Quote:

---

Maybe you mean that the oldest copy of the texts is that old. I don't know that that's true, but the originals are much younger than Jesus.

---

Quote:

---

Both of your comments are wrong. Nobody can know all evidences. Its really not a major point here, I'm just criticizing these 'grand' claims you guys make. Either you know all evidences and you know there is no evidence of creation, or you don't and all you can say is that there is no known evidence of creation. Which is at least a legitimate claim because then you aren't ruling out any future evidence, or evidence that you don't know of, or ignore.

---

It's not about knowing all the evidences at all. It's about making claims that make sense.

Invisible or unknown evidence is no evidence. period. Considered the topic it's highly unlikely that there ever will be evidence about a creator, let alone creation. I don't think any 'future evidence finds' should limit our claims, because our claims are based upon what we KNOW NOW, not on what we don't know or might know later, you can't know if there will be any future evidence for sure either, so why bother following this reasoning?? I'm more or less a fan of relativism like you know, so I care less or at least different about 'truths'. Stating "there is no known evidence of creation" won't be of any more value, and is quite the same kind of statement-thing. Yes, it might seem more specific towards what we DO know, but when I'm using your reasoning, what's known to one person might not be known to others, so where does that leave us??

Quote:

---

So let's be more generous and say we can see 20 stars per centimeter squared. That's 2000 stars per meter squared. Which overall is 616,000 stars. Which is 0.0616% of 1 trillion

---

Quote:

---

He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4)

First off, sperm is hardly a drop. Anyone old enough to have 'discovered' himself knows this. Or those males who have had intercourse with a female would also know. A drop is a small quantity of liquid upon which gravity has caused to 'drop' towards the earth. Now, I'm not going to dispute the use of language, its really not important. But semen does not originate in the chest (how else would you describe between the backbone and the ribs?) That much is clear. There are no two ways around this. You can say that the testicles originate in the groin before descending, but they don't descend from between the ribs and the backbone.

---

When it falls down, it's drops, in theory only about a drop is required for a succes. This is more a language issue than something else by the way. 'Between the backbone and the ribs' is said, and yes I expected you to come with those arguments, however just to show you how silly your bible and most of it's socalled literal explanations are, maybe those words were methaphorical for 'from the inside of the body'? This is also how a lot of muslims who are less extrem explain the text.

Again, it's not stated from the chest, but from between the backbone and the ribs, it is a difference, kinda ...

"It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated. During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen (“between the ribcage and the spine”). The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen."

Besides, this is what the dictionary says about it;

Quote:

---

The Exact Arabic words are just four: “Khuliqa minm Maain Daafiq”

Khuliqa = created ; Minm = from

Maain = liquid, fluid, juice, water ; Daafiq = anything that flows out, gushes out, pours out, wells out, sheds. (From the Hans Wehr Arabic to English Dictionary)

---

Quote:

---

I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.

---

I guess it's because of stubborn people like you that knowledge get's lost and forgotten in the first place.

The fact that the Greek had certain knowledge doesn't mean suddenly the whole world had that knowledge, damn how shortsighted... And you'd be surprised how little actually has been 'relearned' by the people you are talking about, they were tribal sheppards, not engineers or math specialists or whatever. I don't say sheppards can't be clever, but it definately was no high civilization.

Quote:

---

Really, I've always found it quite curious that christianity is indefensible, but those who dislike, disagree with, or despise christianity rarely fail to defend Islam. I don't get the connection.

---

What exactly do you mean with this? Just because you fail to understand the Quran doesn't mean it's indefensible. You see, same pointless argument made that christianity always uses in it's defense.

Quote:

---

Exactly, when God and the bible are put in the hands of regular people, it reduces the abuse of the bible. God was never meant for the powerful few. That's a good point.

---