Apologist Interview: Ravi Zacharias - Apologetics 315
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Apologist Interview: Ravi Zacharias - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Ravi Zacharias - Apologetics 315
Debunking Christianity: Articulett on the OTF
So, naturally, as an outsider to your faith (most of us are former believers) you look as brainwashed to us as they do to you. You all look like you are leaping over probabilities to confirm your respective biases. How do you imagine you are different? You would need to give us the kind of evidence you'd require to take their supernatural beliefs seriously if you wanted us to do the same for yours. And you haven't. No theist has. It's all word games.MY question is how does the atheists know that in order to reach the conclusion that there is no God, that he/she is not "leaping over probabilities" and possiblilities "to confirm their respective biases"? For example, the notion that a good God would not create hell or send people there is a bias based on subjective opinion about what one's concept of God. Would not want to know God as God truly is and not what you think God should be?
Debunking Christianity: Articulett on the OTF
A Bronze Helmet from the Time of Neco | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
Archaeologists have found a Greek bronze helmet covered with gold leaf that is 2,600-year-old. The bronze helmet probably belonged to a Greek mercenary who fought with Neco, a pharaoh of Egypt. The helmet was discovered in the waters of Haifa Bay, in Israel.
Neco (his name also appears as Necho in some translations of the Bible), was a pharaoh of the 26th Dynasty (Saite). He ruled from 609 to 595 B.C. Neco appears in the Hebrew Bible as the one who caused the death of Josiah, king of Judah, at Megiddo in 609 (see 2 Kgs. 23:28–30; 2 Chr. 35:20–27).
Read the whole article at the following link:
A Bronze Helmet from the Time of Neco | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb
And Here is part 1 of Dr White's reply:
Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb
The Navy's Electromagnetic Railgun - G4tv.com
Here is link to the scene from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7RpLQ8pZo
The Navy's Electromagnetic Railgun - G4tv.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Debunking Christianity: On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It
Skeptics define "faith" differently than believers. It's hard to find a middle ground between us because we see faith differently. Here are a few skeptical definitions of faith:
Yup, I think it is impossible to believers and non-believers are not capable to agree on this. Here are some of those quotes.
Mark Twain defined faith as “believing what you know ain’t true.”
Sam Harris: "Faith is the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail."
In the documentary Religulous, Bill Maher said “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.”
Richard Dawkins: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices.”
John Loftus: "Faith is an attitude or feeling whereby someone attributes a higher degree of probability to the evidence than what the evidence calls for."
And from Dr Matt McCormick
-To take something on faith or to believe by faith is to believe it despite contrary or inadequate evidence. It is to believe anyway when there's not enough support from evidence and reason to clear the way.
-The overcoming of doubts or counter-evidence is the essential feature of faith.
-If someone's reaction to my arguments against the resurrection and other religious beliefs is that she has faith, then she is conceding the central point. In effect, she is acknowledging that in order to believe those religious doctrines, one must ignore the inefficiencies in the evidence and believe anyway.
-If there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion, then faith isn't needed. So to suggest that faith and evidence jointly justify is acknowledging that the evidence by itself isn't enough, and I will ignore that gap and believe anyway.
-In fact, the need to invoke faith to bridge the gap affirms the inadequacy of the evidence.
-In effect, the faith response amounts to, "I'm going to believe anyway, despite those objections." That's just dogmatic irrationality, not a serious consideration that the critic must give some further objection to.
Debunking Christianity: On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It
In the latest post, Loftus said something in the comments that I think bears scrutiny:
FTFDad, it doesn't matter how they define it. This is an argument over how it is best defined.
My response: Who are you to tell me what I mean when I use the word "faith"? There have been few arguments I have seen about how to define a single word in English. My vote is to go with the Biblical definition, but people like Loftus and McCormick would never agree to that. I say that because none of them have seem to argue that the Bible defines it the way they do. Baring that...why don't we just decide the way we do all other English words: Etymology. Where does this word come from? I came up with a couple of links that one can look at that shows what the word originally meant:
And you would notice that in no way did it mean to believe or trust in something without proof or contrary to evidence. In today's vernacular we do use "faith" that way, but that is not how the people who first translated the Bible into English would have thought of what "faith" means. And for sure the Bible writers did not think that was what :"pistas:" means - the word that is often translated to "faith" in English Bibles.
