Noxi, this is from tthat other post but i though it deserved its own space because we digresed from the topic in that other post.



I stick by my statement: Blind faith is dangerous!!! as opposed to scientific methods!

Blind faith makes the jobs of the Hitler's (and the Benny Hinns and the jihadists, etc) that much easier!

Yu have confirmed this with your statement: (only) Ignorance is dangerous!
Have you ever considered that Blind Faith is based on Ignorance?!

That is different from fate based on knowledge, acquired through scientific enquiry and methods.

But then, is what youre arguing a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

I studied electricity, and I can tell that it is one of the more important branches of applied physics that comes close to having a peak into the invisible realm. You hear of electric flux and magnetic flux, forces which are now being controlled with electromechanical devices. You cant see flux, but you can see the effects (compass needle) or feel it (static electricity). If you have a powerful enough microscope, you could probably see the atoms and electrons and all those other micro particles whose behavior under certain field conditions produces these fluxes.

Electric power and the many electric gadgets operate on the control manipulations of electrons or the fluxes.

I wont bother with the natural sciences.

Ok, so from knowledge such as these and seeing it work physically, I have a better understanding of a mastermind and creation, which should make me a more responsible citizen of the universe! My Faith has solid foundation, and is not built on sand (blind faith)!

But a demagogue or a megalomaniac suddenly appears out of the bottomless pit and starts saying, Someone walked on watersome flew to the sky on clouds.believe me , take it on faith, then could you blame me if I immediately look at this ******* with deep suspicion?


That is my "Ignorancer" and my limited understanding of the word "FAITH".

And beside calling you a LIAR, you appear to be an Hypocrit as well!
(I know its name calling but you leave yourself an easy target?

The Fishbone

What the Noxi/Dexter doesn't understand is that science doesn't pretend to be perfect and because humans aren't perfect themselves, science is contaminated by human nature. Science strives to be objective, but scientists realise that there is always the danger of subjectivity - in short, faith.

The way science is carried out recognizes these dangers of 'faith' creeping into the picture and attempts to minimize their influence in several ways, the most important being the fact that almost everything in science is a theory and remains a theory, even though a million scientists may have confirmed the theory and for all practical purposes we accept them as facts. But a true scientist accepts very little in science as being factual as a matter of principle, because that keeps the door open to testing, retesting and retesting again any theory that any scientist in any country might suspect isn't actually true. Science is like a courtroom with endless appeals possible.

Thus, the subjectivity of one or a few scientists (ie faith coming in and altering the objective conclusions of an experiment) is ultimately overwhelmed by the possibility of endless challenges and criticisms.

It is through this very strong check and balance process that science can say that "nothing is proven" (another basic aspect of how science works) yet it is clear that any theory that has been tested repeatedly with experiments that yield the predicted results is obviously at least pretty close to describing what actually occurs in a particular natural phenomenon.

Noxi/Dexter, truly you are a parasite because all your conveniences in life come out of an objectivity driven scientific process where faith is pushed to the lowest levels, yet you happily prance about trying to argue (obviously you don't know enough about how science works) that faith is a useful part of science. No, faith is what the scientific process excludes to the fullest extent possible, though it will still be present. Why? Because faith is ingrained in humans. We can't get rid of it. But at least we can minimize the damage it would cause to our curiosity in learning the truth about natural processes.

Nothing is proven in science and scientists are the first to admit that.

At the same time, the best way we can come as close to the truth as possible (in a court case or in any field of science) is to do heaps of testing and see which way the data falls. If the data supports the theory again and again and again (like that humans evolved from apes), then thats as close as you're ever going to get to the any kind truth. Theres always a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny chance that the theory is wrong (just like maybe all the planes we see in the sky are just our imagination) but pretty much we can rest confident that the theory reflects the truth.

While there is lots of evidence to support much general information that is talked about in the bible, the evidence also suggests very strongly that the Bible is more a recollection of what happened than an accurate account. The Bible hasn't stood up well in the area of prophesies or miracles when subjected to scientific analysis-there just isn't a lot of evidence (sometimes none at all) supporting what the Bible says. Sometimes the evidence goes against the Bible statements.

