• expired

FREE Video Course "Christian Apologetics 101" Dr. Doug Groothuis @ Credo Courses

3018

Free Video Normally $199.99, Audio also free for now on this course and a few others.

Dr. Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. This class covers arguments for the Christian worldview while critiquing non-Christian accounts of reality.

Description
This course consists of 30 sessions each around 25-30 minutes in length covering all major aspects of the field of Christian Apologetics. There are also 800+ on-screen slides throughout the course to make it easier to pause and take notes.

The length of these lectures makes them perfect for a wide range of application:

Seminary and university courses
Personal study
Small-group study
Homeschool classes
With hundreds-of-millions of followers across the globe, Christianity has, for centuries, stood at the forefront of intellectual thought. Recently, however, many have begun to question the Christian Worldview. The faith of many has been shaken by the perceived divide between faith and science.

Should Christians be worried that their beliefs don’t measure up in an age of modernity?

The Course: List of Lectures
Introduction to Apologetics
The Biblical Basis for Apologetics
Logic, Methodology, and Worldview Analysis
Apologetical Limits and the Christian Worldview
Objections to Christianity
Truth: Defined and Defended (Part 1)
Truth: Defined and Defended (Part 2)
The Search for and Significance of Truth
The Place of Prudence in Apologetics
Objections to Natural Theology
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Design Argument
Darwin and Intelligent Design (Part 1)
Darwin and Intelligent Design (Part 2)
The Moral Argument
The Religious Experience Argument
The Uniqueness of Humanity
Deposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument
Jesus and History
Claims and Credentials of Jesus
The Incarnation of Jesus
The Resurrection of Jesus (Part 1)
The Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
The Problem of Religious Pluralism
The Problem of Islam
The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Hell
Apologetics and the Old Testament
Taking It to the Streets

The Scholar: Dr. Douglas Groothuis
Dr. Douglas Groothuis Teaches Christian Apologetics

In this course, Dr. Douglas Groothuis presents a compelling case for Christianity and a case against non-Christian worldviews.

Dr. Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary in Colorado and the author of numerous books including Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

We’re not sure which he loves more, theology or jazz. Dr. Groothuis is a connoisseur of both.

Rather than sit on the sidelines, Groothuis encourages his students to take what they’ve learned and jump into the marketplace of ideas. In the last lecture of this course “Taking It to the Streets” (which is more than a song by the Doobie Brothers), Dr. Groothuis gives examples and advice for very practical ways believers can apply what they’ve learned.

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

  • +4 votes

    What is this? Joke?

    • +1 vote

      No, it's indefinite article appreciation week.

  • +6 votes

    propaganda

    • +2 votes

      free propaganda!

  • +1 vote

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • +2 votes

    Thanks! Just got it, cos free!

    • +2 votes

      After registering, I am downloading the entire mp3 collection from http://credocourses.com/products/apologetics/audio/CA101MP3s...
      It's 1GB so far…..!
      Perhaps you could download it from there without having to register?

      • -1 vote

        Make an order for the video as well. Sometimes its good to have the video. You don't have to download it straightway "Textual Criticism" was free yesterday and certain lesson its good to see what the teacher is showing in the course. You probably don't need it for all lesson.

        • +1 vote

          I like audio so I can listen while driving or in the background.
          I've ordered the videos too.

        • -1 vote

          @adamadam:
          Just after I posted this, he said that it's best to unitask and not multitask…
          He's watching me!

        •  

          @adamadam:

          haha

      • +1 vote

        Direct link works.
        Thanks

  • +1 vote

    Religions do have a lot ot apologise for; running courses sounds like a good idea.

  • +2 votes

    Education? More like brainwashing

  • +27 votes

    non-Christian accounts of reality

    Also commonly know as just plain old 'reality'

  • +2 votes

    Prudence says she wants nothing to do with this mob.

  • +6 votes

    I wonder how many people actually paid US$199.99 for this "digital video".

