Grey Thoughts
Global Warming Arguments
One of the major arguments between the global warming supporters and skeptics is about whether the temperature change of the earth is being mostly caused by human caused CO2 emissions or by Solar cycles. Much is made of the fact that the carbon dioxide levels come after the temperature increases, not before.

Curiously enough, in reading up on the recent attempt by global warming scientists to restrict free speech, I found this response by Carl Wunsch, who complains he was duped into being a part of the film. His response seems to be mostly a complaint that he was taken out of context, but there is a gem in there that is worth noting.
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon.
So, when the Earth warms up, carbon dioxide is expelled from the oceans. This matches the data and explains why carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases after the temperature increases. This also matches the theory that solar cycles drive climate change, especially since Mars, jupiter and other planets are all experiencing similar temperature increases. Thanks for the insight Carl.

Also, a well-informed poster has left a rather long comment on my post about how the global warming on Mars seems to match quite well the pattern of global warming here on Earth. I'll assume the commentator is the author of this article, otherwise he has simply plagiarised, word for word apart from a few additions/replacements/deletions.

At first read, it may sound intimidating and authoritative, but once again, investigation shows things are not so clear cut. I don't want to go into a blow by blow with the commentators post (as that would be way too much effort and boring...and I am boring enough as it is).

Just remember that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, and anyone who says there is, is dishonest. The first reason not to trust them. The other thing to remember is to ask for the studies which predicted the observed results (for instance, predicting the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12). Often, the claims are just an ad hoc addition, not a prediction, which is a much weaker line of evidence. Additionally, remember that whilst observations are fairly solid, the hypothesis explaining why that observed phenomena happened is often up for debate (e.g. the commentator tries to claim that the ratio change of carbon 13/carbon 12 is due to human activity, but this claim is disputed in the scientific literature. Or if you are really mathy, you can try and use the numbers and work out the possible effect of human activity on the ratio and notice how ridiculously large the margin's of error become when you factor in the large unknowns of natural carbon exchange)

Finally, even accepting that the Carbon dioxide increases are man-made, there are other explanations for why the temperature is increasing, and so the extent or significance of the man-made impact is not easily known.

Bluster, claims of heresy, silencing the opposition. These aren't the tools of a strong scientific argument, they are the tools of an authoritarian religion.


Global Warming Thought Police
Tim Blair reports on some scientists trying to block the DVD release of the BBC4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (GGWS), a film criticising many of the global warming priests claims and features many respected scientists opinions. Yes. There is a debate in the scientific community. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. As the Guardian article Tim links to shows, it is the free speech crushing scientists who are lying and misleading the public.
Myles Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford who signed the letter, said the programme "took a very cavalier attitude to science. There are important issues around climate change that the public should be discussing, but all this programme did was rehash debates that were had and finished in the scientific community 15 years ago."
Not only dishonest, but stupid too. The very fact that climate scientists are involved in the GGWS necessarily means that the debate is not finished in the scientific community. Is this the sort of person you think we should trust with difficult concepts like climate prediction?

The free speech crushing scientists (but they 'support' open scientific enquiry and academic freedom...hmmm..just like democrats 'support' the troops - a pattern emerges) claim that the GGWS claims are 'distorted' and 'misleading'. Pot. Kettle. Black. Of course, you don't see them complaining that 'An Inconvenient Truth' has many distorted, misleading and exaggerated claims. Other scientists yes...these free speech, thought controlling scientists no.

In other propaganda news, notice the original article in the guardian refers to the documentary as a programme and a film, but never a documentary. Global warming is referred to as the 'consensus' (See previous comments on liars). Opponents of global warming are 'known climate skeptics'. How is one a 'climate skeptic' I wonder?

Guy:'s cold today.
Climate Skeptic: Actually, there is no climate at all, so we can't really say it's cold can we?
Guy: Can I borrow your jacket?

It is easy to see where the Guardian writers and free speech crushing scientists. They are obviously believers in the great gaia global warming religion of doom. Repent now. Avoid using toiler paper and believe!


Shock! Global Warming Indulgences a Sham
Carbon Credits are all a sham. I'm Shocked! Shocked!

The Financial Times investigated it and found that it is pretty much all a bunch of frauds and cons....Yay for Al Gore helping the common man's exploitation by big business. Ah, the poetic irony.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Way to go Al. Your religion is certainly the myth of the day.


Evolution - Catching up to Creation Scientists
Creation Safari's has an article worth remembering...
When someone asks you where did all the different skin colors come from....A recent change from medium or dark skin to what we see today.... it seems the evolutionists are starting to agree with the creation scientists again.

Paleface: If it is assumed that humans started out medium or dark-skinned, how long did it take for Europeans to lose much of that original pigment? An article in Science April 20 says maybe just 6,000 to 12,000 years. “This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes,” the article states, reporting on a March meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Pale skin is said to have an adaptive value at high latitudes: “Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption.” The new date was based on genetic studies that suggested a “selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago” or up to 12,000 years ago, “given the imprecision of method”.

They'll catch up on the rest sooner or later....probably later.
Church Persecution - Compromise or Become Criminals
If a new law is past in the U.S., then it seems that soon anyone mentioning anything bad at all about homosexuality (that is, homosexual acts), like the fact that it is a devastatingly unhealthy lifestyle, or what the bible says about it can be branded a criminal or jailed.
peech turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. –18 USC Sec. 2

Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin.
Why is it that the moonbat left continue to try and create new laws when they don't want to enforce the current ones?

I'll give you a hint...because they want laws which will control how people think.

It's a brave new world.
I Don't Have To Lie - Harry Reid Does
Andrew Klavan has an interesting article about being a conservative...he leads with the money quote "The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don't have to lie."

Case in point. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). Poor Harry is against the 'war' in Iraq, which is going badly, no matter what the people on the ground, like General Petraeus, tell him. Watch the video to see the intellectually dishonest goodness. Note how Harry happily thinks Petraeus is an expert, but won't believe him if the general tells him things are going well.

The Whitehouse also has some great material on the dishonest Senator Reid.
Sen. Reid's Inconsistent And Conflicting Statements

Today, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to align himself with Gen. Petraeus: "General Petraeus, the commander on the ground, has said so himself. Twenty percent [of the war in Iraq] can be won militarily and 80 percent has to be won through our diplomatic efforts, politics, and economics. I repeat: the only way to succeed lies through a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy. So says the commander on the ground there, General Petraeus." (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks, 4/20/07)

* Gen. Petraeus told the Senate that securing Iraq is "necessary" for a political solution to occur. "It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the toughest issues it must resolve while survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq's capital. For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq's problems, is certainly necessary. And that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving to Baghdad." (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/23/07)

* Gen. Petraeus also said additional troops are necessary to get the job done. SEN. MCCAIN: "Suppose we send you over to your new job, General, only we tell you that you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?" GEN. PETRAEUS: "No, sir." (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/23/07)

Today, Sen. Reid claimed the President said this afternoon that "victory is imminent." (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks, 4/20/07)

* President Bush actually said: "General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy for just over two months. He reports that it will be later this year before we can judge the potential of success. … Since the security operation began, we have seen some of the highest casualty levels of the war. And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows and operations move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can expect the pattern to continue. We must also expect the terrorists and insurgents to continue mounting terrible attacks." (President George W. Bush, Remarks, Grand Rapids, MI, 4/20/07)

Today, Sen. Reid claimed "no one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than Democrats." (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks, 4/20/07)

* Yesterday, Sen. Reid said the war "is lost." (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks, 4/19/07)

Today, Sen. Reid claimed the President this afternoon "attacked those of us with the courage to ask the tough questions." (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks, 4/20/07)

* President Bush actually said: "It's also very important in this debate to understand that even though we have our policy differences … we don't think either of us are not patriotic citizens. … So when you hear the debate, in my perspective it's because of – I just disagree with the notion that when we have troops in harm's way that there ought to be a … kind of political process with strings attached to a piece of legislation that goes to fund our troops. As I say, there's ample time to discuss right or wrong. I don't believe there's ample time to delay funding for men and women who have volunteered." (President George W. Bush, Remarks, Grand Rapids, MI, 4/20/07)

President Bush Consistently Emphasizes The Importance Of Political Reconciliation

Today, President Bush said: "We fully recognize that there has to be political progress and economic progress, along with military progress, in order for that government to succeed." (President George W. Bush, Remarks, Grand Rapids, MI, 4/20/07)

Yesterday, President Bush said: "I told … Prime Minister Maliki this week on a secure video: You have an obligation to your people, and to our people, for that matter, to do the hard work necessary, to show people that you're capable of getting your government to move forward with political reconciliation." (President George W. Bush, Remarks, Tipp City, OH, 4/19/07) thing about being a conservative is that you don't have to lie....

