Mountain_Fire77

The story of Ian McCormack
Ian McCormack lives in New Zealand. He died in hospital in Mauritius at a young age following poisonous stings from box jelly fish. He was dead for 15 minutes. He experienced both Hell and Heaven.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...71460463354645

TheBlackCat

Any evidence any of this was anything other than hallucinations created by a oxygen-starved brain doped up on neurotoxins?

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Sandok

Of course, the word of some man who almost died! Honnestly though, if I can't see it, touch it, experience it or understand it, couldn't care less.

TheBlackCat

I don't have to be able to "can't see it, touch it, experience it or understand it". There are many things that are true but cannot be seen or touched and are beyond my understanding. Atoms, black holes, the big bang. These are things that are known to be true to the extent that anything can be known to be true, but that I don't understand fully and are certainly beyond our ability to see, touch, or experience. The difference is that they exist in the outside world, they are backed up by extremely strong evidence, and we can test predictions that would be true if they were correct. That is how science works. Evidence is needed. At the very least you have to show what you are describing actually happened and wasn't just a hallucination or even made-up.

This, on the other hand, exists only in this guy's head. There is nothing in the outside world to corroborate it. There is no prediction it makes that we can test. These sorts of hallucinations are known to be made in brains that is starved for oxygen, and having neurotoxins interfering with normal brain function could only exacerbate that (although I am not sure that box jelly toxins can penetrate the blood-brain barrier they would still interfere with the peripheral nervous system which would then be passed on to the brain.) For all we know it could be true, but there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it is true and can just as easily be described by perfectly natural, well-known phenomenon.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

BlueMak

This is bullshit. Even if heaven and hell exist (I don't think believe they do), he is lying his ass off. The whole production is nothing but staged rehearse brain washing to capture the minds of some people. He is talking like a salesman, the whole thing is so fake that it is funny. He is following clear rules while he is doing his speech.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

SFOSOK

He did not almost die, he did die.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Sandok

... ressucitation is nothing unheard of...

The atom and black holes and bigbang fall under "understand"

nitrousoxide52

He died in the "old" sense of the term, the new definition of death is when all brain activity ceases.

__________________
AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+
XFX Geforce 7800GT
ABIT AN8-SLI
BFG Tech 650w

Mountain_Fire77

I am no doctor or med student but i thought that when a persons heart stops beating that is when the person is classed as deceased? I might be wrong but if any brain injury occurred the brain could shut down, but the deciding factor would be when the heart stops beating?

I might be wrong but i thought a person could be brain dead in effect yet still be alive if the heart beats??

nitrousoxide52

Your heart won't beat if your brain is dead...

__________________
AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+
XFX Geforce 7800GT
ABIT AN8-SLI
BFG Tech 650w

TheBlackCat

Pretty much. It can cease temporarily under some conditions, such as with some drugs, buit when it ceases permanently you are considered dead. Heart beat is not used anymore because it is quite possible to have someone's heart stop beating for a prolonged period of time and then be revived. Similarly, the heart can continue beating even without the brain. In fact isolated individual cardiac muscle cells will continue to beat if put in a petri dish with the right chemical environment. The brain only regulated heart rate, increasing it or decreasing it. If left to its own devices the heart will beat on its own. If your brain ceases functioning permanently, though, you are never coming back. So that definition is used to determine actual death. The problem, of course, is that someone can have higher brain (cortical) death, meaning everything that was that person, their memories, personality, emotions, and thoughts, are gone forever, and yet this person can still be legally "alive". So there are specific laws that dictate what can happen in that situation. I personally think death should be considered neocortical death, but so far that is not the case in any place I am aware of.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Maddogg6

If hes found peace and happiness in crediting his experience to some 'greater power' instead of being lucky - or giving credit to the human body for its amazing abilities... well, thats his choice I will respect, but I do think its counter productive for medicine/science - something thats credited and proven more frequently to be effective in 'saving' people.

