The only mechanism that Steven or Maragon ever proposed was mutation. Mutations cause deleterious effects 99.9% of the time. Extinction is the norm. Creation is not. 99% of all animals that have ever lived have gone extinct. These creation events did not happen gradually according to the fossil record. There isn't enough time to go through 10,000 generations of Pakicetus to get a whole new species called a whale out of this common ancestor. If you do the math, there isn't enough time. The only way this works is if there is unlimited time. Steven has never given anything but the mechanisms that are given to us for our survivability and tried to impose them on this idea that one animal can eventually become another over many generations. There was an excellent paper today on RTB about the enzymes that are utilized to create survivability in bacteria.
http://www.reasons.org/Evolvability-AGoodDesignPrinciple
I love the way science is finally admitting the obvious truth that so far there is no other planet like ours. We are it where it comes to life and there is a reason for that. The absurdity of not seeing God's hand in this amazes me. It absolutely astounds me at how blind this world is to the obviousness of God.
Vera
Posts
27 comments:
Vera, you assert that "Mutations cause deleterious effects 99.9% of the time." This is enormously higher than the incidence of harmful mutations that I find in other sources, which all state that the majority of mutations are neutral, and only a minority are harmful.
Given that there are two to six different three-nucleotide codons for each amino acid, I'd think that well over 0.1% (something close to 5% right off the top of my head) of mutations are silent, making no difference in the amino acid sequence being coded for!
Hippos are sexually mature at six years; blue whales at eight. Ten thousand generations of Pakicetus (a smaller animal than either) would probably run to less than 100,000 years. You're an old-earth creationist, Vera: are you trying to tell us that there isn't enough time for a thousand centuries?
Of course, you don't go from Pakicetus to Balaenoptera in one speciation event. You'd need quite a few; fortunately, you can fit several hundred (at a thousand centuries per speciation) between the Eocene and today.
Note that a speciation event gives rise to two species: speciation is a branching process. Over time, a high rate of extinction balances out exponential growth in the number of species.
If you actually do the math, you'll note that the speed of morphological change implied in a succession like Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Rhodocetus to Dorudon to essentially modern whales is considerably slower than the rate of change seen in, e.g. domestic dogs. You'll note that gene sweeps (complete replacements of one gene by a mutant allele) can happen over large populations of slow-breeding organisms over a few dozen centuries.
Astronomers have detected large planets around a handful of small stars, all taking up a very tiny fraction of one galaxy. To infer from this that there are no extrasolar planets like Earth is rather like assuming that gorillas don't exist because you can walk down your block without seeing one.
On the other hand, I must note that there's something mildly odd in insisting that a Creator deliberately made the universe for life, on the grounds that [a] 99.999+% of the universe is totally unsuitable for life, and [b] most species are extinct. Isn't that more the pattern you'd expect if life were some freakishly unlikely event that depended on the right natural conditions arising by chance?
Steven,
RTB just did another great podcast on Science News Flash called Modern life's pressures may be hastening human evolution. In this podcast Dr. Rana talked about the mutations in man that have benefitted him. The two he pointed out where lactose intolerance and skin color. My question is this. How are these mutations decided upon? Does the mother change her alleles because she wants to drink milk or does she simply produce a baby that can now tolerate milk because she has been trying to tolerate milk over and over unsuccessfully? Does the baby's alleles change to meet the need and if so how is this decided? If the mother is intolerant, it seems that she would simply not drink cow milk because she would know how sick it makes her. So how does this pressure effect the allele all by its little ole self. Does the offspring become something other than a human at this point? Does this pressure cause an anatomical change that would make this first human distinctly different than us?
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
RTB just did another great podcast on Science News Flash called Modern life's pressures may be hastening human evolution. In this podcast Dr. Rana talked about the mutations in man that have benefitted him. The two he pointed out where lactose intolerance and skin color. My question is this. How are these mutations decided upon? Does the mother change her alleles because she wants to drink milk or does she simply produce a baby that can now tolerate milk because she has been trying to tolerate milk over and over unsuccessfully? Does the baby's alleles change to meet the need and if so how is this decided? If the mother is intolerant, it seems that she would simply not drink cow milk because she would know how sick it makes her. So how does this pressure effect the allele all by its little ole self. Does the offspring become something other than a human at this point? Does this pressure cause an anatomical change that would make this first human distinctly different than us? .