(HT: Tim Blair)
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Verum Serum has a roundup of reactions to the U.S. Supreme court upholding a ban on partial birth abortion's.

Instapundit's response is somewhat confusing
I believe that the ban should have been struck down on commerce clause grounds as outside Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
Instapundit, professor of Law Glenn Reynolds, is as far as I can tell pro-abortion. Does he also favor the striking down of Roe Vs Wade on the same grounds? Surely the Roe vs Wade case is outside Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce as much as a partial birth abortion ban would?

I think Glenn must be either for striking down Roe vs Wade or he is just using a double standard of supporting legal decisions that agree with his own preferences and complaining about legal decisions that disagree.

Striking down Roe vs Wade would probably leave at least half of the states as abortion free zones as they still have laws on the books preventing it.
Virginia Tech Copy Cats Everywhere
With everyone on heightened sensitivity after the Virginia Tech shootings, there are at least half a dozen campuses which have been locked down due to threats of violence over the last day or so.

Hasting College in San Francisco.

Wheat Ridge High School in Jefferson County.

7 Buildings in the University of Minnesota.

Provo College in Utah.

North Brunswick High School.

As far as I can remember, this sort of copy cat activity didn't happen after the Columbine shootings. I think this is a very bad sign about the lack of moral culture that is becoming prevalent in the U.S. and Australia.

For more information and opinion on the Virginia Tech massacre, check out Verum Serum's excellent coverage.

Mark Steyn also has interesting observations on the response of the adult students at VTech and how it was only a 76 year old holocaust survivor who instinctively knew that he needed to do anything other than be passive.
A Gazzillion Links
JP Moreland is blogging. His post on journalling and answered prayer is excellent.

Evolutionists continue to ignore the evidence that maybe their age of the earth thing is wrong when proteins are said to have lasted an impossible 68 million years.

Opinion Journal remembers another school massacre in Virginia that was mitigated when students were allowed to carry guns. A Current Virginia Tech student's concern about not being able to carry a gun highlights a big difference between the left and the right. The left tries to solve every problem by using the government. The right continues to encourage personal responsibility. The Australian newspaper falls on the moonbattery side of the debate, lamenting the lack of chance for a ban on guns in America. Someone should remind them that the worst school massacre in American history, the Bath School disaster, had no guns.

Richard Lamm, former democrat governor of Colorado on how multiculturalism is deadly to a nation.

The UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution restricting peoples right to free speech. The free speech in question? 'Defamation' of religion, particularly Islam.

Apparently, France's chief export Europe is the ability to surrender. British schools are dropping the holocaust from history lessons due to fear of muslims.

Want to know how to pose for photos to make yourself look skinnier? Look no further.

Concerned Women for America claim that fake hate crimes are being used to force homosexual activist legislation through congress.

Woman who want to share about their grief at having an abortion are considered 'aggressive' by some moonbats in control of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. What's next? No crying at funerals?

Small dead animals has some more photo's that global warming moonbats can use to lie about endangered animal habitats. In other global warming moonbat news, it seems Tim Flannery, 'exaggerologist', has contracted Al Gore's chilling disease.

In screen news, Sony has unveiled the sexy new OLED display, a 9mm and 3mm thick flat screen.

Stand To Reason highlights an excellent anecdote that demolishes pluralism and multiculturalism
The British general Charles James Napier assigned to British-run India was informed that he just didn't understand Indian customs. He couldn't ban the practice of wife-burning, he was told, because it was an ancient and valued tradition in India. He said he understood and appreciated that. It was just that "my country also has a custom." he explained. "We hang people who burn women." His custom won out.

Moonbats whine when conservatives use anything approaching a slippery slope argument. It seems however, that they are often right to use that sort of argument.

Stand to Reason has a post about the future of marriage using studies from a number of countries to show that changes of marriage and family law correlate strongly with the devaluing of marriage itself, and lead to bad effects for a society. Such evidence is obviously not worth noting by the 'reality-based community' of Californian democrats who continue to push for homosexual marriage.

In other homosexual activist news, the UK has it's first case against an Anglican Bishop for refusing to hire a man in an active homosexual lifestyle. Another case to watch is whether an Austrian court rules that a chimpanzee has human rights.

Tim Blair highlights the growing alliance between the moonbat left and islamofacists.