Frankly I dont think people give themselves enough credit - seems many people find it eaier to praise others than themselves - but we are conditioned to not be 'egotistical' or even boastful and society very much promotes praising others, especially 'god'.

My best guess is his brain went into 'survival' mode and gave him what he needed to help in his survival (read: chemical reactions in the brain to cause physiolocial reactions to reduce effects of the venom and manage pain - aka 'will to survive'). Something science/medicine have been proving happens naturally in the human body more and more but still not completely understood - none the less, there IS more evidence leading in this direction than to a 'greater powers' interventions.

What happens in the after life will never be proven (in our life time anyway) and always argued (as it has for centuries). To me its senseless to get emotional over things we cant prove beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it may as well be another Harry Potter story. Only Harry potter is presented a bit more professionally and as entertainment not 'fact'.

Spirituality is best left 'personal' and to push any belief systems thru sensational story alone is by definition, 'manipulation', as the 'sensational' parts distract from the fact no evidence is available for scrutiny to support their 'strory'. (other than he was stung by a box jelly fish - something other people have lived thru as well). So, stories like this, to me, are obvious attempts at gaining perishiners by adding the 'heaven and hell' and 'eternity' references and not focusing on the more likely and more provable physioligcal aspects of his experience.

Dont mis-understand my words of opposition - its NOT against 'spirituality' - its against 'orginized religion' - and this guy was obviously 'preaching' in a house of orginized religion - er.. god.

Bottom line - this guy is more proving what the human body is capable of - and little else.

Mountain_Fire77

Good answer but can i ask this question to you : If the very exact same thing happened to you what happened to this chap would you deny all the spiritual aspects of the experience you went through and account it all to chemicals acting in your dying brain or would you give it serious consideration and the serious implications that it would have on your life if you were to believe what your feelings, emotions, brain, eyes etc saw heard and felt?

Would you accept that you totally had a severe illusion or would you believe what you saw, heard, felt when you are even presented with the fact afterwards that you were dead for 15 minutes. (according to the chap in question)

It would be pretty convincing to me that it was a true experience, but everyone will react to a experience differently to the next person

Sandok

I personally wouldn't believe what my brain would experience in my last moments... I mean, depending on whether or not you are already christian or muslim or something, you'll typically be thinking of that in your last seconds (what will happen now that I die sorta question) and that preforced thinking will make your final seconds of "reasonable" thinking something extraordinary.

I find the entire thing just really silly since people under extreme subtances and drugs can experience and say the same junk. Just the fact that he was out of it for 15 minutes makes his story more creditable than others?

TheBlackCat

I am completely confident that I would account for it the way I have already described. I know what can cause these sorts of experiences so if I am in a situation that can cause them and they do, in fact, occur I don't think I will have any problem accepting that my brain works the same as everyone else's'.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

SFOSOK

He was legally dead.

If your heart stops for 15 minutes, you are dead. In any sense. There is no "new sense" of how someone is dead because it has not changed.

Oxygen has been cut off from his brain for 15 minutes and he came back to life. Not because someone tried for 15 minutes to bring him back but for a reason unknown to me.

Usually doctors stop trying to bring someone back after 2-3 minutes, so what brought him back is beyond me.

Edit: I am amazed at how blind some of you are. Living in an absolute that you are not wrong when it comes to religion, spirituality, and belief. Shooting down anything that challanges the way you think and believe.

I would say I pity you but I do not.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Mountain_Fire77

Can i just ask a simple question once again.

Is there any way in what you could accept that what this chap experienced could of been true and there is a spiritual realm? I ask this because just say for instance (although not necessarily true) that there was more overwhelming evidence for these spiritual experiences being true rather than the mind playing tricks on us, would you still hold to the unshakable fact that its false or would there be room for a open-minded debate on the subject.

If I'm rambling i apologize, haven't had much sleep these past few days and been staring at a screen non-stop almost

Maddogg6

Well, I can only speculate but I think not.
If god is credited for the 'surviving'- then he gets the blame for dead too, and all that stuff is 'illogical' when way more evidence is pointing that we live in a very logical world. 'lack of understanding' <> 'lack of logic'


Have you ever experienced a chemical induced hallucination.. I have and they *seem* VERY real. So I do have 1st hand knowledge of how chemicals and the brain are capable of 'tricking' our conscience mind. It wasnt god - but peyote.

Ok, but to jump to assumption with no evidence is not only counter productive - but dangerous. I mean, if you get sick. do you seek god or a doctor? Me - I goto a doctor.

Lets do an experiment.
We intentionally sting you with a box jelly fish...
Do you ask for qualified medical personel or a priest (or some indication god is paying attention) to be on site to treat/revive you?

Medicine has a longer track record of 'reviving' people than what 'god' has.
Medicine also explains how hallucination happen and why. But I never heard gods explanation of this 'phenomenon' - not from the horses mouth anyway - only confilicting versions by his most loyal followers.

But if hes here to tell the tale - hes NOT dead. is he? - or is that a 'holy spirit' on youtube?
So - it seems we need to re-define when someone is 'clinically dead'. Thats all. Now I wonder how many people *could* have been revived - but were given up on becuse of this 'definition' we adhere to.

Maddogg6

Blind - as in 'blind obediance' ??? accepting things on others words and no evidence? Whos blind? All I ask for is evidence to back up a story - w/o evidence thats all it is - a story.

Not looking for any pitty personally.

Maddogg6

The burden of proof is on those making the assertions, not on those asking for proof. Simply - prove it and I will believe. Its pretty simple actually.

Dowaco

God, Heaven and Hell are all unprovable ideas. People who are trained to think scientifically cannot accept the existence of spritual things logically because there is no way to prove even the smallest concept. No one can even devise an experiment that would test the premise.

One must make the decision to believe or not to believe based on faith or lack of it. And faith has nothing to do with logical thought. So you either believe in God despite the lack of provability or do not believe because of it.

I also think that what someone else believes is their business and not for me to ridicule. But at the same time not for them to force upon me.

TheBlackCat

You are asking two different questions here. What he experienced could very well be all in his mind yet there is still a "spiritual realm" (I assume you mean Heaven and Hell and not some sort of "atral plane"). And the answer is yes, if sufficient evidence that matches supernatural explanations better than natural ones then I would be happy to accept the supernatural. As of yet no such evidence has appeared, despite extensive searching over a very long time.

Once again, you are discussing two entirely different issues here. First, I do not "hold to the unshakable fact that its false" nor did I ever claim what he experienced was a hallucination. I said that everything he experienced could easily be explained by well-known mental processes without the need to resort to the supernatural. That does not mean that a supernatural explanation was not the correct one. But there are two explanations we are discussing here. One explanation requires nothing other than what we already know to be true. The other requires assuming the existence of an omnipotent deity, and it assumes that this deity is in the habit of grabbing people who are almost but not quite dead and showing them completely different and mutually exclusive visions of heaven and hell that just happen to match their preconceptions and happen to perfectly match what you would expect from hallucinations induced by a dieing brain. Now that by no means proves that the second explanation is wrong, but logic dictates that we must accept the explanation that requires the least unfounded assumptions.

Second, if there was any evidence whatsoever to support this sort of thing I would be happy to discuss it. I have a perfectly open mind regarding these sorts of things, or at least as open as a human mind can be (which is frankly not very). But in the end I go where the evidence points. As it is, there is no evidence that cannot be explained just as well, if not better, by perfectly natural occurrences without having to include the supernatural. So until there is some evidence for supernatural occurrences here on Earth logic dictates I must operate as though they do not occur. I will change in a heartbeat (no pun intended) should sufficient evidence present itself, but as of yet it has not so I don't.

No, he wasn't. And yes, the definition of "dead" has changed. The world progresses. As medicine has advanced conditions that were previously terminal have become curable. Therefor, definitions of what constitutes death have changed, both medically and legally. That is simply how things are.

Note the "irreversible" part. This guy was not dead because his heart started beating again. Obviously, then, it was not irreversible.

I hope this wasn't directed at me. I never once claimed anything absolute. I never once claimed I was right about anything. I merely claimed that, until convincing evidence to the contrary is presented I have no choice but to assume that things behave the same way they always behave. That is how science works. You accept the current understanding as decent working knowledge until other knowledge is shown to be better. Nothing is absolute. Everything is assumed to be wrong, it is just used until something better comes along.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

OmegaRED

Nothing more than the brain reacting to the trauma anyone that thinks differently is not using common sense.

__________________

Maddogg6

The idea of faith - in it self is illogical. To beleive something with no proof seems like a clear cut definition of 'illogical'. So while I respect others choice to beleive- I'll argue why I dont when they bring it up for debate.

I was raised by spiritual people, but I turned to logic/science when I realized some of the answers given to me in catichism were absolutely rediculous when I got old enough to think for myself. Granted maybe these people didnt have the answers to my admittedly tough questions... And I'll even sumbit to the fact these people didnt absolutely represent the 'faith' 100%... But to give a rediculous answer to an impressionable child instead of 'I dont know' - steered me into thinking their answers were not for my 'enlighenment' but were to massage their own egos or worse. And Ill admit, maybe it was just my experience with these particular individuals that made me look elsewhere for answers. But my experiences are my experiences and its what helped mold me as an individual.

Now, if science doesnt have an answer, they'll tell you so or indicate what is their 'theory'. But rarely do they present 'theories' as fact. They present theories for others to either prove or dis-prove through experimentation.
As more people prove a theory - over time becomes 'law' (newtons law, bernulies (spelling??) law etc.. and even then, its still up for 'disproving' or tweaking by the masses, something unheard of in religion only the leaders determine what is 'changable') - if disproven its dropped until someone can yet again give an example that demonstrates their theory and the cycle repeats itself. A system that gained my instant respect becuase it just makes sense.

To make life altering decisions based on 'faith' - like say a muslim suicide bombing to get his virgins in heaven is illogical and something Id like to see less of. Id rather hear about why they would choose to do so instead. What part of their brain is it that is capable of justifying their acts. Id think if we understood it - instead of 'blindly' accepting it - we could learn from these things and then there would be some shred of hope in preventing it in the future. Instead of it historically snowballing out of control.

TheBlackCat

This is incorrect, and is a source of a lot of the confusion with science (and is often used to discredit science by less-than-reputable individuals). In normal everyday life, most people would rank these words in this way in terms of what is the most important:
1. Facts
2. Laws
3. Hypotheses
4. Theories

Facts are considered the most important, laws slightly less so, then hypotheses, and theories as the least important and most tenuous. Now some might rank laws above facts, or theories above hypotheses, but the basic order is the same.

Science, however, looks at it quite differently:
1. Theories
2. Hypotheses
3. Laws
4. Facts

As you can see, this is the complete and total opposite. That is because science uses these words in very different ways than people do in everyday life. Facts are basic knowledge. They tell what is, what was, how something is. They are just descriptions of something. They are still tenuous, facts can be overturned by later facts. The problem with facts it they have no explanatory power. They simply say what is, not why. Laws are similar to facts, except more mathematical in nature. They say, given a certain set of conditions, how something would behave. They also lack and sort of “why”, they are just simple mathematical relationships between cause and effect. However, they are mathematical and predictive which make them superior to facts. Newton's laws were never theories. They were always laws. They are nothing more than simple mathematical relationships, although very important ones.

Hypotheses are where we start getting into “why”. Hypotheses are explanations for one or more facts and/or laws. You observe something about the universe or some part of it, and you make a guess as to why it is or was that way or why it behaves that way. There is really no reason to believe it is other than that it fits some aspect of what is known. Any real scientific hypothesis, besides explaining what has already been observed, will also make predictions about things that should be observed but have not yet. Then, in order to test that hypothesis, scientists go out and check whether those predictions are true or not. If they are not, then the hypothesis has to be revised or abandoned. If they are, then the hypothesis gets support and more tests are conducted.

