Have they taken the planks out of their eyes before pointing at the mountains in the eyes of the muslims?

I think both sides are guilty of attacking the others.

understanding that the eternal "Truths" enshrined in the salvation of the Christian faith is the basis of disparaging the inherent falsehood called islam.

Yea, it can also be argued that
understanding the eternal 'Truths' enshrined in the salvation of allah,is the basis of disparaging the inherent falsehood called christianity.

LOL . . . . . ur argument is invalid considering the many contradictions in the message and deeds of "allah" and "prophet" mohammed.

that aside. , . , . .what moral authority do atheists who cannot analyse and explain their beliefs/disbeliefs have to criticise any religion?

@Huxley2: What happened to simply; Huxley? But I have a question for you and all the evolutionists: The missing link did not have a clear indication of a single line of what it evolved into. Or what it involved from. Why not man?

I was thinking that they will have a half man and half whatever! All I saw was a fluke. What happened man? Evolutionists are losing it. When you have a a distinctively pure fraction of something and then the remaining percentage/fraction of the specie is still of the original, indicating a changing proess call me, man.

Let me give you an example; you see how day evolves to night. Or night evolving to day, by just simply the amount of light available, in the process, thats what I want to see. And don't worry your head about the muslims, by the assumed onslaughts from the Christians. If you add the Jews and all others including your atheist group, Islam guiding the conduct of the Muslims, the true muslims, by Allah's help will emerge victorious.

We are neither be benighted nor deluded. We are clear and determined on a resolve. There is a God you know. And He is sufficient as Supporter for the muslims.

olabowale:

@Huxley2: What happened to simply; Huxley? But I have a question for you and all the evolutionists: The missing link did not have a clear indication of a single line of what it evolved into. Or what it involved from. Why not man?

I was thinking that they will have a half man and half whatever! All I saw was a fluke. What happened man? Evolutionists are losing it. When you have a a distinctively pure fraction of something and then the remaining percentage/fraction of the specie is still of the original, indicating a changing proess call me, man.

Let me give you an example; you see how day evolves to night. Or night evolving to day, by just simply the amount of light available, in the process, thats what I want to see. And don't worry your head about the muslims, by the assumed onslaughts from the Christians. If you add the Jews and all others including your atheist group, Islam guiding the conduct of the Muslims, the true muslims, by Allah's help will emerge victorious.

We are neither be benighted nor deluded. We are clear and determined on a resolve. There is a God you know. And He is sufficient as Supporter for the muslims.

The above ramble makes a strong case as to your benightedness. What are you talking about? What missing link? Who referred to any "missing link"? What is a "missing link" by the way? That is not a scientific term, is it?

To prove that you are not deluded and benighted, can you give me the definition of evolution as accepted by the biological scientific community?

@Huxley2: I asked what happened to just "Huxley," you didn't give me a reply. I still need to know. Enquiring mind wanna know. I am sure my statement s often way over your head.

Now, have you heard the term "missing link," before? Forget the scientific possibility of it or lack of it. But its is an expression that is commonly used by the evolutionist, Atheist to "proof" if only that it never have passed the muster of hypothetical opinion, that there is no creation, but all things happened through the first action known as "Big Bang theory (to me it is an unsubstantiative hypothesis)." Now that I have reminded you of how "missing link" as a term came about, I will try to address your concern, stated in your post.

I need to remind you of the name Derwin and his fake theory of evolution which he was trying to proof with the Survival of the fittest thesis. I wonder what happened to him, particularly, since he would have been one of possible "proof" of his evolutionary mumbo jumbo if one he were to be alive, today. Thank God the Creator of all. He allowed Derwin to exist until the usual term He gave him; from birth as a child from his mother's womb, to old age, when he died.

Now then, is the individual who proposed a possible evolution of species, a Biologist? I guess, not! From the rank of the Biologists, you have esteemed persons, who do not subscribe to "evolution" as the way of beings. So your trying to argue that Biological scientists accept evolutional concept, and rejects Creationism is untrue.

The Bioogical community is not all in agreement on this. Those who are supporting evolution are often atheist, agnostics, and at best have no desire ask how is it possible that a simple object, a particle without any significant mass, but only a position in an empty space can produce such a varied and complex dynamically vast objects; some physical only, others chemical only, others Biological and Physical and chemical, all at the same time. Man is all of the above. So are aminals, trees, etc.

