Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

That's because they don't believe in God.If they believed in God they could believe in angels too,but they don't,so they won't.If you saw an angel though,you would'nt know it,you would think it was a human.You have probably entertained angels unawares.

That explains why you get the same reaction from believer and atheist alike?

Changing the subject.

Seriously dude? It is exactly on topic, you just dont happen to like the truth concerning yourself
and your idiotic ideas about gapistty, angels etc how it brings derision from believer
and normal people alike.

Tell us who among the believers disagrees with me.

Believer and normal people?

Believers aren't normal people?

We're all a bunch of kooks?

RickD wrote:Believer and normal people?

Believers aren't normal people?

We're all a bunch of kooks?

Yes.

Storyteller wrote:

RickD wrote:Believer and normal people?

Believers aren't normal people?

We're all a bunch of kooks?

Yes.

No!

Rejoice!

Normal?

Nah, I'll take the narrow gate.

Can I be Abby Normal?

RickD wrote:Believer and normal people?

Believers aren't normal people?

We're all a bunch of kooks?

Is all in how you look at it.

A drinker likes to drink. A stoner gets stoned. A believer compulsively
believes things. (And you know some of your fellow Christians do believe
the most ridiculous things in the evident conviction that it increases their virtue)

Normal people find a balance between cycnicism and rejection vs wide- eyed
credulity.

I tossed the word "normal" in because the usual usage is "theist" as a positive, and
"atheist", a negative. I dont happen to accept Christianity or any other religion as the default or
normal state of mind, or that I am something negative on account of someone else's
chosen stance.

Does anyone but abe disagree with what I said to abe, now that we've
had our fun with the word "normal"?

So because I'm Christian I'm not normal?

I don't see you as negative. I see you as stubborn.

In a good way.

Wanna come climbing?

Storyteller wrote:So because I'm Christian I'm not normal?

I don't see you as negative. I see you as stubborn.

In a good way.

Wanna come climbing?

If anything, you may even be excessively normal.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

That's because they don't believe in God.If they believed in God they could believe in angels too,but they don't,so they won't.If you saw an angel though,you would'nt know it,you would think it was a human.You have probably entertained angels unawares.

That explains why you get the same reaction from believer and atheist alike?

Changing the subject.

Seriously dude? It is exactly on topic, you just dont happen to like the truth concerning yourself
and your idiotic ideas about gapistty, angels etc how it brings derision from believer
and normal people alike.

Tell us who among the believers disagrees with me.

Let us reason amongst the brethren and that is what we do and we don't always agree but it does'nt bother me if people don't like me over the gap stuff.It shows they have a problem,not me,if it is true and I'm not convinced you're right.

I agree. An academic disagreement about the past should not prevent people corresponding in cheerful courtesy. I disagree with almost everything everybody writes on this thread, but have come to like most of them, in so far as one can get to know people through an internet forum, very much!

hughfarey wrote:I agree. An academic disagreement about the past should not prevent people corresponding in cheerful courtesy. I disagree with almost everything everybody writes on this thread, but have come to like most of them, in so far as one can get to know people through an internet forum, very much!

So you go along with gappery and find it brings no discredit to anyone or anything.

Audie wrote:So you go along with gappery and find it brings no discredit to anyone or anything.

Eh? I specifically said that I disagree with "almost everything everybody writes", which most certainly includes 'gappery'. But what do you mean by discredit? True I consider all forms creationism scientifically, historically and theologically bereft, but that's no reason not to like people. I have friends who are bankrupt, entirely through their own fault - you can't get more 'discredited' than that - but they're still friends.