Howler Monkeys

Proof That The Earth Is About 6000 Years Old

The title of this post is a reference to the denizens of talk.origins, the moral successors in the fine tradition of Pavlik Morozov. What is seen on talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution is the last vestiges of a fading sort of a freak/geek culture which, prior to the current entry of mainstream America onto the Internet, has dominated net affairs until now. Their little charade is transparent, and they need to take a tumble from their self-exalted position. Believe me, they have it coming. They are neither honest nor scholarly. Dealing with them is like dealing with punks in the sixth grade, except that these punks have a bigger vocabulary. They like to use the "tradesman's lingo" (good words and fair speeches) to bamboozle the simple. (Romans 16:18 "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.")

Obviously, there is neither space nor time to post all of the relevant information here. So... I have provided links which you can click, and from those sites the choices of available additional pages and links are plentiful and varied. You might want to start with the "Unfossilized... " link below. You will find information about a "25 million year-old" limestone strata that contains human skeletons that look like ours. Enjoy.
Alley Oop!
Articles and Links
Evolutionary Logic
Polystrate Trees
Unfossilized Dinosaur Remains & 25 Million Year-old Humans
Where Fossils Form
Mount St. Helens

Enemies of God

At the bottom of this post you will see a picture of a "polystrate tree" that extends upright through "several million years" worth of sedimentary rock. These are found all over the world and cannot be explained away in standard "evo theory", as you shall see if you read the material here and on the links posted above. None of the phenomena dealt with here represent a problem for those who believe that God is not a liar.

The problem (for evolutionists) is that even a thousand years is not enough time for these trees to be covered and fossilize. Of course, they will do a lot of fancy dancing to avoid addressing the real dilemma. Being covered with debris is not enough. How the tree is covered is only half of the problem. The tree must be covered by multiple layers of sediment and survive through many flood events in order to fit the evolution belief. Even if you can satisfy this problem (which you cannot), you still must fossilize the fossil before it rots. Burying a tree upright or horizontally does not prevent it from rotting. The conditions for fossilization must also be present. A buried tree will rot.

I will give (the evolutionists) the argument that on rare conditions, a tree may miraculously stand 100 years after death, but that does not help the evolution position. But consider the double talk of this argument. For a dead tree to survive for 100 years without rotting, it must be a non-eventful century. Water increases decay and a flood would highly increase the chances of the tree collapsing. However, if there is not major flooding, the tree can't be buried. In this argument is an illusion of facts. The fact that a tree can survive for 100 years after death if conditions are right is presented to prove the trees' survival is possible. Then gradual sedimentation is given to show that a gradual build up is possible. Both are presented as evidence, however, only one or the other can apply. Even so, a hundred years does not fit evolution or creation arguments.

Any walk in the woods brings this argument into question. Polystate trees have roots in place and fossilized with the tree. Normally the top of a tree rots over a short period of time even if it stands upright. The base of the tree and roots quickly decay. Even when we find trees slowly being covered in sediment, we don't see fossilization, but we do see decay.
Do we see trees buried in flooding that do not rot?

Keep in mind that fossils in the geological column date the layers. If we shorten the time frame that these trees are buried, we also must shorten the ages of the fossils found in the layers. The crux of the argument is that the layers represent hundreds of thousands of years and up to millions of years depending on the fossils found. The trees going up through the layers disrupt the neat package that evolutionists are trying to present.

I will be more than happy to agree with (the evolutionist) that these trees survived for a thousand years while sediment built up if he and other evolutionists will be consistent and date the fossils in the same age range as the trees. If the tree is 1,000 years old, the fossils on the bottom layers can only be 1,000 years older than the fossils in the top layer. We know for a fact that evolutionists cannot agree with this assumption. This leaves a problem. Either the tree is millions of years old and miraculously stood through millions of years of flooding, or the fossils are not millions of years old. As you can see, both disagree with evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to craft any argument to avoid either of these two conclusions. Even so, one or the other must be true.
However, the real problem is not in how long it takes for layers of sediment to form. The problem is the ages that evolution places on the fossils in the layers of sediment. If the fossils in the lower layers are millions of years older than the fossils in the upper layers and the tree stands through each of these layers, there is no reasonable explanation. Evolutionists claim this is a 'non-problem', but in reality it is a big problem. The only safe position to take is to ignore the facts. Just write it off as a misunderstanding and claim the issue is resolved. Accuse your critics of being "religious wackos".
(Howler monkey speaking) "Practically everywhere that trees occur and there is significant, ongoing deposition of sediments, it is possible to find examples of them being buried. It is harder to find the data necessary to figure out how long the process is taking, but there are examples where periods of decades or centuries of burial can be documented."

This is misleading at best. A polystrate tree is a tree that is fossilized through multiple geological layers of strata. This is a solid fossil in solid layers of rock. We do not see this today. We see living trees that have sediment built up around them, but they are not fossils. Nor will they fossilize. As I stated earlier, there is more to creating a fossil than burying a tree. Upright or laying down, the tree will rot unless there are conditions present that cause fossilization. A partially buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. A partially buried or completely buried dead tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees will rot under natural conditions. See this link below for more information.
Where Fossils Form

Niagara Falls

Niagara Falls shows that a cataclysmic flood changed the face of America not that long ago. The Niagara river began falling over its present escarpment recently. Since then, Niagara Falls have been cutting back the cliff face.

The gorge is now seven miles long. How long did this take? Estimations range between nine, four and seven thousand years. All these dates suggest that Niagara is not millions of years old.

The Mississippi River Delta

The Mississippi River Delta can also be used as evidence to support this. The Delta is growing fast and from its growth the age of the Mississippi river can be estimated approximately. Modern geologists have estimated an age of ten million years.

However, to procure this age they claim the average depth of delta mud must be forty thousand feet, which is "a bit much". The average length of delta mud is not forty thousand feet, but forty feet.

The Mississippi River is the longest river system in the world. An age of ten million years is ruled out by a simple fact: in ten million years the growing delta would have filled the entire gulf of Mexico with mud.

Far beneath six hundred miles of river plains there lies a different map of America. Beneath those plains lies an old ocean bed or estuary. Above the old ocean bed are enormous layers of gravel, sand, clay and seashells, deposited by a colossal, catastrophic deluge. These layers DO NOT (!) represent "millions of years" of deposits. They were laid down in a VERY SHORT time span (a little over a year, if you need to know). On top there is the plain itself.

How did those enormous layers get there? Certainly the river could not have deposited them there, nor could any other water action within our knowledge. It must have been water action beyond our knowledge, an unimaginable flood that refaced America. But how long ago ?

At the beginning of this century the American Government appointed a team of experts to study the Mississipi River. These geologists used the correct average depth of Delta mud (forty feet) and they estimated the age of the great river system at less than five thousand years.

The Mississippi and the Niagara Falls give hard and clear evidence that water action on a calamitous scale such as a deluge changed the face of America not that long ago. Evolutionist geology rejects this deluge explanation and gives us the geological column. One need look no further than Mount St. Helens to see how utterly BOGUS the "geological column" is. To the evolutionist, TIME is a magic wand which enables the utterly impossible to happen. The mathematician, on the other hand, realizes that the mathematically impossible could NEVER have happened, and time is irrelevant, even if it was millions or billions of years, which IT WAS NOT. Evolutionists are trapped in a vicious circle of false assumptions and circular reasoning. (The fossils are this old because the rocks are this old, and vice versa.) How old are the hundreds of feet of sediment deposited around Mt. St. Helens? Now imagine not just one "tiny" volcano, but massive WORLDWIDE VOLCANIC UPHEAVAL, coupled with a deluge of water from outer space, and/or from runaway subduction accumulating at an average rate of 6 inches per minute, and you might begin to get the picture.

Problems With A Global Flood?

There are numerous examples to support the deluge explanation. The Lewis "overthrust" in Montana, the Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming, the Empire Mountains in Arizona and, of course, The Grand Canyon.

