U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 06-07-2009, 09:59 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
7,791 posts, read 3,623,584 times
Reputation: 2500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
1. What was changed in (Revelation 9) which speaks of the great army of 200 million men that will come from the nations of the East shortly before the return of Jesus Christ?

2. How did the Bible know that when the Jewish people returned to Israel in the latter days spoken of in (Ezekiel 38), that the nations of the East at the sametime would have the ability to raise up an army of 200 million men?

3. How did the Bible know that when the Jewish people returned to Israel, they would also take control of Jerusalem? (Zec. 12, and Ezekiel 38.)

4. And how did the Bible know that when the Jews returned to the land of Israel, this action would anger many nations around the world? (Zec. 12)

5. And how did the Bible know that Jerusalems East Gate would have a Porch Gated added to it, and that Gate would be sealed up. And it would only be opened up in the time of the end, when the Prince to come would open it Himself?

I don't believe in Fairy Tales, I only believe what can be confirmed. And the prophecies of the Bible have shown themselves to be true. And many of these same prophecies were spoken of hundreds of years ago by Christians who wrote books about them. These Christians did not change the prophecies, and the fulfillment of these Biblical prophecies only confirms their belief in them. Go back to books written in the 1600s and 1800s, and you will see how Christians were saying that before Christ could return, we would first have to see the Jewish people return to the land of Israel, and Jerusalem. And you will also read that they stated that the day will come when great armies of the world will march against them with the purpose of retaking back Jerusalem. This is matter of historical fact, and not, Fairy Tales.
Since you entire statement rest on your babble, a work of fiction as has been pointed out to you by many here numerous times, quoting from it or using it as justification of your position merely shows how unreliable your beliefs are. Stating something to be fact (in your opinion ) does not make a fairy tale true. It just makes you gullible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2009, 11:44 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,314,729 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
I'm really wondering why you cannot respond to arguments that clearly debunk your bible (numerous post on this thread alone; every one of em' ignored by you). Is it really that hard to come to terms with the fact that your bible is nothing more than a book full of myths? I posted this way back about your historical discoveries and fulfilled prophecies and you have yet to respond:



And this is in reference to your statement that history proves the bible has some veracity:



So, according to you. I bet all those stories that deal with different Gods but have been linked to real places on earth (Like Mount Olympus) are true? Zeus always was a pretty cool God. I hope I can meet him one day.



Once again, you are not able to address the points that debunk your entire argument; such as the genome mapping of DNA. What answer can you conjure for that C34? DNA clearly depicts evolution. How is that wrong also?
As I have stated on other posts, I am not a scientist. Yet if even clear observations of non existant fossils cannot be acknowledged by scientist. Why would a novice even try to argue the merits of their DNA beliefs? When science found a fossilized whale that had an obvious problem giving birth, rather than acknowledge it as such. They tried to tell us this was evidence of whales giving birth on land, because of this whales stated condition. Well, we are nolonger talking about science here. We are talking about their personal beliefs pushing ridiculous assumptions.

You state that I have not responded to arguments that clearly debunk my Bible. Could you be a little more detailed? Could you give me an example of such an arguement?

And as I have stated before, your belief that the Bible is full of myths could only be believed if you have ignored historical discovery. And such a comment I would expect to here from someone who is largely Biblically uneducated.

And as far as all those other Gods, some may be linked to places known, yet they donot have an end game connected to them, nor are they supported by any prophecies that would confirm their existance. The God of the Bible is supported by the Jewish Text, which has come to us over thousands of years. And those Text are supported by ancient discoveries that confirm them, and fulfilled Bible prophecies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:11 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,314,729 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos View Post
Since you entire statement rest on your babble, a work of fiction as has been pointed out to you by many here numerous times, quoting from it or using it as justification of your position merely shows how unreliable your beliefs are. Stating something to be fact (in your opinion ) does not make a fairy tale true. It just makes you gullible.
It appears to me, when someone speaks of a future event in detail, and all those details occur as stated. A wise and reasonable person will take notice. Only a foolish man will ignore the obvious.

I asked you, how could Christians that lived hundreds of years ago write books that tell us that the Jewish people would return to Israel from a worldwide exile, and before the return of Jesus Christ? And how did they know the Jews of this time would retake Jerusalem? And I also asked you, how did they know that their return would anger so many nations, that future world events would be focused on the control of Jerusalem?

I'm still waiting for your answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
8,754 posts, read 6,700,279 times
Reputation: 11765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
As I have stated on other posts, I am not a scientist. Yet if even clear observations of non existant fossils cannot be acknowledged by scientist. Why would a novice even try to argue the merits of their DNA beliefs? When science found a fossilized whale that had an obvious problem giving birth, rather than acknowledge it as such. They tried to tell us this was evidence of whales giving birth on land, because of this whales stated condition. Well, we are nolonger talking about science here. We are talking about their personal beliefs pushing ridiculous assumptions.
You did see this part of the article, right?