And the score is not settled on the evolutionary debate, either. Afterall, there is no trace that Knowledge is complete and nothing else to be known or discovered, in the future generations. Or are you sure that human race is settled on evolution against creation, and no more knowledge will be discovered about anything?

Now, tell me who is benighted? You who lashed on to a rudementary concept, as that of evolution, without a single proof, except that you are happy to be on the wrong side of history? Or me, who have analysed myslef as a being and look at my place within my society, my enviroment, and arrive at a convincing point; there must be a Being, greater than humans in control of all things? Talk to me, man.

olabowale:

@Huxley2: I asked what happened to just "Huxley," you didn't give me a reply. I still need to know. Enquiring mind wanna know. I am sure my statement s often way over your head.

Now, have you heard the term "missing link," before? Forget the scientific possibility of it or lack of it. But its is an expression that is commonly used by the evolutionist, Atheist to "proof" if only that it never have passed the muster of hypothetical opinion, that there is no creation, but all things happened through the first action known as "Big Bang theory (to me it is an unsubstantiative hypothesis)." Now that I have reminded you of how "missing link" as a term came about, I will try to address your concern, stated in your post.

I need to remind you of the name Derwin and his fake theory of evolution which he was trying to proof with the Survival of the fittest thesis. I wonder what happened to him, particularly, since he would have been one of possible "proof" of his evolutionary mumbo jumbo if one he were to be alive, today. Thank God the Creator of all. He allowed Derwin to exist until the usual term He gave him; from birth as a child from his mother's womb, to old age, when he died.

Now then, is the individual who proposed a possible evolution of species, a Biologist? I guess, not! From the rank of the Biologists, you have esteemed persons, who do not subscribe to "evolution" as the way of beings. So your trying to argue that Biological scientists accept evolutional concept, and rejects Creationism is untrue.

The Bioogical community is not all in agreement on this. Those who are supporting evolution are often atheist, agnostics, and at best have no desire ask how is it possible that a simple object, a particle without any significant mass, but only a position in an empty space can produce such a varied and complex dynamically vast objects; some physical only, others chemical only, others Biological and Physical and chemical, all at the same time. Man is all of the above. So are aminals, trees, etc.

And the score is not settled on the evolutionary debate, either. Afterall, there is no trace that Knowledge is complete and nothing else to be known or discovered, in the future generations. Or are you sure that human race is settled on evolution against creation, and no more knowledge will be discovered about anything?

Now, tell me who is benighted? You who lashed on to a rudementary concept, as that of evolution, without a single proof, except that you are happy to be on the wrong side of history? Or me, who have analysed myslef as a being and look at my place within my society, my enviroment, and arrive at a convincing point; there must be a Being, greater than humans in control of all things? Talk to me, man.

What a waste of space! I asked for a textbook definition if evolution and you give me this nonsense. What a shame. Were you ever educated?

@Huxley2: I bruised your emotion, uh? Too bad. You think I will listen to your silly instructions? I like you as a person. But I abhor your atheist mindset. Was I ever educated, you ask? Yes. That will shot you up now that you have the answer. Your asking off the wall questions deserves the exact answers I gave.

Now what is the testbook definition of God? I want to see how smart you are. Huxley2, its late in England. Its almost 3 am, Saturday Night. Go to bed.

huxley2:

Have they taken the planks out of their eyes before pointing at the mountains in the eyes of the muslims?

absolutist religions have no choice but to attack one other.

Religions like sikhism or buddhism which do not claim to be the only truth have little incentive to attack other religions.

@Bawomolo: And you are just as guilty, even though you dont call your Atheist/Humanist society or clique a religion. Huxley2 and co, also do attach religious people, hence none of you is better, except that you are not honest about your position.

If those who attack each other or one another are trying to wrestle superiority of their position from the other parties, then Atheist and Agnostics, etc are showing their superiority colors, too.

olabowale:

@Bawomolo: And you are just as guilty, even though you dont call your Atheist/Humanist society or clique a religion. Huxley2 and co, also do attach religious people, hence none of you is better, except that you are not honest about your position.

If those who attack each other or one another are trying to wrestle superiority of their position from the other parties, then Atheist and Agnostics, etc are showing their superiority colors, too.

It's more of a defensive approach. atheist for a long time have been considered evil and hell bound. Why not attack back.

That doesn't mean we can't get antagonistic from time to time