Within the Grand Canyon is the best exposure of the fossil column since it breaches the earth's crust to the depth of about one mile. The canyon reveals superb rock strata, sedimentary rocks and thousands of square miles of horizontal strata. The canyon is the clearest convincing case that the world underwent an immense period of floodwater proportional to that of a cataclysmic deluge.

Let us infer that the deluge did in fact happen, and there is much evidence to support it.

If this did happen then the geological column must be reinterpreted. It is not, therefore, a record of the process and progression of evolution. Instead, it is a record of the sequence in which creatures were buried in the flood sediments.

At the bottom of the column are the simple sponges, jellyfish, seafish, seaworms, corrals, shellfish and the trilobites etc. It is logical that they are at the bottom because that is where they lived, and they are heavier than water. They lived at the bottom of the sea and they would have been the first organisms to have been buried by the flood sediments.

The free swimming fish would have been trapped later, as is evident from the huge concentration of fossilised fish that we find. The amphibians would follow later since they lived even higher up at the level of the land. Therefore, the layers of fossils would record the sequence of burial in the flood sediments.

After a certain stage of the flood, another factor would then come into operation - streamlining! Simpler animals are streamlined in water. Higher animals are more complex and are not streamlined in the moving floodwaters.

This hydraulic principle of streamlining would sort out the animals so that the simpler streamlined ones would sink faster and be buried sooner, whilst the complex ones would have sunk more slowly and thus be found higher up the column.

The third factor would have been the escape factor. The higher animals are more mobile. i.e. the birds, the horses, the apes etc., and of course - man. Being more agile, fleet wing, fleet footed, they could escape the rising flood a little longer and so they would be the last to drown, and would thus be buried at the top of the fossil column. The actual fossil column fits quite well with the deluge explanation.

In essence, this means that the great sedimentary rocks were deposited very quickly and that the whole fossil column would have been deposited rapidly.; all the living creatures of the world engulfed in sediments and buried during a short period.

It would mean that the fossils are mostly of creatures that lived on earth during the same period, whether they were trilobites, dinosaurs, mammoths or Neanderthal men etc.

The discussion, therefore, is moving towards an earth that is not incredibly old, but surprisingly young. In making this statement I am challenging the scientific techniques used to date fossils and rocks. I am challenging radioactive dating. I might appear to be somewhat insubordinate for questioning radioactive dating.

However, radioactive dating must go under circumstantial scrutiny on several points! Many physicists have disregarded these methods of calculating the ages of rocks and fossils because the techniques themselves rest on dissimilar assumptions from the outset. In order to prove to you that radioactive dating cannot give authentic ages of rocks and fossils, it is necessary at this juncture, to go into some depth on the actual process of dating fossils/rocks.

If radioactive dating is controvertible then the supposed age of the earth - 4.5 billion years, must be reconsidered. Evolution asserts that man evolved from amoeba through random, purposeless and undirected changes over a vast period of time. If radioactive dating is untrustworthy and these vast time spans are inaccurate then evolution, on another logical point, has no case!

God Doesn't Make Junk!

Junk DNA? If God put it in there, it isn't junk!!

Language in Junk DNA

You've probably heard of a molecule called DNA, otherwise known as "The Blueprint Of Life". Molecular biologists have been examining and mapping the DNA for a few decades now.

But as they've looked more closely at the DNA, they've been getting increasingly bothered by one inconvenient little fact - the fact that 97% of the DNA is junk, and it has no known use or function!

But, an usual collaboration between molecular biologists, cryptoanalysists (people who break secret codes), linguists (people who study languages) and physicists, has found strange hints of a hidden language in this so-called "junk DNA".

Only about 3% of the DNA actually codes for amino acids, which in turn make proteins, and eventually, little babies. The remaining 97% of the DNA is, according to conventional wisdom, not gems, but junk.

The molecular biologists call this junk DNA, introns. Introns are like enormous commercial breaks or advertisements that interrupt the real program - except in the DNA, they take up 97% of the broadcast time. Introns are so important, that Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp, who did much of the early work on introns back in 1977, won a Nobel Prize for their work in 1993. But even today, we still don't know what introns are really for.

Simon Shepherd, who lectures in cryptography and computer security at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom, took an approach, that was based on his line of work. He looked on the junk DNA, as just another secret code to be broken.

He analysed it, and he now reckons that one probable function of introns, is that they are some sort of error correction code - to fix up the occasional mistakes that happen as the DNA replicates itself. But even if he's right, introns could have lots of other uses.

The next big breakthrough came from a really unusual collaboration between medical doctors, physicists and linguists. They found even more evidence that there was a sort-of language buried in the introns.

According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law. It's a really weird law, but it's not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book.

You might find that the number one most popular word is "the" (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word "a" (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be "elephant", and which appears just once.

Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from "1" for "the", and "2" for "a", right down "1,000" for "elephant". The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of "the", then 1,800 appearances of "a", down to one appearance of "elephant".

If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).

So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into "words" each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for "words" 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long.

They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages!

There seems to be some sort of language buried in the so-called junk DNA! Certainly, the next few years will be a very good time to make a career change into the field of genetics.

So now, around the edge of the new millennium, we have a reasonable understanding of the 3% of the DNA that makes amino acids, proteins and babies. And the remaining 97% - well, we're pretty sure that there is some language buried there, even if we don't yet know what it says.

It might say "It's all a joke", or it might say "Don't worry, be happy", or it might say "Have a nice day, lots of love, from your friendly local DNA".

I'll hazard an "educated guess" as to what it says: "Jesus Christ Is LORD!"

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice (the voice of the heavens) is not heard.

Luke 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


DNA is a Language, Complete with an Alphabet! Molecular biology has now uncovered an analogy between DNA and written human languages. It is more than an analogy, in fact: in terms of structure, the two are "mathematically identical." (In other words, its not analogous to a language--it is a language)

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt"....... I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities"; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

The truth is, once the nature of DNA became known, all naturalistic explanations for the universe and for life on earth were dead--except for those whose "thinking had become futile and whose foolish hearts were darkened"--(Romans 1 paraphrase). --Those who would rather be "intellectually fulfilled as Atheists".

H.P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." (DNA IS A LANGUAGE)

How is it that the death of naturalistic explanations for cells, life, DNA etc. has gone unnoticed by much of the "scientific community"?. One reason is the fear of looking silly before colleagues by appearing to accept the notion of a God who created the universe--despite the evidence. Another is that vaunted need to be fulfilled atheists. Atheists got to believe too!

Another important reason is that scientists know only that tiny bit of the puzzle that makes up their specialties. If one points out to the biologist advocating evolution, that life has not been shown ever to come from non-life, or that matter can neither be created or destroyed (1st law), he may well tell you that the way in which matter came to be or how life came to be is not his/her field---he/she is only studying the "process" of evolution itself.

Is this science? Anything can be proven logically, once the premise has been accepted. Are scientific fields supposed to exist like this in a vacuum so that biology can contradict physics, laws of probability can be trumped by biology, Cosmology supercedes the 1st and second laws of physics without anyone really noticing? Incredible!

The book of Romans, the first chapter, says that God essentially showed Himself and His "Divine Nature" by all the things He had made, by providing the necessities of life and for life; food, water heat, light etc. etc..The very laws of the universe itself have been tailored for our life and comfort. For those who have eyes and ears to see, this is exactly what is happening (the creator showing Himself) as science learns more and more about DeoxyRibonucleic Acid.

When Darwin began advocating his infant idea that the world could be explained by naturalistic means, the prevailing view of the cell was that it was as simple as a Hostess Ho Ho; chocolate icing on the outside, chocolate cake on the inside and a creamy filling. It was the kind of thing those predisposed to do so could imagine could arise by accident... either the single cell or the HO HO.

