A question for rotorhead...et al

the magnetosphere is a property of reality, we live in an electromagnetic universe, we have similar magnetic fields around our bodies.

explained here:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

see this video:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/104969/Thunderbolts_of_Gods__The_Electric_Universe_FULL/

This is like O'Reilly: God Causes The Tides, Not The Moon

This is a joke, right?

God of the Gaps!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Neil deGrasse Tyson gives his explanation here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

Let me ask you a question. How do you prove your "magic book" is true? Assuming your magic book is the bible:
1) How do you prove the earth is only 6000 years old? The whole genesis creation story has been debunked by science. Even the Pope has said that it's only allegorical, remember when it was to be taken literally? Scientific evidence says 4.5 billion years old and evolution accounts for diversity.
2) The exodus story. Why is there no evidence in Egyptian writings that the famous biblical plagues ever occurred? Or that a son of Pharaoh led Jewish slaves out of Egypt. Or that the Red Sea was parted and later killed Pharaoh's army? Why, if the ten commandments were so important does no one know where they are? Or where is the Ark of the Covenant? Wasn't it important enough to keep track of? Where is Noah's Ark? Wasn't it important enough to keep track of?

If the bible was real you would expect at least some of these questions to have answers. If it is fiction you would not.

This is a joke, right?

All of this supernatural, mythological god stuff is a joke, right?

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"
-- Thomas Jefferson

(tu) 😀

Is the bible the inerrant word of god?
Don't be silly, of course not! Unless of course he has commissioned a series of editors to keep making changes.
http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Why_does_God_keep_changing_his_word/

Where was Nazareth in reality?
Dean Burgon expressed astonishment about the Gospels in the two oldest Bibles recording numerous geographical errors that nullify everything the Church has ever said about the origin of its biblical stories, particularly the location of Nazareth, which the oldest Gospels say was in Judea, not Galilee. From more than 500 Gospel contradictions, it is clear that the authors had no factual knowledge of a person called Jesus Christ, and the reality that the Gospel stories are not historical is certified by the existence of huge conflictions in time differences between events relayed within them.

What old Gospels DON'T say
Church apologists overlook the fact that the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Sinaiticus makes no reference to Mary, a virgin birth, or the now-called 51 Old Testament 'messianic prophecies'. Words describing Jesus Christ as 'the son of God' do not appear in the opening narratives that Gospel as they do in today's versions of the Gospel of Mark, and the modern-day family tree tracing a 'messianic bloodline' back to King David is non-existent in the oldest Bible. Conflicting versions of events surrounding the 'raising of Lazarus' are found when comparing old Bibles with new Bibles, and a most extraordinary omission in the oldest Gospel of Mark is the non-existence of a resurrection description of Jesus Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven, a dogma that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith. The resurrection narratives that appear in today's Gospel of Mark are fictitious later additions.

All Hail King James! He really knew how to make the bible fit his vision of the church.

"How are Christians dealing with the resurrection not appearing in the Bible recently published online as the worlds oldest bible?"

In the "codex sinaiticus" The resurrection does appear in all four gospels... However there is a part of mark that is "missing" this really isn't news. Most modern bibles note that some manuscripts don't include the end. The codex itself is something scholars have had access to for some time, although it was split up. It's not actually that old compared to many of the other manuscripts (4th century vs 1st Century). The media has reported poorly on this. I am excited to have it online though. It is a VERY important manuscript.

However it is not the oldest manuscript

Also it does not leave out the resurrection anywhere but does "omit" appearances of Jesus to many people FOLLOWING the resurrection at the end of MARK (one of four gospels.)

What is also true is that the scribes who wrote these two codices left some blank space after verse 8, indicating that they knew of a longer ending to the Gospel of Mark, but they did not have it available from the manuscripts they were copying.

Most all other manuscripts and early versions (translations into other languages) include vs. 9-20. Even earlier evidence is found among the Early Patristic Fathers (the church leaders which followed immediately after the Apostles' deaths), substantiating that these twelve verses were not only known two hundred years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but that there was support for their inclusion (since they each quoted authoritatively from the "disputed" passage (cf. Justin Martyr, Apology 1.45, ca. A.D.145; Tatian, Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.6 ca. A.D. 180).

Just in case you were wondering
Here is a English translation on the end of Mark from the Codex Sinaiticus.... As you can see the resurrection is there
16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen. 3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher? 4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great. 5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you. 8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7651105.stm

Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, he has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring four New York Times bestsellers. His best-known works at the popular level are Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted. Ehrman's work focuses on New Testament textual criticism and early Christianity.

Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism. His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

As the saying goes, If you want to convert someone from being a Christian to an atheist/agnostic just have them actually read the bible.

Reliability of the Bible
The Bible is 98% textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 2% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.
The 2 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 2% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.
Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are:
John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John.
Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.)
Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.) contains major portions of the NT.
Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT.

Atheism doesn't seem to keep people satisfied for very long statistically. It's funny how as you get older and wiser that the claims of Atheism don't seem to provide one with the answers that they need.

If you are going to make statements as if they are facts then please at least include links to your sources so that we know where you get your information.

Key Findings and Statistics on Religion in America

More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations loosely grouped around three fairly distinct religious traditions - evangelical Protestant churches (26.3% of the overall adult population), mainline Protestant churches (18.1%) and historically black Protestant churches (6.9%).

While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, the statistics show that Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic). Immigrants are also disproportionately represented among several world religions in the U.S., including Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

10 MYTHS — AND 10 TRUTHS — ABOUT ATHEISM
When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harris06/harris06_index.html

Sorry buddy. I used the same source you use a lot pewforum

and another

Any by the way, when I as a Christian don't know something, I'm happy to admit it. For me, Christianity has been the best answer for my most difficult questions. Again, we're all free to believe what we want. I just wanted to present an alternate view to what you post on a regular basis.

Sorry buddy. I used the same source you use a lot pewforum

and another

Any by the way, when I as a Christian don't know something, I'm happy to admit it. For me, Christianity has been the best answer for my most difficult questions. Again, we're all free to believe what we want. I just wanted to present an alternate view to what you post on a regular basis.

I certainly agree, we are all free to believe what we want and I enjoy the discussion. If someone wants to believe that the easter bunny is their savior then they have that right. All that is proven by 2000 year old copies of the bible is that people back then believed it. It doesn't prove that it is true. The vedas predate the bible and people believed them before people believed the bible, I don't believe that makes them true either. They are both writings which come from early times, our 5th graders today have a better understanding of the universe than scholars did 2000 years ago. There is no information in the bible which that indicates knowledge that wasn't known to bronze-age man. By all indications it was authored by bronze age men.

Personally, I believe that there are many questions about our origins that we do not fully understand, I don't know if we will ever have definitive answers to some of the questions. However, I see no need to make up answers. That is what religion is, made up answers. There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the bible was written by a god or gods. Or in any way inspired by a god or gods. It is much more intellectually honest to be agnostic on this issue.

From your link http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

Net Winners and Losers
Which groups are the net winners and losers in the dynamic process of shifting religious affiliation?
By comparing the distribution of the current religious affiliations of U.S. adults with their childhood
religious affiliations, the Landscape Survey is able to provide a clear sense of the net effect of
these movements within American religion.

The biggest gains due to changes in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are
not affiliated with any particular religious group or tradition. Overall, 7.3% of the adult population
says they were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child. Today, however, 16.1% of adults
say they are unaffiliated, a net increase of 8.8 percentage points. Sizeable numbers of those
raised in all religions – from Catholicism to Protestantism to Judaism – are currently unaffiliated
with any particular religion.

Sorry buddy. I used the same source you use a lot pewforum

and another

BTW. It is enlightening to know that one of your sources is CARM.

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

The website also provides Protestant Christians with pre-formatted "cut-and-paste" arguments to use in chatroom discussions with atheists, relativists, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics and members of other groups.

When I see information and claims from organizations like CARM I often wonder what credentials their researchers have. Are they historians and archaeologists or are they theologians? Like the Wall Builders organization run by David Barton who claims to be a historian when all of his credentials are in theology. I looked at the link you provided and they give no attributions that can be verified. It is hard to tell where their information comes from.

Reliability of the Bible
The Bible is 98% textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 2% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.
The 2 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

Atheism doesn't seem to keep people satisfied for very long statistically. It's funny how as you get older and wiser that the claims of Atheism don't seem to provide one with the answers that they need.

While you might be satisfied by information based on statements by CARM, I might view them as biased. Where did they get the information to support the statement that the bible is 98% textually pure?

Atheism is just coming into it's own. Atheists have long been a target for discrimination from Christians. There are still six states which have language in their constitutions which prevent atheists from holding office or acting as jurors. Is this discrimination enough. I suspect that there are many who refuse to acknowledge their lack of faith for fear of retribution from GOOD Christians. Just look at how Jessica Ahlquist was treated when she dared to suggest that her public school wasn't an appropriate place to display a Christian prayer.

And studies show-
http://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/18-why-does-belief-in-god-decrease-as-intelligence-increases/

Notice that there are hyperlinks in this report to the source material.

Please explain how the magnetosphere evolved, and why it works so perfectly to protect Mother Earth as she speeds through space with her uncaring, godless cargo.

You may use this link as one of your references:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313016/What-Earth-really-looks-like-travels-space-New-Nasa-image-reveals-magnetic-bubble-protects-us.html

I am not sure what you mean by the magnetosphere evolved. Having a magnetosphere is the norm. All of the planets in our solar system except for Venus and Mars have a magnetosphere. I wonder what uncaring, godless cargo they carry? The planet with the largest magnetosphere is of course the largest planet, Jupiter. http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/83552.aspx

The currently best accepted explanation for earth's magnetosphere is the dynamo theory.

God of the Gaps!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Let me ask you a question. How do you prove your "magic book" is true? Assuming your magic book is the bible:
1) How do you prove the earth is only 6000 years old? The whole genesis creation story has been debunked by science. Even the Pope has said that it's only allegorical, remember when it was to be taken literally? Scientific evidence says 4.5 billion years old and evolution accounts for diversity.
2) The exodus story. Why is there no evidence in Egyptian writings that the famous biblical plagues ever occurred? Or that a son of Pharaoh led Jewish slaves out of Egypt. Or that the Red Sea was parted and later killed Pharaoh's army? Why, if the ten commandments were so important does no one know where they are? Or where is the Ark of the Covenant? Wasn't it important enough to keep track of? Where is Noah's Ark? Wasn't it important enough to keep track of?

If the bible was real you would expect at least some of these questions to have answers. If it is fiction you would not.

So what happened to Native Son? He asks questions, we answer. I ask questions and he ignores them.

jones_st.croix comes on and states questionable "facts". I question the credentials and reliability of his sources and he goes away. Do we see a pattern here? Who accepts "facts" from a religious organization and does not question where the "facts" came from?

Mythology vs Science. Which is the winner? One states "facts" with no supporting evidence and the other tries to come up with explanations for things observed in the natural world. Science is always willing to change if new evidence emerges. Religion/Mythology simply restates its "facts" without evidence.

Science produces results. Just look around. TV, radio, the Internet, airplanes, helicopters, automobiles, etc, etc. The list goes on. What has religion produced? How many people have been successful praying to fly? Prayer has been shown to produce no measurable results.

Try the experiment for yourself. Pray for something that would not normally happen. Something that could not happen as simply a coincidence. For example, pray for someone who has lost a limb to regrow it. If you can find an example of this please let me know.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
http://godisimaginary.com/

Or maybe I've been busy with work. I'll be back for discussion soon.

Glad to hear it. I look forward to continued discussion.

Please explain how the magnetosphere evolved, and why it works so perfectly to protect Mother Earth as she speeds through space with her uncaring, godless cargo.

You may use this link as one of your references:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313016/What-Earth-really-looks-like-travels-space-New-Nasa-image-reveals-magnetic-bubble-protects-us.html

Hi NativeSon,
I feel I can be of help.

1. The magnetosphere did not evolve, it is purely physics. It results from a planet spinning, and having a molten core. This creates a magnetic field.

2. Magnetic fields around celestial bodies are extremely common. The prevalence of this dismantles your argument, as I am in turn begged to ask: "If magnetospheres are indicative of a God creating a world habitable for life, why would a creator create magnetospheres on uninhabited planets?".

3. Your question is inherently illogical. You're essentially saying "I dont know how the magnetosphere evolved, therefore I know: God did it!"

4. Is the Earth perfectly suited for life as we know it? Or, is life as we know it perfectly suited for Earth?

5. What is more likely: that the logical and scientific answers provided above are accurate, OR that an all knowing, all loving creator created this perfect little world for us- designed ever so intricately.... and overlooked the fact that your main light source gives you cancer.

If you wish to discuss evolution/biology, please let me know.

Regards,
Whit

I think that Native Son has been Raptured!

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/