the quran is formed with the words of god, so it kind of puts you in a pickle to say you are muslim and say i dont believe in some stuff in the quran. its kind of a paradox (i think im using the right word lol) however, in islam you cant go around telling people who say their are muslims that they arent, people cant just simply go around saying that some people are muslims and some arent, it simply isnt up to us to say that. his believes are his own, nobody should judge him about it except god 

Muslim writes about Jesus... gets unfriendly interview with Fox News.

Christian writes about Mohammed... gets a fatwa issued and has to go into hiding for the rest of his life.

Heh, I didn't ask for bible contradictions, I asked for historical books that so strongly agreed with each other (let's not misread each other please). You can find spots on a white rag, but it doesn't change the fact that it's white, and the spots might just be on the lens.

Having said that I'll look at the contradictions give me a sec.

(Edit: Runa, I was talking about the gospels, not the bible as a whole)

@MDMAlliance. It doesn't matter, because I could cite many inconsistencies in the evolutionary theory along its history and that wouldn't help either cause. These viewpoints refine themselves over time, so it's pointless to point out flaws from the past from either side.

I'm still waiting for one these dudes on here claiming there is contradiction in the NT to post some actual examples. But there have been no takers so far. This just leads me to believe that they're just talking out their butholes and don't know shit about the Bible, other than someone else's bullshit they have read somewhere.

Simple fact is this all you jokers reading this, there is NO, NONE, and i'll say it again NO significant contradiction in the NT - so good luck finding one. Better stick to the topic at hand which is the Fox interview and stop wasting everyone's time talking about contradictions.

Thank you very much.

As with many things; I think I'm gonna go ahead and agree with 99 percent of the world's scientist on this issue. And young earth creation scientists are not actual scientists : their works are not peer reviewed, they limit their thinking and conclusions to a religion - these "scientists" will never arrive to the conclusion that they might be wrong, because that's not an option for them. They start out with an answer from their religion and work their way down to find out how that answer might be possible, rather than the other way around. In many cases these scientists are also priests, or preachers, or evangelists. Their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny from actual scientists. What they're doing isn't science; it's pseudoscience - religion masked as science to compensate for the fact that their religion is not infallible and modern technology has the proof to suggest that many, if not all, of their beliefs they've had since childhood are false.

You wouldn't want someone who wrote an article that wasn't peer reviewed, and yet went against everything medical professionals know as fact, one that said: "not exercising and eating excessively is good for your health" be your doctor would you? So why let a person like that be the one you trust for accurate information?

@bold. That's your choice, but if you're going to go with majority, just remember that majority was with the church in Galileo's day. Just sayin', majority was wrong.

@Peer review. That's simply untrue -> http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

@Validation of theories. That's wrong, they posit theories to support the biblical claims, and often disagree with each other within the creationist community.

@Pseudoscience. What YOU'RE doing is pseudoscience, excuse me. You're just repeating words from the anti-creationist community and I hear the same words over and over again, they are just meaningless drivel (no joke). This is not to offend you, I just proved a few claims by you and MDMAlliance false already, there is likely much more.

So to answer your last paragraph, I trust them a lot because they actually do science rather than pretend to in order to fit with the concensus. There are good scientists on both sides, but imho the onus is on creationists to prove their worth and so I have seen what they do and trust it more as a true quest for scientific truth than the other way around (so far). It's my opinion. If I were to choose someone to tell me the truth, I'd choose the creationist.

Why would an atheist write about the bible? :P

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

I love the part where he points out the lady didn't even make it to page 2.