It was this belief in naturalistic explanations for ourselves and the universe that the famous Atheist, Dawkins said permitted him to be an "intellectually fulfilled Atheist." Atheists needed a story, or an explanation, no matter how improbable, that they could believe that did not include God. What Darwin didn't know about the cell and what scientists didn't know about DNA but are learning, is decimating the idea that the world was created through naturalistic means.

The cell is not a simple lifeform containing merely a little protoplasm and a nucleus; it's as complicated as a modern factory--and it can replicate and repair itself.

If Darwin had known what we now know about the cell he might have gone in another direction. Unfortunately, materialists, having gone this far with naturalistic explanations are loathe to give up the idea of random chance, impossibly high improbabilities and billions and billions of years as the inventor of the cell.They still want to be "intellectually fulfilled" in the way Dawkins has suggested.

The truth is, man with all his science and technological ability has not yet created anything as complex as the single living cell. It appears as though God has reserved for Himself the ability to create or destroy matter (1st law) or to create life (biogenesis).

An entity is considered to be alive if it contains DNA. DNA is the SINE QUA NON of life. Is it alive? That's the same as asking the question; "does it contain DNA"? Information theory and molecular science have made it possible to make some amazing new discoveries about DNA.

Among the more incredible things about DNA, is the amount of information that can be imparted in the tiniest single cell. Hundreds and even thousands of these single cells could fit on the head of a pin and yet the amount of information in every one of these cells is nothing short of astounding; in fact, in the simplest single cell of bacteria, there is as much information as there is in every book in each of three metropolitan libraries combined.

"How Did Noah Fit All the "Species" Into The Ark?

You can find more information here.

Another One Bites The Dust

My "friend" Curtis was kind enough to bring my attention to this web page: Walking Amidst the Dinosaurs.
Don't let the beginning of the article fool you... be sure to read all the way through, especially these subsections:
The Doheny Expedition
Ica Burial Stones
Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph
The Acambaro Figurines
The Monster of Troy
Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Historical Records of Flying Reptiles
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

Apparently, Curtis didn't get that far.

"TRANSITIONAL FORMS"


Missing Links, Living Fossils, and Trick Photography
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
For almost a century and a half, evolutionists have been searching for the special “transitional” creature that allegedly allowed fish to trudge up onto dry land. Fossil records of a peculiar fish, thought to be 70 million years old, (think again Bozo... Carbon 14 dating grossly overestimates age due to the strong magnetic shield before Noah's Flood) often were alluded to as the key to this “transition” from water to land. Look in any biology textbook under the word “coelacanth,” and you are likely to find a description of this “missing link.” Raven and Johnson described it in their college-level biology text in the following manner: “Although Latimeria [its scientific name] is a very strange animal, its features mark it as a member of the evolutionary line that gave rise to the terrestrial tetrapods” (1989, p. 857). Other authors described it this way: “Ancestors of this coelacanth are thought to have given rise to the amphibians. The paired fins show the basic plan of a jointed series of bones that could evolve into the limbs of a terrestrial vertebrate” (Villee, et al., 1985, p. 550). Prior to 1938, the coelacanth was known only from fossils, which afforded scientists a great deal of speculation when they tried to extrapolate a physiology from the record of the rocks. Certain structures, such as fins, were determined to be the forerunners of legs for all amphibians. With joy abounding, evolutionists designated this as the animal that allowed fish to crawl out of the muck and mire in order to live on dry land.
In December 1938, a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of Africa, and soon thereafter the evolutionists’ joy turned to consternation when it was determined that the soft anatomy of the coelacanth was nothing like that of an amphibian. A 1999 book review in Nature provided the following commentary regarding the anatomy of coelacanths: “…it shares very few advanced characteristics with the tetrapods, and this puts it somewhere near the base of the sarcopterygian [vertebrates in which the fin/limbs portion of the skeleton articulates to the girdles by means of a single bone—BH] tree. In a sense, the coelacanth tells us more about the primitive condition of all bony fishes than about the origin of tetrapods” (Janvier, p. 856). Subsequent discoveries of this special fish soon made it quite apparent that these fish did not live in shallow areas “ready to crawl out onto land.” In fact, this fish has been observed in caves 200 meters down, and is known to die from decompression when brought to the surface! Additionally, researchers were placed into a position of explaining just how an animal that was supposed to have walked with the dinosaurs could suddenly show up again, without there being any “recent” fossils to account for the great gap in time.
But are these “deep” water fish found only in caves off the coast of Africa? Wouldn’t it be convenient if another group of coelacanths were found in shallow water? In the cover story in the September 24, 1998 issue of Nature (“The Lost Tribe of Coelacanths”), Mark Erdmann and his team identified coelacanths from Indonesia that also were found in deep water (Erdmann, et al., 1998)—a find that greatly changed the supposed distribution of these fish. More recently, a paper was submitted to Nature by Bernard Seret, Laurent Pouyaud, and Georges Serre in which a coelacanth was said to have been caught in the shallow, muddy bay of Pangandaran. This new find, if true, would help bolster this species as a transitional animal moving from water to land. The key words here are “if true,” because it appears that the image used to document this new find is a forgery! Roy Caldwell, a coauthor of the 1998 Nature paper from which the photograph appears to have been reproduced, scrutinized it and stated: “I am 100% certain the image is a fake” (p. 114). This allegation has many individuals in the scientific community up in arms, and has prevented the publication of the Seret paper in Nature thus far. To date, no less than four articles already have appeared in Nature in response to this “new find,” each of which castigates the authors for the forged photograph (see McCabe and Wright, 2000, p. 114; McCabe, 2000, p. 225; Erdmann and Caldwell, 2000 p. 343; News in Brief, 2000, p. 554). Bernard Seret, one of the authors of the submitted paper and an ichthyologist at the Museum of Natural History in Paris, admits that the two photographs appear to show the same fish. He stated simply: “This is very embarrassing” (as quoted in Caldwell, 1998, p. 114). Very embarrassing indeed! One of articles in Nature is titled “How New Technology Put a Coelacanth Among the Heirs of Piltdown Man” (Erdmann and Caldwell, 2000, p. 343).

A French development agency has now gone to court to inquire into the alleged forgery, and the Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement where two of the authors work has launched a formal investigation. While all this fighting is going on, several things remain clear. The coelacanth is not the transitional animal evolutionists have been seeking so desperately. The DNA and genetic data gathered from these animals show just the opposite by documenting that this animal has remained stable throughout time. In other words, the coelacanth provides strong evidence for creation, because it has reproduced its kind throughout the years, just like the Bible’s book of Genesis said fishes would!
So... for all of you "evolutionists" out there who believed that the coelacanth was the progenitor of the amphibians, here's the question: why didn't the coelacanth evolve, and why is there no evidence that it was even similar in structure internally to the amphibians? Where are your missing links" Surely you can provide one?

Here are a couple of good pages for people who like to THINK:
Infinitely Stupid Doctrine and Rest In Peace, Chuckie

Ancient Masonry

Baalbek Monoliths

If the order of these pics gets screwed up, just click the link at the bottom of this post for clarification.

The middle picture is from Sacsayhuaman, probably an ancient stone fortress in excess of 2000 years old. Some of these stones are 10 feet high or more. Notice their irregular forms. They have been fitted together in an extremely precise manner which we would be hard pressed to duplicate with modern technology; much less the primitive technology supposedly available.

The Baalbek Monolithic Stones

Top & bottom pics: The Baalbek Stones. This column was hewn as one solid piece and weighs 1200 tons. It's two cousins are in place in the base of the "Temple of Jupiter" and weigh in at over 1000 tons.

"The temple is one of the largest stone structures in the world. Some 26 feet above the structure's base are found three of the largest stones ever employed by man.
Each of these stones measures 10 feet thick, 13 feet high, and is over 60 feet long. Knowing the density of limestone permits weight estimates of over 1.2 million pounds. Some people with impressive engineering skills cut, dressed, and moved these immense stone blocks from a quarry 3/4 of a mile away.
A walk to this quarry introduces the observer to the Monolith, an even larger block of limestone: 13 feet, 5 inches; 15 feet, 6 inches; and 69 feet, 11 inches. The Monolith weighs in at over 2,000,000 pounds. In comparison, the largest stones used in the Great Pyramid tip the scales at only 400,000 pounds..."

