible it's therefore a matter of probability."

That reasoning is wrong if we can show there is an example of something that is not impossible, but that is still not a matter of probability. Something that can physically happen but WON'T ever happeb.

I have an example. 

You will never get the most famous woman on earth to knock on your door and ask to marry you. It is not physically impossible but that doesn't mean it's a matter of probability because given enough time and numbers it will not change the fact that it won't happen.

Some things can be shown to be physically possible and can happen but they just won't because they simply go against the nature of reality. It's also not a probability-issue therefore this classic atheist argument is a limited choice fallacy because of the third option.

There just needs to be a reason for some things to occur and with some things they can only occur with teleology as the cause. (done on purpose). 

This is why abiogenesis would not happen. Yes it's also improbable but that is not that relevant, because more importantly it just wouldn't happen. You would need ordinary chemistry to create code and polymers with specified complexity. That no more would happen than wind and wave would create a sand castle.

Finding A Mammal In The Cambrian

 Evolutionists usually argue the famous bunny-in-the-Cambrian. They say finding something like this would falsify evolution, and they usually demand that as creationists we should provide examples like this or similar.

In fact if the fossil order was not created by evolution, then you can't break the order even if evolution is false, so it isn't a genuine falsification. 

But also when the evolutionist requests we find a mammal or a dino in say the Cambrian in order to prove they both existed at the same time, we as creationists can only answer that red-herring if we are arguing that both the Cambrian and say Cretaceous, are different eras.

If we DON'T argue they are different eras, and we argue that both are flood layers laid down in the same year and therefore contemporaneous, then we only have to show that you can find a mammal or dino in any flood layer, no matter what the layer is.

So if we find a dino in the Cretaceous and a trilobite in the Cambrian, it follows that because we argue both layers are caused by the flood, that both have been found contemporaneously. 

Conclusion; it is a red-herring to say we must show the dino and trilobite in the same Cambrian layer, to prove they lived contemporaneously, because we see most layers as being contemporaneous. so the request begs the question, because it asks us to take on an assumpton of evolution, that the layers are eons.

So basically in my experience a lot of evolutionists just aren't smart enough to see that different theories have different starting assumptions and you can't conflate them. For example if one person argues for Jane the Ripper and another for Jack the Ripper, the Jack-theorist cannot request that we prove Jane had a penis, because under the Jane-theory the Ripper would not be a male. 

(I must have had to say this to one or two evolutionists I know, for about ten years and they still don't get it.)

Comparing God With Santa Or a Pink Unicorn

On the surface the atheist argument that God is no different than Santa, as how can you determine a difference, seems to make sense. I concede that it seems to make some sense but the fault in the argument ironically, is that the reason why the argument is unsound is the very same reason - because we can't determine the difference.

So the comparison of God to Santa or an invisible pink unicorn (IPU), is the Fallacy Of False Equivalence.

I shall now explain why and what that fallacy is.

Such a fallacy is committed when a comparison is made but potential differences are either omitted or fudged over in some way so that there isn't a truly logical equivalence.

With God and the IPU, there are several errors atheists gloss over. They say God is identical in that God is invisible, and so is Santa, and God is believe to do miracles, like Santa can do magic, and they say that anyone can invent a similar entity. So let's look into those things;

1. Invisibility. The first error hidden in this argument is a fallacy , which goes like this;

"Santa is invisible and he is false.
God is also invisible, therefore God must be false."

Here is why this argument is logically unsound;

"David is intelligent and he's an atheist.
Michael is also intelligent, therefore he must be an atheist."

Conclusion: In fact we KNOW that invisible things can also be true and real, so the atheist is jumping to the conclusion that God's invisibility is the same as Santa's and is based on imagination, rather than proving their claim because for all they know God's invisibility may be for a similar reason as the Higgs Boson, only God is not "within" the universe so He can't be detected. The point is, the atheist is asking us to overlook his assumption that invisibility is for the same reason when in fact they just don't know.

2. Magic/Miracles. The error is the same here;

"A magician does magic tricks and those are false, so is Santa's magic.
God does miracles we argue are equivalent to magic,
therefore God's miracles are also false."

The error is the same. But again, arguably miracles are real rather than false. For example the miracle of life. But of course, that is a matter of debate among theists/atheist but even so, if life really does only exist because God created it, then an eyeball is a miracle which is real and true. So again there is an assumption with the atheist that magic is the same as the miraculous, but if a lifeform exists as the result of a miracle but magic is false and cannot produce anything, then logically miracles and magic cannot be equivalent. Now even if the atheist protests and says, "but miracles are magic", he is playing a WEAK HAND, because even if the atheist merely does not know whether miracles are true or false, that is sufficient logically to conclude that you cannot say magic is equivalent, based only on ignorance.

3. You can invent magic entities and say they have the same characteristics as God.

The reason why at this moment I could invent a false entity which had all the characteristics God has is the same reason I could invent a particle identical to a Higgs Boson and simply say this particle exists only in other universes, but this says nothing of God's existence. In other words, the reason we can invent false things that seem identical to things which may very well not be false, is because if a real thing is hidden, invisible, or not real in a very clear way by which there are only few methods to identify it, then we are blind to the difference between that real thing and a false thing because we cannot examine it, we cannot see it, and we cannot track it. So because all false imaginings are hidden, and invisible because they don't exist, that is why it is easy to invent false things as long as they can't be seen, but this doesn't mean the thing you copy is false.

For example I could at this moment say that something like a  human being exists on the far side of the galaxy, or they exist in other universes. I could invent a false thing identical to a real thing but logically would that make the real thing false?

No it wouldn't. So yet again we can ask the question over and over; "How do you know God is the same as Santa". As you can see from this evaluation, an atheist can't possibly know they are the same based on the reasons s/he gives.

Final Conclusion: My statement to atheists who argue this and enjoy the mockery and feigned superiority? I can only quote Captain Kirk......."I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect".