YouTube - Mary Jo Sharp vs. Tabasum Hussain: Women in the Bible and the Qur'an, Part Three & Four

This is part 3 & 4 of the debate between Mary Jo Sharp and Tabasum Hussain regarding "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an".This is the 2nd rebuttal.





Both these women are highly intelligent and formidable. They have obviously studied the material more than most people! Here is is the fourth part - their conclusions.




Watching this material is awesome! Both sides force all who are listening to think! That is why a debate is important. I love working through this stuff. I wish only that there was more interaction and more concession when the other made or addressed valid points. I think that Sharp did that very well, but i wanted to hear Hussain rebut Sharp's answers but never did. Sharp's answer as to why Paul wrote about why Women should be silent in churches and the "saved through childbearing" was answered in a way that I don't think I've ever heard before and Hussain did not explain why the answer is irrelevant but instead inserting that it demeans women.

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross

I came across a great letter to Hugh Ross from a fellow Christian and Scientist named Lambert Dolphin. He agrees with Ross on some points and disagrees on others. I myself find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both of them. What I like about the letter is that respect for Ross is evident although he disagrees with him on some points. I wouild love to see a dialogue between these two (pictured Lambert Dolphin). You can checkout Dr  Lambert Dolphin's website also.

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Greg Koukl from the Stand to Reason ministry has answered a ubiquitous challenge from Atheists that attempts to put the burden of proof on theists saying "I'm not claiming there is a god and you are therefore you have to prove it." Koukl answers in response to a question he received:

I've grown frustrated with Atheists saying to me that they don’t have to give any arguments or evidence to support their view, because they are not making any claims. They have a "non-belief". One atheist told me he is not required to provide evidence that there are no fairies living under his house either. This seems so cheap, so lame, yet I'm not sure how to make that obvious to them. What do you suggest?

Here is Greg Koukl's answer!



I find this very useful because I come across this argument a lot when all their other arguments fail. I mean when you can't prove that the Bible is False and you don't want to concede the point that there is good evidence for God's existence...what else are you left with: This sham of an argument. To go from making the claims that there is no God and The Bible is false or that the Bible is immoral and then when the arguments fail under their own weight against scrutiny they retreat behind "I'm not making claims, you are!" Dishonest indeed.

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Darwin's God: Independent Evolution of Eyes

Brian from Apologetics 315 tweeted a great article the other day about the evolution of the eye. The writer of the post shows that there is no evidence that for a common ancestor explaining how the different eyes of all living things evolved. I've got to to quote the article because I loved how he wrote it.

Here, for example, is the opening paragraph in a journal paper from last year on the evolution of vision:

The evolution of the eye has focused research interest ever since Darwin identified the eye with its ‘‘inimitable contrivances’’ as a vexing problem for evolutionary theory (1859). Gradual evolution seemed implausible because ‘‘intermediate’’ forms of the eye seemed unlikely to be adaptive and selectable. Since Darwin’s original challenge, however, a surprisingly large number of cases of independent evolution of image-forming eyes have been documented.

Translation: Contrary to evolutionary expectations, biology presents us with a wide variety of vision systems. They are too different to have evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionary spin on this surprise is that vision must have independently evolved many times (after all, the fact that vision must have evolved, somehow, is not in question).

Furthermore, various living species with completely functional forms of eye organization are now known, which could be viewed as ‘‘intermediate’’ between a simple photoreceptive patch and the complex image-forming eye seen in cephalopods and most vertebrates.

On the other hand, they could not be viewed as intermediate. It all depends on whether we are following the evidence. In fact, the biochemistry of even simple, non image forming, eyes is profoundly complex.

Although the fact of repeated evolution of image-forming eyes, as well as the capacity for functional intermediates, is thus firmly established, the mechanism of the evolutionary process is still speculative.

Translation: We may have to contrive just-so stories to explain evolution, but we will continue repeating that it is a fact.

I agree. It doesn't make sense to assume that the human eye and the Octopus eye and eyes of owls and the eyes of eagles or hawks independently evolved. I also found the following video



Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation - The best free videos are right here

Darwin's God: Independent Evolution of Eyes