Science Frontiers Online http://www.s8int.com/images/baalbektemple.jpg

Notice the man perched on the column and another standing at the base. Forget the ancient airplanes, the ancient helicopters, and the world maps... this alone should set the standard, straightline, primitive man-to-advanced man, and then to civilization, "scientific" dogma on its ear.

There is ONE theory that could explain numerous "anomalies" such as the size of the dinosaurs and the weight of these stones. Before the opening of the windows of heaven recorded in Genesis, the close proximity of Jupiter and Saturn could have exerted an "attenuation of gravity" effect on the order of 8:1. The tidal pull of these bodies would not pose a serious problem with regard to water levels, since the Earth was mostly land mass, not oceans, before the Great Flood. I believe the structural integrity problems posed by the shape and size of the largest dinosaurs can be explained in no other way. Yeah, I know it sounds wierd, but there appears to be no other explanation. According to the laws of physics and our present gravity level, these dinosaurs such as allosaurus COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED.

There is no way that this stone can be explained by the science and history they teach us in school. No technology existing today could move this stone much less transport it from where it was quarried, nor lift it upon its 23 foot foundation. (Actually, it appears moving such a monolith is on the edge but within current technology. Benjamin K., a Christian engineer informs us that Mammoet, and another company, Lampson Cranes... & perhaps a few others have machines that could do the job.)

The pre-existing stone foundation upon which the Romans built their temple at the site is 1/2 mile long on one side. No one knows who built it. There are no historical records although the local folks think it is a Pre-flood city originally built by Cain... after his banishment.

Baalbek Monoliths

WILLFUL IGNORANCE

The Evolution of Man?

1. Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

2. Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

3. Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

4. Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

5. Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

6. Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man...so what's the difference?

7. Modern Man - This genius thinks we came from a monkey.

8. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools - Romans 1:22

Read more about the topic of "antiquities" on this link:

Electromagnetics

also this one:

GQ Cave-dwellers

"GQ", in case you haven't guessed, is a joke. "Gentlemen's Quarterly" magazine. Find it at your local fruit stand... er... news stand.

As you read, apply this filter: dating techinques are accurate to about 3000-4000 years ago. Beyond that, they are generally inaccurate due to the stronger magnetic shield of the earth before the Flood (about 4600 years ago). The strength of the earth's protective magnetic field dropped suddenly at the time of the Flood, and then slowly deteriorated further in the ensuing years. Since carbon 14 dating assumes that the decay rate has always been the same (IT HASN'T) and since carbon 14 only forms in living things, and then breaks down, carbon 14 dating is grossly inaccurate for materials more than about 3000-3500 years old. (The present decay rate is much faster, hence the assumption that it has always been constant leads to grossly exaggerated ages for materials older than 4600 years, when there was a much slower decay rate for carbon 14.) Hence, these "old" materials are much younger than the ages indicated by the Carbon 14 dating method with its flawed assumptions.

I don't know what's up with the addresses for the links I've posted. They don't take you to the same web page as they did two days ago. I have pdf's and a hard copy to prove it.
With regard to skulls & stuff:

The Boneyards

"This type of x-ray was going to allow measurements to be made accurately inside the skulls while at the same time seeing the true outside dimensions. It was also going to be able to see the places where the bones were glued together with a kind of plastic material. It might then be possible to discover if the reconstruction was done properly or if some artistic license was involved. p.37

I started to get the eerie feeling that many things had been changed to show what they (evolutionists) wanted to show. I began to see more evidence that the Bible was accurate in its description of ancient man. p.69

One of the prize Neanderthal skulls, Broken Hill, (Zambia) has a bullet hole! Broken Hill or Rhodesian Man had a bullet hole 8 mm x 8 mm (guns 200,000 yrs ago?). In 1958 R. Singer of South Africa published a negative radiograph of this skull. Because it was published in the negative the bullet hole did not show up! The external occipital protuberance appears to have been shaved off and flattened (attempt to hide acromegaly as reason for other area skull thickenings).

The British museum people told me that no lower jaw was found with the skull. p72 The boney parts of the mandible are crucial in diagnosing acromegaly.

More crucially in Singer's radiograph the anterior clinoid process is very short. In my radiograph it is clearly seen and even undercut with a space. Could this be a new addition since Singer's radiograph was taken or is his radiograph of just of poor quality? If it truly is an addition to make the sella space look smaller, this little piece of bone would extinguish any thoughts of a pathological pituitary gland as seen in acromegaly. This would be serious tampering with a skull. Someone knew they needed a little extra proof against pititary disease. p. 73
It appears as though the paleoanthropologists have made a concerted effort to adhere to a rigid uniformatarian viewpoint concerning the growth, maturation and aging process in ancient populations no matter what the evidence showed. This eerie feeling persisted with me throughout all my expeditions into the world of evolutionary dogma. p. 74

Neanderthal Skull With "Bullet Hole" Behind Ear

An Auroch is an large, extinct "buffalo like" animal. Many skeletons of this extinct type have been found in Europe.

What is remarkable about one in particular in the Moscow Museum of Paleontology is that it has a bullet hole in its skull. The hole is round, without radial cracks that would result from slower projectiles like spears and arrows. The only known projectile that leaves this kind of smooth, round hole without radial cracks is a bullet because of its velocity.

I mention the auroch first because of a possible objection that can be raised. If it is indeed a bullet hole, perhaps the skeleton was shot many, many years after the animals' death. The problem here is that the auroch survived the wound and lived long enough for unmistakable calcification to appear at the site of the injury.

How did an animal that became extinct supposedly thousands and thousands of years ago come by a "modern" bullet hole in its skull?

A similar round, clean, smooth hole without radial cracks was found in the skull of a "Neanderthal" man found in the early 1920's in Rhodesia. The man supposedly died over 40,000 years ago.

The skull is currently at the British Museum. The skull was found more than fifty feet below ground level. In addition to the hole consistent only with that made by a bullet, the other side of the skull was blown out from the inside!

Now, a word about this photo. There aren't that many Neanderthal skulls in "captivity". I heard about this alleged bullet hole several years ago and I knew that it was a particular skull at the British Museum. I found this photo several years ago and I think it is important to say that the museum made no mention of the bullet hole at all.

It was simply one of the photos of the skull. I think that bears a lttle on its authenticity--it did not purport to be a picture of a skull with a bullet hole. That fact is something that the anthropologists apparently overlooked. Cuozzo, in his book, Buried Alive mentions actually getting his hands on the skull.

Of course, there are alternative explanations given for the hole, but it appears to have been the fatal wound and nothing we know of makes that kind of wound except a bullet---or perhaps a small meteorite, presumably traveling horizontally to the ground.

Shot with an Arrow or A Spear This Toxodon Went Down 2 Million Years Prior To 1st Official Hunting Season. See photo, above right.

The Toxodon was supposedly extinct nearly 2 Million years ago and men are supposed to have been around only a few hundred thousand years yet; this Toxy has an arrow or a spear point in the bone. See blue arrow (no,that's not the one that got him).

On another track...
The impressive architecture of the subterranean Hypogeum is more than 6000 years old. To try to force its existence into the current paradigm, scientist claim that its stone age builders built the huge underground structure using only "antler picks and stone mallets!"
That's enough to make milk come out your nose (if you happened to be drinking it when you heard it).
Today, a diamond drill can cut through granite at a rate only 1/500 of that achieved by the Builders of the Great pyramid (sonic drills?) according to expert Christopher Dunn. His eye-opening article shows what happens when a technology expert tries to swallow ridiculous theories put forth by non-technologists in order to support uniformism and the current scientific dogma. An excerpt from his site-- (Petrie was a well known early Egyptian archeologist) "Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are the most clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify the knowledge and technology existing in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole-making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole. It was not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons who had done the trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote: "The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing.