Eventually, after many thousands of positive tests that weather a great many potential criticisms a hypothesis may reach the status of theory. Once a hypothesis reaches the status of theory, that is the end of the road. There is no stage above theory, no higher rank. That is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. It does not mean it is above doubt, theories are routinely abandoned or revised. But it does mean it has weathered enough challenges to be given tentative approval. It will still be tested, and may be abandoned if future evidence contradicts it, but it is confirmed enough that it can be used for the time being to form a foundation for other hypotheses.

Many people talk about theories becoming laws, or something being a "fact not a theory". This uses the words in the everyday sense not the scientific sense. If someone talks about "atomic theory" or "the theory of evolution" or "the germ theory of disease", they are not talking about some guess or hunch that isn't supported by evidence. They are talking about a detailed explanation for observed phenomenon that has passed the test of time and countless experiments that could have falsified it and that has so much evidence supporting it and none opposing it that "it would be absurd to withhold provisional assent", to quote Gould. It may still be disproven or replaced at some point in the future, but for the time being it is the best we have.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

BlueMak

You are forgetting that the theories are based on facts. Thus facts remain first. Now, for a theory to exist you need, other than the facts, they need hypothesis too, thus you would have to have hypothesis over theory. And for laws to exist you need a theory. So the order is
1)Facts
2)JHypothesis
3)Theory
4)Law.

(I love this game)

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

TheBlackCat

A theory is nothing more than a mature hypothesis, so ranking hypotheses above theories doesn't make sense. And everything has facts. Facts are a dime a dozen. No one is going to give you much credit for discovering a fact. They are just descriptions. They are useless on their own. Science is unique in that it is an organized method by which we can find and test explanations, i.e theories. There is nothing special about scientific observations, it is the explanations, the theories, that have allowed science to progress and have made it such a critical part of our existence. It is the theories that have pushed knowledge forward and given us unprecedented control over nature. Don't think of it in terms of "facts" and "theories", think of it in terms of "observations" and "explanations". That should make it more clear why theories are ranked higher by scientists.

"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
-Henri Poincaré

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Mountain_Fire77

I have not got more knowledge than most of the people who have recently posted on this topic but could anyone explain where the laws which many base higher theory's upon them come from? I mean the universe just seems finely tuned so it can support life, such as objects down to the atomic level being finely balanced to life in itself being such a finely tuned and balanced organisation of beings. Now there is the creation VS evolution debate out there but then I've been hearing lately that down to the subatomic level there seems to be such a order and finely tweaked package of particles which all have the necessary properties for in order that life may exist in the universe. I am not saying this on my own authority or wisdom but the professors and other learned men call this the The Goldilocks Enigma

The full version plus the video interview can be found here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/6035233.stm

So if it is plausible within the scientific community that the universe seems like it is someones workmanship then it would imply a God, so which 1 would you believe? There are thousands but the bible is the Holy Word of God which proves itself time and again through the prophecy's that it has predicted and have come to pass, even in days now we are living in times Jesus foretold such as moral decline, men lovers of pleasure etc etc (there is a long list) but then the increase in earthquakes, famines, wars, pestilences and it does seem all doom and gloom but Jesus foretold all these things would be happening prior to His return. If I'm getting to preachy, forgive me, but it was foretold in the old testament that God would bring Israel back to its homeland in the latter-days and then that happened in 1948 and that generation will not pass away until all things written will be fulfilled, but i can make a biblical prediction as in the final end days it all Is mostly to do with the land of Israel, such as wars, rise of the antichrist etc and Israel is the centre of most of the prophecy's that must be fulfilled before Christ returns.

