Lee Strobel - The Case For A Creator Christ And Faith (Pack) (DivX)

Lee Strobel - The Case For A Creator, Christ And Faith. (Pack) (DivX) The Case For A Creator (2006) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938294 1 Hour 672 x 384 29 Fps 1600 Kbps The Case For Christ (2007) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1153037 1 Hour 11 Mins 640 x 352 29 Fps 1400 Kbps The Case For Faith (2008) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316585 1 Hour 17 Mins 524 x 368 29 Fps 1350 Kbps

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

riteonman2001 (2010-12-30)

Anyone watching this video set with an open mind has to come to the same conclusion as Strobel did. But you have to be completely honest with yourself and throw away your preconceptions.

teedubbb (2011-06-23)

Thanks for uploading!

c_programmer (2012-04-21)

Convincing for the person who wants to be convinced. If you accept all his arguments and premises at face value this is a very convincing series. However, having read the book and seen these videos I am utterly unconvinced that he is doing anything more than pushing religion though pseudo-science.
If you are truly interested, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne then watch this. Many of the claims in this rely on the viewers incorrect understanding of evolution. I assure you this will not be a convincing argument after you've read the aforementioned book.

c_programmer (2012-04-21)

I should have mentioned, my comment was only regarding A Case for a Creator. I've also read A Case for Christ but don't want to touch on that one other than saying its no more than already refuted CS Lewis arguments.

DumboJet (2015-08-22)

@c_programmer
Honestly, I really think that reading books and watching videos is the worst way of coming to ANY conclusions, except if this material contains scientific facts. Not Dawking's kind of "facts", but scientific facts. Testable, repeatable, observable, provable, reasonable facts.
Now, having myself read and watched many of these materials I can say that creationist materials usually contain many scientific facts, while evolutionary materials usually contains (mostly if not purely) theories and assumptions on top of assumptions that if you critically process them you are left with pure garbage. That's not science and in come cases it is not even science fiction, rather than wild distortion of reality.
It makes my day watching evolutionists talk on the web and find at least one logical fallacy on each of their statements. It is hard to believe the low requirements universities have for granting degrees and professorships nowadays...
Now regarding evolution, and apart from the obvious nature of it's supposed driving forces that by no means could ever generate anything constructive, it should be crystal clear to all real scientists nowadays that every living organism around us degenerates both in practice and in theory (but not in Darwinian theories that go against logic). If that's not enough, you can then consider that the gene paradigm is now over. DNA is not about genes anymore as we once thought. Apparently, the so-called by the evolutionists "junk DNA" is the most important part of our genetic code and this is not possible to evolve simply because it is not genes but the code of the cell's operating system (taking up to 98% of our genome by the way...). Now being a programmer in my everyday life, any person that comes to me and even suggests the concept of code evolving by itself, will automatically be assigned with the moron/nut/charlatan tag.
I myself have worked on evolutionary algorithms which are MUCH better designed for achieving something useful than the ones that supposedly exist in our cells and in our populations to drive evolution. These algorithms suck. And if even those better algorithms that are running inside controlled environments in monster computers do not work good enough in solving the simplest problems, Dawking's evolution DEFINITELY does not work. Period.