Results 1 to 15 of 95

Thread: 'Missing Link' in human evolution found

Threaded View

  1. #28
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Yo. You're not THAT smart guy. You're really kinda avg when it comes to what you think you know. Stop tooting you're horn so much as if you're this ultra intellect lol.

    I totally get what you're trying to say. That being said I do not agree with whoever and whatever you posted about Luke's writings being written say what 90 ce? That would have given the Christians no time to be prepared to leave. And being a Jehovah's witness, which the Christians in the 1st century were also, I know that they would not have moved so drastically without input from the written word and the governing body at the time. So this is deeper than you can imagine. Jehovah's people are united. The Christians would have not left based on what any other group was doing at the time. The Christians were not involved in the wars of that day, or the political process of that day, so them leaving was purely independent reasoning. So again, I ask you WHY WOULD THEY LEAVE? Especially if Luke's writings were not around?
    I've never stated that I was an "ultra intellect" or "tooted my horn" as you say. I don't know where you get that from.

    Why would they leave you ask? Geez. I explained that in the previous post. There was a war coming. Many people left. Jews and Christians. Why is that hard for you to understand? People leave when they know a war is coming. Even King Agrippa left.

    Wikipedia and this website were my sources:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Are you allowed to read the true history? Since you mentioned in the next post that you must stay away from secular education.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Josephus sad this: Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.”

    Now If this man was around at that time and he said they retired for no reason, and was working for ROME, what is to debate? Seriously? You're acting as if it's made up. Now I'm sure he had his reason for calling it off, but whatever it was clearly it had to look crazy to Josephus because it was not like he was in danger of losing. The Romans were a world power. Jerusalem was divided and beaten. What they did 3 years later could have been done at the time. Which is probably why Josephus wrote what he did.
    I went through all 20 books of the Antiquities of the Jews and all 7 books of the War of the Jews. I did a search for that quote and parts of that quote to make sure, and did not get any results. When I do a search for that quote in Google, many religious websites come up. It's obvious you copied and pasted this from a creationist website.

    So yes, at this point it looks as if that quote was made up. Religious websites are well known for manilpualting, misquoting and sometimes just flat out lying. It was not written by Josephus. Maybe some religious author read Josephus' work and summarized what he thought, but I can't find it. Maybe it's in a different book. If you could please cite it and provide the link, I would appreciate it, for I would like to read this for myself.

    Plus, in wikipedia and in the other link I provided you, it explains what happened in 66. There is no mention in any history reference that I can find that suggests the Romans just left for no reason.

    Which leads me to ask the question again. Are you allowed to read real history books or are they forbidden? Because you seem to be only using creationist websites and making up your own history to match prophecies.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Why would they fear for their lives? Dude called off the first attack. The army left!!!!! They felt they had won. There was no larger army being amassed. Where did you read this? If the army was being amassed How then would people be allowed to leave? That makes no sense. It makes more sense if the army pulled back some and sent for more troops in the initial attack of 66 ce. But since they fled for no reason, that would give anyone who wanted to leave a chance to. But again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, so maybe you have a better explanation?!
    Again, this is wrong. They didn't just flee for no reason. They were ambushed, defeated and humiliated by the jews. Please read your history. I don't have time to give you a proper freaking history lesson. Stop with the creationists websites...please!

    They feared for their lives because everybody knew the Romans were returning. In response to the humiliating defeat in Jerusalem in 66, the Romans started destroying and conquering every city on there way to Jerusalem and crushing the Jewish resistance north of Jerusalem and working their way southward, crucifying 500 people a day...and the Christians weren't supposed to fear for their lives?


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Lemme put you on a bit about Jehovah's witnesses. They are and have always been a very well organized people. From Moses time, to the early Christian era, and especially today. At no time, would their decisions to make drastic moves come from any other threat of life, or government. They were hated in Jerusalem, stoned and killed, crucified in Rome.. All that. Stayed. Why? Because they had a commission from God to complete. So tell me.. If they are willing to get stoned for their beliefs, why would a general calling off his troops scare them into leaving? Because that is essentially what you are saying. Nowhere did I read a larger army was being amassed during the time they fled for no reason. In fact, it was a completely different general who came the 2nd time. Which hints to a completely different agenda.

    People willing to get stoned, flogged, jailed, beaten, crucified but yet flee when an army was called off? Adds up? No. They fled because they remembered Jesus words in Luke. Point blank.
    Do you know why a second general was placed? Vespian returned because the emporer Nero had committed suicide. He placed his son Titus in charge.

    So if the Christians fled because of Jesus' prophecy, how come many non-christians fled as well? There were many jews that fled. King Agrippa fled as well. Jews were jailed, beaten and crucified as well.

    Fact is, you have no proof at all. None. You can't just say they fled because of a prophecy written after the event actually happened. And you can't change history to make it seem like a prophecy was fulfilled.

    Oh, and you can't claim the people then were Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs weren't created until 1870. And you can't claim that those peolpe lived the same lifestyle as you. You don't know that. You have no proof. You guys really like to just make **** up to make it seem like you're the best religious people in the world, don't you? SMH.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Im not arguing if live is only 6000 years old guy. Never have. That has never been a Jehovah's witness teaching. Again, what we disagree on is evolution and the origin of man. Not whether all life (animal, plant, human) is only 6k.
    Ok. Now it seems like you are changing your story. I specifically remember you arguing for the creationist's side of a young earth. If we agree that life on earth is very old, then why did you argue with me so much about the fossils of 3.5 billion year old single-celled creatures? Why did you argue with me about Neanderthal paintings? Why did you argue with me about radioactive carbon dating? What a waste of time.

    Wait, the bible says that god created the universe in 6 days. So, yes the bible is still wrong about creation. Even if 1000 years to us is 1 day to god (as you've said many times before), we know the universe is at least 14 billion years old. This is a fact. We know that life on earth is at least 3.4 billion years old. This is a fact (and it seems now that suddenly you are willing to agree with me). The math doesn't add up. Even if we factor in 1000 years = 1 day.

    So, yes the bible is wrong about creation. It is flat out wrong. This is a fact. An indisputable fact. There is nothing you have to argue against this. So again, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world.



    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Honestly never seen this question posed. Please oblige.
    Geez. It's moot now. You suddenly agree life on earth is very old. But it is a question I proposed about three posts back in this thread. It is how fossil fuels are from the compressed, decaying carbon lifeforms of 100 million years ago. But now that you agree life on earth existed 100 million years ago, there is no point to it.

    But again, if life existed 100 million years ago, the math doesn't add up to the bible's version of creation.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Again, no one knows how long each day to God was before man. A day to God could have been thousands to us. And he created all other forms of life before mankind was made. So therefore this could have been several thousands of years. Could have. what we do know now is that a day to God is as a 1k to us. But That does not mean it was that way before man.

    Wow. Complete made up bull****. So the passage of time to us before he created us was changed after he created us. Honestly dude. How can you believe this without laughing at yourself for believing this. Sounds like someone is changing their stories again to make it match with the evidene. You're beginning to run out of options.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    We are debating whether we're monkey men. And you or science have yet to show any such being.
    I've shown you many, many examples. But unfortunately you require a man with monkey hands. Which is utterly ridiculous and just shows how helpless you really are.

    Do you have any pictures of you as a baby with man hands? How come? Because you gradually changed over time. You have pictures of you as a baby, a child, a young man and as an adult. But not any baby-men. With your reasoning, you must have never existed as a child because there is no evidence of YOU as you currently are as a child. It's the same for evolution. The fossils are like pictures of the past. It was a gradual change over millions of years.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    This is simply not true. If it were, EVERY SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE. Since they don't, you're beat. If it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be, there would not be a hint of disagreement in the science world. But there is. Why? Cuz the scientists who disagree are stupid and uneducated like Jehovah's witnesses?
    Please give me evidence that has contradicted evolution. Please give me a scientist that has published data in a peer-reviewed journal that refutes the evidence.

    There are scientists that are like you. In the face of overwhelming evidence they can't give up their religion. But they still haven't actually published any findings that contradict evolution.

    Publishing in a peer-review journal is the gold standard for science. It allows the scientific community to read, study and test the data supplied by the scientist. How come there are no publications contradicting evolution? You would think creationists would want this data out in the public.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Actually, I'm not complaining at all. just saying science which in theory only deals with precision, should never have to revise it's basis. Unless of course it's not a perfect science, which then will lead to many questions. And if it's not perfect, why should one trust it? Because of strength of numbers? 10/17 is a good night in the NBA, but if my life depended on it, I don't know...
    There is no such thing as a perfect science. There is no perfect thing anywhere. You even agreed earlier in this thread that the bible is an imperfect book written by imperfect people. So why do you believe the imperfect book? I've already proven the prophecies false, or at least disputable within reason and I've already proven it wrong about creation.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    And secondly, we never change the prophecy, but we have had wrong thoughts on when prophecy will take place, or later revelations have helped to shed light on a point or two we may have misapplied. I'm not ashamed to admit this, because we are not a perfect people. But our misunderstanding does not mean that God's word is tainted or wrong. And the very same thing happened to Christians in Jesus day. He simply corrected them and kept them on the path necessary until the time came for more light to be shed on a subject matter. And that is what Jehovah's people have done today.

    Jehovah will not be late. The end will come right on time. But his time. We preach the good news and wait til that time. But the Bible does hint on worldly activities during that time, and if one is paying attn, we been in that time for quite awhile. And it's just getting worse and worse. Won't be much longer, and certainly not 50 or 60 years.
    In other words, you've changed your story. So what will happen in 60 years when the world will not end? The JWs will finally go away. What will your children do when they realize they've been brought up with lies?

    I gaurantee it's not coming. With the utmost certainty.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    You just proved my point. It only has 120 people, and still does business in its seaport. drying yard for dragnets.
    I hope this is a type-o and not your delusions again. It's a city of 120,000 people. Not 120. Maybe a type-o. Ok moving on.