Crosswalk.com is very handy. The Biblical text is hyperlinked to Strong's Concordance. One could click on the words and look up some lexical aids to see what words mean. Can we find anything in the Greek words that lends credibility to idea that when we believe, we should just turn our brains off and ignore and contrary facts or evidence? I don't mind if you check yourself. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Nope, nothing about believing despite "counterfactuals". Sorry, but Atheists have no leg to stand on in mis-defining "Faith" as they often do. It doesn't matter what "faith" means now in the English vernacular when you are trying to understand what the the Gospel writers were saying 2000 years ago. Where they using your definition? If you think "Faith" is believing something even if you can prove its false, then you are not using the same concepts that the writers of the Bible were using.and you should repent of the error.
Sugarcoating the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
In previous posts I have argued for translating the biblical text as literally as possible and as readable as necessary. I rather prefer that the reader struggle with the text as it is than to offer a reading that is more of an interpretation than a translation of the text.
I could not agree more!!
Sugarcoating the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
Peregrinations: The Crux of Cosmic History
Peregrinations: The Crux of Cosmic History
Monday, February 27, 2012
ID.Plus: 'Understanding the Trinity' - bethinking publish new paper on Trintiy
ID.Plus: 'Understanding the Trinity' - bethinking publish new paper on Trintiy
Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - YouTube
pics on SodaheadMariano pointed out this great video to me. It's Dr William Lane Craig answering the question about if there really is a parallel between Osirus and Horus to Jesus. Worth looking at, so you don't become deceived by such a silly thought.
Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - YouTube
Sunday, February 26, 2012
John Lennox on DNA and Design - Apologetics 315
 |
| Image via Wikipedia |
"We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters' - the longest 'word' yet discovered?”
- John Lennox
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?, p. 75.
John Lennox on DNA and Design - Apologetics 315
John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen - YouTube
John MacArthur makes very important observations regarding Joel Osteen's ministry. He's right. It is another gospel...one different than what is in Bible. Osteen wants to be considered part of the "household of faith" (Galatians 6:10) and therefore it's perfectly proper and correct for John MacArthur to call him to the carper on his teachings because "judgement begins at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:7).
John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen - YouTube
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett
It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.
I would say that the problem isn't with "science". The thing is that scientists can indeed be wrong. Just like one would make a distinction between science and scientists, we need to make a distinction between religion and those who practice it. For example, just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they really believe and follow what the Bible says. For example, if someone denies the Resurrection, can they be a Christan? Nope,
I don't think any evil things have been done "in the name of science" (nor do I even know what that means); although scientific advancements have caused suffering of others along with giving us longer healthier lives and computers and air travel and so cell phones-- things that would make us gods to your bible writers. It's also brought us knowledge that even the smartest people could not know during biblical times-- see DNA and atoms and germ theory, for example.
I find this telling. Does she mean that she does not know what evil is? She seems to be making a distinction between "suffering" and evil and I agree there should be a distinction made. However I would point to the way some "scientist" use science to make money driven by greed despite the suffering it causes. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind as an example.Not everyone in it is driven by greed but decisions like what gets researched, funded, and released are influenced by finances and greed.
What do you think is the probability that the 3-in-1 god of the bible who became his own son is the "uncaused cause" of the universe? What is the probability that an omnibenevolent omnipotent being would make a place of infinite torture? What for? Why should anyone believe such a thing?
I'd like to know what is the probability that an atheist would phrase the trinitarian doctrine in such a way that it shows that they they understand what it is? I also would like to know if an atheist can understand what the Bible says when it explains the existence of hell? I also would like to know why Atheists think it's okay to deny the Bible but butcher its teachings - demonstrating that they don't even seem to know what they are denying. I mean they would get upset and want to be correctly represented if some one said that they believed that human beings were descended from monkey. I agree. If you are going to deny something then at least correctly state what it is you are denying.