There is a point that Dr. Rana's "great" podcast seems to have omitted (perhaps because he thought it went without saying): virtually all humans can tolerate lactose as infants and young children. The gene that codes for the enzyme that digests lactose is "turned off" in adults in most human (and other mammal) populations. So people would tend to notice that one or more of them can keep drinking milk without getting indigestion, and keep it up after early childhood. A mother might be surprised that her child is willing to keep drinking milk (and can do so without ill effects) for so long, but this is just one more way people can be different from each other.
Lactose tolerance emerged as a mutation, a change to a regulatory gene. Presumably, it was just one of myriad mutations that pop up in every generation (and probably emerged many times in many different populations). If it turned up in a population of people who didn't keep cattle or who didn't feed cattle milk (or camel milk, for Arabs) to their children, the mutant allele would make no difference and would likely quickly disappear.
But in a population where cows existed to be milked, the ability to digest milk as an adult would have some advantages: a whole new food source you could rely on to supplement other items in the diet. This would give the mutant child a slight advantage in surviving and producing offspring of his own (some of whom would inherit the new adult lactose-tolerance). As the gene spreads through the population (because lactose-tolerant people, in a cattle-herding culture, have on average slightly more children each generation), the entire culture can change: they start keeping more cattle for milk rather than slaughtering them for meat, start breeding cattle for dairy rather than slaughter, and find themselves able to generate more calories per acre (because dairy cattle turn grass into food more efficiently than beef cattle).
Mutations are not "decided upon." They occur, and depending on the environment of the population in which they occur, they are either neutral, or harmful, or beneficial. Only in environments where animals were already being kept and milked (in small amounts, for children) would such a mutation be beneficial.
Did the mutation occur after the person was born? Could this have been a part of the design of man so that he could benefit from the food sources around? IOW, mutations such as this that would promote survivability are inherent and essential within our genome. Does man become a different species after the mutational change?
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
Did the mutation occur after the person was born? Could this have been a part of the design of man so that he could benefit from the food sources around? IOW, mutations such as this that would promote survivability are inherent and essential within our genome. Does man become a different species after the mutational change? .
Vera, you keep insisting that we are wrong to suggest that you don't really understand biology or evolution, and then you ask questions like the above.
Mutations are changes to genes. An allele that occurs in cells throughout the body (and affects the basics of metabolism, anatomy, etc.) must have occurred before conception (after birth, there can be somatic mutations -- changes to cells as they reproduce during growth or healing -- but those only affect a fraction of your body's cells and I have heard of no cases where they give you novel abilities).
DNA can be recovered from fairly recent skeletons, sometimes (and comparisons among the genomes of living persons can enable researchers to reconstruct features of the genome of their last common ancestor, in much the way that comparisons of different biblical manuscripts can be used to reconstruct part of the original text). Bones of Europeans from several thousand years ago turn up no individuals who have the mutant allele. Today it's almost ubiquitous among white Europeans. This rather suggests that the allele was not present in the original, ancestral population, but turned up later.
At least, this was not a trait somehow latent in all human beings and waiting to be "turned on." It is a "potential" in the genome in the sense that known sorts of copying errors in DNA could have produced it in just about any baby born to any human being on Earth; the same is true for a vast array of other known and possible mutations.
Speciation does not result from a single mutation (well, except in the case of polyploidy, if it happens to several individuals in a population in the same generation), or, indeed, from any fixed number of mutations. The bacterium E. coli has a higher percentage genetic difference between individuals within that one species than exists between humans and lemurs, but it's all considered the same species. Conversely, there are distinct species that differ only slightly in their DNA; they are still capable of interbreeding, but refuse to do so in the wild, and their mutual genetic isolation makes them separate species.
New mutations occur in virtually every human being born: most neutral (most, indeed, to non-coding DNA), a few harmful, a very few beneficial. This does not mean that the human race comprises six billion different species. Now, perhaps you meant to ask about new adaptions rather than new species, or perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of "mutation" and "species."