Well science does come close to the truth....probabilities! Science has been prostituted out and 'Corporatised' in every major scientific field. Science is owned by the big multinationals, conglommerates eg) oil companies, mining, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, engineering ....all for the dollar . Today we see that science is about how much money can be made at the expense of truth or knowledge. Even the research institutions (universities)have confidentiality clause slapped on them to control information/knowledge. Science is about MONEY and PROFIT.

The discovery of Noahs Ark in 2010......evidence of a "recollection".

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1045033/noahs-ark-discovery-99-9-percent-sure
"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah's Ark Ministries International told AFP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah's_Ark
In 2010, Noah's Ark Ministries International l (NAMI) released videos of their discovery of the wood structures.[18] Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old. It is unlikely that there was any human settlement at the site at altitude of 4,000 meters

"Noah's Ark Ministries International" - They're the ones doing the research? And what kind of highly respected scientific research institution is that????

Hmmmmm. That should be your first and foremost clue that this wasn't objective science. It was science with a predetermined outcome!

The difference between good science and faith:

Science does not have a predetermined outcome.

Faith has a predetermined outcome.

Because there are no limits to faith, and an individual's faith is based on a limited set of experiences and information, it can quite easily go astray. In other words, people can quite easily have faith in fallacy.

Witness the many cargo cults of our past.

Witness all the fast money scams of our past and presence.

All based on faith.

That is why faith is a poor way to seek the truth, whereas good science has resulted in all the perspectives we have about how the world around us works, perspectives which must be strongly pointing to the truth, since they have become the building blocks upon which endless successful technologies have been developed which all humans get benefit from today.

Faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind.

Noxi, I think you're being way too pessimistic. Science in anything worth big money (e.g. drugs, the consumer product industry, etc) has been corrupted by the multinationals as you say. That is true.

However, even this depends mostly on who funds the research. The fact is that most research today is still funded by government tax monies.

However, the great bulk of science has little or no hope of leading to big profits and thus hasn't been corrupted in the way you say. There's obviously not been that kind of corruption in evolutionary studies, or any non-applied biological fields.

Science is only as good as the humans who do the science. On the other hand, because there is such an elaborate check and balance system in science, it tends to keep the objectivity as the highest priority and pushes down our human nature efforts to be subjective.

Yes you're correct that science gets no closer to the truth than probabilities. Similarly, courts of justice also get no closer to the truth than probabilities. No one disputes that.

However, the admission that probabilities are the closest we'll ever come to the truth is precisely why science has been so powerful in coming up with understandings of natural phenonemon that for all practical purposes can be considered the 'truth' (since that knowledge has been used as foundation building blocks to build all kinds of supplementary theories, tests, and ultimately, technological products. That the scientific process of analysis comes closer to the truth than any other thought process of human beings is obvious from the results. The acceptance that nothing in science is 'proven' has always been the open door to scrutiny and rescrutiny, of testing and retesting. In short, science even exceeds a court of law (with its limited options for appealing a verdict) in the endless appeal process it allows. That kind of elaborate check and balance system is what promotes science overall following a pathway towards the truth, usually with only minor deviations.

The origin of the scientific process of analysis evolved over time as people (long before there was anyone called scientists) learned by trial and error what kinds of analysis led to conclusions that could then be used to most accurately come up with new predictions, new tests, and new findings. Traditional farmers may have been some of the earliest people to use a scientific approach in developing new crop varieties.

Theologians do apply this process to studies of the Bible. Ironically, it is the results of their studies, more than anything else, that causes question of accepting anything in the Bible as stated struth. The reason is that (as so many have already pointed out), the Bible has changed a lot over time, with the various historical printed versions of the Bible capturing the interpretation of that moment.

Probabilities comes closer to the truth in the end than faith based on untestable beliefs!

Exactly.

Faith and subjectivity in science are dangers that scientists know they must avoid as much as their human nature allows them to. Otherwise the science approach doesn't work the most accurately and effectively.

By its very nature science deals with what theologians call secondary causes, that is, with interactions within nature. It cannot deal with primary causes, that is, the ultimate origin and purpose of nature.

The parable
It was a warm summer evening. Two people were walking along the beach listening to the gentle lapping of the waves and looking at the star-studded sky. They both spotted a light flashing out at sea. One of them was a professor of physics, the kind of scientist who thought of nothing but his work. Science was his life. He rushed to his car where, being the sort of person he was, he kept all kinds of scientific equipment. He got out a stopwatch and timed the flashes. He got out a photometer and measured the brightness of the flashes. He set up a spectrometer and recorded their spectrum. He noted the position of the light against the background stars. As he drove home along the coast road he stopped a couple of times and noted its position again as it appeared to move against the background stars, and did some triangulation calculations on his laptop. When he got home his wife said, You look excited dear, did you see something interesting tonight? Yes, he said, I saw what I deduced was a heated tungsten filament, enclosed in a silica envelope, emitting a regular pattern of flashes of visible radiation at an intensity of 2,500 lumens from a distance of about 850 metres offshore. The other person on the beach that night was a teenager going home from Sea Scouts. When she got home her mother said, You look excited dear, did you see omething interesting tonight? Yes, she said, I saw a boat signalling SOS. I phoned the Coastguard, and they sent out the lifeboat.

This parable illustrates the fact that the same event may have more than one level of explanation. Science, by the very methods which it uses, is restricted to the study of material things matter and energy and so its explanations are always expressed in materialistic terms. As a result it explains the mechanisms of nature in the parable, how the flashing light was produced. It cannot answer questions about meaning and purpose in the parable, why someone was shining the light and the message it carried. The scientific explanation could only go as far back as the tungsten lamp (the secondary cause). It couldnt get back behind it to the mind of the person using it (the primary cause).

Moderator could you please put in the reference from 'Ernst Lucas' to my previous post The Scientific Parable. For some reason and 4 attempts to post this it didnt come through with the reference.......THANKS! Bada heria!

www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/lucas/pdf/lucas_lecture_hires.pdf

Because the scientific approach cannot deal with primary causes (if they even exist), primary causes will always remain conjecture and many times a mere figment of one's imagination, ripe for exploitation by those cunning minds that see how they can use stories of 'primary causes' to manipulate and control other, more gullible human beings.

Noxie,

from a primary school pupil:

which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

did adam (and eve) have belly buttions?

did dinosaurs actually live on earth at one time, and how long ago, and what happened to them?

how old is the human race, 6000 years, 6 million years, or what?

how could Jesus (if he is G-d) break his own natural/divine laws of creation/universe such as the law of gravity and walk on water?

just a few to start with...

faul fikini

Again "Blind Faith" isnt dangereous.."Ignorance" is the killer......blind faith is faith without evidence, which would be superstition. The Bible does not call us to blind faith or superstition. The Bible calls us to faith in evidence.... and doesn't require a person to leave their brains at the church door.

Firstly......As I pointed out earlier 'Christian Faith' isnt based on blindness or ignorance it is based on evidence of Christs works and Old Testement prophecy, "Pistis". Many people like you have come to equate having faith with the opposite of having knowledge, evidence, and certitude. In other words, faith is the same as blind faith. Therefore, all faith must be blind? NOT TRUE?

1)First, the book of Proverbs is filled with admonitions to increase in knowledge and wisdom.
2)The apostle Paul told the church at Thessalonica to "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) In other words, don't just believe things blindly.

