Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.• Higgs Boson Discovered
• The Multiverse Directory
• A Landmark Study Of Miracles
• Do Objective Moral Values Exist?
• Craig Keener on the Existence of Jesus
• Can Historians Use Anonymous Sources?
• A Review of "Free Will" by Sam Harris
• William Lane Craig on the Jesus Myth
• Philosopher Interview: Richard Swinburne
• Has the God particle made God redundant?
• Has The "God Particle" Finally Been Discovered?
• Book Review: “Thinking About Christian Apologetics”
• Book Review The God Who is There by Francis Schaeffer
• The Presuppositional Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til
• A Universe From Someone: Against Lawrence Krauss (Article)
• “See to it that No One Takes You Captive through Philosophy”
• William Lane Craig comments on the Higgs Boson “God” particle
• Is the accelerating universe compatible with Hinduism and atheism?
• Will There Ever Be a Historical Consensus that Jesus Was Resurrected?
• Would you like to help with interview transcription through volunteering or donation?
If so, contact Ap315 here.
Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Your support is appreciated.
• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.
5 comments :
On that "God Particle" business... It bothers me that you are consistently biased against young-Earth creationists, favoring old-Earthers and giving credence to people who actually mock them, such as WLC and compromiser Hugh Ross (Ross has some really weird views).
Did you know that there are several science articles from the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and so on?
Piltdown Superman,
I'm a young earth creationist, and I don't know what you mean about the Higgs Boson stuff being biased against young earth creationists. How is it biased against YEC? Also I've never heard William Lane Craig mock young earth creationists and I don't know that it's fair to call Hugh Ross a "compromiser."
I think Hugh Ross is unfair in his portrayal of YECs on some occasions, but then I think some YECs (like Ken Ham) are unfair in their portrayal of him.
And I don't think your comment is very helpful :)
(Personally, I recommend the Center for Origins Research.)
Janitor,
My problem is that this site is biased against young-Earth creationists.
William Lane Craig did mock creationists, saying to an atheist: "So forget about the Young Earth Creationists, Adam! Why let them stand between you and God? Why not receive God's transforming grace yourself and then be better than the Young Earthers? You know that I don't hold their views about the age of the universe. Neither do most evangelical Christians, despite the high profile of their movement in churches. So why not become a Christian and then be a better thinker than they are?"
Hugh Ross is indeed a compromiser. He has strange views, including some semantic tap-dancing that the Genesis flood was "worldwide, but not global". He takes atheistic interpretations of science and then uses the general revelation of nature (look this up from Bacon) to tell God what he says and means in Genesis. In fact, he sounds like a cultist. Mormons say that the Bible is correct "as far as it is translated correctly". He has to tell us what the Bible really means by using the current trends of historical science philosophies against the Word of God.
I'm surprised you haven't checked out the articles refuting these and other peculiar views of Rossites.
Perhaps you do not find my comments helpful because you are unaware of these facts.
Here is one of several articles on Hugh Ross:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/hugh-ross
Piltdown Superman,
Thanks for the response.
I don't see Craig as mocking YECs in that quote. I see him addressing the issue from his belief that YEC is false. Likewise, if I--as a YECs--were to say to an atheist "why not become a Christian and be a better thinker than the OECs?"
I'm already aware of Ross's views of creation and the flood. I think he has wrong beliefs about these things. But I don't think having wrong beliefs is sufficient to show that one is a compromiser.
It's not because I'm unaware of Ross's or Craig's disagreements with YEC that I find your comments unhelpful. Rather, it's because you're coming to a site--Apologetics315--that apparently doesn't agree with YECs and then making accusations against Craig and Ross that the site's author obviously will not share and then asking if the site's author of aware of there being another side.
What is that supposed to accomplish? Suppose I was a theistic evolutionist and I came to your site and said "It bothers me that you're a YEC. Ken Ham is a jerk. Don't you know about the sites arguing against your position like RTB?"
I doubt you would find anything in that comment worth your time or in the least bit convincing. Perhaps a better approach would be to simply refute an argument against YEC, whenever you see one mentioned on this website?
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.