As a mason with over thirty years of experience in cutting and drilling stone, I understand a thing or two about the technology involved. I also understand that any culture capable of manufacturing these tools would also be capable of producing weapons capable of "drilling" an auroch or a Neanderthal through the skull. After all, we produced rifles 200 years before we produced the diamond core drill.
After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feed-rate for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this feedrate.

Keep in mind that we're talking about the Great Pyramid, not the smaller (later) pyramids that were built with less engineering skill and of inferior materials. Anthropologists would have us believe that Egyptian stone trimming skills were limited to bouncing a niggerhead off a piece of stone to trim it to size (chipping). How come we don't see this information on National Geographic Channel? Duh! Could it be that their "science" is really a political and social agenda? Oh, sorry... you'll need a tin foil hat to figure that one out.
For more on the subject, see the "Ancient Masonry" post or click some of the links.

What's Shakin' Baby?

The Boneyards

Sodom & Gomorrah

Mount Sinai

The Red Sea Crossing

Noah's Ark

Cave Men

Cave Men II

Mega Fauna

Giants

Electromagnetics

Cemetery of Giants

Temple of Hagar Qim

To get access to the entire book on the "ooparts" site, click the
"Cave Men" link above. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING.


For an excellent summary of ark history and claims, click here and read the five chapters of the Segraves book accessible by clicking the "next" button at the bottom of each chapter.

It seems I must have rattled somebody's chain. Most of the pictures and two thirds of the text disappeared from this post. Guess I should have kept a back-up. So much for free speech on Blogger. All we lack is some barbed wire and machine guns.


Note: Blogger doesn't seem to allow me to upload all the pics, but you can find them on Pelago's mirror site HERE

- Beroso, priest, astronomer and Babylonian historian who in 275 B.C. wrote on the habit of pilgrims climbing Ararat to scrape away the pitch on the walls of the Ark to make amulets, describes the Ark visible on Mount Ararat.

- Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian of the first century, wrote in his book: "The story of the Jews" the same Beroso's statement.

- Epifanio of Salamina in the 4 century A.D. used the real existence of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat as a piece of evidence in defense of the Christian faith, writing: "Do you really believe that we are not able to prove our faith even though up until our times the remains of Noah's Ark are visible in the country of the Kurds?".

- Marco Polo, the famous Venetian traveller, passing near Mount Ararat in 1269 wrote in his book, "Il Milione" : "......and you should know that in that far - off land of Armenia Noah's Ark still lies there on top of a high mountain with snows so persistent that nobody is able to climb it.

Using intricate calculations based on the story in the Bible's Book of Genesis, the Italian explorer (Angelo Palego) says the ark has been preserved in ice for over 4,000 years.Laying out a series of grainy photos on his kitchen table back home in northern Italy, the 63-year-old former chemist points out the form of the huge boat estimated to be 512 feet long, 82 feet wide and 50 feet high with enough space to fit 800 train cars.
"A small piece of wood found in the same area by a French explorer friend and authenticated as dating from the time of the flood is physical evidence of his find, he says. Palego isn't the first to claim to have found Noah's Ark.
In terms of hard evidence, a group of geologists exploring Mount Ararat found rocks with holes in them resembling "drogue stones'' which were dragged behind ancient ships for stability.
Thirteen of these large stones were found in a line behind where the ark came to rest.
Palego says he just needs to get to his site to collect more evidence. So far, he has only seen it from a distance during his 13 expeditions to the mountain. The explorer has yet to get authorization from Turkey to take a helicopter, which an Italian television station has agreed to pay for, into the highly sensitive military area where he was once taken hostage by Kurds.
"We've asked the Turkish government to let us go in and I won't give up until I get there,'' said Palego. "This is my mission.''
Palego has a number of pictures on his site which are computer enhanced--a photo of the ark is inserted to make the location of the ark clearer. One thing of interest on his website is that wood purportedly from the ark was tested by a science lab which concluded that it was nearly 4,500 years old and petrified.
His 11 expeditions to Ararat confirmed with mathematical precision what the author had already discovered in the Bible.
It's really difficult to find the right adjectives to describe how this work kindles astonishment in careful readers.
With the publication of this work the whole world is placed in front of a disturbing reality: the Universal Flood with the waters above the tops of the highest mountains.
The breath-taking account of the expeditions carried out by the author on the Ararat demonstrates how faith can inspire courage.The first and third expeditions were carried out completely alone; the fourth with Reinhold Messner. Taken prisoner by the Kurds, attacked by a bear; in the midst of vipers, scorpions, lightning, bandits, terrorists, falling rocks, dangerous wild dogs, storms; cold, heat, thirst, victories and defeats... finally, triumph! All this has been described in his personal diary where the images and sensations are still fresh and throbbing, showing how faith and courage can make man climb towards the highest summits of beauty, purity, and poetry."

Einstein Meets God

http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/creation_kjv-1611.htm

The following is exerpted from a site I found in a search for info on "Noah's Flood". It contains some pretty interesting stuff. Better put on yer tin foil hat for this one, else your mind may get permanently bent.


"Our own Milky Way Galaxy is unlike any other in the Universe. A penetrating infrared census of about 30 million stars indicates that the Milky Way Galaxy is distinguished by a very large central bar some 27,000 light-years long. It is very likely that our unique appearance is due to us being the epicenter of the opening of the Windows of Heaven, when all the stars were both 1.) moved away from Earth & 2.) other galaxies were moved away from our own galaxy. Verse 7:11 is the key to understanding perhaps the greatest mystery of modern astronomy. The question is, if our Sun and Moon are "brand new" (see the Genesis 1 comments) then how could the stars be very old? All the stars were made on day four, along with the Sun and the Moon, however, they are millions and sometimes billions of light-years away from us. This says that the light arriving here is from millions and billions of years ago. (Maybe... but not if God placed the stars a long distance away.)(Note from your host: Not if God created them with the APPEARANCE of age and placed them far away.) The (?... well, THIS answer, anyway) answer is reached through elimination.
Einstein's theory of relativity can be thought of in a reverse case situation, and would support that stars caught-up in a moving reference frame of space would experience time speeding-up, relative to our observations. So, the faster the space containing a star is moved, the faster the star would progress forward through time. Einstein himself originally proposed this force, calling it the Cosmological Constant, but was later talked out of it by other physicists. I think he should have stuck to his own ideas on that one.
What all of this means is that the Sun, the Moon, and the stars could have all been made on the same day (day four), but now, they are very different in age. Our Sun and Moon having only aged to approximately 6,418 years old, while the stars are now varying in age up to billions of years old, with the further away they are from us, the older they are. This brings us back to the old church view that we (the Earth) are at the center of the universe.
What other evidence supports the Bible here? First, is the Red Shift of most all stars. It indicates a "trail" of interstellar recession. Some theorize that the Red Shift is caused by remnants of the big bang, but a U.S. News & World Report article from July 20th, 1998 indicates that the chance of the Omega Value being "just right" to coalesce the stellar matter into solar systems is just one-quadrillionth of 1% (that is, one chance in 10 to the seventeenth power)! Otherwise, it would have blown off into infinity and dust, or just would have globbed-back into a ball of mass trash. So, it looks like the Red Shift is really an echo of the windows of heaven being opened at the time of Noah's flood. (Comment by your host: red shift is due to the Compton Effect, not the Doppler Effect, so things aren't as far away or as "old" as previously thought.)
Secondly, we have about 140 Globular Clusters around our own Milky Way Galaxy. These are a perfect example of the windows of heaven running on idle. With no apparent rotation, groups of stars just hang together in a ball. It seems that gravity as a whole keeps the ball together, and the windows of heaven provide an inter-spatial force to keep each star separated within the ball. The windows of heaven also eliminates another bit of bad astronomical theory; dark matter. This theory suggests that, since the big galaxies seem to have only 1/10 the required mass to be in an orbital velocity, there must be 10 times more mass out there that we just can't see (things like black holes, etc.). The good thing about the windows of heaven mechanism is that now galaxies can just happen to be rotating; they don't need to be in an orbital profile, lacking all of this "invisible" mass.
So why push the stars away at the time of the flood? According to Job 38:33, God asks Job if he does "...know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?". Somehow, the stars have an effect on Earth. Perhaps the radiation from so many stars so close to earth might have killed every living thing, once the magnetic shield wound down. And finally, a note about carbon dating. Fossils have been dated at ages much greater than approximately 6,418 years old, and yet the Sun, made on day four of creation, is still brand-new! How could this be? Carbon 14 is also known as Radio Carbon (which is short for Radioactive Carbon) and the way it becomes radioactive is by high energy cosmic rays hitting Carbon 12 (the normal variant of carbon). Since the pre-flood Earth had a very powerful magnetic shield which would have stopped cosmic rays, it would be very easy to see that virtually no Carbon 14 was formed before the flood. Also, since the magnetic shield gradually decreased in field strength after the flood, Carbon 14 production would have scaled-up only slowly to today's present levels. The only time things absorb Carbon 14 is while they are still alive, and then the age of the dead animal or plant is calculated based upon the half life of the decaying Carbon 14 still remaining. It is easy to see that the current "accepted" system of dating grossly over-estimates the age of fossils, when one ignores the pre-flood Earth's powerful magnetic shield. "