    • +5 votes

      yeah, well, in America there are a lot of people who are trying to buy their way into heaven, so I wouldn't write this off as a money spinner.

      • +1 vote

        Oh I see, so it was a great bargain before it was a freebie.

        •  

          I suppose if it actually buys you into heaven, then $199.99 is a bargain - but I wouldn't be betting my immortal soul on that.

        •  

          @try2bhelpful: what you believe will happen to your immortal soul?

        •  

          @try2bhelpful: Nothing works before its time.

        • +6 votes

          @gto21: It won't be going to heaven because I paid $199.99 for a bunch of drivel; that is for sure. Personally I am an agnostic; I have yet to see any evidence of a supreme being, but I won't discount it as well. All I can say is if he is out there he is one sadistic bastard given the quality of people on earth who represent him. How can he sit on the sidelines whilst children are being raped and tortured by his "representatives". I find it sad that people pray to God after a disaster when, if this did achieve anything, he would have stopped it happening in the first place. As I said, I have no problem with a personal belief system; I have problems with religions that perpetuate bigotry, ignorance and hold themselves up as "moral" guardians whilst simultaneously brutalising others.

        • +8 votes

          @try2bhelpful: It's an apologetics class, it won't get you to heaven. It's for people who want to learn who to answer questions on Christianity. Evil is a by-product of free will. Freewill is not evidenced against God. Secondly, as a human being will you allowed suffering for a greater good? For instance, a dentist can cause suffering but it will lead to a greater good for the client. I can't explain why good or bad stuff happened since I don't have an infinite mind. But as my example of a dentist, some suffering can lead to a greater good. By "representative" I agree Christian can do bad things. You can judge a religion on what the person does, however, you should investigate whether that person is actually representing the faith. If the religion commands them to rape and torture. As a Christian I know I can't keep all the laws of God perfectly. As an atheist, I used to think I'm a good person like most atheist thinks. As a Christian I know I'm a sinner. I'm not saved by my works/deeds but by the free grace given to me. Although my faith should lead to better work overtime. But I won't say I'm better than others. In contrast to other religion, you are not saved by your work that you can boost.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          I'll just leave this here for you:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RtDpva7nE

          And how did good Christians handle this criticism??

          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/stephen-fry-poli...

          By the way if what you've gained from Christianity is to learn you're a filthy sinner, don't spread the disease.

          I'm amazed you can't even grasp the contradictions in your own rant.

        • +1 vote

          @syousef: what does that prove Atheist also send religious people to court. What's your point? Christianity teaches only God is good. Everyone is a sinner including Christian.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          What it proves is that religious people are not open to criticism and many are threatened by ideas that contradict their doctrine.

          You talk about the scientific method as if revising your worldview to fit with reality is a disability. You speak about disprovable nonsense as if it is history. And you refuse to actually get a grasp of what the real science is telling you, instead ridiculing it out of hand. That tells me everything I need to know about your brand of religion. It's toxic.

        • -3 votes

          @syousef: Let take an example of 5 people. If you have one Atheist, one Muslim, one Jew, One Agnostic and one Christian. Let assume all 5 individual is against homosexuality. Are all Gay opened to criticism? And should they be open to criticism? Let see if you're consistent in your argument. It seems you accept any scientific theory as a fact. Theories have been proven wrong and even laws. Science can change.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          I accept any scientific theory as fact do I? So I'm a flat earth anti vaxer who refuses to drink the water due to the flouride and bemoan GMOs huh? TAKE THAT SLANDER BACK. Plenty of people slap the word science on a bunch of hokum. I'm very selective in what I believe. I require a body of evidence, credible sources and some kind of scientific consensus before I accept something.

          Now as to your hypothetical, do you understand the difference between:
          - a fact and an opinion?
          - being "open to criticism" as in considering an argument that doesn't agree with your world view, and actually deciding to accept and accept it?
          - applying the scientific method, and just changing your mind about something for no solid reason other than you feel like it.

          5 individuals think the world is flat. One is a basket-baller. One is a redneck. One is a plumber. One is a singer. And one is unemployed. I have no idea why it matters what or who they are. Does that now make the world flat? I present an abundance of evidence to them that the world is in fact a spheroid and they refuse to believe it. I show them how to conduct their own experiments and they're too lazy and refuse to do anything that would change their comfortable world view? Does the world bend or rather flatten out to their will? Does that make them better than someone that will actually do the experiments and change their mind?

          The sad thing is you think you've found salvation, but all you've done is lost the plot. You sure you want to continue with me? Because as I said I'm no scientific expert nor genius but I can run rings around logic as poor as this.

        • -2 votes

          @syousef: If you can run rings around me, stop diverting and answer my questions. Should Gay be open to criticism? And are all Gay opened to Criticism? And tell me if a scientific theory is a fact? Very easy questions lord of the rings :), stop diverting. I don't believe in a flat earth. That was a poor attempt to divert. I won't bother if you don't answer my questions.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          Why would god create a world then give kids cancer or have kids be raped and murdered or have children live through unimaginable abuse?

          He wouldn’t, it’s a stupid fairy tale because you can’t accept life as it is. All the stories in the bible are from previous religions stolen. Christianity was a made up religion to subdue the Middle East by the Roman’s. Serious look it up it was this joke basically that just completely got out of hand. Grow up, evolve and get with today.

        •  

          @deelaroo: Can you prove to me if a God exists it won't want a world with free will? Evil is a by-product of free will. Can you also prove to me that bad things cannot lead to greater things? For example, a dentist can cause pain but it will lead to a greater good. It's a logical fallacy to think if evil exists that mean God does not exist or God is a moral monster. The premises are not true, thus we can't come to that conclusion. The Romans were persecuting Christians in the first four centuries, what are you talking about? If anything Romans did not want Christianity. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Stop making up stories. You probably can find kinda similar stories in other religion, but I don't see any evidence of copying other religion. You make a claim "get with today" tell me what is reasonable for people to believe in?

        •  

          @syousef: And don't forget one who married a 9 year old.. Paedofile

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          I have answered your questions. The ones that make sense anyway. You just don't recognise the answers. You're trying to force me to answer the questions as you would, so you can come to the conclusion you have already decided is correct. For the ones that don't make sense I've explained exactly why they don't.

          And the irony of telling me "That was a poor attempt to divert" when you're the one whose raised an irrelevant and insulting argument against gay rights would be laughable if it were not so offensive.

          More intellectual dishonesty.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          Greater good CAN be the result of bad things happen, but usually not. Pinning your arguments on hand waving based on the exception rather than the rule doesn't help your case at all.

          The 3 Abrahamic religions have a common root so "I don't see any evidence of copying other religion" just means you haven't studied religions in the wider context of sociology and history.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: You're more like running in circles and not answering the question. Now I understand what you mean by "run rings" lol. I agree you keep "run rings" by diverting and not answering. You obviously have a poor argument. Thus your inability to answer questions. I will just ignore your message, no point.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          You go ahead and ignore my messages. You refuse to acknowledge or understand my answers, so there is no moving forward. I don't want to argue with someone who needs to bring homophobia into a debate and won't allow anyone to correct their broken and incorrect idea of how evolution works.

  • +7 votes

    nah, i think a free scientology course would be better value

    • +2 votes

      I got interviewed by scientology recruiters. This is what they said to me without paraphrasing: "Sorry, we can't help you"

      I guess I'm just not gullible! :)

      •  

        Are you sure you heard that right? It wasn't "Sorry we can't bilk you"?

    •  

      the course is free, but you pay big time after that.

  • +3 votes

    Please, this is the last thing we need in ozb.

  •  

    We’re not sure which he loves more, theology or jazz. Dr. Groothuis is a connoisseur of both.

    Oh Doctor!

