Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in anyscientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Well said! I'll remember that clue the next time I see fruitcake science.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

You think fallen angels have cone heads and lived in Peru?

FL

No but their offspring might have.

Stu, it's an entertaining thought but it really doesn't look to be very well supported.

What is it that drew you to think it was the Nephilim related?
If it was that article you linked to in your original post, then why do you give its author such credibility and authority?

We need to be careful not to go chasing after wind. Being blown this way and that way.
That means loving God with the mind as well as heart. We are all created with both.

Test everything and hold onto the good. I fully support the Apostle Paul there.
And that is what I'd implore everyone to do, especially Christians.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:
Its terrible subtle but if you try hard.....

Dearest Chinadoll, are you suggesting that I'm not subtle enough? Should I be insulted and spend all evening crying?

FL

No

Kurieuo wrote:

Stu wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in anyscientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Well said! I'll remember that clue the next time I see fruitcake science.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

You think fallen angels have cone heads and lived in Peru?

FL

No but their offspring might have.

Stu, it's an entertaining thought but it really doesn't look to be very well supported.

What is it that drew you to think it was the Nephilim related?
If it was that article you linked to in your original post, then why do you give its author such credibility and authority?

We need to be careful not to go chasing after wind. Being blown this way and that way.
That means loving God with the mind as well as heart. We are all created with both.

Test everything and hold onto the good. I fully support the Apostle Paul there.
And that is what I'd implore everyone to do, especially Christians.

Actually I never gave it any authority, I just never dismissed it either.
Personally I'm waiting for more info before I make a decision either way.

Stu, I'm glad you didn't gave it any authority. That is nonsense. We really don't need fallen angels to introduce evil...we got that covered pretty well.

Stu wrote:Actually I never gave it any authority, I just never dismissed it either.
Personally I'm waiting for more info before I make a decision either way.

Ok, no worries.

I was actually extending an olive branch by the way in my previous message.
Not sure if it came out that way. Just care needs to be taken though with ideas like this.

By "care needs to be taken" I mean that I'm rather conscious of what I say and put out there. Perhaps sensitively so.
Don't want to present stumbling blocks to God or make Christianity look unnecessarily foolish.

A passage that comes to mind is 2 Cor 10:3-5 which reads:

• For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

Christians often take that to apply to secular or non-Christian thought, but I see it equally applies to many Christian thoughts and even positions.
Some speculations serve as stumbling blocks to non-Christians and make belief in God appear "nutty".
This can prevent people coming to a knowledge of God through putting them off.
While I'm not ashamed of Christ, I am conscious of what I say and how I represent.

These words aren't necessarily aimed at you.
There is nothing wrong really with asking questions or what others think.
More just writing out my thoughts as they flow.

Kurieuo wrote:

Stu wrote:Actually I never gave it any authority, I just never dismissed it either.
Personally I'm waiting for more info before I make a decision either way.

Ok, no worries.

I was actually extending an olive branch by the way in my previous message.
Not sure if it came out that way. Just care needs to be taken though with ideas like this.

By "care needs to be taken" I mean that I'm rather conscious of what I say and put out there. Perhaps sensitively so.
Don't want to present stumbling blocks to God or make Christianity look unnecessarily foolish.

A passage that comes to mind is 2 Cor 10:3-5 which reads:

• For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

Christians often take that to apply to secular or non-Christian thought, but I see it equally applies to many Christian thoughts and even positions.
Some speculations serve as stumbling blocks to non-Christians and make belief in God appear "nutty".
This can prevent people coming to a knowledge of God through putting them off.
While I'm not ashamed of Christ, I am conscious of what I say and how I represent.

These words aren't necessarily aimed at you.
There is nothing wrong really with asking questions or what others think.
More just writing out my thoughts as they flow.

Yeah and I appreciate the olive branch
I hear you, but at the same time I don't think we should be afraid to explore and express opinions either. As is the case with fallen angels, giants, etc.

Stu wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Stu wrote:Actually I never gave it any authority, I just never dismissed it either.
Personally I'm waiting for more info before I make a decision either way.

Ok, no worries.

I was actually extending an olive branch by the way in my previous message.
Not sure if it came out that way. Just care needs to be taken though with ideas like this.

By "care needs to be taken" I mean that I'm rather conscious of what I say and put out there. Perhaps sensitively so.
Don't want to present stumbling blocks to God or make Christianity look unnecessarily foolish.

A passage that comes to mind is 2 Cor 10:3-5 which reads:

• For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

Christians often take that to apply to secular or non-Christian thought, but I see it equally applies to many Christian thoughts and even positions.
Some speculations serve as stumbling blocks to non-Christians and make belief in God appear "nutty".
This can prevent people coming to a knowledge of God through putting them off.
While I'm not ashamed of Christ, I am conscious of what I say and how I represent.

These words aren't necessarily aimed at you.
There is nothing wrong really with asking questions or what others think.
More just writing out my thoughts as they flow.

Yeah and I appreciate the olive branch
I hear you, but at the same time I don't think we should be afraid to explore and express opinions either. As is the case with fallen angels, giants, etc.

It seem that those that want proof of Aliens say these skulls have some alien origin. If one wants evidence for biblical events one sees nephalim. If one just wants to see humans then they are the result of bandaging.

This is the information from the initial article that I find interesting...

"They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two."

If this is valid information then I am very curious as to how the two skull plates became one, with bandaging.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body ... sted-tale/

Scaphocephaly is a condition that involves premature fusion of the parietal bones.

Mistaking scaphocephaly for signs of aliens is akin to mistaking a syncline for Noahs ark.

http://i985.photobucket.com/albums/ae33 ... se_550.jpg

Audie wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/human-body ... sted-tale/

Scaphocephaly is a condition that involves premature fusion of the parietal bones.

Mistaking scaphocephaly for signs of aliens is akin to mistaking a syncline for Noahs ark.

http://i985.photobucket.com/albums/ae33 ... se_550.jpg

Premature fusion of the parietal bones appears to be a condition that becomes obvious in children ie 'premature' fusion. The general outcome of such a condition is misshapen facial features, IOW not normal facial features with only the elongated upper skull.

Here is a link to pictures of children and adults with the condition. Although misshapen, none of them reflect the Paracus skulls.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=scap ... 986%3B1280

In the end these skulls can be an example of anything one wants them to be from alien interbreeds or nephalim to a human race. This would be a human race that carried an over representation of the genetic variation for scaphocelphaly and no other form of craniosynostosis. Amazing!!!!