Mary (Semiramis) & Mohammed

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

In spite of past “stances” taken by the Roman Catholic Church and Islam (notably the Crusades:1090–1220) the facts remain that both religions make “pilgrimages” to “holy” cities; both have black-magic Black stones (supposedly descending from heaven); both set up Church States wherever they are able to conquer a country militarily (France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Austria, Portugal, etc.); both go to work eliminating all other “faiths” from ruling positions (governors, mayors, councilmen, presidents, kings, ambassadors, dukes, barons, chancellors, prime ministers, etc.); both believe that killing “nonbelievers” (Serbians, Waldensians, Jews, Protestants, Lollards, Lutherans, Calvinists, et al.) is proper if it is done “for the glory of God” (or Allah); and both believe it is their destiny to rule the entire world by replacing all other religions (for example, note Suras 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33 from the “Holy” Koran or any statement by any pope from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1920.)
Both of these totalitarian religious systems believe their system replaced Israel after A.D. 70, so their people (Catholics and Moslems) are God’s new “elect” or “chosen people.” No documentation is necessary. The Catholics spiritualized all of the Old Testament promises to Israel more than 1,000 years ago and do so now—all Catholic popes, bishops, nuns, monks, “secretaries,” bishops, archbishops, and “nuncios.” This theological position is called “postmillennialism.” In the Koran, it is stated clearly in Sura 5:3, 3:18, 25, 109. The footnotes in the Koran on Sura 3:109 say that the Moslems ARE the “chosen people of God”—not the Catholic Church or the Jews— and that the Arabs are “the standard bearers of the truth”—not any pope or any rabbi.(p. 161, footnote 475 by Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1998).
In The Great Unknown, for March 1999, you read on pages 156 (“Next Stop–After Life”) that the official Roman Catholic position, as defined by Pope John Paul II (March 1999), is that Hell is not a place at all; it is a “state of being.” Two Roman Catholics print their assent to John Paul’s position. One (Sarah Hall) says “Hell” is the “ugly things I do, making snap judgments, elbowing people in subways—coming back to hurt me.” Another fine Catholic (Sharon Allen) says “Hell” must be “the total absence of other people. Humans, at their most basic level, are very social creatures.”
Mohammed clears up the Catholic’s problem in the Koran and does it more than 300 years before John Paul II was born. He says that Hell is not a place at all; it is just a “condition” (Sura 2:25, 47:6. The comments are by the Islamic scholar M. Muhammad Ali, footnote 245a, p. 1032). If the Catholic “papa” and Mohammed were right, then twenty-one of the biggest religious liars who ever deceived sinners were Jesus Christ, Moses, the apostle John, Isaiah, David, John Knox, Martin Luther, Billy Sunday, J. Frank Norris, Jonathan Edwards, Theodore Epps, Charles Fuller, Bob Jones Sr., Sam Jones, Peter Cartwright, Gypsy Smith, R. A. Torrey, Jack Hyles, Charles G. Finney, Gen. William Booth, and Queen Victoria.
Now, just as Rome’s true intents and plans are perfectly manifest by their publications (see the two volumes by O. C. Lambert or any of the volumes by Lehmman, Peterson, Manhattan, Zachello, Blanschard, et al.) so the “Palestinian’s State,” recommended by John Paul and President Bush (along with the hearty approval of FIVE Moslem terrorist organizations: Al Fatah, the Hizbullah, the Fidayeen, the PLO, and the Hamas) has been perfectly “vocal” in telling 187 nations in the UN what their intents are; and they have done this openly since 1921. While “summits” (Oslo, Wye, Camp David) and similar publicity stunts have been taking place, the AIM of Arafat—who is an Egyptian and not a Palestinian—and all Moslems who believe the Koran, is to attack and destroy every Jew in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisian, and Palestine. I just finished reading a 253 page book, The Islamic Threat, written in 1992, where a typical, highly-educated, NEA-double-speaking displayer of “buzz words”— any modern news reporter or commentator on foreign affairs— tries to show that it is a sin to “stereotype” Moslem leaders, since some of them have been (and are) “pro- Western” and “progressive” in their politics and economics. He further justifies Islam terrorism on the grounds that, in the past, “Christians” have terrorized Moslems (the Crusades). Not knowing the difference between the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s State Church and a “Christian,” the poor fool’s “research” produced nothing but SMOG.
But further, the naive bullshooter in 1992 never discussed the present attitude of Islam towards Israel (1921–1999), which is now backed by the USA and the UN, as well as Russia and Red China. All four groups are anti-Semitic. No Jew attacked ANY of them; not once in 1,800 years.


The author, John Esposito, simply stumbles through 1,900 years of history discussing various political, economic, social, and “community” movements, which avoid telling the reader what the real “threat” of Isalm is: the real threat is what it calls “the Holy Scriptures.” In the Koran, every devout Moslem— not some “fanatical, left-wing terrorist”—is obligated to kill anyone who makes fun of his religion or his “prophet” or his “god.” The author turns out to be just one more naive child, out of thousands of “incubator babies,” raised in a “hot house” that specializes in “isolated mentalities.” In his effort to pacify terrorists, unify heretics, and present a positive view of Islam’s future, he simply pretends the Koran doesn’t exist or that no Moslem has to really take it seriously; since some Muslims
do NOT take it seriously he assumes that the “nominal” Moslems will get rid of their own “terrorists.” Not if they are against Israel, no.
They never have yet one time since the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood was founded (1928). They are not doing it right now, and they will not do it in the future. The author of The Islamic Threat was just trying to sell a book, so he gave you a typical, “positive-thinking” approach (Robert Schuller, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, CNN, FOX, CBS, etc.) which is just as false (always) as Roman Catholic theology.
If you want to know what took place in history in the last century (1900–2000), here it is in black and white, through a period of seventy years, while every Catholic on earth closed his eyes and ears and pretended the things had not taken place. President Bush is doing it RIGHT NOW while you are reading this article.
1. El Aref: “My advice,then, is to continue your ASSAULT [not self-defense] against the Jews.” Aref was not a member of any terrorist organization.
2. Kamal Il Budsiri: “We are glad the massacre of the Jews took place (1921) and that we have looted them! The world admires the power of the sword and despises justice and common sense!”
3. Fahry Il Hussein: “If the government had allowed the Jews to fight, many of us would have been killed. We have to thank the police [British!!] who are ON OUR SIDE.”
4. Arafat’s uncle (the Grand Mufti, 1921): “We are proud of our great history and the MURDER of the Jews we have killed!”

