Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2,953 bytes removed ,  00:46, August 22, 2007
Whether or not certain debaters for atheism are effective has no relevance to informing the reader about atheism. So I got rid of it.
Line 75: Line 75:  
Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]]. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
 
Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]]. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
 
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.  <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].
 
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.  <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].
−
  −
==Ineffectiveness of Atheist Debaters==
  −
===Doug Jesseph===
  −
In October of 1997, Jeffrey Jay Lowder stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref>  In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>
  −
  −
===Gordon Stein===
  −
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent atheist Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine.  [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>
  −
  −
===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===
  −
  −
Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref> The reason Dr. Bahnsen became known as the man atheist fear most was that [[Harvard]] educated Dr. [[Michael Martin]] was scheduled  to debate Dr. Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate close to the debates arrival. At the time, a press release stated that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein."<ref>http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm</ref>
  −
  −
Dr. Michael Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>
      
== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
 
== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
14

edits

Navigation menu