Quote:
Like other primitive archaeocetes, Maiacetus had four legs modified for foot-powered swimming, and although these whales could support their weight on their flipper-like limbs, they probably couldn't travel far on land.
This fossil is not an ordinary modern whale. In fact, the description reminds me of a seal, which is incredibly maneuverable in water but still spends a lot of time on land, even though it is obviously not as well adapted to it. If this creature's limbs were no more effective for locomotion on land than a seal's then it's not unreasonable to speculate it might have birthed its young on the shore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 607,897 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
As I have stated on other posts, I am not a scientist. Yet if even clear observations of non existant fossils cannot be acknowledged by scientist. Why would a novice even try to argue the merits of their DNA beliefs?
Sounds like pretty much of a cop-out to me. GCSTroop did a very good post that explains the proof that DNA provides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
As someone else responded, DNA is really what provides us with an accurate examination of the proximity in which we relate any two animals or plants to our evolutionary history.

DNA is universal on Earth in so much as living organisms go. Humans have it, chimpanzees have it, slime has it and bananas have it. Simply put, it is an instruction set that essentially tells the organism how it is to be constructed.

Just as we use an alphabet to form words that we read instructions from to assemble something such as a bicycle or a ham radio, so goes the DNA assemblage of living organisms on Earth.

However, with DNA, we are merely looking at four letters instead of, for example, the 26-letter English language alphabet that 'writes' our instructions. To be more precise, those letters are actually four chemicals (Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cystine) which, when examining genetic codes, scientists reference them as a type of "alphabet" in that of A,G,C,T.

Since all known living organisms use DNA, we can thus 'triangulate' different organisms based on that alphabet to give us an idea of our relative closeness in terms of evolutionary ancestry.

For example, suppose we were to think of two imaginary organisms whose DNA we wanted to examine for the 'triangulation' of evolutionary ancestry. We'll call them Critter A and Critter B.

Critter A's code looks like this:

AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT

In this particular line of code, Critter A has 32 letters and, for convenience, I sequenced them in a very simplistic way.

Now, let's assume we take Critter B's code and examine it and assume we find this result:

AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT AGCT TCAG

As you'll notice, the first 28 letters are in precisely the exact same order of this 32-line code. However, the organization of the last four letters (TCAG) are completely different than the order we find in Critter A's code.

Once we have completely de-coded Critter A and Critter B's genome, compared them together and done the simplistic mathematics to determine the percentage difference between the two, we can get an idea of how closely related the two in fact are.

In so much as the thread is concerned, what is interesting about 'Ida' is that she fits very nicely into what scientists 'triangulated' her to be like prior to her discovery. In other words, for many years, scientists felt that small 'lemur-like' mammals may have been our ancestors. One of the ways they predicted this was by comparing our genome to animals such as the lemur or other animals like it and then determining that this yet-to-be-discovered 'Ida,' if ever found, would display traits characteristic of both prosimians and anthropoids. Because she is so plainly intact, this discovery was indeed big because it gave us the ability to fully examine the differences between us, lemurs and monkeys like them, as well as 'Ida' and how they are physically constituted.

That is certainly success. But, in so much as the 'hoopla' and hype over this discovery - it is really not that amazing. It's an important find. It's a nice find. Of that, I will certainly give them credit. But, the way the media portrays it, they try to make it sound like the oft-cited, all-important and amazing find in that of "The Missing Link" was found. 'Ida' is big but she's not what 'Lucy' was.
It's really not difficult or hard to understand. You have to deliberately skew facts to misunderstand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
When science found a fossilized whale that had an obvious problem giving birth, rather than acknowledge it as such. They tried to tell us this was evidence of whales giving birth on land, because of this whales stated condition. Well, we are nolonger talking about science here. We are talking about their personal beliefs pushing ridiculous assumptions.
Did you read the article and do you know anything of mammals? That's how all mammals are born - head first. It would be considered an abnormality for them to be born feet/tail first. That's why this fossil is so significant in piecing together the fossil record for whales. It's yet another transitional specie that adds to the greater puzzle we are trying to figure out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
You state that I have not responded to arguments that clearly debunk my Bible. Could you be a little more detailed? Could you give me an example of such an arguement?
Biblical prophecies being proved true, history proving the bible true. Basically any bible prophecy you speak of is being "fulfilled" through a self fulfilled prophecy. It doesn't mean Jesus is coming back, it just means people think that he is. And just because your bible mentions places and people that really do exist, doesn't prove it's truth. The Odyssey mentions places like Troy, Athens, and Mount Olympus. Does that mean that Zeus and the other Gods are real too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And as I have stated before, your belief that the Bible is full of myths could only be believed if you have ignored historical discovery. And such a comment I would expect to here from someone who is largely Biblically uneducated.
Biblically uneducated? Dude, I grew up in church, I know exactly what it says and can quote more scripture than some Christians I know. Most atheist in our country were exposed to Christianity before becoming an atheist and are well-versed in it and understand the logic Christians use. Just because I see your "book of truth" for what it is doesn't mean I don't know what's in it. I see it for what it is: a myth. It matches up quite nicely with those "Once upon a time..." stories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:59 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,314,729 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
You did see this part of the article, right?

