Bob Andrew Piercy

If you've done that. I don't hate you. I'm not mad at you. I get that it's a VERY difficult place to be in being pregnant when you didn't want or didn't plan to be. Continuing to have killing a human as an alternative to get out of that perpetuates killing more humans. If killing a human wasn't an acceptable option fewer people would find themselves in that situation.

John 14:15

There is NO evidence for Darwinian evolution, but there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the Bible.

Muhammad never met Jesus. Jesus' ministry took place in the first century, while Muhammad was born around 570 AD and began preaching around 610 AD—roughly 580–600 years after Jesus' crucifixion, depending on the chronology used. So from a historical standpoint, Christians ask: Why should Muhammad's account of Jesus, given nearly six centuries later, override the testimony of Jesus' own disciples and the eyewitnesses who knew Him personally? The New Testament was written within the lifetime of the first generation of Christians by apostles and their close companions. Muhammad's teaching about Jesus comes centuries later and contradicts those earlier sources on central claims such as the crucifixion, resurrection, and Jesus' identity. Even the Qur'an acknowledges that the Torah and the Gospel were revelations from God (Qur'an 3:3, 5:46–47) and tells people to consult those who had the Scriptures before Muhammad (Qur'an 10:94). If those Scriptures were reliable enough to confirm Muhammad's message, why reject their testimony when they consistently present Jesus differently? The issue isn't whether Muhammad was sincere. The question is: Should a testimony given nearly 600 years later outweigh the testimony of those who actually lived with Jesus, heard Him, saw His miracles, witnessed His death, and testified to His resurrection?