As for science dont get me wrong I dont hate science I just refuse to look at it with rose coloured glasses to sit there stupidly and not question it. There is a cost to technology and science which few people look at. Example......Hydro electricity (Dams) and fossil fuel power stations have an enormous impact on the environment, nuclear energy has its roots in the death of millions of japanese. The minerals that go into making mobile phones and laptops are Conflict minerals....namely Coltan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_minerals
Conflict minerals are minerals mined in conditions of armed conflict and human rights abuses, notably in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the Congolese National Army and various armed rebel groups, including the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda. The profits from the sale of these minerals finance continued fighting in the Second Congo War, and control of lucrative mines becomes a focus of the fighting as well.[1] The most commonly mined minerals are cassiterite, wolframite, coltan, and gold, which are extracted from the Eastern Congo, and passed through a variety of intermediaries before being purchased by multinational electronics companies. These minerals are essential in the manufacture of a variety of devices, like mobile phones, laptops, and MP3 players

The Bible's evidence is subject to question regarding its accuracy!

I would agree with you that ignorance is the killer. But ignorance comes not only out of not taking in any information at all, but also out of selectively taking some information on a topic while ignoring other information on a topic. Wisdom and knowledge comes out of capturing and incorporating the full range of information and experiences relevant to the issue at hand.

Good science always examines the full body of evidence and leans in the direction of where the preponderance of evidence points. In other words, science is like a court jury in that most scientists have to agree that the preponderance of data points a certain direction before that is widely accepted as reflecting the truth (or as close to the truth as we can ever come).

Those who place all their faith in the Bible are clearly not following a scientific approach and because that faith would cause them to dismiss evidence to the contrary of what the Bible reports, the label 'ignorance' could be applied to describe them.

A true scientific approach on any Biblical topic involves not only looking at the Bible, but the vast array of historical documents, particularly historical versions of the Bible. That gives a sense of how static the Bible has been through the ages which ultimately becomes a measurement of how accurate it is likely to be in describing events of the past.

Prophecies have not done well under the scrutiny of the scientific method, whether those prophesies come from the Bible or from some fortune teller. To start with, the Biblical prophesies are general enough that they could be interpreted in more than one way. Worse, those who interpret whether a prophesy has come true or not, studiously avoid considering other times and events that also fit the conditions of the prophesy. Instead, they pick only the event that they want to believe fit the prophesy and ignore the alternative dates and places that equally fit the prophesies conditions. Finally (and this is actually the least important reason for dismissing prophesies as being accurate), the law of probability state that there is always a chance that something might happen just through coincidence (not from a cause-and-effect relationship). For example, if a prophesy predicts an upcoming 'great war' probability statistics could be used to determine the likelihood of a 'great war' coming whether or not there was any prophesy concerning it.

The Bible's admonitions to learn more was written at a time when Christians wanted non-Christians to learn more about Christianity. This was a precondition to gaining more Christian converts. Ironically, that admonition ultimately is what could have stimulated the scientific approach to evolve, which ultimately led to the breaking away of early scientists from strict Biblical dogma on how the natural world functions.

Noxi, inap yu bekim ol kainkain toktok blo narapela? Nogut ol toktok blo ol bai istap olsem las tru toktok blo dispela topic. Tenk yu.

Fishbone, scientists do have faith. They have faith that the scientific method of analysis (which is described in any basic science textbook) to yield a better understanding of natural phenomenons than any alternative way of human thinking or analysis.

The scientific approach is based upon testing ideas and accumulating supportive data before any idea can be accepted as likely being true. The scientific approach depends upon having an endless opportunity for other scientists to try and refute the theory with new tests and collection of data. Most importantly, the scientific approach works because in the end, whether a theory is accepted or not accepted is considered to depend upon which direction the bulk of evidence points. The scientific method would never have worked had it allowed individual scientists to pick out only one piece of data to support a particular theory, while ignoring all the rest of the data which might argue against that theory.

A good scientist will only have faith that the scientific process is the most workable means of getting to the truth. No good scientist would have faith that all it takes is one piece of supportive evidence to determine the truthfulness of a theory.

Those with faith in the Bible, on the other hand, ignore any information that goes against what the Bible says is true, and maintain their faith throughout. Had that kind of inflexibility been applied to science, you would see none of the products that have come out of the scientific approach.

On the other hand, the scientific approach was never going to have that kind of inflexible approach because that approach never worked well to explain real life, testable phenomenons of nature. It was the very unworkability of the inflexible faith approach that caused the rebellion of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo against the church.

Science is slowly catching up with the Bible: By starting off with theories and inferences, rewriting, editing and revising itself until it sheds all its fallacies, including Darwinian Evolution and will ultimately find its place neatly within the pages of the Holy Bible - when the glory of the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Full knowledge rests with God, the source of all knowledge, the Creator who created the human brain that thinks and studies everything within the universal laboratory of which a huge part still remains unexplored. The human brain is not the result of an accidental explosion of chemicals that appeared out of nowhere, assembled coherently by chance and lodged itself in a human head. It is a miracle that the whole thing, the orderly cosmos with intelligent man, is here for us to observe and study with awe and wonder. Yes there is an intelligent source of knowledge and power behind it all. To deny the Creator is to deny your own self, even the capacity to take this in is a wonder on its own. Think about it.

Quite the opposite is happening, but I wouldn't expect you to see that because you probably couldn't explain Darwinism or anything else that would fill more than a few sentences. In other words, you're ignorant of science, and ignorants can very easily dismiss things.... because they're ignorant!

On the other hand, the Bible prophesy people are more likely than not to reinterpret prophesy to better fit events, rather than events fit the original interpretations of the prophesies!

To start, for how many centuries have people been predicting the "imminent" second coming of Jesus Christ? One deadline after another falls, and the prophesy is reinterpreted to "fit reality"!

Flaws in Darwinism which through your ignorance conveniently choose to ignore!

2. The very early environment of Earth was not favourable for life to evolve.
3. It would have been impossible for life to start in a primordial soup.
4. The probability that the chemistry of living things formed by chance, random shuffling of simple
organic molecules is equivalent to zero.
5. Chance does not produce complex life.
6. Mutation and natural selection could not have created the first complex organic molecules.
7. The fossilized life found in the oldest rocks was already complex.
8. There is no evidence that simple cells (procaryotes) evolved into more complex cells(eukaryotes).
10. Drawings of evolutionary trees are purely hypothetical.
12. Scientific authors draw intermediates on their evolutionary trees even though they dont exist.
13. Most scientists take Darwinism and its supporting theories to be true at face value.
14. Because of prejudice, scientists pay more attention to the myths of evolution than to the facts.
15. Scientists accept weak explanations that support evolution because they totally believe
Darwinism.
16. Scientists seem reluctant to abandon Darwinism even when the evidence against it is
convincing, because the change would cause them too much turmoil.
17. Scientific explanations of how Darwinian evolution has worked are based on theories.
18. Darwinism was automatically accepted as truth when Lamarck failed to prove his theory.
19. Evolutionists try to evade the reality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
20. Ockhams razor condemns Darwinism.

Em nogat.

Observed and tested science has its place. Inference is just that, theories in perpetual revision mode with no tangible outcome. These matters cannot be explained in few sentences on blog posts. Having read through most of the arguments and having a fair understanding of Darwinism, it still fails to explain life's origins and its missing links are still missing. The fossils still say no. All roads will one day lead back to Genesis if we cut out the fairy tales.

Em nau, somehow I'm inclined to believe the collective wisdom of thousands of scientists working full time on different aspects of evolution, as opposed to one armchair philosopher. Can you understand why?

Thousands could all be wrong. It takes one, just one to upset the apple cart - Einstein.

Can you understand why? What a question. What I don't understand is, with all those fairy tales like frogs becoming man over millions of years, which thousands of scientists believe and brainwash millions through text books, tv programs and documentaries. That is not science, It is religion, taken by faith. There is no single line of evidence linking man to lower forms of life. NONE. Its all inference, tingting tasol. And I don't like being lied to. Now can you understand why? I don't like being lied to in the name of 'science'. Those evolutionary trees of life you see on text books or magazines are just make-believe nonsense. If you believe in them, good on you. Don't count me in.

Darwinism in short is the supposed increased complexity of organisms graduating from lower forms to the more complex. Variations occur within species observed as micro-evolution, which is acceptable. However changes remain within its species and will not cross over into another type of creature, like whales becoming cows. There is no evidence for that. What you see in textbooks and museums of amoebas evolving into humans are products of someones figment of imagination. Nothing in reality testifies to that. Yet people will call it science and it is that sort of science which if people had any sense would dump it for what its really is - fairy tales dressed up as science. Standing on those tales they ridicule the Bible - now that is a real wonder.

Em Nau, you argue you opinions quite well!

So how do we explain gene codes, gen pools, gene "blueprints", mutations, bio-enegineering, stem cells engineering, etc, etc. According to your arguements, those are lies?

The Fishbone

Fishbone. Thanks for asking me. No they are not lies. Genes, gene pool etc, what you have listed are observed and studied through microbiology and labeled as such. They are OBSERVED facts, not lies. They are the basic elements, with unique signatures for each animal species and micro-processes that give life to all living things. Microbiology is as expansive as astronomy, you cannot get to the bottom of it all. Mutations occur within species through loss of information where the affected organism is the weaker and exits the species. I believe that a mutation of any kind will not lead to a higher order creature as is commonly held by many. You'll get two-headed turtles, and six fingered humans which mutations are not signs of that creature evolving into something else-they're just errors in the genetic mix. Genetic-engineering is interference and tampering with genes in an attempt to artificially create an organism within its stream - nothing new will emerge from the process. Science has contributed immensely to human progress in medicine and all other fields, which cannot be denied. But to extrapolate micro-changes within a species and ascribing that to macro-evolution by INFERENCE, in that amoebas from a primordial soup (from whose kitchen no one knows) became man, is a massive call, which I think cannot be replicated and that the fossil record remains unsupportive of that assumption. Isn't it a wonder that the evolutionary process abruptly stopped one day and selectively eliminated all those intermediate links of the amoeba to human chain, leaving us with monkeys, fish, men, rats and frogs for us to pull out a piece of paper and fill in those missing links? No, sir I refuse to accept that. You are at liberty to believe whatever you want and I respect your choice. Both these viewpoints have to be taken by faith, God or Darwinism.

Oh please! 'Em nogut'. You are one of the biggest PRETENDERS on this forum. All we see from you are ridiculous statements that arent backed up with anything meaningfull or with substance. You havent "Qualified" or "Quantified" any of your mauswara statements or opinions. That makes you a "Pretender", you are out of your depth buddy! move on.

You talk about "Darwinism" as if you wrote it along with all your other useless and embicilic statements that you cant back up. Why? because it is you who is truly ignorant.

No one will know the hour or the day of Jesus' return, Bible prophecy: Matthew 24:36-37

When Jesus lived in the land of Israel about 2000 years ago, he gave a very simple and concise answer when someone asked him when he would return: He explained that no one knows the hour or the day, except for God the Father (Matthew 24:36).

Whos being ignorant here? I dont know where you get your information but the bible states it quite clearly. No one will know the hour or the day of Jesus' return! If your going to argue against biblical prophecies dont be so quick to show everyone your ignorance on scripture because you definately dont have a clue.

And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you ever again. Immediately the fig tree withered away. (Matt 21:19)
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2010/December11/1186.html

Then He spoke to them a parable: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near, (Luke 21:29- 30).

When Jesus commanded them to learn a parable from the fig tree, they must have had swirling in their minds the recent events of the parable and the cursed fig tree. The Hebrew Bible (OT) background makes it clear that Jesus is likening Israel to the fig tree and just as the fig tree withered, so too would Israel soon be destroyed by the Romans.

Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD and then again in 135 AD. After the second Jewish revolt they were warned not to return to Jerusalem upon the pain of death. They were then dispersed to the four corners of the earth without a home land for nearly 1900 years. Furthermore, the curse appears to apply to the land itself as well. Rabbi Menachem Kohen of Brooklyn discovered that the land of Israel suffered an unprecedented, severe and inexplicable (by anything other than supernatural explanations) drought that lasted from the first century until the 20th a period of 1,800 years coinciding with the forced dispersion of the Jews. [2] Journalist Joseph Farah, prompted by the research of Rabbi Kohen, later discovered that only after the Jews returned did the rain begin to come:

Then after those many years and just as Isaiah had foretold, Israel was born in one day:
Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, She gave birth to her children, (Isaiah 66:8).

On May 14, 1948 Israel (the fig tree) declared independence and then was ratified as a nation by edict of the United Nations and literally was born in one day. 1948[5] becomes the year by which a generation can be measured against.

Caesar Hadrian visited the city in AD 130 and had intimated that he might rebuild the city as a gift to the Jews. When he changed his mind and also outlawed circumcision, the Jews found themselves once again in a deadly conflict with the Romans a mere 62 years after the destruction of the temple. The Jews rallied behind a man named Simon Bar Koseba. Rabbi Akiva would later declare him to be the messiah at which point the Christians who had been helping in the battle left the non-believing Jews to fight for themselves. Hadrian squashed the rebellion in AD 135. He was so angry that he changed the name of the land from Judea to Syria Palestina and salted the land so that nothing would grow. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina and a temple to Zeus would eventually be built on the ruins of the Temple mount. Hadrian also banished all Jews from the city on pain of death. With this in mind, to find a text that declares that Israel, which had been utterly decimated, would one day flourish again is truly incredible.

The correlation of the fig tree being Israel in the text is unequivocal. According to this text, Israel, likened to a fig tree, was cut down (twice in fact) and exiled (in agreement with the parable of the land owner in Luke 13:6-9). Thus the author clearly saw Israel removed from her land and the people no more. But the author firmly believed that they would come back as a nation: when the twigs thereof have sprouted forth in the last days and then the end will come in the days of their sprouting.

I could find a zillion other historical facts that would fit the fig tree parable. You have picked and chosen only the facts that YOU want to consider to support the parable, and that's why this kind of thinking has nothing to do with logic!

Hhmmmmmmmmmm......Seeing as you could find a zillion other historical facts that would fit the fig tree parable.....why dont you give them ? instead we get plenty of mauswarra. Talk the talk but can you walk the walk?

Until you do give evidence to support your claim all you are doing is making lots of noise of which you are an expert.

Believe it or not, common sense carries the day.... with or without evidence.

Someone makes a claim they cant support thats what everyone calls (BS) then you say we dont need evidence to back up a claim/statement thats what everyone calls even bigger (BS). If you make a statement then support it with facts.....thats 'common sense'. So stop trying to avoid the question and deflect it with even more rubbish!

I want to see the 'Zillions' of examples this person imagines they have otherwise they just mauswara nating nating! and we see ignorance at its very best!

ohhhhhh! common sense carries the day with or without evidence??????
Hang on a minute but believe it or not this is called 'BLIND FAITH' the very thing you ridiculed christians on this board about.

Talk about being the biggest hypocryte! That saying on earlier posts about throwing stones at glass houses must be your anthem.

Friend,
Go to that posting (recent) on this board about the fellow 'Saint' Timothy who says he's going to save PNG. He quotes scripture to 'prove' that the Bible has prophesized his appearance. That's nothing much different than what you say is the fig tree prophecy coming true. The only difference is that 'saint' Tiomothy's prophecies are more extreme. But its the same thing.

No its not the same thing at all. The other posting on the other board hasnt got anything to do with the Nationhood of Israel as a prophecy an secondly it isnt based on biblical scripture. Thirdly this only confirms Jesus' own prophecy about false prophets and fale christs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet
"See to it that no one misleads you." (Jesus / Matt 24:4)(Matthew 7:1523)
Throughout the New Testament, there are warnings of both false prophets and false Messiahs, and believers are adjured to be vigilant. The following verses (Matthew 7:1523) are from the Sermon on the Mount: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

You said his views/actions are EXTREME well this is one of the 'Fruits' in the parable above!