Are you listening, UN? No, they never have listened. Are you listening Congress? Not them: not one of them. Hitler never gave it to you any plainer. Not one man I listed was a “terrorist” who went around with “suicide bombs” or crashed into city buildings.

5. Hafges Ara Turka(1920): “This is the great moment! We have succeeded in a great NATIONAL MOVEMENT!” (Hey, buddy! Your “national movement” didn’t succeed till you
rammed kamikaze divers into downtown New York; Sept. 11, 2001.)

“We shall meet with no opposition!” Well, none from President Bush, Congress, the Vatican, the UN, and the news media, no. “We must now take action against the Jews!!” Turka was not a member of the Hamas or the Hizbullah. The writer of The Islamic Threat simply didn’t know where he was from the time he sat down at the word processor till the time he got up (1992).

6. “Death to the Jews! There is no god but Allah!!” (1929); after Muslims killed 100 Jews at a prayer meeting.

This was done while Catholics, under papal orders from the Vatican, were buying up land on the “West Bank” and giving it to Muslims. None of them were “terrorists.” They simply were Bible-rejecting anti-Semitics caught up in a religious dictatorship that majored in geo-politics. Ditto ALL “conservative, progressive, pro- Western” Muslims.

7. In 1942, they told the Jews: “We will wipe ISRAEL off the face of the map. No Jew will remain alive.” Nothing had changed in twenty-one years (1920–1942). Nothing changed after 1942. Nothing changed between 1943 and 1993 while the news media pretended a “peace process” was present somewhere. It was nothing but a Chamberlain-Czechoslovakian “Peace in Our Times” peace process from 1920 to 2002.

“Get out or get killed.” “Give us what we demand, or we will start a war.”

The massive attacks against Hebron (by four Moslem armies; 1948) were accompanied by screams of “Jihad! Jihad!” Mary’s crew hollered, “God wills it! God wills it!” (History of the New
Testament Church, 1982, Vol. I, p. 285). Religious ignorance aflame; Mary and Muhammad. Thus has it been since A.D. 500, and thus shall it be till the “King of the Jews” returns to “the city of the great King” (Isa. 11, Psa. 2, Rev. 19) as “King of kings, and Lord of Lords.”

8. 1953: “Killing Jews is a sacred conviction with every Moslem”—not just the “terrorists.” Moslems began to shoot at trucks containing unarmed Jewish children (p. 383, Israel: A Deadly Piece of Dirt, 2000).

9. September 1, 1967: “There will be no further peace negotiations with Israel” (Moslem “summit” at Khartoum in the Sudan).

Did the UN get that message? Did they believe it? The USA didn’t. Eisenhower didn’t. Reagan didn’t. Bush didn’t. Clinton didn’t. How many times does Mohammed have to say it? Did Hitler ever say it any better? Then what in blazes were all of these “peace processes” doing in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995, when Moslems (who were NOT terrorists) had informed the world that their goal was war: genocide.

10. Here is the tenth public announcement (worldwide) about the aims of any “Palestinian State.” Arafat: “Our rifles are ready and we are ready to raise them again” (Ramallah, 1969).

I have a photo of a stoneslinging Moslem who is stoning policemen (remember “Kent State”?). He is wearing a T-shirt that has some “graffiti” on it. It says “Notre Dame.” The word is the Latin Catholic word for “Our Lady”—meaning Mary; Mary and Mohammed.

11. Moslem posters in A.D. 2000 (June 9): “Jewish occupiers!” “Kill them when you see them!” “Islam will dominate the world!” “Jihad, the Moslem way!”

Moslem speaker: “Am I going to discuss PEACE with them?” (Bush and the pope are!) “No, no I will retaliate because it is the WORD OF GOD! Fight occupiers and KILL THEM wherever you
meet them!” “We are not terrorists. ‘Terrorism’ is to attack without Divine Right!”

Got it yet? They got it in downtown New York! Neither plane was piloted by “terrorists”; they were just devout Moslems obeying “the word of God”! Got it yet? That is, and has been, the Roman Catholic position on its own religion from A.D. 500 to A.D. 2002.
The writer of The Islamic Threat was nothing but a blind, illiterate FOOL.

12. “There is only one possible solution; take OUR land back and push the Jews into the sea. Every day I teach my daughter to HATE JEWS.” (Palestinian “refugee”— 1960. She was not a member of any terrorist organization. She called herself a “Palestinian” who needed a “Palestinian State” to carry out the Jihad.) Bush backed her up (October, 2001). So did John
Paul II.
(For a balanced perspective on the problem see the Google video, "Why the Mid-East Bleeds".

America backed up Mary and Mohammed after knowing, from history, that both State Churches were totalitarian in nature, and both were anti-Semitic to the core: HARD CORE.
They backed Mohammed up after twelve open public professions, distributed worldwide via radio, press, and TV, that the purpose of the Koran and its believers is to KILL every Jew in the Middle East now, and any place else after “Palestinians” capture Israeli territory by ARMED WARFARE. That is how Islam got loose from Arabia and invaded Turkey, Palestine, the Balkans, Persia, North Africa, France, Spain, and Italy (650–1917). That is not fiction; that is history. Mary and Mohammed: “partners,” with the approval of Russia, Red China, and the United States of America.

“God bless America?” Ah, the power of positive thinking.

Mohammed’s Mythological Moon God

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

Using the two most “holiest” books in Islam (The Holy Hadith and The “Noble” Koran), we have documented the following facts which can be proved in any law court in the world.
1. “Allah” was never a term for the “God” of the Holy Bible or “Lord” or “Lord God” or “the Most HIGH” (Biblical terms) in ANY language since mankind was on planet earth. The Arabic for “God” is “Ilah.”
2. “Allah” was a local Bedouin god in Arabia: one of 360 gods housed in a “cube” (the Ka’aba: a place where polytheists kissed a black stone like the Blarney Stone in Ireland).
Some Arabs called him “Al-ilah.”
3. Long before Mohammed was born, his tribe (the Quraish tribe) adopted “Alilah” as their “chief” god out of several hundred gods.
4. “Allah” was the moon god who begat three “goddesses” (Al Uzzah, Manah [Manat], and Al Lat). Later, “Allah” was voted in as “Lord of the Ka’aba.”
5. This moon god selected a 600-winged angel, whom he called “Gabriel,” to dictate, orally, a religious book to an illiterate, epileptic polygamist who then declared that if you obeyed him, you obeyed “Allah” (The Koran: Sura 4:69, 80). All Arabic grammarians and Arabic scholars declare that the book which was produced (114 chapters) was:
a. Superior to both the Old and New Testaments (Sura 3:22, note 404; 49:13, note 2331).
b. It corrected their errors and supplied their “deficiencies” (Sura 98:3, note 2783).
c. It revealed to the whole world the “whole truth,” whereas the Bible only revealed partial truth to Jews (Sura 9:33).
d. The very words of Allah (which Mohammed never saw a day in his life till someone listening to him [Mohammed] wrote them down)— (Sura 19:19, note 1537).
e. Going about to establish his (Mohammed’s) religion and book over all the religions in the UN so, eventually, the “Kingdom of God” (which Mohammed established in A.D. 570–632)
would be the only true religion on earth (Suras 3:18; 29:48; 5:14, footnote 673; 9:33, footnote 10:54).