Religious people are forced to fit the scientific facts into their religion or to ignore them. They imagine some god will punish them forever if they don't. Science cannot afford to be handicapped by such vested interests. Science doesn't work unless you are on the right track. Any track involved invisible beings (gods, ghosts, demons, angels, fairies, etc.) is the track of magical thinkers. It never leads anywhere and is not a useful guide for those who are interested in what is true.
You pray for John; we'll THINK for you.
Link.
Again God expects us to think and reason...he gave us our minds in the first place. Without God was have no minds.
18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett
Friday, February 24, 2012
FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities
You can quote me on this. Probability is all that matters. Faith is irrational. I want to drive this point into the ground once and for all.
Let's see if he can prove this.
The problem is that practically nothing is certain. So the word "faith" is used to describe any conclusion of ours that leaves room for doubt. Is it possible I'm dreaming right now? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a material world does not exist? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a good omnipotent God exists given the world-wide massive and ubiquitous suffering in it? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility too.
The way John Loftus describes "faith" is not the way the Bible uses the word. "Pistas" does not mean that room is left for doubt. The way that "Faith"/"Pistas" is used in the Bible there is no room for doubt. Loftus starts his whole discussion by mis-defining "faith". Is he using it the way 21st Century Americans use the word "faith"? Yes. But that is not the way the writers of the New Testament use it. That is why he fails. I realize that many people would use Hebrews 11:1 to illustrate what the Bible means by "faith", and it is sufficient but I want to use another of the New Testament writers to show what I mean. Let's look at what it says about doubt:
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:2-8
James is talking about faith and what it isn't. And you can't fit Loftus' definition into it. As a matter of fact the Bible contradicts him.
So what? Probability is all that matters. Accepting some conclusion because it's merely possible is irrational. We should never ever do that.
I suppose its possible someone can jump off a building and fly, right? After all, he could instantaneously grow wings, or a huge burst of air could keep him afloat, or a supernatural force could propel him around in the air. It's even possible that such a person is dreaming, and in that dream he can fly, or that there isn't a material world and in the world of his mind he can fly. Okay, I understand all this. All of these scenarios are remotely possible I suppose, so much so, that I consider them "virtually impossible," like one in 1 million (and that's being very very generous).
Get the point?
Nope. Given that we know enough about gravity and physics we can exclude some of the possibilities. But considering possibilities is putting the cart in front of the horse. You must first answer the question: Did the dude fly? Then you can try to figure out how. And flying in the mind doesn't count. Given that physics tells us people can't fly under their own power, if it happens it must be a miracle - which is one of the options Loftus gives. This does not mean you can't immediately conclude that it didn't happen without examining the evidence. And here is something else to consider: what if the man did? What effect would that have on you today? I'd posit that if a man did such a thing it would mean nothing to me one way or the other.
By contrast, consider the opposite scenario. It's probable that if someone jumps off a building he will fall to the ground. How probable is this? Well, since it's possible he won't fall (per our examples above) then we cannot say we are certain he will fall. But it's "virtually certain" he will, like a 99.9999% chance (and I think that's being very very generous).
With the change of scenario the stakes are a little higher - especially if the man says he flew and I can do it too. Here is where careful examination of evidence would be helpful. I'd ask the man to show me he could fly. I wouldn't just take him at his word and jump off a building myself
In between these two extremes there are a lot of different odds for something, stretching from extremely improbable, to very improbable, to improbable, to even odds, to slightly probable, to probable, to very probable, and to extremely probable.
Again I think the Loftus is confusing probable with possible. Something can be extremely improbable and still be possible. But it's a contradiction to think something to be impossible and probable simultaneously. Also in order to conclude that something is improbable sometimes requires omniscience because a human being you can't know all the possibilities. One can say that it is impossible for a circle to have 3 sides and 3 angles. But you cannot say Jesus' miracles and Resurrection are impossible.
We don't have a word to differentiate between the odds on that continuum stretching from virtually impossible to virtually certain. But does anyone really want to suggest the word "faith" applies to all of these different probabilities, that there is the same amount of faith required to accept any one of them? If so, that is being irrational.
Get the point?
No. Back up. Loftus only successfully demonstrates that his misunderstanding of Biblical faith is irrational. I agree. Good Job!!!!
