The Cosmological Argument: Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig tackles atheist Richard Dawkins and his objection against the cosmological argument. Despite Craig’s refutation of Dawkins’ objections, Dawkins has still not responded and he continues to run from any type of one-on-one debate with Craig. This video is part of the ‘The God Delusion’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…

Living Fossils (A Problem for Evolution)

Ancient shark caught by fishing trawler

Fish was five-feet long

VICTORIA, Au

The rare catch is a frilled shark, a species more than 80 million years old. “We couldn’t find a fisherman who had ever seen one before,” South East Trawl Fishing Association member Simon Boag told Newscom.au.

The Commonwealth of Scientific and Industrial Research explained the shark was caught by a fishing trawler off the coast of Australia.

“It looks like it’s from another time,” Boag continued.

The ‘living fossil’ looks more like an eel until you see the 300 teeth tightly packed into 25 rows. “Once you’re in that mouth, you’re not coming out.”

The creepy creature is normally found at depths of 1500 meters, and is not considered a danger to the public.

Why is this a problem for evolution?

First, if this is an 80 million year old species, why has it not changed? Evolution states that species are always changing and evolving into better species. This animal should have never been discovered.

Second, how did they come up with a date of 80 million years? Perhaps it’s closer to say, oh 6,000 years as the Bible states.

Third, it creates a severe problem for the theory of evolution itself. Dr. Werner stated to Creation.com “If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.” (Emphasis added)

Carpet Splitting (and other things)

As a young man still in Bible college, Chuck Thomas was invited to preach at First  Christian Church in Gotebo, Oklahoma. The church was searching for a new preacher. Chuck accepted, and drove to the small town the following Sunday.

Chuck noticed the church (both the building and the people) seemed split down the middle. Both sides had their own Communion table, and their own elders, who separately prayed and served their half of the congregation. This strange division bewildered Chuck and his wife, Anita.

A friendly family invited them over for Sunday lunch. After eating, Chuck asked about the obvious division. To his surprise, the family knew there was a division, but didn’t know why. They called a grandmother, who provided the answer.

Don’t miss the rest of this story!

‘Duck Dynasty’ wife Lisa Robertson Reveals She Had An Abortion at Age 17

Lisa Robertson shares even more intimate details of her life as a “Duck Dynasty” wife in a new book, “A New Season: A Robertson Family Love Story of Brokenness and Redemption.”

Lisa, the wife of the beardless brother, Alan, who co-wrote the book, revealed last year some of the couple’s problems early in their marriage, including her extramarital affair with an old boyfriend.

In this new book gets even more intimate, detailing the abortion that she had when she was 17, news that Fox News greeted on Thursday with a headline that said “Whoa!” and E! Online characterized as a bombshell.

Lisa told Us Weekly that she regrets her decision and decided to write about it for other women who similarly struggled.

Click Here to Read the Rest of the Story

The Problem is not “Radical Islam.” The Problem IS Islam.

Excerpted from today’s piece in NRO by the always excellent Andrew McCarthy [former federal prosecutor of the “blind sheik” for his role in the ’93 WTC bombing]:

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in

Terror Attack in France

the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

* “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

* It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

* As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

* Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

* The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

* The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

* A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

* A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

* A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2–3.)

* A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

* The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

* The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

* The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

* If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

This anti-liberty, supremacist, repulsively discriminatory, and sadly mainstream interpretation of Islam must be acknowledged and confronted. In its way, that is what Charlie Hebdo had been attempting to do — while, to their lasting shame, governments in the United States and Europe have been working with Islamist states to promote sharia blasphemy standards. That needs to end. The future must not belong to those who brutalize free expression in the name of Islam.