That Boat Don't Float!!

[Catherineanne]

Are angels 'animals'? and how did they get here: creation or evolution?

(Notice I'm asking 'what' and 'how' -- so can I expect a scientific answer from you?)

You ought to know by now that I am not the person to attempt language games with. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' answer or a 'non-scientific' answer in relation to angels; the term 'scientific' is meaningless in this context. In essence it denotes 'human knowledge', and specifically that kind of knowledge that can be measured and quantified. Knowledge of angels is not measurable, nor quantifiable.

As to your question; no. Angels are not animals. Christ says that they do not marry as humans do, from which we can probably also deduce that they do not reproduce as humans and other animals do. They were created by God, the same as everything else.

We are not told how they were created, or even when.
We are not told of what form they are.
We are not told whether new angels are being created, or whether all the angels that would ever be, appeared all at once.
Genesis does not specify at what point in the six days (if any) the angels appeared.
We are not told specifically about the orders of angels; this information is inferred from various scriptures.
We are not even told the names of all the angels when they appear in scripture.

In fact, when you think about it, there is a lot that we are not told about angels.

 

[AV1611VET]

You ought to know by now that I am not the person to attempt language games with. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' answer or a 'non-scientific' answer in relation to angels; the term 'scientific' is meaningless in this context.

Fair enough -- I'll take this statement then:

... we can happily reconcile science, which speaks of what and how, and theology which speaks only of why.

... with a grain of salt.

Science is too myopic to be criticizing the Bible.

 

[Tomatoman]

A quick reality check for the fantasy addicts: angels don't exist.

 

[Catherineanne]

A quick reality check for the fantasy addicts: angels don't exist.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think the evidence is very much that they do.

 

[Catherineanne]

Fair enough -- I'll take this statement then:

... with a grain of salt.

AV, you are more than welcome to swallow the whole tub. In fact, I take great pleasure in the thought.

Science is too myopic to be criticizing the Bible.

Science is not interested in criticising the Bible. Why should it? Science is not threatened by the Bible, and has no need to indulge in gratuitous criticism.

It is only those of insecure faith who need to indulge in criticism, and that insecurity is most certainly to be found in Creationism.

 

[JustMeSee]

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think the evidence is very much that they do.

Evidence? Care to provide some evidence that angels exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not interested in criticising the Bible.

Don't make me laugh, Catherine.

 

[Tomatoman]

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think the evidence is very much that they do.

Excellent. You'll have no problem presenting that evidence then.

 

[Tomatoman]

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

Science is not interested in criticising the Bible.
​

Don't make me laugh, Catherine.

Actually, AV, catherine is quite correct. The bible is of little or no interest to science. It is only certain interpretations of the bible that are criticised by scientists, and even then it's usually the people with the inflexible interpretations who kick up the fuss and start the argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, AV, catherine is quite correct. The bible is of little or no interest to science.

Really?

Then answer me this: What does science have to say about Jesus walking on water?

(And please don't tell me 'nothing' and expect me to believe it. I'm sure science has something to say about buoyancy.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Angels are not of this earth. They are heavenly spirits.

Not to mention mythological characters

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

Then answer me this: What does science have to say about Jesus walking on water?

(And please don't tell me 'nothing' and expect me to believe it. I'm sure science has something to say about buoyancy.)

As you know the answer is 'nothing' I'm not sure why you asked the question.

What would you like science to say about it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Really?

Then answer me this: What does science have to say about Jesus walking on water?

Nothing. Science doesn't talk, people do. Why not discuss people as opposed to abstractions, AV?

Oh, that's right -- because then you'd be forced to limit your ponderings to the real world, and your ideas don't fare too well there, do they?

(And please don't tell me 'nothing' and expect me to believe it. I'm sure science has something to say about buoyancy.)

Nobody expects you to believe anything, AV -- you expect abstract concepts to talk.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV:


As you know the answer is 'nothing' I'm not sure why you asked the question.

What would you like science to say about it?

Can my car drive on water?

(We're gonna play 20-questions now, aren't we?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing. Science doesn't talk, people do. Why not discuss people as opposed to abstractions, AV?

Oh, that's right -- because then you'd be forced to limit your ponderings to the real world, and your ideas don't fare too well there, do they?



Nobody expects you to believe anything, AV -- you expect abstract concepts to talk.

Fair enough -- like I said then -- don't expect me to believe that science or nature can speak against the Bible with any amount of qualification.

Science is myopic.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can my car drive on water?

Indeed it can -- but it's dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplaning_(tires)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fair enough -- like I said then -- don't expect me to believe that science or nature can speak against the Bible with any amount of qualification.

People who understand do a pretty good job of speaking against the people who worship the Bible as it it were God's own manuscript -- that's good enough for me.

Science is myopic.

Now an abstract concept has a vision problem? Clearly, the people who rail agaisnt it are hallucinating.

 

[Catherineanne]

Evidence? Care to provide some evidence that angels exist?

Well, then we come to definitions again. What do you mean by evidence exactly?

There is plenty of Biblical evidence for those who accept it, but which is meaningless to those who do not. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence, personal testimony, hagiographical details ditto. There is also psychology, strangely enough. If a person speaks to his or her psychologist and says they have encountered angels, within certain parameters (ie seeing internally rather than in the same way as seeing people or things) this is accepted as within normal range, and not evidence of psychosis, as long as said angels are part of that person's culture. Encountering Martians, not so much.

It really is a matter of perspective. Nobody can say there is no evidence; the best they can claim is that the evidence there is does not strike them as particularly convincing. The same as UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster.

I do hope that helps.

 

[Catherineanne]

Don't make me laugh, Catherine.

You would do well to remember that adults are responsible for their own emotional responses, and ought not to abdicate control of them to other people.

If you laugh, it is best to consider this as you choosing to laugh, rather than me manipulating you to do so.

 

[Catherineanne]

Can my car drive on water?

(We're gonna play 20-questions now, aren't we?)

Yes, your car can drive on water. Water can exist in several different states; water vapour, liquid and solid. Maybe others; I am not a scientist.

Your car can drive on the solid one, commonly known as ice.

When the Lord walked on water, he took advantage of the ability of water to be either vapour, liquid or solid, depending on the will of God. For the purposes of said walking, the water sustained his weight. Not buoyancy, not a hidden sandbar; the water. And no, it did not turn to ice. It didn't have to.

Those who do not believe in miracles, disregard the above as meaningless.