Could you answer my question with a yes or a no please.
No. I will not answer your question with a yes or a no. Its not a yes or no question.
Do you even understand why proteins and such do what they do? It's because of their shape. And their shape is an emergent property of their construction. If I told you to mark a point on a piece of paper, and then make a series of other marks that are all the same distance from that first mark, you're gonna get a circle. It's an emergent property of the process.
And a circle gets you no where. In fact, I'll give you an expert opinion on your very simplistic scenario:
Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.
As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Something which we have no evidence for, but is perfectly consistent with known scientific principles is a lot LESS extraordinary than invoking a deity.
You see that is only due to your own presuppositional worldview that allows you to have no valid evidence for life coming from non-living matter and yet claim due to the natural world existing, it is a lot LESS extraordinary..that doesn't come from logic that comes from bias. Which is fine, we all have biases within our worldview, it just so happens that the Christian Worldview is more cohesive and coherent in terms with the reality of the universe.
I believe it stands alone because I have never seen any situation where it can be demonstrated that a naturalistic worldview alone can't explain something.
Yes you have. Life from non-living matter, information within the life form, how the universe came into being. Why the universe and earth both appear to be designed for life. How the laws of logic can exist in any universe, at any time and any where. Those are just a few that Science can't demonstrate in a naturalistic world view.
Yes, because the Laryngeal nerve is most efficient, the way it goes from the brain to the larynx by way of the aortic arch.
What would you do if you had to think for yourself and not depend on some atheist website to make your arguments for you?
I asked for sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus.
You said that the documents in the New Testament are such examples.
I am now asking you to provide evidence that the documents in the New Testament about Jesus actually came from the time of Jesus.
Scholar usually agree that the original documents (and there is evidence of original documents)were written earlier than those complied some mere decades later. The New Testament has more documentation and earlier than any other written antiquity.
I don't know how you found this unclear.
I didn't.
But in the far future, some person who believes in Arthur the Giant Poodle could say to an Arthur Denier, "Okay, show me some source from 2020 that says that Arthur doesn't exist!"
Now why on Earth would anyone alive today write about the non-existence of a character who hasn't even been invented yet?
Why would there be any mention of Arthur existing at all? Do you see the problem? We have people that are writing about a non-existing Man? Why would they?
Irrelevant. You claimed that Mara Bar-Serapion referenced several people and since we can show that some of those people were real, we should conclude that they were all real. I am pointing out that people can refer to real people and ficticious people all in the same sentence.
That is your choice.
Love this take on the, "If you knew what I knew, you'd know that I'm right."
This is about Christianity as a whole and it isn't an I'm right, it is Christian facts.
Yes, just giving me the person's name and not any actual paper they have written is enough to convince me!
Look at what you have given me, nothing supported by anything other than your opinion.
Care to actually provide a SOURCE in which he demonstrates what you claim he demonstrated? You're the one who has to support your claim, don't do a half way job of it. I'm not going to finish your homework for you. I'm not your mum.[/Quote]I gave you what you asked for.
That went over your head.
And what pagan figures would those be?
If you are curious, look it up.
Given the amount of actually verifiable evidence I've seen, I doubt his statement.
What would that verifiable evidence would that be?
Of course, if they didn't and merely drew upon pre-existing myths, then it's no surprise at all, is it?
Suit yourself.
And nothing.
