Atheists disbelieve that Christ rose from the dead, despite all the evidence, but believe we all came from a dead toxic prebiotic slime despite no evidence. The resurrection of Christ that was once alive is far-fetched, but molecules that were never alive transformed to life, no problem, that's warranted to believe? How much sense does that make? The miracles involved in unguided events & evolution are extremely unlikely compared to those described in the Bible.
Mt 27:59: “Joseph took the body, wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω—wrap) it in a clean linen cloth (σινδών)...”
Mark 15:45-46: “(Pilate) gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth (σινδών) took down the body, wrapped (ἐνειλέω—wrap up) it in the linen (σινδών) and placed it in a tomb...
Luke 23:53: “(Joseph) wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω) it in linen cloth (σινδών) and placed it in a tomb...”
The shroud of Turin is EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrectionhttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin
The Shroud of Turin is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century, as following amazing evidence will demonstrate. It is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man, which based on overwhelming evidence points to be Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after the crucifixion.
The attributes of the image it's this:
- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there are no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there are no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from the actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now
"At the beginning of the investigation - said Schwortz -, I knew of God, but it was not very important in my life. I had not thought of God, when the avevo 13 years. I was not very religious, it was almost a requirement for my family. Since then I have moved away from the faith, religion and God, until I reached the 50 years. When in 1995 I came to the conclusion that the Shroud was authentic, I built the site www.shroud.com . I started to collect the material and put it to the public. I began to speak publicly about the Shroud around 1996 ".
This dualism, however, could not continue: "When people started asking me if I was a believer, I could not find the answer. At that point I questioned myself and I realized that God was waiting for me. I was really surprised to see that within me there was a belief in God. Fino a 50 years I had pretty much ignored the faith, and suddenly I found myself face to face with God in my heart. Basically I can say that the Shroud was the catalyst that brought me back to God ". He concluded amused: "How many Jews can say that the Shroud of Turin has led them to faith in God"?
Schwortz runs as well the website:
Abiogenesis is mathematically impossiblehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible
Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 252:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
Steve Benner: Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.
Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.
Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed, page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.
Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.
Kenji Ikehara Evolutionary Steps in the Emergence of Life Deduced from the Bottom-Up Approach and GADV Hypothesis (Top-Down Approach) 2016 Mar; 6
(1) nucleotides have not been produced from simple inorganic compounds through prebiotic means and have not been detected in any meteorites, although a small quantity of nucleobases can be obtained.
(2) It is quite difficult or most likely impossible to synthesize nucleotides and RNA through prebiotic means.
(3) It must also be impossible to self-replicate RNA with catalytic activity on the same RNA molecule.
(4) It would be impossible to explain the formation process of genetic information according to the RNA world hypothesis, because the information is comprised of triplet codon sequence, which would never be stochastically produced by joining of mononucleotides one by one.
(5) The formation process of the first genetic code cannot be explained by the hypothesis either, because a genetic code composed of around 60 codons must be prepared to synthesize proteins from the beginning.
(6) It is also impossible to transfer catalytic activity from a folded RNA ribozyme to a protein with a tertiary structure.