Scott at LTI-Blog highlights how to respond to critics of prolife usage of descriptions of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Democrats in the U.S. are apparently terrified of debating the Republicans on anything other than their own biased media. Fox news is just too scary. in related news, Ex BBC employee Robin Aitken highlights how badly biased the BBC is to the left. He calls it 'A Powerfully corrosive internal culture'. The UK's hard earned tax dollars at work.

In related bias news, Verum Serum has details about how Christians are being portrayed as terrorists. on Law & Order, BBC's 'Spooks' and now as a high school terrorism exercise. Considering the incidences of a Christian terrorist activity with the over all instances of terrorist activity that is like portraying a democratic president as moral. Of course, Marxist students attacking Christian schools would never be used as an exercise.

Of course, although Sam Harris may not admit it (another reality-based moonbat I guess), religion has many positive effects. One more is that religiosity is useful in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Steve Jones highlights how dishonest evolutionists have been lying for a long time about how evolution is anti-God and created to be against God. hint.... Darwin himself started it.

Democrats are apparently for free speech and freedom of information. Just don't ask them to let you record what they say.

For laughs, check out Tim Blair's coverage of Peter Garrett's parlimentary smackdown and other obvious signs that Peter Garrett is clueless when it comes to the poor and the environment. This is why celebrities make bad politicians.

And finally, in the golden 'Duh' award. A study has confirmed that a doctors worldview affects how they view the world. I'm Shocked! Shocked!!!
A True Hero
The abhorrent Virginia Tech shootings have revealed the presence of a true hero. Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu
Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, threw himself in front of the shooter when the man attempted to enter his classroom. The Israeli mechanics and engineering lecturer was shot to death, "but all the students lived - because of him," Virginia Tech student Asael Arad - also an Israeli - told Army Radio.

Pro-Life Doctors in the UK
The UK Government is getting nervous, as more and more doctors are refusing to train in how to do abortions. With enough people, this will create a crisis in the health care system. T
The NHS abortion service is heading for a crisis because increasing numbers of doctors refuse to carry out terminations, it was claimed.

There has been a big rise in young medics with 'conscientious objections' to abortion.

The increase has been revealed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The pro-abortion crowd of course attribute this, not to morality, but to the doctors not wanting the social stigma of performing abortion.
Some senior doctors have blamed declining interest on the lack of 'glamour' involved in the work.

This has been dubbed 'dinner party syndrome' where doctors don't want to admit to their friends that they do abortions.

Many pro-abortionists continue to push the dangerous backyard abortion line.
Chief executive Ann Furedi said "The current crop of medical students have not themselves seen women dying slowly and painfully after self -induced and unsafe aborneurosurgeryin the UK- but if they went to the many countries overseas where abortion is still illegal or only available to rich people, they would see this.
"Abortion is an absolutely essential, life-saving part of medical care - it may not be the most glamorous medical speciality on the face of it, compared to stem cell research or - but it is seen as heroic work by the women that it helps."
Heroic? This woman is pathetic.
Adult Stem Cells Cure Diabetes!!!
Note the three exclamation marks!!!

I know a few people with diabetes, so this is personally very exciting news. Out of 15 patients, all but 2 have not needed daily insulin injections for the last 3 years. That's huge. Somewhere around 8 to 20 million people in the world have type 1 diabetes and require regular injections of insulin in order to survive.

Add this to the list of amazing successes of Adult stem cells.

As an annoying aside, the times online is pathetically dishonest in trying to link the adult stem cells successes with (the completely failed) embryonic stem cell process and then proceeds to try and bash President Bush.
Stem cells are immature, unprogrammed cells that have the ability to grow into different kinds of tissue and can be sourced from people of all ages.

Previous studies have suggested that stem-cell therapies offer huge potential to treat a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neuron disease. A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims.

But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
Woeful. Completely woeful. Shame

(HT: VerumSerum)
Sam Harris vs Rick Warren
Newsweek have a few pages of excerpts from a 4 hour debate between Rick Warren "America's Pastor" and Sam Harris (The zealous atheist).

I've posted a few times about Sam Harris' lack of rationality, but in this latest debate he matches up perfectly with the completely unsupportable claim that Richard Dawkins also makes. The claim they have both made is that not only do they not have any evidence for God, but that no-one else can either. From the excerpts from the debate
HARRIS: There's no evidence for such a God...
HARRIS: It is intellectually dishonest, frankly, to say that you are sure that Jesus was born of a virgin.
As I mentioned when talking about Dawkins. There is absolutely no way for Harris to defend this position. None. All he can do is assume God doesn't exist so that then logically there could be no evidence for God...otherwise, his statement is moronic.

