Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

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.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

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.

hughfarey wrote:Time for a reality check? This thread is entitled "Questions for Theistic Evolutionists"; it is part of the "God and Science" forum, on a website called "Evidence for God from Science", and has become a wholly unscientific, even untheological squabble between literalist devotees of one particular translation of the non-English texts on which it is based.

Here are two questions which I think a Theistic Evolutionist, such as myself, might validly be asked:

1) Where does the story in Genesis 6 come from? and
2) What is its relevance in the bible?

It goes without saying that Theistic Evolutionists do not think that the authors of the early books of the bible were scientists, and that their intention was not to give a scientific account of the early history of the universe or mankind, of which they knew nothing. Nor do we think that the original scribes went into some kind of trance, only to wake up hours later to discover that God had held their pens while they wrote the Torah. The divine inspiration attributed to the bible is derived from what it says, not how it came to be written.

A formal account of the beliefs of a people could not be written until the invention of writing, and probably was not written until there was some compulsion to make an objective record, against which oral tradition could be checked if necessary. This may have occurred at the time of the Babylonian captivity, when some authority or other, either left in Israel or exiled in Babylon, felt it important. By that time there must have been numerous oral traditions, not necessarily compatible, all being used to teach the people who they were and how to live. Rather than choose one, a whole variety were gathered together, all of value of one kind or another, but not necessarily from the same source, nor necessarily literally compatible. Wikipedia says that the chief of these were the Jahwist, the Elohist source, the priestly and the Deuteronomist, but there may be others. Quite possibly a variety of other stories was also considered, but rejected as inappropriate. Most of early Genesis seems ultimately derivable from much older Sumerian or other Mesopotamian mythology.

So what was it all for? Why incorporate all this disparate mythology into the bible? There are several possible reasons: firstly, because it was all 'true' in the sense that it correctly illustrated some aspects of God's relationship to man, and secondly, as a means of collecting different, and possibly divergent, traditions under a single canopy, thus preventing schismatic tendencies. The story of the Nephilim seems most likely to be one of these.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

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.

And yet some believe in aliens...

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

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.

And yet some believe in aliens...

You know, seriously, the thing of looking for examples of inconsistency
or evern(gasp) hypocrisy in unidentified others out there somewhere
as some sort of counterstatement is just so incredibly lame, dont you think?

I was not referring to your post anyway, you were not provoking no eye roll.

Anyway, I used to be an alien myself, till I got naturalized here.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento 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.

And yet some believe in aliens...

You know, seriously, the thing of looking for examples of inconsistency
or evern(gasp) hypocrisy in unidentified others out there somewhere
as some sort of counterstatement is just so incredibly lame, dont you think?

I was not referring to your post anyway, you were not provoking no eye roll.

Anyway, I used to be an alien myself, till I got naturalized here.

My point, Audie, is that even skeptics believe in things that we have no evidence for ( aliens, multiple universes, etc).

Oh? NO evidence?

One guy says he saw a burning bush, another says he saw a flying saucer.

Then there is indirect evidence, and there is math, both of which lend considerable support to aliens and multiple universes.

Personally I find it interesting than some non-believers in God or angels are so quick to believe in parallel dimensions or universe and life outside our own planet.

I am quick to note more concocted hypocrisy on the part of persons unidentified.

You tell me which is better supported by physics.

Personally, as someone the accepts the existence of the supernatural, I don't see the problem with the view that divine-supernatural beings may have mated with humans.

And that is, along with the "flood" and attendant water canopy and divers other things, an example of why some among thee roll their eyes in mock resignation when these things are brought out as being real as rain.

But if others have a problem with that, that's fine

Its not MY problem.

crochet1949 wrote:The same 'book' that's full of mythology Also tells of a future heaven and hell. And it's where we get our Christmas and Easter/Resurrection Sunday from. And there Are Lots of churches / Hundreds of them all over the world that worship the same God and use God's Word / Bible as their text for beliefs. And God's Word Does change lives for the Better Not for the worse. So who's to say what Really happened and Didn't.

Kurieuo wrote:And what's the content of that post prove Auds.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie -- come on now. We know that That is Not what you meant by that list.

you said:

Bible as their text for beliefs. And God's Word Does change lives for the Better Not for the worse.

Should there not be some outstanding difference between Christianity and other religions, such that one can see one gets such good results as you appear to suggest?

You're saying that at least two years of college --if not a MA or Bachelors Degree makes for a better education and higher income bracket.

In general it does, this is not news.

I'm supposing that you think I'm not past a high school education -- correct?

I didnt think about it at all actually, tho you clearly are not an English major.

Actually I've had business college and an equivalent of 3 yrs beyond that. Plus studying on my own -- internet along the way during the years.

These things are admirable and to the good.

And, I've learned over the years that money isn't everything in life. Sure -- everyone needs to pay the bills -- have a nice house, car, etc.

I was teasing someone in the forum that I'd not knock them off their bicycle with my Beamer. I actually drive an old Corolla. I dont care at all absout cars, one way or another. I indulge in a few nice things, Omega, Chanel, you know, but I dont feel I need to flaunt it. People who know me know the family I come from, and those who dont know me need not concern themselves.

but money doesn't necessarily buy a good education

Im sure we all know people with degrees from various colleges ,who didnt learn a darn thing.

A good education has a tendency to mean the person believes in evolution and doesn't bother to take the Bible seriously.

Well, I dont know that is so. I cant speak for others. I know very highly educated people who have various view on things.

I will say though that a person who is educated in biology / geology and still
rejects evolution is being intellectually dishonest. I know it is a tough deal for those whose religious convictions say something else.

Dr. K Wsie, PhD , paleontologist.. I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate

I do feel for him, being in such a bind as to be a scientist forced into intellectual dishonesty.

Have you checked out how many very well-known -- highly respected professionals Are born-again believers and have no problem with Genesis / Bible authority

I have my own (ex) father in law, a devout Catholic and a geologist.

He has no problem, with deep time and evolution, why should he?

There is a kind of bottom line in this, for me, which is that if ToE is
simply wrong, then it should be possible for someone somewhere to show it is wrong. I doubt any theory comes remotely close to ToE for having been subjected to hostile examination from every angle, for well over a hundred years. So far, nobody has come up with any contrary facts.


Now, if knowing something about it does not interest you, that is fine.
I dont care about French poetry, or how to hunt lions in Angola, nor about
football.

To me it is kind of too bad not to know any geology or biology, the landscape
comes alive to someone who can read it. But to each their own, etc.

Hope you've not felt I was looking to put you down.

bippy123 wrote:

Actually crochet it's because when we are taking course at the university level you are taught a priori that evolution is correct and you are not allowed to challenge that assumption (if you even knew that there were alternatives to evolution ).

Sorry to hear you had that kind of experience in college. That wasnt my experience.

Science that is not to be questioned is not science at all. A school that teaches that way is not teaching any science.

I never knew about ID in college

And so...?

No wonder why if you went to college you will nite likely believe in evolution .

I dont know wht that would even come up for a business major, art major, or, for that matter, one of those Philosophers you hear about sometimes.

A person who has studied geology is going to "believe in" deep time.
A person who has gotten into biology is likely to understand evolution well enough to accept it.

Now me being the non conformist that I am , I had to question it

So in the course of questioning-always a good exercise, after all-what did you find out?


.