  • +2 votes

    Downloaded it. Thanks OP.

    •  

      You're welcome sister May :)

  •  

    Do not want.

  •  

    Title should be updated; it's not a video; but rather an online course.
    I have no idea on the quality of the teaching… but I'm thinking that free makes this a bargain - at least for those interested in this area…

    • +3 votes

      Because free religious dogma is so hard to find?

      Aside from Scientology, isn't it normally free?

      •  

        you obviosuly haven't visited a church for awhile, they've not only had EFTPOS for the chuch plate for 10+yrs, they've always chased up parishioners when they think they haven't handed over enough (I believe the cattleticks recommend 10% of your gross income).

        •  

          I'm against this practice in church. I won't recommend anyone to join that kind of church. However, I can confirm not all church are same. Probably should try another denomination. As you might notice the same pattern in some denomination.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21: denomination

  • +2 votes

    "The Problem of Religious Pluralism" - One topic I can agree with, better ditch them all. Problem solved!

    Next editions: DeathEater Apologetics 101, Galactic Empire Apologetics 101 followed by the hotly anticipated Vegan Apologetics 101

    • +1 vote

      followed by the hotly anticipated Vegan Apologetics 101

      Don't even! ;)

  • +1 vote

    Free stuff like this always costs you in the end.

  • +8 votes

    Should Christians be worried that their beliefs don’t measure up in an age of modernity?

    It depends on what they believe. Even the pope believes in the big bang and evolution.

    Dr Groothuis repeatedly goes the the bible as his authority, and of course this has major conflicts with modern knowledge, not just science.
    OK, it is an impressive collection of literature, but Genesis was written by people who believed in a flat earth. Heaven was literally above the clouds.
    There is wisdom, but we've come a long way since then.

    Far better quality information on religion is always free online, from churches and individuals.

    •  

      The issue you have with science, scientist make new discoveries, changes theories in science and so on. What was true a few years ago it's not true anymore due to new discoveries, what we know now also might be disproved in the future. Science is not a good way to compare. The bible is not a science book. However, you have history in it. And we can investigate if it has historical and archeological evidence to believe in it. An example you said big bang. So everything is created from nothing that what most people who believe in big bang believes. It's a scientific impossibility to create from nothing. Can scientist create something out of nothing in a lab? can any human create anything out of nothing? I'm not much into science if I'm correct evolution is a theory, not a law. And no one has ever proved a species have changed to another. I will encourage you to investigate reasons for and against God and Christianity and other religions as well if you want.

      •  

        So everything is created from nothing that what most people who believe in big bang believes.

        Okay… but it's the best theory we have so far. To the best of your knowledge/beliefs, how was the universe created?

        • +1 vote

          Prove it to me you can create something out of nothing. with your empty hands create something. It's impossible. The best explanation I can think of is that you have an intelligent designer (creator). You have other theory by scientist which none can be proven. Since we know everything was created, we probably have something/ or a being before creation which is extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, created the entire universe and everything in it

        • +7 votes

          @gto21:
          who created the intelligent desiger? A more intelligent designer? It is turtles all the way down?

        •  

          @manic: you will have a point where you must have a being which is uncreated and eternal. An Uncaused Cause. You can't have everything created out of anything. Scientifically impossible.

        • +1 vote

          @manic:

          everything that has a beginning has a cause

          time space and matter came into existence at the same time and therefore since nothing material can create time, space and matter
          it's origin would be from a timeless, immaterial Being who has existed eternally outside time Who had no beginning

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          An Uncaused Cause.

          That argument has been going on since long before Christianity was invented.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

          Scientifically impossible.

          What does that even mean?

        •  

          @manic:

          it means scientifically time space and matter cannot come from nowhere or nothing

        •  

          @manic: do you agree with an uncaused cause?
          It means no scientist or you can create something out of nothing. Put all the condition necessary in a lab, and you won't be able to create something out of nothing. It's impossible.

        •  

          @gto21:
          You naive and nonsensical question is full of bad assumptions and misunderstandings. I could spend hours on the subject, but why, when so many more articulate people than I have already done so?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

          Ok, lets start relatively simple. What does it mean for something to "exist"? Few people of average intelligence can answer this.

        •  

          @manic: you did not answer my question but diverting. I can also replied by sending you links and videos. Why should I replied when you have people like William Lane Craig and many other who already answered?

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          OK, your question makes no sense because you only understand the words in an everyday sense.
          What does "create" mean? For a start, it requires time. Once you go outside of space and time, your meaning makes no sense.

          You know enough science to have a vague idea of "conservation", so cannot get something from nothing. But that is a property of classical physics. All physics is only an approximation to reality. In relativity, energy is not always conserved.
          In quantum mechanics, particles constantly come in and out of existence.

        •  

          @manic: where does space, time and energy come from?

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          where does space, time and energy come from?

          In the beginning was the Creation of the Universe. This has made a lot of people angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

          Many races believe that the creation of the Universe involved some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids live in perpetual fear of the time they call "the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief", somewhat similar to the Apocalypse. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being as wide and strange as it is, other explanations are constantly being sought by different races throughout the Galaxy.

        •  

          @manic: Where does the universe come from?

        • +1 vote

          Everyone who thinks that the big bang came out of nothing is sadly mistaken. It's a common misconception. I'll try and see if I can make it more understandable.

          All of our scientific achievements have been based upon the ability to observe, theorise and then repeat. To do that in any meaningful ways, we need to have a frame of reference so that everyone else repeating the experiments have a common method of understanding. Under most circumstances, the concepts of space (3 dimensional space) and time are good enough approximations to act as that frame of reference.

          However, when we talk about heavy gravity behaviours such as a black hole, a lot of these frame of references start to break down. Time no longer behaves the same way as it does outside of a black hole. Space becomes intensely warped that mathematical calculations based on our current theories become meaningless.

          So in the case of the big bang, it's not that it came out of nothing. But rather, that we have no frames of reference that can measure before the big bang since space and time itself doesn't mean anything anymore (mathematically). We say it's nothing (scientifically) not because there's actually nothing. It's because we don't know what it is. It's like trying to use a mirror to look at itself. We just don't have that 2nd mirror to use as a frame of reference. Maybe one day, we will. We're getting better at understanding the big bang, and making progress towards understanding the actual big bang itself. But I don't think any respectable scientist could provide a better theory of the origins of the universe aside from the big bang.

        •  

          That's actually a huge misconception. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about what was before the Big Bang. The laws of physics literally don't work when you squeeze everything far enough. We have a detailed theory that describes a lot after the development of the universe after the first fractions of a second, predicts certain things like the cosmic microwave background, abundance of elements.

          But it's far from complete and we're still looking for answers to questions like "what happened before", "what is this dark energy accelerating the expansion", "does this mean there have to be other universes". Some of this, so far is completely untestable. Some may become testable as our knowledge improves.

        •  

          @syousef: In summary your first paragraph the answer is: "we don't know what was before the big bang" and the second paragraph is: "we don't know yet". If all your answer is I don't know. Do you agree its possible everything came from an uncreated, all-powerful, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, intelligent being? or you don't know but still, refuse the possibility of something like God?

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          I only claim that I don't know. That is not an extraordinary claim. It doesn't require any evidence.

          You claim you do know that it is an "all-powerful, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, intelligent being". That is an extraordinary claim. You're going to have to provide more evidence than a video course and a book written by peasant shepherds 400 years after the stories in the book occurred. A book written before all of the current science was discovered which contradicts most of that science so much that most people have to resort to stating that it isn't literally true to continue to follow it.

          Prove to me that you wouldn't be just as convinced of any other religion being true had you been born elsewhere? Show me why your "one true religion" should be correct and all the others wrong.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: It has the strongest worldview. Bring me another faith with more historical and archeological evidence to support their claims?