This fossil is not an ordinary modern whale. In fact, the description reminds me of a seal, which is incredibly maneuverable in water but still spends a lot of time on land, even though it is obviously not as well adapted to it. If this creature's limbs were no more effective for locomotion on land than a seal's then it's not unreasonable to speculate it might have birthed its young on the shore.
Yes, and I believe they are making the assumption that this whale which looks like a seal, was a kin to our modern day whales. Here again, another assumption. It would not be unreasonable to believe it may of been another species altogether. Yet they want to believe evolution, so they push that belief. And now they tell us it must be a whale yet not fully evolved. And how many other species have they done this with? As I have stated in other post, this parade never ends. Once new evidence reveals that this is just another false held belief, this discovery will fade away. And it will fade away, just like all the others before it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 01:17 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,314,729 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Sounds like pretty much of a cop-out to me. GCSTroop did a very good post that explains the proof that DNA provides.



It's really not difficult or hard to understand. You have to deliberately skew facts to misunderstand.



Did you read the article and do you know anything of mammals? That's how all mammals are born - head first. It would be considered an abnormality for them to be born feet/tail first. That's why this fossil is so significant in piecing together the fossil record for whales. It's yet another transitional specie that adds to the greater puzzle we are trying to figure out.



Biblical prophecies being proved true, history proving the bible true. Basically any bible prophecy you speak of is being "fulfilled" through a self fulfilled prophecy. It doesn't mean Jesus is coming back, it just means people think that he is. And just because your bible mentions places and people that really do exist, doesn't prove it's truth. The Odyssey mentions places like Troy, Athens, and Mount Olympus. Does that mean that Zeus and the other Gods are real too?



Biblically uneducated? Dude, I grew up in church, I know exactly what it says and can quote more scripture than some Christians I know. Most atheist in our country were exposed to Christianity before becoming an atheist and are well-versed in it and understand the logic Christians use. Just because I see your "book of truth" for what it is doesn't mean I don't know what's in it. I see it for what it is: a myth. It matches up quite nicely with those "Once upon a time..." stories.
It matches up nicely to those "Once upon a time..." stories, because all I believe you ever had was church. I did not like church when I was younger, because it was filled with kids who were filled with church, yet never experienced God.

How was the return of the Jews to Israel a self fulfilling prophecy? Did the Jews encourage Hitler to build gas chambers to encourage them to return to Israel? And can you explain how Jerusalems East Gate prophecy was a self fulfilled prophecy? Especially taking into consideration that the prophecy was fulfilled by non believers in the Bible.

And I am aware it would be considered an abnormality for the birth of mammals to be delievered feet first. The question is, was it an abnormal birth? And second, was it a whale, or another species? And your belief that this is a transional, is based on assumption only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
2,079 posts, read 931,490 times
Reputation: 1636
I have a vision.....I can see the future of this thread, as long as it remains open we are doomed to hear continuously about the fulfilled prophecies of the bible until our ears bleed and we are driven insane.
Mark my words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
8,754 posts, read 6,700,279 times
Reputation: 11765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Yes, and I believe they are making the assumption that this whale which looks like a seal, was a kin to our modern day whales. Here again, another assumption. It would not be unreasonable to believe it may of been another species altogether. Yet they want to believe evolution, so they push that belief. And now they tell us it must be a whale yet not fully evolved. And how many other species have they done this with? As I have stated in other post, this parade never ends. Once new evidence reveals that this is just another false held belief, this discovery will fade away. And it will fade away, just like all the others before it.
Yes, it is an assumption. It's an educated guess based on the evidence found, and our current knowledge of the world past and present. To you, this seems to mean that it is just some off-the-wall random guess, which is so far from the truth it's downright alarming. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence, but it seems like you're saying that every fossil or other scientific discovery we've made has been completely refuted and dismissed by other scientists. Surely you're not that delusional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,370 posts, read 17,432,562 times
Reputation: 9792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Yes, and I believe they are making the assumption that this whale which looks like a seal, was a kin to our modern day whales. Here again, another assumption. It would not be unreasonable to believe it may of been another species altogether. Yet they want to believe evolution, so they push that belief. And now they tell us it must be a whale yet not fully evolved. And how many other species have they done this with? As I have stated in other post, this parade never ends. Once new evidence reveals that this is just another false held belief, this discovery will fade away. And it will fade away, just like all the others before it.
Why is it that one such as yourself can believe all kinds of things that are without evidence and accept them as real, yet dismiss thousands of fossils with reams of evidence as false? How much effort does that take on your part to be so intentionally blind?

I know that the age of this whale fossil, and the thousands of other fossils found disprove your literal interpretation of the bible, and that in itself proves to me that the bible is not infallible. Why not just accept that fact?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:54 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top