Dearest Vel, I have been asking you the most straightforward question, yet you still fail to answer me. My question is… Can abiogenesis and biological evolution be investigated and evaluated using the scientific method, and if so, to what extent? If you are unable to answer the question clearly, you resort to attacking me instead. When you do, your statement collapses under its own assumptions.

This note explores what real faith looks like in a broken world. It shows how a man or woman can stand firm when culture falls apart, how God strengthens those who trust Him, and why hope rises even in dark seasons. It invites readers into a journey of courage, redemption, and steady confidence in God’s hand at work.

There comes a time in every generation when men and women must decide what they believe. A time when the noise of the world becomes so loud that the voice of truth is nearly drowned out. A time when the foundations of society begin to shake. And a time when the question is no longer whether we will face adversity, but whether we will stand firm when adversity comes.

Examining Shawn T. Murphy's Reincarnation Defense By Charles D. Mason, Ph.D. The Mason Brief Shawn T. Murphy's October 2026 paper, Reconsidering the Evidential and Historical Boundaries of Reincarnation, responds to my audit, "From Case Reports to Metaphysical Conclusions." It deserves a careful answer, because it concedes a great deal.

A look at the earliest testimony, the empty tomb, and six questions for anyone who denies the resurrection. Here is the claim. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He was buried. On the third day he rose from the dead. I believe that, and I think the evidence supports it. I also think the people who say no owe us something: evidence, not just the idea that another explanation is possible.

Reincarnation, borrowed authority, and the apostolic message of salvation Paul warned the Galatians about “another gospel.” He did not describe a crude lie. He described a message close enough to the real one to pull people off it. The reincarnation-and-restoration teaching now circulating online fits that description. It is built from separate claims, and each one borrows strength from the next. I answered a version of this teaching in a public thread, and the author has since blocked my replies. So I am setting the argument out here, where it can be checked.

Here is a Debate I am having... what do you think? Sir, Thank you for the color-coded response. Reading your inline comments carefully, I see where we actually agree, where you have genuinely engaged my argument, and where you have answered a position I did not take. I will address the second group first because it is the biggest piece of ground that needs clearing before the real disagreements can get a fair hearing.

Your argument repeatedly moves between questions that must be distinguished: how human beings acquired moral feelings, whether moral judgments are objectively true, why anyone is morally obligated to obey them, whether evolutionary explanations establish metaphysical naturalism, and whether the God revealed in Scripture exists.

Three claims get merged in almost every argument from evil. "I do not see God." "I cannot explain why God permits this." "There is no God." The first two are reports about the speaker. Only the third is a claim about reality, and only the third carries a burden of proof. This article follows a recent exchange with an atheist and the replies it drew. It sorts the arguments into what each one establishes and what it does not.

Here's a question I keep running into. Someone tells me they don't believe in God because "there's no evidence." I ask what evidence would change their mind. Most of the time, I don't get an answer. I get a book list instead. That's worth stopping on, because it happens on every side of this argument, mine included. We all carry around a stack of books and thinkers we trust. The question is whether we're honest about that, or whether we pretend our stack is "just the facts" while everyone else's stack is "just belief."