I wanted to make sure we were on the same page before commenting on these mutations. Doesn't it seem rather logical that a new generation would comprise those who could digest an available food source? You call it an error. I call it beneficial. It helps to assure the continuation of mankind given the present conditions. Is the mother drinking milk gas problems or not and so her gametes are ready to produce a new generation of offspring devoid of this problem?
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
I wanted to make sure we were on the same page before commenting on these mutations. Doesn't it seem rather logical that a new generation would comprise those who could digest an available food source? You call it an error. I call it beneficial. It helps to assure the continuation of mankind given the present conditions. Is the mother drinking milk gas problems or not and so her gametes are ready to produce a new generation of offspring devoid of this problem? .
On the same page? Vera, I'm not sure we're on the same planet.
You seem to be suggesting that adult lactose tolerance is somehow caused by the availability of milk in the diet: that by drinking milk, a mother could cause her children to be more likely to be born with this trait.
Mutations are changes to DNA: these may have various effects on the phenotype (the anatomy, metabolism, and behavior) of the organism, or no effect at all. Mutations are random: not that all mutations are equally likely, but whether you get a mutation is unrelated to whether the mutation would be good, bad, or neutral in that environment. Nothing a mother could do would make a mutation for lactose tolerance more likely or less likely. Presumably, this mutation showed up, from time to time, in cultures that didn't herd cattle (or did herd them but didn't drink their milk) in which cultures it would provide no advantage.
Adult lactose tolerance is known to be, for the most part, the result of a difference in one particular gene. It is not some inherent trait in all humans that can be "turned on" in appropriate circumstances; you need this particular allele. All evidence suggests that this allele originally arose through mutation; the most common version of the gene in humans leaves the ability to digest lactose to taper off as the child ages.
Steven
On the same page? Vera, I'm not sure we're on the same planet.I'm cut to the quick. ROFLOL. -not- We used to be on the same planet until you got in your rocket ship and left. :-)
You seem to be suggesting that adult lactose tolerance is somehow caused by the availability of milk in the diet: that by drinking milk, a mother could cause her children to be more likely to be born with this trait.
Mutations are changes to DNA: these may have various effects on the phenotype (the anatomy, metabolism, and behavior) of the organism, or no effect at all. Mutations are random: not that all mutations are equally likely, but whether you get a mutation is unrelated to whether the mutation would be good, bad, or neutral in that environment. Nothing a mother could do would make a mutation for lactose tolerance more likely or less likely. Presumably, this mutation showed up, from time to time, in cultures that didn't herd cattle (or did herd them but didn't drink their milk) in which cultures it would provide no advantage.
Adult lactose tolerance is known to be, for the most part, the result of a difference in one particular gene. It is not some inherent trait in all humans that can be "turned on" in appropriate circumstances; you need this particular allele. All evidence suggests that this allele originally arose through mutation; the most common version of the gene in humans leaves the ability to digest lactose to taper off as the child ages. I wasn't suggesting anything. I am asking you a question. How does the individual mutate advantageously like that without knowing that this is a great source of food or needing it? What would have happened had they not mutated? Doesn't that suggest a sort of logic?
My children and I are watching Planet Earth and Blue Planet. These habitats are fragile and balanced. It is impossible not to be incredulous of God and His abilities to design this world.
Vera
Vera replied to me:
I wasn't suggesting anything. I am asking you a question. How does the individual mutate advantageously like that without knowing that this is a great source of food or needing it? What would have happened had they not mutated? Doesn't that suggest a sort of logic? .
I thought I answered that question, to the best of my ability. Quite possibly, the same mutation, or mutations with the same effect, happened many times over thousands of generations. Let's see: three billion base pairs, a couple of million humans over most of human history, a few thousand generations, multiple mutations in almost every human born ... yes, it probably happened over and over again. In most cases, the mutation was useless: there was no steady source of milk after weaning, since the mutant's culture did not keep cattle. The mutant had no better chance of leaving offspring than anyone else, and the mutation disappeared after one or a few generations, or perhaps remained at a very low level in the population (1% or so). In one or two cases, the mutation proved beneficial and spread through the population.
