It's all just math.
Lots of words about math and not much math. I’m guessing this guy flunked algebra in school because he never showed his work nor his proof.
in the 60’s there was a convention of scientists in chicago where it was determined scientifically and mathematically that evolution was impiossible- these were not ‘Christian scientists’ these were the top scientists of their time- Of course sicne hten htey’ve been ridiculed, ostracised, and mostl ikely harrassed for buckign hte faith of eviolution- but recent scientists liek Demski have also concluded that mathematically, evoltuion is impossible, and not just by a little bit- but rather by such a large margin that there is no possible way it coudl have happened (and demski coems to htese conclusions DESPITE beleiving that evolution is how we came to be... unless he’s changed his mind recently- but liek ehe- I think he still beleives we evovled despite hte evidnece agaisnt it)
Proof of the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ? That's what people need to be shown.
Amen on all 300! I find these fascinating, some 600 years before Christ was born, yet he is the speaker in these Zechariah passages:
I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price...So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver, 11:12. Thirty pieces of silver, exactly Judas' "price," Matt. 26:14, 15.
And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, 12:10. "Me" he said, they shall look upon "me," and who was it that was pierced but Jesus Christ? John 19:34 quotes this passage as a prophecy of Christ's crucifixion.
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends, 13:6.
Amazing, simply amazing. Proof positive for Christianity.
I find this to be a very good argument.
Atheists however, would try to debunk it by pointing out that the person of Jesus would know these prophecies, and some could be fulfilled by him through conscious action (riding the donkey).
They would also dispute that many of these events, such as the purchase of the Potter’s field, are only confirmed by the Bible itself, therefore it cannot be trusted.
In short, atheists and others will assert that Jesus would have actively tried to fulfill prophecies, and any he didn’t fulfill, could have been embellished by the disciples.
I would say the best argument for Christ is the resurrection. The phenomena of the empty tomb, from all of the background facts we can ascertain from the information we do have, is very hard to explain. If I’m not mistaken, most historians have concluded there was indeed an empty tomb, and they have no explanation as to why that was.
If we can prove that the resurrection was probable, everything else simply falls into place, since Jesus’ claims would have been vindicated.
Personally, the Shroud of Turin has always been my favorite piece of evidence. Scientists are still scratching their head with that one.
There must be a definition of the word “mathematical” that I am not familiar with.
evoltuionists liek to say that ‘even if hte number is very small (severely understatign how small then umber actually is), then it ‘coudl have happened’ however, the event of one protein happenign by chance is so small it is not even a possibility, but let’;s say it did happen somehow- we then have hte problem that 2,000,000 morew impossible events owuld have had to occure as well in order forl ife to be a viable reality
[[the mathematical probability that a human protein could accidentally arise from random combinations of those 20 possible amino acids into a specific human protein is 1 chance in 20 to the 100th power, or well beyond 1 in 10 to the 100th power.
Carl Sagan estimated this probability to be approximately 1 in 10 to the 130th power (Carl Sagan, Encyclopaedia Britannica).
So, since Borel’s Law indicates that it’s ridiculous to consider probabilities with odds of less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power, that what does that tell us about whether or not a protein could “create itself” accidentally?]]
http://www.religiouslyincorrect.com/Articles/ChemicalEvolution5.shtml
[[1 chance in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power is so absurdly unlikely that it’s trillions upon trillions of times less likely than science’s definition of “mathematical impossibility.”]]
of coursem sot iwll simply dismiss all this based o nthe fact that it was posted on a ‘religious’ site- however, these numbers were used durign hte cofnerencei n chicago back i nthe 60’s as well, and demski has also come up with much of hte same- but none of htis matters because Chirstians are ‘ignorant of science’ and therefore aren’t capable of understanding thta nature is so brilliant and supernatural that it coudl do the impossible
I heard that before a while back - it is not new. But the person did not say faith was not needed. Anyone who says that will be reject whatever else comes out of their mouth.
“Without faith it is impossible to please Mim: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”
.
Jesus says, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”
You’ll like this one.
I live by Christian principles, imperfectly like all of us who follow the path.
This self-reverential silliness is an embarrassment.
But it is typical of what happens when men place themselves between Christians and Christ.
No intermediary between a soul and Christ is required.
Besides, I was told there would be no math.
See our site www.faithfacts.org — one of the oldest apologetics sites on the Internet.
Thank you for this beautiful post.
The only item I have a hard time with is this:
“He loves you far more than you can fathom.”
I really CAN’T fathom Him loving us to such a degree for we are so incredibly unworthy.
This is precisely chrstianity's constant mistake of two millenia. The "new testament" fulfills the "old" because it (the "new") says so. Ie, it assumes from the outset the authority of the "new testament" to authoritatively interpret the "old." This is the classic logical fallacy of "assumption of the consequent."
Joseph Smith claimed that he personally was prophesied in the chrstian bible. Most chrstians ridicule the idea. But his logic is no different from that of chrstians who "prove" the "new testament" by simply quoting its claims about J*sus' alleged fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. "I was prophesied in the bible, and we know this is true because I say so, and I was prophesied in the bible!"
The argument is no different than saying one plus one equals five, because I already believe that it equals five.
See the material here.