We then documented what we called “nonsense” statements; every one of them was simply a 600- winged angel (Hadith, Vol. VI, no. 380) correcting the “Holy Scriptures” as “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Our “sampler”—see article one—says that Gabriel informed Mohammed that:
1. Noah had a son who drowned in the flood. 2. Abraham built “the cube” in Mecca. 3. Angels have wings. 4. Christ was made from dust like Adam and was conceived as naturally as Mohammed or Yasser Arafat. 5. Hell and Paradise are literal, but neither one of them are PLACES. They are just “conditions.” 6. Mohammed was the “Comforter” Christ promised in John 16, but Gabriel was the HOLY SPIRIT in the same chapter (note 128 on Sura 2:87). Und so weiter.
This compilation of philosophical TRASH is scattered throughout 144 “chapters” with no more proof for one conjecture than you can find for pre-Cambrian organisms or O. J. Simpson’s innocency.
Some of our citations have been from the Hadith. This holy Islamic “source book” is the book that says it is good to drink camel urine (Vol. I, 234), that Satan stays in the upper part of your nose at night (Vol. IV, no. 516), and that he will urinate in your ears if you go to sleep while praying (Vol. II, no. 245). It further declares, with all the soberness of a drugged horned owl, that Adam was ninety feet tall (Vol. 4, no. 543). When such passages are cited, the modern Moslem hypocrites in the “West” (England, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, and the Americas) say, “Oh, well, those writings were not given by Allah through Gabriel, so you cannot lay any weight on them.” According to every official scholarly Arabic teacher of the Koran (the ulamas, imams, and the hafizes), such a hypocrite is an apostate Moslem who deserved to be killed. (Although you can find random references in Gabriel’s “Koran” that say he doesn’t have to be killed.) It is The Holy Hadith that says the entire world belongs to two characters: Mohammed and his moon (crescent) god (Hadith, IV, no. 392).

You will find in The Bible: A Deadly Book (p. 76, 2003) a list of the greatest Arabic scholars in the twentieth century. They all agree that you need the Hadith as well as the Koran for “guidance in life” because Mohammed’s commandments in the Hadith are as “binding on all believers as the com- mandments of Allah.” “It is nothing short of REVELATION” (Sahih Muslim). Observe how all imams constantly, without realizing it, continually deify Mohammed while swearing that if any “associates anyone with Allah” he is a “polytheist” (Sura 5:72). No sinner can get to “Paradise” by just believing in Allah; he must believe in Mohammed and OBEY Mohammed (Sura 4:69). So here we find, in print (all six of my editions of the “Holy” Koran ), the most hypocritical statement ever recorded since “Mary” was declared to be an “eternal virgin.” To cover up his bloody footprints, the old fornicating killer, who sweated and foamed at the mouth like a camel when Gabriel talked to him (see The Bible: A Deadly Book, p. 188, 2003), swore that a 600-winged angel told him “there is no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256).
True to his clumsy, stupid, forgetful way of forgetting everything he says, “Gabriel” adds (in the same chapter!), “Fight [kill] them on until there is no tumult or oppression and there prevails justice AND FAITH IN ALLAH” (Sura 2:193). Then Gabriel says, “Fight THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH”—the Arabian moon god (Sura 9:29). Then, after you have plowed through forty pages of tiny print by the Arabic scholars, trying to prove that all “jihads” are defensive wars fought against people who attack Moslems (M. M. Ali’s edition of the Koran, 1998, pp. 81–175), Mohammed himself gives you HIS OWN interpretation of the Suras he recited:
“I have been ORDERED to fight with the people till they say ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah [the moon god!]’” (The Hadith, Vol. IV, no. 196). The words “fight” and “kill” appear in the Koran more than twice as many times as the word “prayer.” “The people” is not just anyone who attacks a Moslem country or a Moslem. It is the mythological moon god himself who declares that you are to “Strike TERROR [as in “terrorism”] into the hearts of ALLAH’S ENEMIES.” Note! Not just “YOUR” enemies.
The moon god told Mohammed to decapitate and mutilate all unbelievers; the Koran says they are Jews and Christians (Suras 3:117; 18:102, 106; 4:76; 2:161, 176; 3:9, etc.). All tribulation saints (Rev. 6) are decapitated (Rev. 20:4). “Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. It is not you who slew them, but Allah” (Sura 8:12, 17).
The moon god promises that he will punish all non- Moslems and torment them by the hands of Moslems (Sura 9:14). Mohammed: “The purest JOY in Islam is to KILL or be killed for Allah” (The Arabs, David Lamb, Random House, 1987, p. 287). Jews and Christians are all to be eventually killed if they do not “embrace Islam.” That is exactly what any edition of the Koran teaches according to Skykh Abydullah Bin Muhammad bin Hamada of the Sacred Mosque of Mecca (The Bible: A Deadly Book, ibid., p. 22).
To find an alibi to do this and make it look like someone “attacked” a Moslem, the following things are considered to be “aggressive warfare” against Moslems.
1. Any remark that injured Mohammed’s “dignity.”
2. Any remark that makes fun of the Koran or the Hadith.
3. Any attempt to sell pork to a Moslem.
4. Any remark criticizing the Koran or correcting it.
5. Refusing to pay a tax as a submissive servant in a land that Moslems have captured.
6. Praying (or even walking) on Mt. Zion, if you are a Jew.
7. Telling the truth about the historical Allah and the historical Mohammed as who they actually were: a Bedouin moon god and a fornicating, illiterate, epileptic killer. “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, KILL HIM” (Hadith, Vol. V, no. 255). Why? Because the entire world belongs to Mohammed and his moon god (Hadith, Vol. 41, no. 392).

The word “Islam” originally referred to a military order. Mohammed was no more a “prophet” than Liberace was a linebacker. He was an egomaniac who wanted to take over Arabia. “Today Arabia— tomorrow the world.” “Defensive warfare in the Way of Allah” is the way Gabriel describes 1,400 years of slavery, killing, mutilation, torture, assassinations, sieges, demonstrations, riots, and revolutions; they are going on right now. “Take that man from here and cut off his tongue”. (Anecdotes from Islam, Sheik Muhammad Ahraf, LaHore Pub. Co., 1960, p. 20).
That was Mohammed. “Muhammad’s ethical sweetness, beauty . . . and modernity of thought . . . will not fail to appeal to higher minds” (The Sayings of Muhammad, ibid., p. 18). A real Koran-believing Moslem, like Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Rmadan al-Buti, says, about Sura 2:256: “The Holy War is basically an offensive war. The apostle of God [Heb. 3:1!] said ‘I was commanded [by a 600-winged angel] to fight the people until they believe in God and His message’” (Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, 7th edition. p. 134). All “defensive wars,” with the exception of the Roman
Catholic Crusades, were started by simply surrounding a city with armies and then “call them first to embrace Islam. If they refuse, then war.” That is the “defensive” wars in the “way of Allah” according to six qualified Koran scholars (The Bible: A Deadly Book, p. 33, 2003).
“Kill those who associate other gods with Allah wherever you find them” (Sura 9:5), according to Ibn Hazm and Al-Baydawi. “Muhammad did not accept from the Arab less than Islam OR THE SWORD” (Vol. VIII, part 11, p. 196). That is “defensive warfare” since there is “no compulsion in religion”! The Book of the Islamic State, by Taqiy al-Din, says the foreign policy of all Islamic states—Iraq, Libya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Trans-Jordan, Morocco,
etc.—must be “to carry the Islamic mission to the world by the way of HOLY WARS.”
Like the five Moslem nations that attacked Israel for coming back to their own homeland, all wars of Islam in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are aggressive wars, even where they often attack their own people. Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadana al-Buti says, “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an OFFENSIVE war.” Mohammed said simply: “I am God’s Holy Prophet and Messenger [and “Apostle”], and you are to believe that or ‘I’ll cut off your hands and your feet’” (Ibn Hisham, The Biography of the Apostle, p. 134). But Gabriel’s book said, “There is no compulsion in religion”!
Not one white-washed, hypocritical Pharisee in the New Testament could match such blatant hypocrisy. To say that you are insulting an “apostle of Allah” or detracting from his “dignity” after he made a statement like that is the equivalent of saying, “You ought to be killed for suggesting that Hitler might have been anti-Semitic.”