    The prophecy also states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, "never to be rebuilt again". Nebuchadnezzar failed, which is why I pasted the wikipedia history of Tyre. Also it was rebuilt. It's the fourth largest city in Lebanon. It's a large seaport not a small fishing village. Oh, and it is still called Tyre.

    But for some reason you focus on the fact that fishing exists in Tyre and that is the reason the prophecy is true. Seems like you are again trying to force something into making it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

    So, the bible predicted that a city where fishing occurs would become a city where fishing occurs. Wow!! Bravo bible! Meanwhile, you messed up on the whole Nebuchadnezzar destroying it to "never to be rebuilt again". What a magical book. I should ignore every piece of indisputable evidence disproving the bible because of this. *sarcasm*

    And I think possibly you are misinterpreting the saying of spreading fishnets. The prophecy talks about the city being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, never to be rebuilt again and "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets". It's a metaphor, meaning it will be leveled to bare rock. Bare rock is where people in those days spread their fishnets to dry. To be destroyed and never to be rebuilt again but to be rebuilt as a place for fishing. That doesn't make sense and is contradictory in itself.

    Geez. I thought you guys were great at understanding the bible. And little ol' me, an atheist, understands the bible better than you. Ha!

    But it's moot anyway. The prophecy is false because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. He never leveled it to bare rock and Tyre has been rebuilt. = Failed prophecy.


    I can't believe we're still debating this. I proved this prophecy to be false long ago with the same evidence. It's quite evident it will take more than facts an logic to bring you out of your delusion.


    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    The uninhabitable waste land I referred to, was the place where ancient Babylon now sits. Jehovah said no arab will pitch a tent there. Meaning it will never fully be inhabited again. Now since you are the one famous for posting pictures and videos, please, help us out and post some recent pics and videos of what ancient Babylon now looks like. Because I'm pretty sure the last time I seen pics of it, it was a desert in ruins that many have tried to resurrect and have not. Including sadaam once.

    Didn't your teachers say pay attn to the board in class? Or did you miss that part getting that grand education of yours? come on smart guy... follow along properly. Tyre and Babylon, two diff outcomes. Keep this up we'll have to get the dunce cap out and put you in the corner!
    Ok. I got confused. Because the bible does say for Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt again. I never said I was the smartest guy. For some reason you misinterpreted my posts as coming off that way. I apologize for seeming pompous. I didn't mean it.

    Phew. Running out of time. I will have to edit this later but...

    from wikipedia
    Reconstruction
    In 1983, Saddam Hussein started rebuilding the city on top of the old ruins (because of this, artifacts and other finds may well be under the city by now), investing in both restoration and new construction. He inscribed his name on many of the bricks in imitation of Nebuchadnezzar. One frequent inscription reads: "This was built by Saddam Hussein, son of Nebuchadnezzar, to glorify Iraq". This recalls the ziggurat at Ur, where each individual brick was stamped with "Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, who built the temple of Nanna". These bricks became sought after as collectors' items after the downfall of Hussein, and the ruins are no longer being restored to their original state. He also installed a huge portrait of himself and Nebuchadnezzar at the entrance to the ruins, and shored up Processional Way, a large boulevard of ancient stones, and the Lion of Babylon, a black rock sculpture about 2,600 years old.

    When the Gulf War ended, Saddam wanted to build a modern palace, also over some old ruins; it was made in the pyramidal style of a Sumerian ziggurat. He named it Saddam Hill. In 2003, he was ready to begin the construction of a cable car line over Babylon when the invasion began and halted the project.

    An article published in April 2006 states that UN officials and Iraqi leaders have plans for restoring Babylon, making it into a cultural center. [36][37]

    As of May 2009, the provincial government of Babil has reopened the site to tourism.

    Picture of rebuilt section of Babylon by Sadaam:


    Also, currently we have troops stationed where Babylon was, at Camp Alpha. So this prophecy is wrong too. There are arabs in tents there.

    Again you misinterpret the bible. When it says "neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there"

    it means: No one will live in Babylon. Even people won't camp there, and shepherds won't let their sheep rest there.

    The US Army is curently camped there. = Failed Prophecy

    LJ 2, Bible 0. Come to think of it, is the bible right about anything? I mean really, anything? Give me one indisputable fact or evidence that the bible is correct on. Just one.

    And why does god want to destroy so many cities? He has a temper problem. He should have known this before, since he can see in the future and all.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Dec 15, 2009 at 12:39.

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 16:16
  2. Debunking Ape man ancestor myth- WOW.
    By Knicks4lyfe in forum Hangout
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct 03, 2009, 21:28
  3. Religulous
    By LJ4ptplay in forum Hangout
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Nov 10, 2008, 14:10
  4. Our brain. What Evolution cannot account for!
    By Knicks4lyfe in forum Hangout
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Jul 31, 2008, 14:20
  5. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 18:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •