CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Carnavon]

First off, there's something I have to get off my chest about your username.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:


The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!

I am not great with avatars. What’s wrong with a photo? But thanks in any case.

Nope, agreed you did not. But you will excuse my ignorance as I rely on theories of the first living organism Most evolutionary biologists theorize that the first living organisms were single-celled prokariotes similar to currently existing bacteria. So call it what you like but it seems to me that “cell” just about covers it.

Let's not play word games, ok?
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.

I rely on what is generally accepted as the first “living” organism in scientific publications. See Scientific American “Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist”.
According to my best information Amino acids are one of the first organic molecules supposed to appear on Earth. It is not a living organism. You suggest that viruses are the first "living organisms"? Not that I can find. Apart from that, it appears as if viruses can replicate only within a living host cell. Therefore, viruses are obligate intracellular parasites.(http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...s-14398218)

and one when the “source document” is subjected to scrutiny and whenever possible tested, is validated. On a number of occasions I have requested proof of error when a fact has been stated in the Bible. It should actually be really easy. There are thousands of facts stated in the Bible –

Sure.... And tons of claims with no way to determine if they're truthful...
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...

The Christian faith is just that. Something/someone you believe without absolute proof. Similar to you’re your faith that your car will start the next time you start the car. (If it has never started before, it is kind of blind faith, unsupported by evidence)
It does thus not rely on substantive proof, but will not be in opposition to such beliefs being tested where this is possible – and I think it should be encouraged. This is one of the reasons I have discussions with people of different persuasions- to critically evaluate what I believe. Thus far, it has strengthened my faith. It has on occasion happened that science contradicted facts stated in the Bible –later information proved to support the Biblical record. As previously stated , nothing has ever conclusively disproved that which is stated as fact in the Bible. To the contrary, it tends to confirm the Bible.

Consensus does not replace fact.

In science, it's the best we have.
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.
The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?

There was once consensus that the cell was a very basic entity. Today we know better (see excerpt above). Experimental proof is the best you have. Hypotheses are just conjectures until proven and later become accepted as fact and later as “laws” when it consistently proves to be correct – as in the case of the second law of thermodynamics.
Astrophysics have a problem due to the discovery that expansion of the universe seem to be accelerating – meaning the idea how gravity works is incorrect or that the theoretical construct of dark energy, matter is false. So even your comment that apples fall may rest upon false assumptions. Somewhat related is the theory of an electric universe that proposes a different model than gravity and as I understand puts paid to the highly acclaimed big bang theory. So it seems that the more we (think) we know, the less we know.
Just as a matter of interest, millions of dollars are spent on the SETI project – because there must be little green men out there – and as Dawkins suggests, they may have seed us here. Talking about grasping at straws!

---

Kindly take note of the considerable number of fraudulent claims have been made in the name of evolution, as against none in the Bible. Now if these were two “persons”, I know which one I will rather believe. One may however choose to believe the one that has on several important occasions proved to be dishonest. Your choice.

what?... none in the bible?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".

The difference is that evolutionary lies has been proven, whereas the Bible is only claimed to be false. The other issue is of course that evolutionary theory constantly change as previously accepted “facts” are proven wrong, and new theories have to be developed. The Bible in the original language has been in its essence the same since Moses (referring more specifically to the OT, but included 2000 years for NT) – contrary what Dr. Ehrman wants you to believe. Carefully analyse what he is saying and see the impact on its truthfulness.
Questions to Dr Ehrman: Do the “variants” ever disagree
• That God is one.
• That God created the heavens and the earth in six days?
• That Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
• That Jesus is claimed to be God in the flesh?
• That Jesus died for our sins?
• That Jesus died for us while we were still sinners?
• That Jesus’ blood secures the salvation of those that believe on Him?
• The resurrection of Jesus?
• Salvation is by grace and not our good works?
• That there will be a day of judgement when the “goats” and the “sheep” will be separated – the sheep to eternal life, the goats to eternal damnation?

Imaginations? I would tend to agree and disagree with you. Agree – imaginations can run wild and especially if it is on a number of controversial subjects. In contrast to this, if it was just the imagination of people, it is really hard to believe that you will find the consistency throughout the Bible that you do. 66 Books written by 40 authors from different backgrounds (highly educated people, kings to lowly fisherman) over a period of 1500 years without collaboration and consistently saying the same thing ? [...] Come on, who is imagining things?

I once thought the bible was consistent.
Then I was shown wrong by Bart Ehrman....
But then the believers will always twist the words a bit so that some bits are metaphors, some bits need to be taken in light of the epoch, some bits are literal and some bits have tarnished memories included...
So, there's always an excuse... and that is why it's called apologetics, right? The art of making excuses to keep the story making some sense... "consistent" and all...

Now do tell me how a story generated at a given time and propagated through the populace, will be inconsistent with itself when someone else writes about that first story...
They may build upon it, add more elements... some bits may have been lost on the way and potential inconsistencies become consistent because the copies of the original aren't accurate...
I once read a book... it was a standard book. A story about an old king or prince, who never arrived at his intended destiny... it was the story of the 4th wise king... Fully consistent with the remainder of the bible... written some 2000 years after it... and could very well be included in the text for people from 5000 years in the future to puzzle over the accuracy of such account.
Does that consistency bit make it a truthful account?

Does magic exist?

And, as I always say, if I have to believe in the premise, then the whole building lacks credibility.

You will know that Bart Ehrman is not totally honest in his reporting of “facts” through innuendo and implication. As a scholar, he knows that the accuracy of the Bible has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from that, none of the central doctrines of Christianity is questioned. But you may read the following and form a more balanced view. http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible

It is interesting that “scientists” have to “update/review” their theories every few in view of new discoveries, yet the Bible has stood the test of time for more than 2000 years, despite some serious opposition.

Truthful accounts of real people is usually confirmed by sources other than the author - especially if the author claims it as fact and such is the case with the Bible.

But at the end of it all, you will soon enough find out what the truth is. Despite what Bart Ehrman or anybody else says. None of our discussions will carry any weight. Only reality.

Only you can respond to Jesus' call:
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.