If believers want to say that more faith is required to accept something that is "virtually impossible" and less faith is required to accept something that is "virtually certain," then what can they possibly mean? What is faith at that point? Faith adds nothing to the actual probabilities at all. Having more of it or less of it does not change anything. If it's possible to accept a "virtually impossible" conclusion by having more faith, then that's irrational. And if we have a "virtually certain" conclusion we don't need faith at all.
If you define faith the way Loftus has defined it then you don't need faith at all. But his :logic also comes up useless because there is such things as things we can know for sure are impossible - like a circular square and other logical contradictions. There are basis and things we can build on. You can't even think without those foundations.
What about something that is only slightly probable, one might ask. What if we accept something that only has a 60% chance of being true? I still don't see where faith can change the actual probabilities. Faith cannot change a thing, you see. Faith adds nothing. It's irrational.
Christians don't believe that faith changes things. We believe that the God whom our faith is in changes things. And yes, Loftus' faith is indeed irrational. Fortunately it has nothing to do with what the Bible says "faith" is.
Who in their right mind would fill in the probability gap with anything more than what the probabilities actually show us?
Not me.
Actually when you conclude that Bible is wrong and that there is no God based on your imperfect understanding of those probabilities filling "in the probability gap" is exactly what one is doing.
The ONLY sense I can make of the way believers use the word "faith" is that it's an irrational leap over the probabilities. They fill in what the actual probabilities are with faith to move an "extremely improbable" or "improbable" conclusion to reach a "very probable" or an "extremely probable" or even a "virtually certain" conclusion, and that is quite simply irrational.
Well, since that is all Loftus is capable of understanding it makes sense. The Bible tells us that not everyone is going to understand it and that God himself gives that understanding if you do see it. Such Wisdom only comes from God. Back to James chapter 1. If you want to understand, ask God for the Wisdom. He will give it you. Biblical faith is trusting God based on what you know of God and I know He keeps His promises because He has kept his promises to me.
Faith cannot go "beyond reason" because that means it's going beyond the probabilities. There is no rational way faith can trump reason, or go beyond it, or be based on it.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum that reason needs faith. All of modern science is based on the idea that we live in a comprehendable universe based on rules and laws that we can understand if we study them. That's an example of Biblical faith - not ignoring the apparent probability that it was pointless to look.
A probability is a probability is a probability. There are nothing but probabilities.
Sure keep saying that and it might come true...sounds like blind faith to me.
Debunking Christianity: Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities
Answering Muslims: Kira Davis Apologizes to President Karzai over Quran Burnings
Answering Muslims: Kira Davis Apologizes to President Karzai over Quran Burnings
Thursday, February 23, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious
Christianity has always changed like a chameleon to its culture and times. It's emphatically NOT the case that the Christianity of the 1st or 2nd centuries has survived. The heresy of a previous generation just becomes the orthodoxy of the next one. Subsequent generations develop an amnesia about what Christianity used to be. That's it. The conservatives in one generation become the moderates in the next one who become the liberals in the following one. In each of these subsequent generations conservatives who object to this trend start their own churches, publishing houses and seminaries. Then these new churches, publishing houses and seminaries follow the same trend. And as they do, conservatives break off again and the trend starts all over. Do you want to know the Christianity of the future in America? I suspect it might look more like the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen.
Debunking Christianity: The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious
I disagree. I've heard many an assertion that Christianity has changed since the first and second centuries Anno Domini but there is very little discussion of how. Only a moron would walk into church today and think that church services were the same during the time of the Apostles. And Loftus is most likely correct that many people will continue to follow "the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen." Loftus is also correct that this isn't the Gospel of the Bible. Here is the fail: If it's so hopeless to understand what the first Christians believed then how does Loftus know that Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen is preaching somethings different? I agree that they are but I disagree that there no living people today who are attempting to live what the Bible teaches - following Jesus Christ. This week Dr Kenneth Samples posted a quote from Dr Alister McGrath that shows what I mean:
Christianity is a strongly ethical faith. This does not, however, mean that Christianity is about a set of rules, in which Christians mechanically conform to a set of instructions. Rather, it is about a set of values which arises from being redeemed.– Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1997), xix–xx.