But if it had never occurred, or if the mutant child had died young for unrelated reasons, why, then I suppose we would stuck to breeding cattle for meat and not for milk. Pastoral nomads would have been less common, with immense effects on human history (including, quite possibly, no Bible: the Hebrews were originally goat herders hostile to settled farmers and cities -- this is the point of the Cain and Abel story: God likes pastoral nomads better than city-dwellers and farmers). But of course there were entire civilizations, with great achievements, whose people never acquired the ability to digest milk as adults and never took up cattle-herding in a big way: think of the Chinese.
word verification: cable
Hi, Vera. Haven't visited in awhile but I see Steven J. has been keeping you company as always. Good man.
You would have done better to quote my COMPLETE comment from the "Problems with the Doctrine of Sin Nature" thread. But that wouldn't have worked for you, would it, Vera honey.
For future reference, here's the comment again:
"....But the point is that he found evidence to support the text."
::facepalm::
ONE.
MORE.
TIME.
Any scientist worthy of the name does not look for evidence to support a prior conclusion or statement. [ADDED: Such as, for example, the claims in Genesis. Duh.]It's the other way around: You start with the evidence and figure out what it means. Often you can't figure it out completely, like Darwin who knew there had to be a mechanism driving the process of evolution but was unable to find it himself because he couldn't get his hands on an electron microscope. Incompleteness doesn't make a theory wrong, merely incomplete.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to Steven J, for a change. He has patiently provided excellent answers to all your halfbaked objections - answers which you choose to ignore just as you ignored Maragon when she attempted to educate you.
----------------
As for your silliness about how dead babies get expressed to La-La-Land - suuuure they do. And they get to play forever with fuzzy kittens and baby unicorns on clouds made of cotton candy and happiness. You've convinced me!
/eyeroll ---------------------------
On a completely different but more immediately pressing topic:
Say, Vera, didja hear? Christians tortured helpless prisoners and they aren't even sorry!
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/06/0506pitts_edit.html
Did you know that American Indians have a propensity to being lactose intolerant?
Vera
ny scientist worthy of the name does not look for evidence to support a prior conclusion or statement.Atheistic evolutionists and YEC do this constantly. They've already decided that their paradigm is correct without any objectivity that they just might be wrong. Nor do they take into account the myriad of problems contained in their theories and models. The best approach is to let truth be the guide.
Vera
Do you know why Europeans (and their descendants) mostly aren't lactose intolerant? C'mon, take a wild guess.
---------------
Atheistic evolutionists and YEC do this constantly. Prove it. I mean, prove that that's what I've done, or Steven J or anyone else.
And I'll remind you once again, there was a time when I believed in a god. Therefore your insinuation that I disbelieved first and then looked up stuff to bolster my disbelief, is WRONG. I believe that's also the case for Steven J (though I could be wrong on that point).
As for you, V baby, I and many others have repeatedly observed how you deal with scientific evidence:
1) Seize upon it with one grubby fist;
2) Maintain a chokehold on it while flipping through the bible with the other hand;
3) Find some unfortunate verse which can be made to suit your purpose; and
4) Mangle the verse until it bears a vague and distant resemblance to the evidence, while
5) Ignoring the inexcusable violence you're doing to both evidence and scripture.
They've already decided that their paradigm is correct without any objectivity that they just might be wrong. Unless you come up with evidence to support this claim, I have no obligation to take it seriously. Unless you come up with evidence to support ANY claim you've made, I have no obligation to take ANYTHING you say seriously.
Nor do they take into account the myriad of problems contained in their theories and models.Again, feel free to prove that.
The best approach is to let truth be the guide.Once again, feel free to present evidence to support this claim. While you're at it, imagine me sticking out my tongue at you.
--------------------
And BTW you can answer my question about Christian torturers any time you're ready.
weemaryanne
Any scientist worthy of the name does not look for evidence to support a prior conclusion or statement. [ADDED: Such as, for example, the claims in Genesis. Duh.]It's the other way around: You start with the evidence and figure out what it means. Often you can't figure it out completely, like Darwin who knew there had to be a mechanism driving the process of evolution but was unable to find it himself because he couldn't get his hands on an electron microscope. Incompleteness doesn't make a theory wrong, merely incomplete.There are two truths. The world of nature is one. The Bible is the other. They are in harmony one with the other. They are both obscured and need investigation. They are both from the same Source. One can easily out rule the other or unlock a truth from the other.
Bringing out articles of people who claim to be Christians who do things that are unconscionable is boring at best. You can't say you're a Christian and do things in an opposite way that Jesus says to do. One day Jesus Himself will annihilate the wicked and evil off the face of the planet so there is no need for a Christian to take that upon Himself. Jesus expressly said not to. What we are called to do is to lead them to repentance. Your heart is so hardened though and it is my belief that God has turned you over to a reprobate mind. It is He that isn't allowing you to see. Your only hope is to let go of your arrogance and ask for the mercy of God in your life.
As to the torture of prisoners, I hate it when people who utilize their free speech like nobody's business fault the people that keep them safe from torture.
You really need to repent, weemaryanne. God is not fooling around with you. Heaven or hell - it is your choice.
Vera
Chuckle. You should drop the empty threats, Vera. People might start to think that you don't have any better arguments to make.
. . . . Oh, wait. . . .
There are two truths. The world of nature is one. The Bible is the other. They are in harmony one with the other. They are both obscured and need investigation. They are both from the same Source. One can easily out rule the other or unlock a truth from the other....
*************************
Fisking, merrily fisking:
*************************
....They are both obscured and need investigation....
Truth, by definition, is not obscured. It's either known or knowable. And according to Christian doctrine, we already know the Bible is true (because it says so in the BIble) therefore that doesn't require any investigation.
(Ain't you ashamed that I have to teach you your own doctrine, girl?)
-----------------------
....They are both from the same Source....
And we know this -- how?
Say, Vera: What if I came to you and said I had witnessed a miracle, and I led you to the spot where I had witnessed same, and I pointed to a little heap of ashes and said dramatically, "THERE! There's where the Phoenix was reborn, right before my eyes! The legend of the Phoenix is not myth, it's fact and there's the proof, right there, yessiree."
If I did that, how would you test my claim?
(counting: three, two, one....)
Why, using scientific tests.
Yes, of course. What else.
In other words, your nonscientific supernatural nonmaterial otherworldly inexplicable explanation of the unexplainable would be provided courtesy of --
-- drumrolllllll --
SCIENCE!
NOT by pony express or any other form of message from The Other Realm Of Knowledge that you're always asserting.
Funny, isn't it?
------------------
....One can easily out rule the other....
Ahem. Vera. Listen to yourself. If Science can rule out the Bible, or if the Bible can rule out Science, then that would leave only ONE truth.
Not two.
Because Two Minus One Equals One.
-------------------
You shouldn't be surprised that your arguments don't make any sense to me -- when they don't even make any sense to YOU!
When I declare to you of God's judgment, I believe that you know in your heart that this is true because God has already shown it to you before. You've just decided to believe the lie. It is a warning, not a threat. You are free to choose.
Vera
When you give me your imaginary friend's messages, Vera dear, you're just blowin' smoke. No superentity has told me anything at any time.
But, what's this? Ah, a news story comes to the notice of Weemaryanne the News Junkie. This woman's imaginary friend seems to be sending her messages that are -- um, mixed to say the very least:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6479203.ece
Howzabout you interpret this one for me, V? I think it deserves its own blog post. Just please quote me correctly this time, hokay?
(sits back and gets comfortable, this is gonna be good)
....As to the torture of prisoners, I hate it when people who utilize their free speech like nobody's business fault the people that keep them safe from torture....
Torturing people makes their confessions inadmissible as evidence in court. Therefore nobody has been made any safer, let alone safe, by torture.
FAIL
....it is my belief that God has turned you over to a reprobate mind. It is He that isn't allowing you to see....
Now why would your Imaginary Friend do that? Isn't this something that your Imaginary Enemy would be more likely to do?
I have heard that some great evidence came from such questioning. So you are wrong.
I agree though with your cautions. This type of thing can be overused. You are right. For example, people used to torture Christians trying to get them to deny Christ. Fox's Book of Martyrs tells of these people down through the ages that suffering for Jesus.
But where it comes to bad guys that stupidly want to kill innocent people in the name of religion (even if these are so called Christians) I have no problem when time is at stake for them to throw at least the threat of torture at them. That is worse than torture.
I hate having to deal with people this way. I would much rather sit down and talk to someone rationally. But you, of all people, should know that you can't rationalize with irrational people. It is virtually impossible. They are not of a sound mind to rationalize with. And they are prepared to hurt as many people as they can through their perversion. So cops and military step in to stop them and sometimes that unfortunately means they are tortured. It is an ugly job but I am grateful for their protection.