Sam pretends he is intellectually honest and faults Rick for not being intellectually honest, but it is Sam who is the one not being honest in the debate. He is simply assuming that Rick is wrong. There is no rational basis there... just an assumption.

Mike Gene from Telic thoughts also, highlights this point.
Harris can not possibly know this is true.

Let’s scale things down to a billion people and give each person a mere 10 minutes to provide their reasons for their beliefs. It would take about 1900 years for all these people to provide their reasons. Obviously, it is impossible for Sam Harris to have heard all this in order to make a conclusion about everyone on Earth. Thus, instead of making an observation, Harris is inflating his own personal perspective. What he can legitimately claim is that he, Sam Harris, has never heard a good reason for such belief. But the problem there is that while this tells us something about Sam Harris, it doesn’t tell us much about the validity of such miracle beliefs.

In fact, it all hinges on what constitutes a “good reason.” Take the resurrection belief about Jesus. In Harris’s mind, what would such a “good reason” be? Does he need a team of scientists to travel back in time and videotape the resurrection? Does he need a philosopher to come along and turn this belief into certainty? Why think that we all share the same views about what makes for a “good reason?”

Indeed. Sam goes on to make it even clearer that he is simply assuming God doesn't exist and so no evidence is possible, when he says the following, whilst pretending to be 'open'
WARREN: So you are open to the possibility that you might be wrong about Jesus?
HARRIS: And Zeus. Absolutely.
WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?
HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—
How does Sam Harris know it is a 'low-probability event'? It is just his assumption affecting things again. But, as CS Lewis said
It is useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. If miracles are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other hand, miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occurred. The result of our historical enquiries thus depends on the philosophical views which we have been holding before we even began to look at the evidence. This philosophical question must therefore come first.
Sam Harris simply assumes an atheistic philosophical position. His "rationality" is really just a zealous faith in disguise...the very thing he rails against.
Global Warming is Real
Scientists all agree. There is a consensus. The planet is warming, polar ice caps are melting. And whose fault do they think it is???

Of course, I am not talking about Earth, but Mars. people to influence the climate there (unless you count the horribly carbon non-neutral mars rovers). It seems that Mars is heating up at almost exactly the same rate as Earth. Actually, it's a bit faster.
The research comes from US planetary scientists, who suggest the Red Planet warmed by about 0.65C from the 1970s to the 1990s, similar to Earth's 0.6C average temperature rise during the 20th Century.

"It could be coincidental or it might be the needle in the haystack," said climatologist William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre in Melbourne.

"It's an interesting observation, as it's the same time period as Earth's temperature has been warming."

Of course, the man-made global warming priests are not convinced by anything so flimsly as evidence. Instead, they seem to simply want to stick their fingers in their ears and shout la-la-la....
Not so, claimed Neville Nicholls, a climate scientist at Monash University in Melbourne.

"The paper is interesting but it hasn't got anything to do with the question of human impact on global warming on Earth," Dr Nicholls said.

"It's not an excuse to argue that humans are not causing global warming on Earth."
Note the lack of argument in reply. Maybe Professor Pitman ("lead author of the climate modelling section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released in February") can do better...
"Albedo [The changing warming from the sun] is included in climate models," Professor Pitman said.

"It can have a local effect but cannot explain the observed warming record."

The Nature paper comes on the eve of the second report from the fourth IPCC review, set to be released tomorrow night.
Well I'm convinced....obviously their computer models MUST be more accurate as they already included the albedo. Never mind that the rise is almost exactly the same on Earth and Mars. Professor Pitman's profession that he's already accounted for that factor is very heart-warming, but it doesn't explain the evidence.
I hope everyone has a safe and joyful time this Easter as we remember the sacrifice made for us.

Whilst the media will trot out the usual Christian bashing rubbish, remember that several facts have strong historical evidence leaving the bashers with no reasonable explanation, and the unacceptable (for them) alternative that Jesus really did rise from the dead. What are the facts?

1) Jesus was killed
2) The tomb was empty
3) The disciples lives were transformed, and to a man, they suffered beatings, torture, and painful death whilst proclaiming that they saw, touched and interacted with the risen Jesus.

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by