The NEW evidence of coins confronts Islam's Narrative - COIN #5

Jay asked for people to ask questions and comment on his videos so that he could respond to them, allowing for him to be 'peer reviewed' almost immediately, instead of weeks or months 'down the road'. This is one of the advantages of YouTube. And the viewers have been responding enormously, posting their comments in the form of questions, and helpful suggestions. In the previous 4 episodes Jay has been responding to the best questions, and will continue to do so in upcoming episodes. In this episode (followed by a few others), Jay decided to change tact and post some of the helpful comments which the viewers were posting, showing that many of the viewers were finally 'getting it', and were beginning to understand the significance of what he has been researching and posting. These then are some of those comments: Odon Lafontaine: Non-Evidence can be used both ways That which is asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence Manny Fabin: Evidence is there, that is the problem Questioner says "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The questioner doesn't seem to grasp a basic concept that the issue is not absence of evidence....it's that the "evidence" from the time (compounded by the lack of evidence of Muhammad) doesn't reflect the narrative of the origin of Islam. If archaeological and historical evidence cannot account for Islam's origin as stated in the Quran then that is a fundamental and core problem....a big problem. Jay respect for keeping it light and polite even with the "dig" he gave you in the last question. Our bulwark is Jesus Christ: Classical Narrative is an older creation Not only do Islamic histories appear late, but the idea is widespread among Islamicists (Western scholars of Islam) that the "histories" of Islam are tidied up versions of Islamic history, that is, Islamic history was reimagined by later Muslims. Lemuel Pitkin: Classical Narrative is flawed Regarding Evidence Based Science: Damian. the primary claim is that Islam is a religion that begins long before Mohammad and is then reasserted by Mohammad. This is what Islam claims. This is the positive assertion. What Jay is showing you and everyone else is that there is no evidence that Islam even exists as a religion until Abdul Malek. Worse than that, there is evidence that both Christian and Zoroastrian iconography and religious symbols are extant and accepted within these supposedly "Islamic" post revolutionary lands of the Saracens. So your position that evidence is lacking by Jay to prove the negative case is backwards from a scientific standpoint. The burden of proof is on those making the positive assertion that Islam/Muslims were the precise movement that conquered these lands rather than this conquest simply being the product of Arab war bands. Science does not work on consensus or "everybody knows" presumptive thinking. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (26,710)