The most sincere and humble Brothers of the Red Onion declare as a magnificent and wonderful goal the quest for good beer, Christian Fellowship, and a deep and abiding philosophy of philosophizing.
Great article by a great scientist. This guy knows his science. Coupled with a good understanding of Judaism, he's a force to behold. Check out some of his other articles and pod-casts.
I gotta question for you guys. We use statistics to say that there is a one in a bazillion chance that someone actually existed as the Messiah, i.e. one who could fulfill all of the prophecies in the Old Testament (roughly paraphrased from Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ) so Jesus must have been it because the statistics are so staggering... On the other hand, in reference to the above article, we use statistics the exact opposite... "there's a one in a bazillion chance that the proteins could've constructed themselves in such a way..." so we say there's NO WAY that the origin of life began the way evolutionist portray... Am I missing something here? Please do jump all over my misconceptions, but with me reading Lee's book at the exact time I read the above article it seems we're playing the numbers game to support our point of view...any thoughts?
I think the first thing to remember is that the probability that one individual could fulfill the many prophecies spoken of a future Messiah are astronomical. Especially when you consider Jesus Christ's radical claims about himself. When you survey the information given hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus and then see the many ways in which he actually fulfilled those prophecies it becomes a strong argument for Jesus as the Messiah. The other part of the question is kind of in a whole different "phyla" if you will. Could the random mutations of Natural selection account for the huge amount of different species. Or the way a simple protein isn't actually simple. When one looks at the way the most basic building blocks of life are so intricately and precisely arranged it is staggering to try to apply the equitation of time+chance+matter=highly evolved "bipedal naked apes" not to mention the other billion forms of differing life. And how did we get "matter" in the first place. It seems to me that the numbers are statistically working for us in every direction. One, that no other person besides Jesus could fulfill the Prophecies in the O.T. and considering His radical personal claims we have a very good justification for believing that Jesus is who He said He is. Second, that the probability of a "mutation" in DNA would result in something positive,(a positive and gradual change in species) is so statistically absurd as to render it impossible for all intents and purposes. Is that what you were wondering? Maybe I should have made a post about it. That is what I think about it off the top of my mustache.
Despite the odds against such things as Christ and proteins, they actually exist. Their existence shows me that some reasonable and powerful thing is behind the curtain moving the dice in the right direction, or setting up the conditions for the dice to move on their own.
Great article by a great scientist. This guy knows his science. Coupled with a good understanding of Judaism, he's a force to behold. Check out some of his other articles and pod-casts.
ReplyDeleteI gotta question for you guys. We use statistics to say that there is a one in a bazillion chance that someone actually existed as the Messiah, i.e. one who could fulfill all of the prophecies in the Old Testament (roughly paraphrased from Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ) so Jesus must have been it because the statistics are so staggering... On the other hand, in reference to the above article, we use statistics the exact opposite... "there's a one in a bazillion chance that the proteins could've constructed themselves in such a way..." so we say there's NO WAY that the origin of life began the way evolutionist portray... Am I missing something here? Please do jump all over my misconceptions, but with me reading Lee's book at the exact time I read the above article it seems we're playing the numbers game to support our point of view...any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI think the first thing to remember is that the probability that one individual could fulfill the many prophecies spoken of a future Messiah are astronomical. Especially when you consider Jesus Christ's radical claims about himself. When you survey the information given hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus and then see the many ways in which he actually fulfilled those prophecies it becomes a strong argument for Jesus as the Messiah. The other part of the question is kind of in a whole different "phyla" if you will. Could the random mutations of Natural selection account for the huge amount of different species. Or the way a simple protein isn't actually simple. When one looks at the way the most basic building blocks of life are so intricately and precisely arranged it is staggering to try to apply the equitation of time+chance+matter=highly evolved "bipedal naked apes" not to mention the other billion forms of differing life. And how did we get "matter" in the first place. It seems to me that the numbers are statistically working for us in every direction.
ReplyDeleteOne, that no other person besides Jesus could fulfill the Prophecies in the O.T. and considering His radical personal claims we have a very good justification for believing that Jesus is who He said He is. Second, that the probability of a "mutation" in DNA would result in something positive,(a positive and gradual change in species) is so statistically absurd as to render it impossible for all intents and purposes.
Is that what you were wondering? Maybe I should have made a post about it. That is what I think about it off the top of my mustache.
Despite the odds against such things as Christ and proteins, they actually exist. Their existence shows me that some reasonable and powerful thing is behind the curtain moving the dice in the right direction, or setting up the conditions for the dice to move on their own.
ReplyDeleteReplace "dice" with "ball" in the above post.
ReplyDeleteI like dice. Makes sense to me.
ReplyDelete