But for me to believe that it requires faith cause it has not happened yet, just as it takes faith for me to believe a man's death experience, just if you know bible prophecy and the detailed way its gonna pan out, then worldly events are nearly in place for it to kick off, but it will all start with Israel

BlueMak

^^ read it again.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

TheBlackCat

You have it backwards. The universe is not finely tuned to support life, life is finely tuned to operate in the universe in which it finds itself. This is exactly what evolution would predict. Simple molecules gradually adapt to operate more effectively in their environment, becoming progressively more fine-tuned to their surroundings as the generations pass. A universe that cannot support life obviously cannot have life in it to observe the universe. This is called the "weak anthropic principle."

It is best summed up by Voltaire (obviously this is a very old philosophical issue):

"Note that noses were made to wear spectacles; we therefore have spectacles. Legs were clearly devised to wear breeches, and we have breeches. Stones were created to be hewn and made into castles; [the Baron Thunder-Ten-Tronkh] therefore has a very beautiful castle…"

The absurdity of these claims is obvious. They are backwards. The nose is not designed for spectacles, spectacles were designed to work with existing noses. Legs are not designed for pants, pants are designed to work with existing legs. Similarly, the universe is not designed for life, life was designed, by evolution, to work with an existing universe. Life fits the universe so well because life that did not fit the universe well simply does not survive.

Besides, the physical constants we find are not the only ones that could support life as we know it. There is a massive number of combinations that can result in a universe that could conceivably develop life not all that different from our own. In fact such combinations may be more numerous than combinations that don't. And that is ignoring life developing in completely unpredictable ways in a universe with very different properties from our own (Isaac Asimov wrote a book on this called [i]The Gods Themselves]/i]). It is nothing but arrogance to assume that because we evolved so nicely in our universe that life couldn't evolve in completely different ways in a universe that is totally different from our own.

You are also assuming that the physical constants that determine the nature of our universe are arbitrary. It is quite possible, if not likely, that they are wholly interconnected and could not be any other way. In that case then the universe is not fine-tuned at all, it is just the only way it could possibly be.

I believe the evidence. Scientists are allowed to have whatever personal opinions they want. Scientists are allowed to have whatever beliefs they want. But ultimately without evidence all you get is some random guy's opinion. Science requires evidence. What some guy may or may not find plausible is meaningless without evidence. Sure, the universe could have been created by some sort of deity. But unless there is evidence that it was created by a deity then it is not science, it is just conjecture. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained just as well by perfectly natural processes, there is no need for a supernatural designer.

Famines and pestilence are far less common today than at any point in history. I find it debatable that we are in a state of moral decline. And I have seen no evidence that Earthquakes or wars are more common now than in any other point in history, I would suspect wars at least are less common.

I assume you are talking about Matthew 24? Where Jesus makes a prophecy regarding these things proceeding his return? You left out one important part of the prophecy, I am afraid:

"34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

Similarly, in Matthew 16:28

"28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.""

Fairly similar, although not identical, statements also appear in Mark and Luke.

Whoops, it has been 2000 years and it still has not happened. So much for it happening "this generation" or before everyone present "tasted death".

What is more, it is stated in Hebrews, Peter, John, and Revelations several times each that the second coming is about to happen, but it didn't. It has been over a millennium and a half and it still has not happened.

I should point you to a small selection of previous widely-believed doomsday prophecies, about 38 of which were bible-based, dating back almost 2000 years. This book was published shortly before the year 2000, which of course was supposed to be a big year just like 1000 was.

It also makes the following prophecy in Ezekial 26, regarding the city of Tyre during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar:

"3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. "
"13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD."
"19 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,"

The city of Tyre was involved in a battle, but stood and currently inhabited by 20,000 people. It is not underwater and it is far from bare rock, being the center of a massive metropolitan area. So much for that prophecy.

I should also point out that the prophecy said the Messiah would be named Immanuel, a name Jesus was never recored being called.

That is just the beginning, Here is an absolutely massive list of failed biblical prophecies. Over 200, to be exact, from both the old and new testament.

I see no reason to believe you over the countless other "experts" who predicted the end of the world and knew the Bible in much more detail than you do. Especially when all the prophecies regarding the second coming said it should have happened 1500-1900 years ago.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken