GarryB wrote:Fine tuned after 14 billion years.
Natural selection is as much about luck as anything else... the strong and the smart can be eliminated from the gene pool just as easily as the small and weak, so progress is slow.
The enormous variety of life on earth just shows the variability of carbon based life forms and there could be plenty of others.
In fact references to heaven and existence after death might actually refer to an energy based existence for life forms after they bodies die... we might not understand the afterlife in the same way a caterpillar does not understand flight or being a butterfly or moth.
For all we know the afterlife might just be another dimension life forms from this dimension migrate to after they pass from here.
Nope, fine tuned from the very beginning...there are about 100 constants discovered so far that are a fundamental part of the universe and must be within a very short range of the value we can measure them in or life in the universe wouldn't be possible; e.g., consider the strong nuclear force: if increased by 2% there would be almost no hydrogen in the universe, but if decreased by 5% hydrogen would practically be the only element. The mathematician Sir Roger Penrose, for example, calculated in his book with Stephen Hawking "The Nature of Space and Time" that the probability of obtaining any kind of universe at all capable of supporting life is roughly 1 chance in 10^(10^123). That's fine tuning.
Natural selection is primarily a conservative force (selecting out the sick)...it does not have any creative potential as I've explained in my previous posts.
Read something written by ignoramuses who lived thousands of years ago, full of contradictions and historically phony material…Ehrman and Crossan know it as good or better than anybody. No doubt you can read it in the original Greek, like they can.
I can scarcely believe any educated person stills believe this kind of crap. It's worse than stupid to think "demons and angels" are more credible than aliens. We are spacefaring (albeit beginner) aliens, from the point of view of the rest of the Universe.
The fact that we can travel small distances outside the Earth's atmosphere only means something if there are actually any other intelligent civilizations out there for the purposes of this discussion. You haven't proven how it is possible that aliens can exist when Darwinism is an utter failure, alternative explanations for the sightings exist and a proper world view can account for everything, including knowledge, truth and morality, without supporting the existence of aliens. That is a question you have "conveniently" skipped, by the way: how, in your "enlightened" world view, do you even account for knowledge, truth and morality? How do you even know what is true and what isn't?
The rest is just more ad-hominem, which shows your insecurities and incompetence at constructing proper arguments.
You asserting that "the Bible is full of contradictions" doesn't make it so (that's just ad-hoc)...referring to some anti-Christian scholar is called argumentum ad auctoritatem, another fallacy, as I've already told you.
As to Koine Greek: the Church Fathers and the hierarchs of the first 6 centuries, who compiled the Bible had Greek as their mother-tongue
or achieved high proficiency in their studies, as evidenced by their letters and other documents. Lopuchin et al., whose Bible commentary I often consult, were also proficient at ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.
Even Ehrman, in his ridiculous book "Misquoting Jesus", admits that any variations in the Bible's different manuscripts don't impact the doctrinal teachings we derive from it, so even according to someone as dishonest and incompetent as him our theology isn't impacted by variations and this is what counts.
The technology is obviously real as radar sightings and landing traces indicate.
Some UFOs could be holographic but many must be physical, given crash retrieval accounts, two of which appear real.
So? I told you that physical effects are possible and even gave you examples of such accounts from the ancient times, way before the originally low-IQ position of atheism became popular, thus enabling these kinds of ridiculous deceptions today.
Strauss appeals to consensus when he says most cosmologists agree with Barnes.
The fallacy... argument undermines the last "evidence" for "god" but even Stenger admitted his view wasn't really necessary.
Red Herring: the core of his argument is showing that "The Fine-Tuning Fallacy" argument itself relies on a fallacy (false equivocation).
The Bible is at best "historically problematic" given its contradictions and foolish accounts. As Ehrman and Crossan show, most of the NT stories were inventions to win converts; haven't you read their works? The "tomb" is almost certainly made up, just like the bulk of the rest of the nt. You believe something must be true if the Bible says it is; I'd sooner believe modern historians.
No, I don't "believe that something is true if the Bible says it is"; I believe that something is true when I can determine that it is true; how I do that depends on the context. The Bible needs to be viewed in the proper context as well and is not always easy to interpret, which is why it took 6 centuries to put it all together in the first place. Ehrman and Crossan rely on ad-hoc assertions and biased interpretation and thus don't show anything of the sort; they are simply riding the gravy train and milking gullible atheists.
don't even "believe modern historians", since you clearly reject many of them, e.g. Paul Maier, because they're not "on your side"...you simply seek confirmation of your anti-Christian prejudices. Go read about the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus Christ and His miracles...there you'll see that even the Jews admit that He worked many miracles, like curing disease and raising the dead...why would they do that?
The original 12 (assuming that wasn't just another invention)were from the area around Capernaum; haven't you read about archeological excavations of the place and what that reveals?
It was hardly the abode of the wealthy. And only a fool would believe those ignoramuses wrote the NT.
So? I didn't say that all of them were wealthy and just because they later lived
in Caperneum doesn't mean they are from there: Peter and Andrew were born in Bethsaida, later moved to a house in Caperneum and were fishermen...a better life than many "enjoy" today in the no-go-zone slums of Western cities. Peter also obviously had enough money to provide for a wife. James and John were the sons of Zebedee, who was wealthy enough to be able to hire multiple employees for his business, so they come from a wealthy home and started following Christ early in their life. Matthew was a tax collector and thus naturally well off. Many of His other followers were also wealthy, like Barnabas, Cornelius, Lydia etc. and chose to follow Christ even though there was massive persecution of Christians going on for the first 3 centuries AD.