Vera
Now why would your Imaginary Friend do that? Isn't this something that your Imaginary Enemy would be more likely to do?
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Vera
You heard wrong:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia-detainee16-2009jun16,0,316330.story?page=1
I gotta tell you, weemaryanne. I'm not buying it. Why lie? Of course, he's going to say that.
Vera
Lemme get this straight:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is lying now, to a reporter who's not trying to drown him.
But he wasn't lying when he told conspiracy tales to CIA agents who were trying to drown him. Or beat him to a pulp. Or freeze him. Or keep him awake for days on end. He didn't choose to tell them anything they wanted to hear, just to make the pain stop.
Oh, no. He told them the truth. He sold out his friends, and his relatives, and his people, and his god, not because he was nearly mad with pain but merely because he was being intensively interrogated.
No.
Intensive interrogation is what you, Vera, did to your kids when you suspected that they'd been in the cookie jar (or whatever) but they hadn't yet admitted to it. You didn't throw them against walls, or play loud music 24/7 to keep them awake, or strap 'em down and pour water down their throats.
And if you had, and if they had finally given up and said yes, they swiped the cookies, well that would have been exactly the result you expected.
And if the next day, the confessing kid changed his story, adding "It wasn't true, I only said it 'cause I wanted the pain to stop," would you have snorted derisively and said:
"Well of course he'd say that! He's still guilty!"
------------
Sigh. Never mind. As far as you're concerned, the guy (btw I'm now talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammad again, not your kids) is guilty not only of helping the 9/11 Numbskulls but of every plot that ever had any American citizen or American property as its target. Real plots or imagined ones, it matters not at all to you.
Lemme get this straight:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is lying now, to a reporter who's not trying to drown him.
But he wasn't lying when he told conspiracy tales to CIA agents who were trying to drown him. Or beat him to a pulp. Or freeze him. Or keep him awake for days on end. He didn't choose to tell them anything they wanted to hear, just to make the pain stop.
Oh, no. He told them the truth. He sold out his friends, and his relatives, and his people, and his god, not because he was nearly mad with pain but merely because he was being intensively interrogated.
No.
Intensive interrogation is what you, Vera, did to your kids when you suspected that they'd been in the cookie jar (or whatever) but they hadn't yet admitted to it. You didn't throw them against walls, or play loud music 24/7 to keep them awake, or strap 'em down and pour water down their throats.
And if you had, and if they had finally given up and said yes, they swiped the cookies, well that would have been exactly the result you expected.
And if the next day, the confessing kid changed his story, adding "It wasn't true, I only said it 'cause I wanted the pain to stop," would you have snorted derisively and said:
"Well of course he'd say that! He's still guilty!"
------------
Sigh. Never mind. As far as you're concerned, the guy (btw I'm now talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammad again, not your kids) is guilty not only of helping the 9/11 Numbskulls but of every plot that ever had any American citizen or American property as its target. Real plots or imagined ones, it matters not at all to you.
I don't agree with these measures unless there are lives at stake or there is an imminent threat against people. The analogy of a kid with his hand in a cookie jar is not even in the ballpark of what we are talking about here. We are talking about innocent people being burned alive because of radical islam.
These people don't care about you or anyone else. They love to play the "peaceful religion, we-never card. They did it in the Crusades. They do it today. It is a tactic that the simple fall for. And folks like you buy it hook, line and sinker.
Muslims are unreasonable. You can't sit down and have a discussion about the evils of killing the infidels or why this is heinously wrong. Don't you think that has already been tried?
Their religion specifically states that once allah owns a piece of land, it can never be taken away. So it matters not if the entire world dies as long as there are two muslims standing to have Israel. That would be perfectly satisfactory as far as they are concerned. Death is irrelevant to them especially a non-muslim. They are doing their god a favor in their demented minds.
They have something in common with you though. You both believe that Jesus is not who He said He was and that He is not the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The Bible declares this position as anti-Christ. If you talk to a muslim, that is their biggest argument against Christians.
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22
You both agree on this. You are both anti-Christ.
Vera
Post a Comment