Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

brotherskeptapartFellow blogger Weighed in the Balance has undertaken the ambitious and highly risky task of writing a book which as he terms it “is a comparative analysis of the Bible and the Qur’an, and it assumes that both books are correct.  If God is the principal author of each book, as Christians and Muslims claim, then a comparative analysis should reveal harmony between the principal teachings of both.  This is what I have found.  Hence, Christians and Muslims have been kept apart by their religious leaders who have taught their adherents that God has rejected the other group.” The topic matter was thought to be so contentious that he originally penned his book using a pseudonym.

Phillip’s book is titled Brothers Kept Apart and can be purchased on Amazon.com at a reasonable price. Some members of the BU family have already demonstrated that they are students of the religions. Brother Phillips advises that the book represents 30 years of research and 7 years of critical review and he stands ready to defend his thesis.

It is no secret that the BU household has demonstrated a keen interest in the religions or what some people disparagingly refer to as dogmas. It is a fascinating subject and one which is shrouded in mystery, allegories, parables, fables and some theology  Religion has been used through the ages to edify and destroy man’s existence. Of interest to all through the ages has been the cooption of  religion to pit Islam versus Christianity, East versus West by geo-political motivated groups.

For a synopsis of the book the BU family is welcomed to visit Phillips’s blog. We look forward to a fascinating discussion and take the opportunity to wish him every success.

What he has attempted demonstrates courage of conviction, a characteristic in scarce supply.

.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1,124 responses to “The Bible And The Qur'an, Brothers Kept Apart”


  1. OK Rohan.

    I propose that as a first step we establish some common ground. (emphasis on common – so we do NOT need to argue LOL)

    Based on the significant occurrences of interdependencies of species, commonality of basic design, and pure complexity of of the design, are you prepared to accept that some superhuman entity would VERY LIKELY have been responsible for the ‘creation’ of the universe as we know it?

    …if not, where are you willing to start in explaining the reality of our universe?


  2. Bush, interdependencies, commonality,and complexity are all perfectly explained by a natural phenomenon that has been tested for, documented, and confirmed.

    There is no need to insert superhuman explanations for things we can explain scientifically.

    For a starting place, what about this?

    1) There are 100’s of Gods in existence
    2) These Gods align closely with the cultures that worship them
    3) there are diverse creation stories

    Based on this (and given that only of these Gods could be the true one) are you prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?


  3. @BT,

    It is much more reasonable to say it is very likely the big bang (an effect) has a cause (outside the space/time ‘created’ by big bang) as I believe MME does, than to postulate a creator because of the complexity of the world today.

    The development of this complexity from simple origins is relatively quite well understood.

    We dont need a creator to explain complexity and as I have been tirelessly saying before using a creator to explain complexity is not much of an explanation at all.

  4. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Hopi… excellent foreword. Your choice of poets is most appropriate. You like you should be writing the book yuh.

    “With labors infinite your Science seeks,
    Footing on inaccessible cloud peaks.
    Yet must the climbers know that there are things,
    Only attainable at last with wings.”

    🙂


  5. To clarify,

    what I am saying is that complexity in of itself is not evidence of creation.

    it is better to search for a god to “explain the reality of our universe” at the origin.

    If there is no god there, the rest follows naturally. No god is needed after.

    If there is a god there, you still have a theological question as to what role it plays in the natural processes that follow.

    A god at the origin may be a philosophical question rather than a scientific one (lack of the existence of evidence and the fact that science concerns itself with our space/time) but it is a valid question nevertheless.

    As I said before (at risk again of admonishment from MME) it is still a long long road, billions of years and billions of miles from a god or ‘prime mover’ at the origin, to a jewish apocalyptic preacher or for that matter a cave dwelling illiterate in the desert or a con-man from ohio.


  6. It is the claims of the latter three (and others of their ilk), irrespective of the answer(s) to the former philosophical question, that for me anyway, have no basis in truth whatsoever.


  7. Straight talk // May 10, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    ZOE:

    You are so(le) well versed in God’s perfect world, please explain to we more sceptical mortals why the world is so f#cked up by the interpretation of his agenda.

    As only a straight talker can ask…..cant wait for the reply.


  8. You both sound like intelligent people (not that Bush tea can hear all that well… LOL) and you probably understand the laws of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy.

    You guys know full well that the tendency in nature is from order to disorder. I suspect that you are therefore being deliberately disruptive by your casual suggestion that, to quote NT, …”The development of this complexity from simple origins is relatively quite well understood.”

    Is IT? by whom? Where in real life (apart from evolutionary theory) do you see such a principle of order naturally evolving from disorder?

    …I suppose that, based on your logic, if we waited long enough, we could at some point expect a ball of Sh## to evolve into a man?

    If you guys are not serious about this project we can quit at any time, but please- let us be honest.

  9. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    LOL Not Saved… you don’t always get to choose your team… sometimes you just gotta play your best game with the team you got.


  10. @BT,

    You wrote:

    “You guys know full well that the tendency in nature is from order to disorder.”

    ——-

    In a closed system, BT, the second law relates to a closed system.

  11. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Not Saved… is the universe a closed or open system?


  12. @BT,

    You wrote:

    “…if not, where are you willing to start in explaining the reality of our universe?”

    —-

    I took you up on the “if not” and responded where I was “willing to start”

    But then you threw the toys out of the pram and told me that I am “deliberately disruptive” and “not serious”

    ????


  13. MME,

    Good question !

    More relevant to the evolutionary models of the universe is the fact that there are no truly closed (ie isolated ) systems within the universe


  14. The two universal laws of thermodynamics, yield exactly the same conclusion stated in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”

    A fact of science, that the evolutionary atheist cannot get around, plain and simple!

    The first law states, in effect, that the universe could NOT have created itself. The second law states, in effect, that it must have been created, or else, it would already have completely disintegrated. The Arrow of Time points downward and, if these present laws continue to operate, the universe will eventually “die” with the sun and all its reservoirs of useful energy completely depleted.

    By the evolutionary presupposition, there is no external agent available to rejuvenate it. It is a closed system, operating all by itself. But, by the second law, a closed system must proceed toward disintegration; it CANNOT organize itself into higher levels. Therefore, the two most certain laws of science flatly and explicitly contradict the evolutionary cosmogony.

    The only way the evolutionary cosmogony could be valid, would be at some time or place where the laws of science were not valid.

    The cosmos is a continuum of space and time, and the laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems of mass and energy that have ever been observed and measured in space and time, with no known exceptions.

    Of course, these haters of God, and His Created universe, will go to any extent in sheer metaphysical speculation, in order to continue denying the application of sound science, which points emphatically to the special creation of the cosmos; whereas, an evolutionary cosmogony can be held only at the cost of repudiating true science, which they are not too found of engaging!


  15. Islam is 900 years younger than Christianity as far as I can remember.


  16. In any case the big bang model has the universe starting with zero entropy and and highly ordered and becoming more disordered and entropy increasing over time.

    The evolution of the universe is not inconsistent with a movement from “order to disorder”

    It (the model) is consistent with the second law and it being a closed system.

    But you knew this anyway, Im sure.


  17. Zoe wrote:

    “it CANNOT organize itself into higher levels. ”

    —-

    and it has not done so either.

    the universe is more disordered now that it was at the origin


  18. @NS
    you said”
    *************************************
    To clarify,
    what I am saying is that complexity in of itself is not evidence of creation.
    it is better to search for a god to “explain the reality of our universe” at the origin.
    *************************************
    Gentlemen, based on known natural laws, complexity should naturally result from the entropy of higher complexity.

    As MME suggested then, it would seem to have required the intervention of some unnatural force at some stage to initiate the original level of complexity so that the effects of entropy after T=0 could proceed according to the known laws of nature.

    …this does not support your assertions


  19. @BT

    “Gentlemen, based on known natural laws, complexity should naturally result from the entropy of higher complexity.”

    —-

    Only in a closed system. The universe is less complex now than at the origin.

    The earth is more ordered but is not a closed system.

    ++++++++++

    “As MME suggested then, it would seem to have required the intervention of some unnatural force at some stage to initiate the original level of complexity so that the effects of entropy after T=0 could proceed according to the known laws of nature.”

    —-

    This is not inconsistent with any of my assertions

    ————


  20. Strong point Zoe, ….brief too. THANKS.

    What happen Not Saved?

    ….don’t be so sensitive. This is likely to be a robust exchange. Surely you expect to be challenged vigorously? LOL


  21. Bush Tea, I know that christians have a way of ignoring points that are uncomfortable. I wouldn’t want to accuse you of that though, so I thought I would re-post this, thanks.
    ****
    For a starting place, what about this?

    1) There are 100’s of Gods in existence
    2) These Gods align closely with the cultures that worship them
    3) There are diverse creation stories

    Based on this (and given that only One of these Gods could be the true one) are you prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?


  22. @ Technician, the most empirically varifiable fact of ‘SIN’ as God’s Word the Bible is constantly dealing with, from Genesis to Revelation, IS the REASON we as a human race are so terribly MESSED UP!

    No other religious document speak to this utter reality as does the Bible! Interesting, isn’t it! Yet, it is suppose to be a fable, and a pack of lies; my, my, what amazing Truth is found in these lies!!


  23. @BT,

    Let me see if I can make it more clear:

    At the origin of the universe, it is highly ordered, with zero entropy

    Over time it moves from order to disorder becoming more and more disordered. Entropy is increasing.

    It will keep getting more disordered until “equilibrium” and entropy will stop increasing (but it will never decrease)

    This is consistent with the second law, the universe is treated as a closed system.

    If entropy decreased (more order) that would violate the second law

    +++

    Now on earth, a different matter.

    We are a ultra ultra tiny part of the universe, next to a star.

    Here life evolved.

    Why does this not violate the second law? because the earth is NOT a closed system.

    The second law applies to closed systems only.

    Why did formation of the earth not violate the second law, again simple, the earth is not isolated from its environment (gravity, energy etc)


  24. @Zoe,

    Then your god is a capricious god.


  25. @ Rohan

    I did ignore those points indeed Rohan. I was trying to be decent.
    We are starting at the point of the earth coming into existence. At the point of the big bang or equivalent event….

    ..pray tell how various beliefs of different subsequent cultures of human beings can be relevant in this quest?

    Not only am I “prepared to accept that there are hundreds of Gods out there that VERY LIKELY have been created by man’s imagination?”

    I fully concur!

    But it is not relevant to the current quest.

    @Not Saved
    We can debate if the universe is an open or closed system. If you wish to argue that it is open then you are agreeing that there exists an extra- material reality that is capable of interacting with our universe.

    What in your opinion is that reality?

    If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke….

    Which?


  26. BushTea wrote:
    “I suppose that, based on your logic, if we waited long enough, we could at some point expect a ball of Sh## to evolve into a man?

    ***
    Bush Tea,
    Let’s be honest? You’re regurgitating, unintelligent arguments that are long-held creationist hogwash.

    “The second law states that in any thermodynamic process that proceeds from one state of equilibrium to another, the entropy of the system, plus its environment, remains unchanged or increases.”

    “Entropy may decrease on Earth as long as its environment,WHICH INCLUDES THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE, increases by an equal or greater amount. This happens all the time! When a seed sprouts, its entropy is reduced at the expense of the increasing entropy of its environment. None of this violates the second law of thermodynamics!”
    ****
    Then you end your little rant with “If you guys are not serious about this project we can quit at any time, but please- let us be honest.”

    So, unless we buy your weak, and totally inaccurate arguments, we can’t be serious about the project.

    Bush Tea, we’re not fools. You’re not going to get any lazy arguments past us.


  27. Bush Tea,
    First you say:

    We are starting at the point of the earth coming into existence. At the point of the big bang or equivalent event!

    Then you go on to say in the same post:

    If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke.
    ****
    Note to Bush Tea: Evolution has NOTHING to do with the start of universe.

    Also, please re-read Not Saved’s post on closed vs Open systems. You either totally mis-read what he said, or totally dismissed it.

    Let me try to help:
    1) THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED SYSTEM
    2) EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. Obviously.

    You should be able to deduce the rest from there and see the obvious failings of your argument.


  28. @BT,

    “If you wish to argue that it is open…….”

    “If you agree that the universe is a closed system then your evolution theory goes up in smoke….”

    ———

    I suspect you have not read all of my posts, they were delayed.

    I did not argue the universe was open. In the big bang model the universe is closed .

    No, this does not make evolutionary theory “go up in smoke”

    The earth is not a closed system.

    In fact within the universe its pretty hard to find a truly isolated (closed) system.

    Evolutionary theory does not violate the second law. It would have no place in science if it did.


  29. MME,

    Where are you?

  30. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    here Not Saved…

    … just blown away by the fact that BT appears to have found common ground between you, Rohan, Zoe and himself.

    All of you believe that the universe is a closed system.

    … not saying I disagree with you, but out of interest, what evidence are you using to support his?

  31. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    … that should have been “… to support this?”


  32. I think the evidence is consistent with the big bang model rather than directly supporting.

    Would you concur?


  33. common ground?

    we do?


  34. well i suppose you could say on the universe being closed but we seem to diverge from there

    LOL


  35. Sounds pretty Rohan, but let us analyze exactly what you are saying.

    Entropy is a measure of spent energy… (somewhat like a machine, where every time you perform a function, say you get 90% energy conversion – loosing 10% in the process)

    Basically the law says that it is impossible to have a perpetual machine unless energy is injected from external sources.

    …so are you saying that evolution occurred on earth with successive system changes becoming increasingly complex and with reduced entropy? ….and that this was compensated for by appropriate degradation somewhere else in the universe?
    ROTFLMAO..
    …far fetched Rohan, FAARRRRR

    You said”So, unless we buy your weak, and totally inaccurate arguments, we can’t be serious about the project”

    What is this weak inaccurate argument? that EVERYTHING else that we can observe around us suggest that far from evolve to more advanced states, things naturally tend to DEGRADE towards chaos?

    That evolution is therefore diametrically opposite to natural entropy?

    Think on these things over a good night’s sleep fellows and see if a clearer picture does not present itself to you tomorrow…..