Quote of the Week: Alister McGrath, 2
Answering Muslims: Sharia Alert: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Charges against Muslim Who Assaulted Atheist
David Wood observed:
Judge Mark Martin dismissed charges against a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy, who physically attacked an atheist dressed as Muhammad. In ruling against the atheist, Judge Martin sent a double message: (1) criticism of Muhammad will not be tolerated, and (2) assaulting critics of Muhammad will be tolerate.
I think that this is sad and truly a step backward. This is America. You have the right to say almost anything you want - even if it's offensive and stupid. If religious people have the right to express their beliefs than so should atheists have the same right - despite them being wrong.
Answering Muslims: Sharia Alert: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Charges against Muslim Who Assaulted Atheist
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
How Should We Understand the Resurrection Narratives? - Apologetics 315
How Should We Understand the Resurrection Narratives? - Apologetics 315
Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Sentenced to Death for Apostasy in Iran
Follow the link below for more information about Iran's ruling on Pastor Nadarkhani's life.
Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Sentenced to Death for Apostasy in Iran
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Apologist Interview: Ken Boa - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Ken Boa - Apologetics 315
Nor the Son: Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 - YouTube
Nor the Son: Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 - YouTube
Deposyni, Thanks!!!
Dr Alister McGrath
Lecture with Dr. Alister McGrath from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.
Alister McGrath on Christianity and the Discipleship of the Mind
Dr James K. Hoffmeier
Lecture with Dr. James Hoffmeier from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.
Desposyni: Archaeology and the Exodus from Egypt
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Rape of Bilhah | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
The Rape of Bilhah | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
Saturday, February 18, 2012
John Cleese Responds Hilariously To Your Monty Python Questions On YouTube [Video]
John Cleese Responds Hilariously To Your Monty Python Questions On YouTube [Video]
Debunking Christianity: Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?
John Loftus, posted some uncharacteristically insightful thoughts about Whitney Houston's Funeral.
Kevin Costner gave a wonderful eulogy at Whitney's funeral today. He and others all claim Whitney Houston is in heaven. Is she? Whitney was a wonderful singer and actress. I loved her. I listened to her songs all of the time. But why is it that people we like are all going to heaven? Jesus said the road is narrow and few find it (Matthew 7:13-14). I understand about eulogies. Who in their right mind would question whether someone is in heaven in front of believing loved ones? Not me that's for sure, and I did funerals for people I doubted were in heaven as a former minister. That would be insensitive to the max. But again, why is it believers think they're all going to heaven? Why is it that any deceased person associated with the church is believed to have gone to heaven? According to Jesus even believers should not have this hope. According to him most people who have this hope are deluded.
While I disagree with his conclusions, Loftus has a point. Telling people that their recently died loved ones are in hell doesn't help anyone. In my experience when pastors and ministers find themselves preaching at a funeral for someone that, at worst, reject Christ, or at best, no one knows whether they were believers or no, they don't focus on whether or not the person went to heaven or hell, but instead use the occasion to make a plea to those who are not believers so that they would know who Jesus is. Loftus said: According to him most people who have this hope are deluded. Jesus never said anything of the kind. When Jesus gave the parable about turning away people who think that they were working for Him, he wasn't talking about people who really believe. He was talking about people who only outwardly act like they believe and love Him.
Instead I offer two scriptures that show what Jesus actually said about why we should believe that we will be with Him when this life is over. There are more, but let's look at these"
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”And
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.- John 3:10
21 Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
22 This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25 “Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.” - John 8: 21-25
Believing in God's existence is not enough.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?- James 2:18-20
Debunking Christianity: Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design | Sententias
A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design sententias.org/2012/02/15/id-…
— Apologetics 315 (@Apologetics315) February 15, 2012
This is a list of over 80 such articles. There was one objection that should be noted from the comments and rebutted:
Kevin
Hi Roger,
You wrote “It’s no help to the ID cause that ID journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-ID* journals. ”
Would the same be true of Evolution?
“It’s no help to the Evolution cause that Evolution journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-Evolution* journals.”
Kev
A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design | Sententias
Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315
Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315
Dr Wallace also wrote a blog post about the debate. You can read that here Ehrman vs Wallace: Round Three
Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube
Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)