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          Stating something doesn't constitute proof. Please explain and prove that "it has the strongest world view". You ignorance of other religions does not make them less valid. Do you know ANYTHING about the history of some of the other major faiths?

          The statistics are very clear. A person's religion correlates very VERY strongly with where they were born and the faith of their parents.

        •  

          @syousef: It has more archeological and historical evidence than any other religion. We have over 24000 manuscripts to support our claims. We also have evidence from non-Christians and non-biblical as well. Nothing in history comes even close. Give me one person we have more historical evidence than Jesus in the first century? You don't have any evidence you just keep making claims. I'm not going to debate you on something you have no evidence like yesterday. All your belief is based on faith. You can't prove any of them. I will need more faith to be an atheist than a religious person. I brought forward Jesus is a historical figure, we know more about him than anyone in the first century. Can you even give me more historical evidence for important people in the first century that will exceed Jesus? Surely a person like the emperor will have more historical evidence? You never studied the matter, your arguing for the sake of arguing. Your making statement from ignorance.

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          You don't do comprehension but you do hypocrisy don't you. You accuse me of making claims without evidence but that's EXACTLY what you've done.

          Show me evidence of your "24000 manuscripts". Show me this evidence you keep talking about but haven't produced.

          You keep repeatedly stating that Jesus is a historical figure even after I have asked you why it's not a major topic in history.

          Also please prove to me that the more manuscripts you have the more true something is.

          There are plenty of religious leaders with more solid historical evidence for their existence their existence. You wanted one. Okay. Here you go. I can't wait to hear how you turn this one around. I need some comedy today.
          https://owlcation.com/humanities/10-Greatest-Religious-Leade...

          Do you even know what study means? And how do you know what I have and haven't studied?

          And you ignore every single question I pose to you and every single explanation I give you. I'd be better off arguing with a rabbit. You are beyond help.

          So here's how I end this. I'm going to say I hope you wake up before you add more harm to the world. Because that is what religious zealotry always does.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: I guess you can't provide more evidence for the emperor of that time since you diverted and did no respond. The earlier the evidence and different source of evidence historian can determine how much we can trust the source. The first name on your link is Muhammad. We don't have any manuscript before the 10th century which agrees with the current Quran. Muhamad lived in the 7th century. We don't have one Uthamic Quran, or manuscript for it. The Quran we have was canonised in 1924. We still find 26 differennt arabic quran: Walsh, Doori, Hafs and so on. The Sahih hadith that Sunni Muslims (the vast majority of Muslims) used is dated 200 years after Muhammad. Scolars agree, even agnostic scholars like Bart Erhman, even liberal scholars, I don't even need conversative scholars. The first creed is dated monts after Jesus death. The letters of Paul, few years after the death of Jesus, the lastest gospel 90 AD. Everything was recorded within 30 years. And 90 AD that the dating by liberal scholars. A conservative scholar will date it before the fall of Jerusaeulm. We have Paprii evidence like p66 dated 100-150 AD. We have people saw Jesus recording history, even non-chrisitians and non-biblical evidence. You don't know anything about history don't waste my time. I can't be bothered wasting my time with you. You have zero evidence. I'm not going to argue with you all day when you have zero evidence. Pick up a book and read.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21: Your issue is not seeing the difference between what is possible, and what is probable. There is zero evidence for your claims. If there was, we would know about it. It would be headlines, and the world would be a different place. In the case of christianity, when all discussion is over, the only evidence offered is "a feeling".

          What is more likely? "a feeling" a believer wants to experience is the result of psychology, or an unidentified/unexplained deity based on the writings of bronze age Jews, who's religion can be shown to trace back to an historical influence by Persian religions, is a reality?

      • +6 votes

        That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

        •  

          check the course and determine what evidence is included instead of assumption
          how unwise

        •  

          You can check the historical and archeological evidence. It can be proven. Do some research.

        • +4 votes

          @gto21:

          It cannot be proven. That's why it's called "faith".

        • -1 vote

          @hcca:

          same as your faith that a single cell changed into a human after the god of time and chance

          molecules to man (unobserved and untestable therefore unscientific)

        • +2 votes

          @thelastnoob:

          Trying to use arguments against science when your only proof of god is one book and what you were taught as an impressionable child doesn't really fly.

        •  

          @hcca: Faith is a belief. A belief can be based on evidence. You're assuming that faith always mean blind faith.

        •  

          @hcca:

          what did I say against science?

        • +2 votes

          @thelastnoob:

          Why do people have comical and inaccurate ideas about what evolution is and how it works?

          You and your friend hear a car's tyres screech and then the sound of a car crash. You come around the corner to see the wreck against a tree. Your friend see's the car and says "My god there's been a crash, quick call the ambulance". Do you turn to your friend and say "You are being unscientific. You don't know there was a crash. You didn't see it! You can't know there was a crash. All you know is there is a wreck!"? No? That would be ridiculous you say? THEN WHY DO YOU DO THAT WITH EVOLUTION!!?!?!? We have lots of evidence. You just haven't bothered to look at it. Instead you're busy discrediting childish of what evolution is.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: WHat a load of rubbish. We can observe car crash. Based on our previous experience we call tell its a car crash. We might have seen one in person, maybe in the news. It's real. It's logical to come to that conclusion based on what we can observe. Whereas, evolution no one has ever seen a cell becoming an animal. You doing a series of logical fallacies.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:

          Pull the wax out of your ears. You and your friend did NOT observe this particular car crash. It was around the corner. You can't go back in time and observe it. Yet you have evidence it happened. Do you deny it anyway? How many crash investigators actually saw the incident they are investigating? Are they all "unscientific". You aren't even trying to understand.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: Mate I've seen car crash before, I can also see it online. It happens for real. It can easily be proven. It's logical to come to that conclusion based on what we can observe. Your conclusion is not based on anyone observing a cell becoming an animal. Your argument is absolute nonsense. It's a failed analogy.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:

          No my argument has never been about "observing a cell becoming an animal". I have repeatedly and in many different ways told you that is not my argument. You keep repeating that is my argument because you are dishonest and incapable of learning.

      • +2 votes

        An example you said big bang. So everything is created from nothing

        I'm just going to say that the big bang theory is not at all what you seem to think.
        It explains how the universe developed from a super-dense, super-hot state to create the complexity we see today.
        And it was invented by a priest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

        I don't think he saw any conflict between science and religion, just religious fundamentalism,

        • -1 vote

          what do you have before the big bang?

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          First we need to distinguish between the idea of the big bang, and the formal theory of the big bang.

          Hard Science: The theory has tangible evidence only from 300,000 years later, the CMB.
          Anything earlier is based on mathematical models that predict what we see. These models totally break down when you get too dense, a small fraction of a second after the nominal moment of "creation", so the theory does not actually cover creation as you see it.

          Philosophy: As for the idea, what was before? Well the question makes no sense, as time and space are properties of the universe. The universe does not exist "in time", rather time exists in the universe. "Creation" creates time itself. Creation is not something in our past or in some place, but everywhere and always. There is no before and no after.

        • +2 votes

          @manic: so before creation it was spaceless and timeless?

        • +6 votes

          @gto21:

          You don't get it. There is no "before", just as there is no "outside". Its not that nothing happened.

          To quote Hawking: "Thus to ask what happened before the beginning of the Universe would be like asking what is south of the south pole. It would be meaningless."

          edit: people, please do not downvote genuine questions, such as above. Sorry gto21 for whoever did that.

        •  

          @manic: So asking what was before the universe is created is meaningless. But you ask me what was before an intelligent being is not meaningless? How is it meaningless when we know everything is created. The universe is not uncreated or eternal.