Chilling details emerge about Danish attack plot suspects

Chilling details emerge about Danish attack plot suspects

Stockholm – Two days after five men were arrested over a foiled plot to massacre staff at a Danish newspaper, new details emerged Friday linking at least one of the suspects to Islamist extremists.

The five were arrested Wednesday for hatching what Danish officials called a plan to “kill as many people as possible” in an assault on the Jyllands-Posten daily, which sparked violent protests with its 2005 publication of a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

A Stockholm court said one of the five arrested in the Swedish capital was Sahbi Zalouti, a 37-year-old Swede of Tunisian origin.

Danish intelligence agency PET has identified one man based in Denmark as a 26-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker living in the Copenhagen suburb of Greve. He was freed Thursday but is still suspected of being connected to the plot.

The three men arrested in another suburb were all based in Sweden and had driven to the Danish capital overnight Tuesday.

They have been officially identified only as a 44-year-old Tunisian, a 29-year-old Swede born in Lebanon, and a 30-year-old Swede.

Both Danish and Swedish media have however provided the names and backgrounds of the men, identifying the Denmark-based Iraqi as Abdullah Muhammed Salman and the three residents of Sweden as Mounir Dhahri, Munir Awad and Omar Abdalla Aboelazm.

Most of the media focus has been on Awad, 29, who Sweden’s foreign ministry confirmed has been arrested twice before abroad suspected of terrorist links.

“Awad was arrested in Somalia by Ethiopian troops. That was in 2007. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2009,” foreign ministry spokesman Anders Joerle told AFP.

When he was arrested in Somalia, Awad was travelling with his then 17-year-old pregnant wife Safia Benaouda, who is the daughter of the head of Sweden’s Muslim Council Helena Benaouda, Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet reported.

Awad told the paper in a previous interview the couple had been tortured and interrogated there and that Swedish intelligence agency Saepo had helped free them.

“We know Saepo brought us home and we are very grateful,” he said.

When he was arrested in Pakistan in August 2009, Awad was travelling with Benaouda and there two-year-old son, as well as with Mehdi Ghezali, a Swede who had spent two years in Guantanamo Bay, Joerle confirmed.

“The Swedish foreign ministry helped them. I wouldn’t say to free him, but what we did was insist that he either should be tried or set free,” Joerle explained.

Zalouti, arrested in Stockholm Wednesday, had also previously been arrested in Pakistan for entering the country illegally.

The Aftonbladet daily meanwhile reported that Awad was connected to two Swedes of Somali origin who were found guilty by a Swedish court earlier this month of “planning terrorist crimes” in Somalia.

Awad, the paper reported, had shared an apartment in Stockholm with the two men, Mohamoud Jama, 22, and Bille Ilias Mohamed, 26, who are members of the Islamist movement Al-Shebab, which has declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network and controls most of southern and central Somalia.

Jyllands-Posten and Swedish Expressen reported meanwhile that David Headley, who helped plan the 2008 Mumbai attacks and had reportedly been preparing several attacks in the Danish capital, had been in contact with a businessman in Stockholm not arrested Wednesday who may have been the mastermind behind the foiled operation.

The Morality of Atheism

The Morality of Atheism

If atheists were a strongly defined group that could adopt a strongly defined, albiet secular, set of morals, perhaps more religious people could be persuaded to drop their supernatural beliefs. Many religious people really do question the validity of their beliefs, and every day science continues to strip religion’s credibility, but very few doubt the morals that religion gives them. This is what gives religion its strength. If it teaches how to be a good person, all the nonsense that comes with it must also be accepted.

However, atheism is not a strongly defined group, and therefore can never adopt its own strongly defined set of morals with which to “advertise” itself. This is one reason religious fundamentalists feel so strongly about infidels. Atheists are anarchists, they say. They have no rules for how to live their life!

Many atheists will just look at this statement with contempt, agreeing that they enjoy debauching and sinning, but in reality most atheists will disagree that their lives are lacking any moral guidelines. To go further, some atheists will argue that their moral guidelines are better than that of a religious person. That is because an atheist’s morals are derived from REALITY.

Atheists have no make-believe god or child-molesting priest telling them what is right and wrong. Their minds are not corrupted by guilt or false promises. They get their morals from their experiences. Eventually athiests will come to the conclusion that harming other people or their property is bad, whereas making people happy and helping others is good. Sound a little similar to religion’s moral guidelines? Well it is. With one major difference.

This difference between the morals of religion and athiesm is that religion JUDGES first!

Religious people take it upon themselves to decide who to apply their morality to! They may outwardly profess that they’re against harming others, but if you’re a homosexual, or even someone who doesn’t believe the same as them, this morality does not apply to you. It is ok to harm you, physically, or by means of taking away your rights. This is where the problems occur.

Atheists tend not to judge. They are more accepting of people with different beliefs. They have no demented certainty to force onto others. The morality is still based on not harming others, and being a good human being. Unlike religious bigots, they don’t reserve this morality for people with the same beliefs.

This is why atheists have far greater morality that any religious person will ever have.

Christian Responses: Faith and Science (Part 3)

Faith and science p3:

Molecular biologist Michael Denton stated that even the tiniest of bacterial cells, weighing less than a trillionth of a gram, is “a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of 100 thousand atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”

Many would say that micro-evolution cannot bear the weight that is often put on it. Recent work on the E coli bacterium back this up. In this research no real innovation changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacteria. Biochemist Micheal Behe pointed out that now more than 30,000 generations of E. coli have been studied, equivalent to about 1 million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced in his words, “Mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that thirty thousand generations, the bacterium has repeated thrown away chunks of its genetic patrimony, including the ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery saves the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it’s easier for evolution to break things than to make things.”

Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term “transitional fossil” is essentially a misconception. But this also is a misconception as there is not even one complete transitional fossil record.

The biological evolutionary facts that fall outside the margins of Darwin’s theory include, “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of virus; archaea and bacteria, and the principle lineages within in each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.” ~ Eugene Koonin – National Center for Biotechnology
That is, pretty much everything.
Koonin goes on to say, “In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principle ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution)
The phrase eluded analysis conveys a current of intellectual optimism at odds with the facts. Something that has so far eluded analysis can hardly be assigned to a force that has so far eluded demonstration.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” ~ Professor Stephen Jay Gould (atheist)

“We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not.” ~ Niles Eldridge ~ American Museum of Natural History

“I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.” ~ Colin Patterson, FRS

“Evolution is accepted by zoologists, not because it is observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” ~ Professor D.M.S Watson

Robert Wesson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California put it this way, “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” By contrast, micro-evolutionary variations due to mutation and natural selection have been and are observed.

A detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing. Robert Carroll observed quite correctly that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. But a “ strictly gradualistic” account is precisely what Darwin’s theory demands: It is the heart and soul of the theory.


“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” ~ Physicist Steven Hawking
While Mr Hawking’s statement on religion is wrong, it is interesting to state that science is based on observation when evolution (macro) has never been observed.

To use the anthropic principle against the inference of design is a false logic in two ways. All the anthropic principle does is to tell us that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. But what it does not tell us is why those necessary conditions are fulfilled, nor how, granted they are fulfilled, life arose. This would be to make an elementary mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient. But they are not; in order to get a first class degree at a university it is necessary to first get into the university; but, as many students know, it is certainly not sufficient. The anthropic principle far from giving an explanation of the origin of life, is an observation that gives rise to the need for such an explanation.

Christian Responses: Faith and Science (Part 2)

Faith and science p2:

The present favored candidate for a GUT is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical evidence.
One may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it… it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“The belief that there are indeed dependable regularities [the sun will rise each day] of nature – is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

“Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

“Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

And Einstein said that he could not image a physicist who did not posses “such faith”.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin

“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

“Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“Living objects… look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they’re designed.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Palaeontologist Jun-Yuan Chen

Atheists use evolution to extrapolate macro changes from micro changes. Yet in meaning and purpose they reverse the idea and postulate that there are only micro meanings with no meta-narrative.

Advancements of science done on atheistic presuppositions will lead to the same results as advancements of science done on theistic presuppositions.


What the blunder of Galileo was to the church, the Piltdown man was to evolution.

{Biology & evolution}

There is no genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.

There is nothing in any precise concept of the gene that allows a set of biochemicals to create anything at all. If no precise concept of the gene is at issue, the idea that we are created by our genes, body and mind, represents a far less plausible thesis then the correlative doctrine that we are created by our Maker, body and mind.

Natural selection is not creative. It is a “weeding out process” that leaves the stronger progeny. The stronger progeny must already be there; it is not produced by natural selection. Selection is made from already existing entities. It has no innovative capacity; it eliminates or maintains what exists. And natural selection does not cause a mutation. That occurs by chance.

Biological evolution (whatever its extent) requires a fine-tuned universe in which to occur so that no arguments about the nature or status of evolution can undermine the arguments for an intelligent designer.

The assertion that natural selection has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt must be judged for what it is: it is the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a cousin in kind to an ecclesiastical bluff.

Geneticist Michael Denton states that molecular biology has shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
This view is supported by Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, whom Denton cites. “We have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell…in its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them…No vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.
Robert Wesson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California put it this way, “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” By contrast, micro-evolutionary variations due to mutation and natural selection have been and are observed.

Christian Responses: Faith and Science (Part 1)

Faith and science p1:

First one has to know that atheism in its classical sense in self-defeating. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is akin to saying that I have infinite knowledge in order to say that there is no one with infinite knowledge. Therefore God’s non-existence in unprovable thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists. That being said there is innumerable evidence for the existence of God.

If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically, then the principle of verification itself would fail the test because of it’s own premise, “only those statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning,” cannot be empirically verified.

Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?

It is rather ironical that in the 16th century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the 20th century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.

Philosophers of science during the 2nd half of the 20th century came to realize that the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically, but are guaranteed by the Christian worldview: for example, the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, the validity of inductive reasoning and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. Science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions, which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian worldview. Thus, theology is an ally to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically furnished the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured.

“It has to be admitted that of course science grew out of a religious tradition.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

“Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion.” ~ Peter Atkins Professor of Chemistry at Oxford (atheist)

Nothing existed prior to the singularity, for it is the edge of physical space and time. It therefore represents the origin, not only of all matter and energy, but also of physical space and time themselves. Physicist John Barrow and Frank Tipler observed, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have a creation out of nothing.”

There can be no natural, physical cause of the Big Bang event, since, in Philosopher Quentin Smith’s words, “It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity …entails that it is impossible to extend the space time manifold beyond the singularity….This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process.”

The history of 20th century cosmology has been the history of the repeated falsification of such non-standard theories and the corroboration of the big bang theory. It has been the overwhelming verdict of the scientific community that none of these alternative theories are superior to the big bang theory. Again and again models aimed at averting the prediction of the standard model of an absolute beginning of the universe have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning after all. For example, in some such theories, like the oscillating universe or the chaotic inflationary universe, while the universes posited do have a potentially infinite future, they turn out to have only a finite past. Vacuum fluctuation universe theories cannot explain why, if the vacuum was eternal, we do not observe an infinity old universe.

In regards to the “many worlds” hypothesis first we need to realize that it is no more scientific and no less metaphysical than a “cosmic designer” hypothesis. As quantum physicist John Polkinghorne stated, “People try to trick out a “many universe” account in sort of pseudo-scientific terms, but that is pseudo-science. It is a metaphysical guess that there might be many universes with different laws and circumstances.” But as a metaphysical hypothesis, that many worlds hypothesis is arguably inferior to the design hypothesis because the design hypothesis is simpler. According to Ockham’s Razor, we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the effect. But it is simpler to postulate one cosmic designer to explain our universe that to postulate the infinitely bloated and contrived collection of universes required by the many worlds hypothesis. Therefore, the design hypothesis is to be preferred.

Second, there is no known way of generating a world ensemble. No one has been able to explain how or why such a varied collection of universes should exist. Moreover, the attempts that have been made require fine-tuning themselves. For example, although some cosmologists appeal to so-called inflationary theories of the universe to generate a world ensemble, the only consistent inflationary model is Linde’s chaotic inflationary theory, and it requires fine-tuning to start the inflation.

Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University noted, that if every possible universe exists then there must be a universe in which God exists, since his existence is logically possible. It then follows that, since God is omnipotent, He must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, this universe, of which He is the Creator and Upholder.


noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power

The word faith comes from the Latin fides (fee-days) from which we get fidelity. It’s basic meaning is belief, trust; that which produces belief evidence. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. Thus the words faith, belief and trust mean essentially the same. Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.

There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith. There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible. Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist. To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.

Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.

At the heart of science lies the conviction that the universe has an inherent order that is intelligible.

The irony of the atheistic position appears when we ask where our human faculty of reason comes from. It hold that our human cognitive faculties were produced by purely naturalistic mechanisms that were not concerned with truth but with survival. But if the thoughts in my mind are just the motions of atoms in my brain, a mechanism that has itself arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?

“Reducing thought to Neurophysiology spells an end to rationality and truth.” ~ Dr John Lennox MA PhD DPhil Dsc Mathematics Professor at Oxford

It’s a high price to pay for atheism.

Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done. It undermines the very rationality that we need to construct an argument or understand an argument of any kind. However, theism does provide the necessary basis. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rational creator. And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. And they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” ~ C.S. Lewis

Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.

Science did not put the universe in place. I hope you have noticed that. Nor does science explain how it came to be.
To think that as the reach of our theories and instruments increases, the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished is to make a childish mistake of confusing law and mechanism on the one hand with agency on the other.

To say that we have to choose between God and science is like saying that we have to choose between the laws of internal combustion and Henry Ford. The existence of a mechanism is not itself an argument for the non-existence of an agent who designed the mechanism. As for an intelligent creator, a building does not emerge from the bricks nor the writing from the paper and ink without the injection of both energy and intelligent activity.

God is not a God of the gaps invented to fill a space in our knowledge. The evidence for God lies mainly in the things we do understand, not in the things we don’t. So when Newton discovered his wonderful laws of motion he didn’t say I know how it works I don’t need God. What he did do was to write the most brilliant treatise in the history of science dedicating it to the thinking person in the hope that they would come to believe in a rational creator. Which is very different than the flavor which is presented to us today.

Christian Responses: “Christians Are Bad People”

“Christians are bad people”

So called religious wars and atrocities that go against the teachings of Jesus:
(These include the Crusades, Spanish inquisition and burning of witches)
2,000,000 (best estimate)

Wars and atrocities from just 2 atheist regimes:
(Stalin & Mao)
60,000,000 (recorded fact)

Wars and atrocities having nothing to do with religion:
(In just the 20th and 21st centuries since Darwinism was born)
318,685,000 (recorded fact)

I believe this statement by English Journalist, Steve Turner sums it up, sadly, all too well:

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

“If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear
State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.”