CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[pocaracas]

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.

An avatar is a reflection of yourself, or the person you want to pass off online... or just a goofy representation of your username!
Or some image you particularly like...
Or nothing...

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 I was going further back. Before you have a living organism, you need some form of self-replicating organic-like matter.
The virus was just an example of a living entity which is simpler than a bacteria.

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.

You think faith in unsupported things is to be encouraged?

*poca steps away from you...

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!

Are you sure you're understanding the words you're saying correctly?
Astrophysics had a problem with universal expansion, when it only accounted for the visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. Then dark matter was spotted.... and then it was spotted everywhere... and now things look pretty darn consistent.
"an electric universe"... boy, you creationists really do like to grasp at straws... There's a guy that has a theory of how Warp drive can work...
There's a guy that has a theory about how multiple-universes explain everything, even the fine-tuning you creationists think is the cherry on top of the cake of evidence for a god-creator.
Dawkins suggests life on this planet may have been seeded by life from elsewhere in the Universe... aye... not an impossible proposition... but do note your own wording "MAY". It's a hypothesis, with as much evidence for it as Russel's teapot. There may be a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
But you encourage faith in such things, right?
Should I have faith in the tooth fairy, too? There are numerous accounts that kids got something when they left their teeth under their pillows... I think they're on to something, there.

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,

What evolutionary lies? What is this new sorcery?

whereas the Bible is only claimed to be false.

You claim it to be true, and yet provide no evidence for it....
Oh wait, it mentions real places that existed at the time, and archeology has confirmed those places! Oh damn! All the water parting, loaf multiplication, raising dead people and curing leprosy must then be true, huh?

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.

OH, I wouldn't say "wrong", nor change the theory...
The theory stands pretty much as Darwin first brought it forward.
Some finer points have been included (that means they were added to the theory, instead of your dishonest attempt at claiming the whole theory had to crumble and be reformulated), since the discovery of DNA (which confirmed Darwin's idea), but also introduced new mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

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.

What I read from Dr Ehrman was all concerning the NT.... contradictions in details of the story as told by the different narrators.
One example is the visit by J.C. to the temple's money changers with whom he disagreed and then proceeded to trash their establishments.
On one account, he does it at the beginning of his ministry... on the other he does that on his last week of life, being the reason why he was arrested and tried.

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?

You are aware that some of those tales/features only show up in one of the accounts... perhaps two.
The virgin mary is a good example... How many narrators speak of it?

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.

Oh yeah... that's why Mohamed came along and established Islam...
That's why hinduism still exists.
That's why Buddhism still exists.

Please... your bible is on equal footing as all the other holy texts. Should I just accept them all?

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.

Then why wasn't the whole middle East in uproar writing and writing about this awesome man who cured incurable diseases, even death?
Why is the earliest writing about this man from some 30 years after the guy's death?
Truth seems to be far from these writings...

But at the end of it all, you will soon enough find out what the truth is.

Pascal's wager... how fitting...
If I will find out "in the end", then why do people want me to acknowledge it now? How did these people come to know about the "end"?