    ….hasta manana


  36. @BT,

    “…so are you saying that evolution occurred on earth with successive system changes becoming increasingly complex and with reduced entropy? ….and that this was compensated for by appropriate degradation somewhere else in the universe?
    ROTFLMAO..”

    —-

    This is basic science.

    MME please help BT.


  37. Bush Tea,
    Again, you are regurgitation, old, worn, creationist arguments. You said you wanted to discuss the beginning of the universe, yet all you do is discuss evolution…two things that have NOTHING to do with each other.


  38. Maybe BT will trust a wiki entry:

    ” Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[16] Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems,[17] arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.”


  39. The wiki continued…

    “Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source.”


  40. From talk origins..

    “However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?”


  41. David, I am stuck again


  42. BT writes:

    “EVERYTHING else that we can observe around us suggest that far from evolve to more advanced states”

    —–

    everything?

    really?

    see my earlier posts.

    hurricane anyone?

    (hint, earth is not a closed system)


  43. Not Saved, You summed it up well with this one phrase:

    “This is basic science.”

    From another WiKI:
    Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16]

    The following quotation from H. J. Muller, “One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough” explains the point.

    There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3]
    The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

    Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.

    Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong


  44. So we’re here supposedly discussing the beginning of the world, and we’re discussion evolution. This clearly shows you don’t know what you’re talking about Bush Tea.

    Evolution has been confirmed, over and over again, yet we’re still here discussing it. As a matter of fact, we understand evolution much better than we understand gravity.

    I’m not surprised though, you’re christian. It’s going to take another 3 hundred years or so for the Catholic church to come out and say that they accept evolutionary theory.

    ROTFL all you want, you only make yourself like unintelligent with these worn arguments.


  45. BT

    This quote from Rohan demonstrates the difficulty with researchers going along with ordinary meaning of words; at least I should say word usage:

    “When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly.”

    Here is a case where a scientist wanted to say something but in order to say it, had to redefine the word FACT.

    Hence, I have to redefine the words God and Creator, otherwise, how would you refer to the BBE? Certainly not God, because God is a creation of the mind of man. Just as the Massa was a creation of the minds of the slaves. Their minds imprisoned them, not the Massa. He was the Massa because of what he believed to be possible and we were the slaves because of what we believed to be impossible.

    So if I move the goal posts, it is an attempt to put it back in its original position; having been corrupted and misplaced for so long… but rest assured, the Creator must be separated from “God” which is the creation of the imagination of mankind. Surely the two cannot be synonymous????

    So when we talk about the Creator we are speaking of a more powerful force than God.

    Let me put them in hierarchical order:
    1. The Creator
    2. Gods
    3. Kings
    4. Emperors
    5. Lords
    6. etc.


  46. NT, ‘Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.”

    Really! Where is the evidence?

    Not the freewheeling scientific fiction given by these dreamers!

    1) Universally missing transitional fossils illustrate complete lack of evidence for evolution! Fact!

    2) Numerous contradictions between the order of events in the Genesis record and geologic-age system.

    3) Geologic-age system precludes supposed pre-Adamic cataclysm.

    4) Numerous difficulties with geologic-age system, but none with real scientific facts!

    The geological ages are identified explicitly in terms of the forms of life supposedly characteristic of those ages as revealed by the fossils found in the rocks representing them. This is evident in the very names given the basic systems – Proterozoic (“before life”). Paleozoic ( “ancient life”), Mesozoic (“intermediate life”), and Cenozoic (“recent life”).

    These sedimentary rocks and multiplied millions of fossils found in them testify with great clarity and force that they were FORMED at a time when storms, floods, volcanic erruptions, great upheavals, disease, fighting, struggle, and above all ‘death’ existed in the world. All of these are still in the world today, and are evidence of a creation that “groaneth and travaileth in pain together,” and in “the bondage of corruption” ( Rom. 8: 20-22).

    Therefore, the fossil world of the geological ages, is to be understood as the same basic kind of the world that now exist, and the multiplied millions of fossils found, amazingly, and overwhelmingly, speak loudly, as I have said before, in their silence, ‘…you see and find us, fully formed, as we were all created…’

  47. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Luke 16:15
    14. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

    15. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.


  48. @GP

    “…for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”

    That is pure fear mongering. Designed to keep people ignorant.


  49. Zoe wrote:
    1) Universally missing transitional fossils illustrate complete lack of evidence for evolution! Fact!

    Haha, Wikipedia even explicitly calls you a liar:

    Straight from Wikipedia:

    It is commonly claimed by creationists that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[5] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the “favourite lie” of creationists.[3]

    Here is a long list of transitional fossils:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    ***
    Zoe, how does it feel to be so at odds with the facts all your life? Either you are purposely lying or you are ignorant. Which is it?

  50. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    long list of transitional fossils

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    really!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading