Angels can't fly, scientist says

[moobu2]

A leading biologist has compared the physiology of flighted species with the representations of spiritual and mythical creatures in art – and found the angels and fairies that sit atop of Christmas trees did not get there under their own steam.

Prof Roger Wotton, from University College London, found that flight would be impossible for angels portrayed with arms and bird-like feathered wings.

“Even a cursory examination of the evidence in representational arts shows that angels and cherubs cannot take off and cannot use powered flight,” said Prof Wotton. “And even if they used gliding flight, they would need to be exposed to very high wind velocities at take off - such high winds that they would be blown away and have no need for wings.

“Interestingly, the artist Giotto showed one angel with a rigid 'mono-wing’ which could be an adaptation for gliding flight. But if they do just glide, how are the wings folded, unfolded and held rigid?”

Angels, cherubs and putti (babies with wings) adorn some the world’s most famous religious paintings and architecture, hovering in the air to witness the deeds of God and men.

Their power to capture the imagination is so strong that a survey last year revealed that most Americans believe in angels.
...




LInK

[hobbit709]

1. But imaginary creatures don't obey the laws of physics.

[pnwmom]

10. And God isn't bound by the laws of physics either. n/t

[damntexdem]

19. Well, after all, She does know the cheat codes.

;-)

[pnwmom]

22. Since She wrote them.

;)

[BurtWorm]

118. Neither is Spongebob Squarepants, now that you mention it.

:think:

[Deep13]

2. Also, elves don't really live in trees. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Yes they do!

I have the cookies to prove it!

[HopeHoops]

3. This is Earth calling scientist dude. Earth to scientist dude. Angels don't WEIGH anything!

The wings are just there to be pretty.

Now the little tiny wings they put on dragons could use some scientific study. There's no WAY those things could pick up those lard butt creatures.

[dmallind]

4. With God all things are possible

Although you'd wonder why he bothered setting up the laws of physics and biology in the first place so that angels couldn't fly.

[dysfunctional press]

5. now there's a biology professor with way too much time on his hands.

hasn't he ever heard the expression- "through faith in god, ALL things are possible" ?

and i'm guessing that angels have a pretty strong faith in their boss.

bottom line- if god wants them to be able to fly with those wings- they can.

but as an atheist, i don't believe in angels, either.

[safeinOhio]

12. Me either. If I did mine would have

jet packs.

[tavalon]

91. Thank you for reaffirming why I don't drink liquids at my computer

Angels with jet packs made me laugh out loud. Thank you!

[Democrats_win]

6. Quick, someone tell George W. Bush there's a war on angels.

Dick Cheney will accuse Obama of dithering.

[DeSwiss]

7. Can't, can't, cant.... FLY!?!?!?!?!?!

- And next you'll be telling me that Angels aren't real. And that this isn't REAL either!!!!




And I bought them ALL buddy!!!!! A whole bowl of t*rds!!!!! What am I s'posed to do with 'em NOW!?!?!?!?!

[flakey_foont]

8. but can 186,000 still dance on the head of a pin??

just askin',

[bfarq]

9. Nor can hummingbirds or bumblebees

There have been similar "proofs" that hummingbirds and bumblebees cannot possibly fly while obeying our laws of physics.

So the next time you see a bumblebee, just remember, Jesus is making that happen. And if the bee stings you, well sometimes Jesus can be a dick, like when he let 911 happen, for example.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Beat me to it

[trotsky]

21. No, there have been no such "proofs."

That's an urban myth.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

77. Wrong

http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos.html

[tavalon]

92. He may have been wrong but he was funny

Damn funny. So was the site you linked to.

This is not a topic to be serious in. Trust me, I know serious topics and this ain't one.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

138. That's why I linked to that site

rather than a "serious" scientific website.

[Guilded Lilly]

13. Killjoys.

They are everywhere.

And I think I will send my friendly little flying fairy that lives in the Magic Grotto of my garden to go pull his hair and give him the raspberries. She might even take her angel buddy along to light the area around him with her glowing aura.

Magic lives forever.

[tridim]

14. I think I'm going to sue Red Bull Inc.

Although technically they never claim you can fly with the "wings" it apparently gives you.

[old mark]

15. Can't fly if you don't exist. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Of course, neither can bumblebees.

They are just aerodynamically WRONG.

[damntexdem]

18. That's just because the artists never show the jetpacks.

;-)

[Igel]

20. Such folly.

Of course they can't fly to the tops of trees or take off from the ground.

They don't fly to the tops of trees. They climb there. Much like flying squirrels. Or even better, they hypnotize their serfs to place them up there so they can scope out goodies for their annual feedings.

The Xmas tree gives them the height necessary to glide so they can swoop down and steal the cookies before Santa Claws can get to them.

[tavalon]

93. Angels have serfs?

Wow, I learn something new every day! Well, maybe not today, specifically, but you know.

[Igel]

121. Sure.

Who do you think moves them around, polishes and cleans them, stands there and gazes at the admiringly?

Owners?

Pshaw.

[Zebedeo]

23. Prof. Wotton is mistaken

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."

Isaiah 6:1-2

"And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight"

Ezekiel 10:19

That's two eyewitnesses contradicting the good professor's conjecture.

[darkstar3]

24. I question the accuracy and credibility of your source material. n/t

[Zebedeo]

25. You may do so.

But it doesn't change the fact that there are two documented eyewitness accounts (at least) of angels flying.

[darkstar3]

26. Documented eyewitnesses??

Did you miss the whole concept of dubious accuracy and credibility?

[Zebedeo]

27. No, not documented eyewitnesses.

Documented eyewitness accounts.

[darkstar3]

28. You say potato....

The bottom line is that you are still accepting, wholesale, the stories as portrayed in the Bible, and calling them documentation.

If someone says, "I doubt your source," it makes absolutely no sense to say "OK, but I still have documented evidence," and then point to the EXACT SAME source. That's circular argumentation. If there is doubt as to the genuine nature of your source, you must provide supporting evidence or documentation before you can continue to make claims based on that singular source.

[trotsky]

29. Ooh, you've met Zeb.

Here, you'll need this:

[darkstar3]

30. This isn't the first time Zeb has made me dizzy.

But thanks for the graphic. I'm keeping that one. :toast:

[iris27]

74. HAHAHAHAHA....

right-click/"save"!

[Zebedeo]

33. You mistake my intention

I am not trying to persuade you to believe the Bible, or to believe that angels fly. I simply pointed out that there are documented eyewitness accounts of angels using their wings to fly, and these accounts contradict the professor's conjecture that angels could not possibly fly. Your expression of doubt about the source in which those accounts are documented does not change the fact that the accounts are documented.

On the one hand, there are the documented eyewitness accounts, which constitute evidence. On the other hand, there is your naked expression of skepticism, which does not constitute evidence. In my view of this issue, the balance tips in favor of the side of the issue that is supported by evidence. But you may have a different view. That's fine. You are welcome to believe or not believe in whatever way you see fit.

Merry Christmas!

- Zebedeo

[darkstar3]

35. See #34. n/t

[iris27]

75. Documented eyewitness accounts of UFO and alien sightings

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/UFO_and_Alien_Section_5/index.shtml

What say you?

[Sanity Claws]

98. Do they have wings too?

;-)

[dmallind]

154. So are there documented eyewitness accounts of Zeus impregnating mortals?

Why or why not?

[tavalon]

95. Are you really this humor impaired?

[Silent3]

108. You can't really be as clueless as you feign being about why...

...a lot of people don't accept passages in the Bible and unshakable, fully-documented eyewitness accounts.

You'd be just as skeptical of any other account in any book, modern or ancient, if it came from a different religious tradition than your own, especially if it contradicted your Christian beliefs. And if this leads you to the impulse to argue about the Bible being oh-so-special compared to any other ancient book, you also know damn well that's not believed by everyone either, especially in the category of treating the book as a book of historical fact. Many of your fellow Christians treat the Bible as largely myth and allegory.

[rd_kent]

31. I think it is you who is mistaken.

Eyewitness accounts? Really?

[Zebedeo]

32. Right.

I cited two in my post #23. Do you have any evidence contradicting their accounts?

[darkstar3]

34. And lo, a full-sized dragon did fly from my ass.

Do YOU have any evidence contradicting my account?

[trotsky]

36. I can top that.

I have FIRST PERSON EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE that Santa Claus is real AND reindeer can fly.

A Visit from St. Nicholas

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro' the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar plums danc'd in their heads,

And Mama in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap —
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters, and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow,
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below;
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a minature sleigh, and eight tiny rein-deer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and call'd them by name:
"Now! Dasher, now! Dancer, now! Prancer and Vixen,
"On! Comet, on! Cupid, on! Donder and Blitzen;
"To the top of the porch! To the top of the wall!
"Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!"

As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of toys — and St. Nicholas too:
And then in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound:
He was dress'd all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnish'd with ashes and soot;
A bundle of toys was flung on his back,
And he look'd like a peddler just opening his pack:

His eyes — how they twinkled! His dimples: how merry,
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry;
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.

He had a broad face, and a little round belly
That shook when he laugh'd, like a bowl full of jelly:
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laugh'd when I saw him in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And fill'd all the stockings; then turn'd with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose.
He sprung to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew, like the down of a thistle:

But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight —
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

—Clement Clark Moore

[Zebedeo]

38. Again, not the same

The poem you cite was written as a fictional story. The Bible has been the standard of truth for thousands of years.

- Zeb

On edit: Merry Christmas or whatever the equivalent would be to a disbeliever! Have a wonderful time off from work!

[rd_kent]

40. "The Bible has been the standard of truth for thousands of years" - HA! Thats a contradiction

right there. It has also been the standard of hypocrisy, the standard of contradiction, and the standard of falsehoods.

Your premise that the bible has anything in it that is to be considered as true is as false as if I were claiming that a STephen King novel were true.

[Zebedeo]

44. So says you,

and you are entitled to believe or disbelieve the accounts set forth in the Bible. Your belief or disbelief in them has zero effect on the immutable truth of God's Word. That is not to say that your belief or disbelief is unimportant. To the contrary, it is very important. But it is not the subject of this thread, so I will not go there.

Happy Holidays, in any event!

- Zebedeo

[rd_kent]

45. You keep insisting that this god of yours is the end all, be all of the truth.

Until you provide evidence that this god of yours is anything more than a delusion in your head, you are arguing from a false premise and are not to be taken seriously.

I have plenty of time, so I will wait for you to find evidence of this god you claim exists. No, really, go ahead, I will wait.....

[Zebedeo]

48. Just look outside

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." Psalm 19:1-2

Behold and give God his due.

[rd_kent]

51. I am looking outside, I don't see this god of yours. Will he introduce himself or what?

But it is a beautiful snow covered bluebird day here on the mountain. Not sure what that has to do with evidence of your god, but I will wait for you to give me something....


And I see you are back to quoting that book of yours, you know, the one written by men, whose words are fallible.....

[Zebedeo]

54. Get back to me

when you can build a bluebird from scratch.

[rd_kent]

55. I never claimed I could, but thanks for playing. I take it you do not have any evidence to

support your claim?

[darkstar3]

66. False argument of irreducible complexity. n/t

[tavalon]

96. Actually, that's evidence of my God/dess, Gaia

[rd_kent]

117. While I understand your sentiment, no, its not.

If you really think that to be true, I ask you the same as zeb...please provide evidence of this god/ess you claim exists...

[tavalon]

126. Here's the thing

She's my Goddess. She exists for me. I've sufficiently "proved" it for me. I'm not here to give you my Goddess. Or even to convince you that you need such a thing. If I'm wrong, come my death, so what? If you're wrong, come your death, so what? In the meantime, I have a friend to talk to when life gets sucky. She's smart and sometimes kind and sometimes she kicks my ass. She's overall helpful so I keep her. I have quite a few Gods in my pantheon. I even let Jesus play in my sandbox because he's nice. I'm really unsure how he turned out so reasonable given that his father is a total ass who doesn't play well with others.

Feel free to think of them as my imaginary playmates. I really am okay with you doing that. If mythology came with proof, Gods would be tiny, tiny things. I like my God/desses to be bigger than I can really understand. It makes the unconscious and specifically the collective unconscious fabulously nuanced and rich.

[rd_kent]

127. Interesting.

It seems you have a good grasp of reality (and I think that generally, you and I are on the same side of debates here) but if you cliam to actually talk to an imaginary being (imaginary to everyone but you) then doesnt that make you kind of mental?

[tavalon]

134. We're all a little mental, aren't we?

I function well in society and I secretly know that my God/dess is really my higher self (don't tell, okay? LOL) Actually, I've had a near death experience that helped solidify my belief. But, I know about the ketamine reaction that happens in the brain when you die so I get that I may have had a delusional experience. And I'm really okay with that, too. I guess what I'm saying is I sound like an agnostic, but I'm not. I'm definitely not interested in being a proselytizer.

[rd_kent]

137. Then you will never hear an argument from me on that.

Glad to hear you came out of your near-death experience ok.

[tavalon]

143. Well, if I hadn't

this would be a really weird conversation, no?:evilgrin:

[rd_kent]

53. Hey I think I see him waving at me!!!!!!

Nope, just a guy needing directions.

[darkstar3]

65. Circular argumentation. n/t

[trotsky]

57. Far, far more the same than you are capable of realizing, I'm afraid.

But a very Happy Solstice to you, the TRUE REASON for the season!

[Zebedeo]

61. Happy Solstice!

I, too, marvel at the Winter Solstice, for it is yet more evidence of God's love for us. He set the Earth rotating at the perfect angle, at the perfect speed, at the perfect distance from the Sun, so that we could live and thrive here. May He be praised!

The error that some people unfortunately fall into is worshiping creation, rather than the Creator.

[trotsky]

62. Wise words from Douglas Adams

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[darkstar3]

72. ^^^What he said^^^ n/t

[darkstar3]

67. Outright falsehood. The Bible is not the standard of truth for the majority of the world. n/t

[tavalon]

97. But it is for Zeb

And it clearly makes him happy. As long as he limits his crusades to an anonymous discussion board, I think we can let him have it.

What I want to know is which version is the standard bearer? King James or New American or something else?

[Zebedeo]

37. Not at all the same.

You are not seriously reporting an occurrence. You are engaging in freshman-level dorm hallway banter, and telling a preposterous lie as a means of attempting to cast doubt on multiple eyewitness accounts that have been documented and credited as true by millions of people for thousands of years. Let me put it this way: Your telling a lie today does not in any way call into question the credibility of the testimony of others who lived and died long before you. It only casts doubt on subsequent statements that you may make.

- Zeb

[rd_kent]

42. "accounts that have been documented and credited as true by millions of people" There are MORE

people in the world that think the bible is false. I'm with them.

[darkstar3]

64. Ignoring for the moment

the idiocy that you have spewed toward others in this thread, and focusing specifically on what you are saying here:

Let me see if I can make this plain to you. The phrase "multiple eyewitness accounts that have been documented and credited as true by millions of people for thousands of years" is EXACTLY what is being called into question. There is ZERO corroborating evidence that shows Ezekiel and Isaiah were telling the truth, or indeed that they were even real people. The "millions of people" who have believed these claims lend to them no credence, no credibility, and indeed, no truth.

The claims made by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others in the Bible are fantastical, supernatural, and incredibly difficult to reconcile with the physical world in which we all live. Just like my statement above. Without corroborating evidence to back up the testimonies, we have no way of ascertaining fact, or truth. Just like my statement above.

There is a word for people who accept testimony alone with no corroborating evidence: Gullible.

This concept of corroborating evidence is the basis for our entire judicial system. It is the single most important point behind Habeus Corpus. It is a foundational aspect of learning and, most importantly for our case here, debate.

Provide me with corroborating evidence to support the claims of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other Biblical prophet, and I will examine it. And remember that you cannot claim the Bible as corroborating evidence for itself, as you have done here so far, because that is circular argumentation and it does nothing to substantiate your claims.

[tavalon]

99. The bible is allegory and not literal truth, but then, you know that

It is also a great source of cherry picking, isn't it?

[darkstar3]

102. My biggest problem isn't necessarily the cherry picking.

It's the fact that people tend to take certain things that support their beliefs literally, while claiming that the Bible is allegory and that I can't use it to question their beliefs. Not one of them can tell me why their favorite parts should be taken literally, but they do so anyway.

I guess, now that I look at that sentence, that it IS a form of cherry picking, but it's a REALLY annoying one that I just had to harp on for a minute. :)

[tavalon]

107. Oh, don't worry. I'm a ex-Southern Baptist

I actually hated Christianity and the "Good Book" for quite a while. Then I decided to become a Wiccan and part of my studies for my second degree included watching all of Joseph Campbell's presentations on comparative religions. When I put the bible into the bigger context of other religions, I put away my anger. I realized that every religion begs, borrows and steals from one another and the stories are remarkably similar. Humans are storytellers - it's how we reference that which we can't reference any other way. But to take any of these stories in a literal way is to take so much away from them. It makes them much smaller and less worthwhile. I think that's the big shame of fundamentalism of any ilk - literalizing is so demeaning to the God/s they purport to worship.

[rd_kent]

39. I do not accept anything in the bible as "evidence" of anything.

The bible, as a source of factual information, is dubious at best, and is not to be considered as factual. If you would like to use the bible as a source for evidence, then the burden of proof is on you.

[Zebedeo]

41. Merely because an account is found in the Bible,

you disregard the account and consider it not to be evidence? It seems that you approach the issue of evidence with a considerable bias. That would seem to cast doubt on your conclusions, but it does not have any effect on the truth of God's Word.

[rd_kent]

43. There is no such thing as gods word, only mans word, and mans word is fallable.

[Zebedeo]

46. Although I agree with the last clause in your statement,

the first clause is a statement of faith by you. It is reminiscent of Carl Sagan's infamous proclamation "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." While Sagan professed to believe only in science, this statement of his was anything but scientific. It appears that you are suffering under the same affliction as he suffered under: an adherence to the fallacy of scientism.

[rd_kent]

47. I'm an atheist, I have no faith in anything other than myself.

You are the one that claims faith in a god, so YOU need to produce evidence of this gods existence. As far as I am concerned, no evidence, no god.

As I said before, I have time, so I will wait for you to provide evidence of this god.....

[Zebedeo]

50. See post #48 for a start

but really, you could just look out your window and pretty much anything you see would be evidence of an intelligent Creator.

[rd_kent]

52. I see lots of stuff outside, but no evidence of any creator.

[darkstar3]

68. Another instance of irreducible complexity, or blind creationism. Take your pick n/t

[tavalon]

101. But which intelligent creator?

Or creators? It could have been done by committee. The platypus supports that theory.

[rd_kent]

49. And your link to scientism reminds me of a scene from Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I -

Scene is at the welfare office in Rome..

Welfare Lady(WL): Occupation?

Mel Brooks(MB): Stand up philosopher!

WL: Stand up philosopher? Oh, a BULLSHIT ARTIST!

[darkstar3]

70. Who held the pens, Zeb? Who wrote the words? n/t

[darkstar3]

71. Testimony =/= evidence. Provide corroboration. n/t

[tavalon]

100. Two sources, hon

That's called corroborating. Find another source that gives the same account and you are good as gold. And no, different translations of the same tome don't qualify. I never share anything here until I have a second source because DU don't play that game.

Now, I'll admit I don't hang out in the Religion area much so it's possible that faith may be counted here as a second source but I'm doubting it.

[Zebedeo]

122. No problemo

Source #1: The Book of Isaiah

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."

Isaiah 6:1-2

Source #2: The Book of Ezekiel

"And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight"

Ezekiel 10:19

That's the two sources you asked for. So that would seem to be enough to bring this discussion to a satisfactory conclusion. But something tells me that you will move the goalposts just enough to prevent that.

[darkstar3]

123. Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Your "two sources" are two different sections of the same discredited single source, the Bible. This has been pointed out to you again, and again, and AGAIN. Anyone who's EVER done a research paper knows that a compilation is always single source, and the Bible is no exception to this rule.

Even you can't believe that this is an honest attempt at corroboration, and your statement about moving goalposts proves it. You know, because we've told you repeatedly, that this clever little ruse will be rejected by those calling for evidence, but you're trying desperately to find a way to make it seem like we're the ones being dishonest in this debate.

You have provided zero evidence or corroboration, you have engaged in an intellectually dishonest debate tactic, and you have once again attempted to use circular argumentation to prove your point.

[Zebedeo]

124. Yes, just as I predicted

you moved the goalposts once again. As for your assertion that the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Ezekiel are the same source, you are again incorrect. Isaiah lived in the eighth century BC, and Ezekiel's writings are dated 593 to 571 BC. So, these two individuals lived hundreds of years apart. Your claim that their separate accounts, separated by hundreds of years, is akin to me lumping your writings in with those of Alexis de Tocqueville and saying they are the "same source." Pretty weak attempt to get out of the jam you put yourself in when you asked for two sources and I gave you two sources.

Then for you to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest is richly ironic.

[darkstar3]

125. Again, intellectual dishonesty.

Read my post again, and you will see the simple truth: Anyone who's EVER done a research paper knows that a compilation is always single source, and the Bible is no exception to this rule.

Will you deny that the Bible is a compilation?

[rd_kent]

129. Your are just PLAIN dishonest. What a waste of a thread.

You sure are a piece of work, like a merry go round.

[rd_kent]

128. For fucks sake, zeb, you are willfully being obtuse and are full of fail!

Why is it you exhaust your circular argument on one sub-thread then move to the next and repeat the same fucking shit, over and over?

[tavalon]

131. The bible is considered one book

If I remember correctly, it's considered divinely inspired and as far as fundamentalists are concerned, there is nothing in it that is wrong. That's all good and fine but that means you have to find a completely different tome to correlate. You might try the Koran or check into some of Joseph Campbells' comparative religion stuff. Mithraic Mysteries would likely have some interesting stuff around angels. In other words, branch out. If your faith is strong, and it certainly appears to be, looking at other sources won't hurt you, honest.

While I don't normally recommend Wikipedia, it is a quick way to get a quick education on comparative religions and they are fairly well footnoted so you can surf to the original sources.

This isn't moving the goalposts. We obviously didn't communicate well. I consider the bible one source. You consider each chapter to be a different book. Both interpretations are possible, but I meant the first one.

[Zebedeo]

145. This is wonderful news, tavalon!

You consider the Bible to be "one source" because it is the divinely inspired Word of God! If it were not the Word of God, then it would be multiple sources, so, since you reject the notion that it is multiple sources, you have been led to the inevitable conclusion that it is one source - the Word of God! Congratulations! Your journey to this conclusion was unusual, but that matters little. It is time to celebrate! Praise God!

And Merry Christmas!

- Zeb

[tavalon]

146. Zeb, you totally misread my post

It was during my misled youth that I got the divinely inspired bla, bla, bla. The part you were supposed to focus on is that it is considered just one book. As much as you might want to believe that you just participated in a witnessing for God, 'taint so. I asked you to get a second corroborating source and even offered you some easy starting places.

[rd_kent]

147. You are completely delusional and willfully obtuse.

[uberllama42]

144. Weak sauce. I hope you're embarrassed.

When someone asks you to corroborate your claims, you can't just repeat what you said before. That piggy don't squeal.

First you argue that the bible is the inerrant word of God. That would seem to imply that it is a single source. Now you argue that both Ezekiel and Isaiah are independent sources. But both those accounts come to us from the same place. For all we know, they could both have been fabricated by another author several hundred years after they were purportedly recorded.

Your attempt to use the bible to corroborate the bible is hilarious, especially in the context of this thread, wherein it has been predicted numerous times that you will resort to circular reasoning.

Weak, weak sauce.

[ZombieHorde]

150. I saw the full sized dragon fly from darkstar3's ass. nt

[charlie]

56. Mohammed split the moon

Documented. True or false?

Merry Christmas, Zeb. Best to you and yours.

[rd_kent]

58. And the dish ran away with the spoon. Documented. True or false?

Many things are documented, zeb, that doesnt make them true.....

[Zebedeo]

59. The existence of false beliefs

does not in any way impugn the authenticity of the Word of God. Indeed, the Bible is replete with warnings against falling into the trap of false religions or the folly and arrogance of disbelief in God. The existence of false religions and those who otherwise reject God is fully consistent with the truth of His Word.

And thank you very much for the well-wishes. May you enjoy this holiday season with those close to you.

[rd_kent]

60. Zeb, until you PROVE that the bible IS the true word of god, then the bible is not worth the paper

it is printed on as a credible source or evidence of anything. So please, stop trying to use it as such. Every time you use it like that, you give yourself less and less credibility.

Again, I will wait for evidence......


BTW, the 66% of the rest of the world population feel that your religious beliefs are completely wrong.....just so you know.....

[Zebedeo]

79. Those 66% are wrong. The Bible is fully consistent with 66%

of the people rejecting God's Word.

As for other religions, this is clearly explained by Jesus Himself:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

As for true atheists (a tiny minority):

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Psalm 14:1

[rd_kent]

80. Why is everything you say based on unsubstantiated rhetoric?

The whole "jesus said it", "god said it" or "its in the bible" thing is getting old. Until you PROVE anything, everything you post is a falsehood.

And you can continue to quote what men wrote in the bible, but that still proves nothing other than your ignorance.

[Zebedeo]

110. Since nothing would satisfy you as evidence

it would be an utter waste of time to engage in the exercise of trying to persuade you to believe in the truth of God's Word. Fortunately for me, I am not engaged in such an exercise, nor is that the subject of this thread.

Rather than attempt to persuade a person who rejects a priori all possible evidence of the existence of God, I merely posted that there were documented eyewitness accounts that contradict the professor's conjecture that angels are incapable of flight. That observation of mine remains fully intact and 100% accurate, and your challenges to me to try to convert you are irrelevant to the matter.

- Zeb

[darkstar3]

111. Circular argumentation.

You continue to claim that your argument is accurate because it is based on the Bible. Without corroboration, your claim is useless.

[rd_kent]

112. You keep going in circles. In order to prove gods word is true, you need to first prove god is real

So start there......ready, set, go......


Oh wait, youre gonna quote the bible again, right? Youre gonna ask me a question like "who created trees?" or some other cackamamie bullshit, right?

You got nothing other than circular arguments, so...........

[darkstar3]

82. Circular argumentation. n/t

[MikeH]

148. So according to Zeb 66% of the world's population will be condemned to hell for guessing wrong

I.e. 66% of the world's population will be condemned to hell for all eternity because they happen to make the incorrect guess that the Bible is not the "Word of God", according to Zebedeo. Either they happen to make the incorrect guess that some other book, such as the Koran, rather than the Bible, is the "true revelation from Allah (God)", or they do not regard any alleged revelation from God as actually being such.

Zeb's God is an arbitrary, evil, and despicable tyrant like Hitler or Stalin or Saddam Hussein if the things he believes are true. And Zeb is no different from a sycophantic follower of one of these.

[trotsky]

63. Yes, false religions...

LIKE YOURS.

[darkstar3]

69. Circular argumentation.

The Bible is true because it says it's true, and it also said that other false religions would try to take its place.

[tavalon]

94. But were they on acid?

Or shrooms? That could make what they saw just a little bit different.

Once, at band camp, I had dropped acid and peaked while in the bathroom, which had wallpaper with butterflies on it (heinous, eh?) and those butterflies started flying around the room. Eventually, someone was sent in to retrieve me.

[sakabatou]

73. This might make it to the Ig Nobels

[iris27]

76. What about the zombies?

"Here's another question I've been pondering -- what is all this shit about angels? Have you heard this? Three out of four people belive in angels. Are you fucking stupid? Has everybody lost their mind? You know what I think it is? I think it's a massive, collective, psychotic chemical flashback for all the drugs smoked, swallowed, shot, and absorbed rectally by all Americans from 1960 to 1990. Thirty years of street drugs will get you some fucking angels, my friend! What about goblins, huh? Doesn't anybody belive in goblins? You never hear about this. Except on Halloween and then it's all negative shit. And what about zombies? You never hear from zombies! That's the trouble with zombies, they're unreliable! I say if you're going to go for the angel bullshit you might as well go for the zombie package as well."

Gotta love George Carlin.

[darkstar3]

78. Ah, Carlin, my idol.

Whoops, I'd better be careful with that word. Somebody might think I'm *gasp* worshiping George Carlin!

[iris27]

81. If you pray to him, I bet you'll get what you want about half the time.

Just like when Carlin prayed to Joe Pesci. :rofl:

[tavalon]

104. As long as the Carlin you are idolizing isn't made of gold,

I think you're okay. But then, I've only read the King James Version (yes, I really did. I was young and stupid and on summer break) and sometimes that is as wonky as reading Beowulf in early English, you know?

I'm really unsure how an allegorical "history" of the Jewish people became an infallible tome.

[darkstar3]

106. As Lewis Black would say,

"You can't blame them for getting it wrong, because it's not their book."

[rug]

83. I hope no public money was spent on this.

[darkstar3]

84. It wouldn't matter much.

The separation of Church and State isn't exactly followed so well in Britain.

[rd_kent]

85. I hope no public money is spent on you.

[rug]

86. Quite a bit is. I represent mentally ill defendants. Do I know you?

[trotsky]

87. And I feed and clothe homeless orphans.

Oh and I nurse stray kittens. With my own milk. And I'm a man, so that just shows how wonderful a person I am.

[rug]

88. No, your posts do.

[rd_kent]

115. Not only do you have no argument, you have no humor.......

[darkstar3]

89. Woe to the republic. n/t

[rd_kent]

114. Yeah, sure ya do....

Nice try.....very typical though....you have nothing.......

[rug]

130. Are you going to sing "Bad" now?

[rd_kent]

136. As usual, you are incoherent.

[dmallind]

155. Great - do you have to bring your work on here too? NT

[tavalon]

90. But can they stand on the head of a pin

and even more important, how many of them can do it at the same time?

[Meshuga]

103. I wonder when he is going to focus on flying monkeys

It would be just as uninteresting unless the audience likes the Wizard of Oz.

[darkstar3]

105. Yeah.

Ignoring the quagmire I got into above, I really have to agree with you. To quote Dennis Leary, "People, you have too much free fucking time!"

[Meshuga]

109. Borrowing from George Carlin:

...That's probably the kind of shit Professor Wooton thinks about when he is sitting at home and the power goes out. :-)

[meow2u3]

113. How does this scientist know? Has he ever seen an angel?

Angels are said to be purely spiritual beings, not trapped in a body like us humans. Does this guy know angels don't even have bodies?

The laws of biology and physiology do not apply to beings who don't come with bodies. Seems to me like this biologist thinks God died and left him in charge.

[rd_kent]

116. How can god die and leave him in charge when god doesnt exist?

Did you even read the article? Im guessing no, because NO ONE can be THAT dense....

[moobu2]

119. If they dont have bodies, what do they need wings for?

[sakabatou]

120. Invisible rocket packs.

[tinrobot]

132. Superman can't fly, either...

[darkstar3]

133. True,

but there aren't a majority of Americans who actually believe that Superman is real.

[rd_kent]

135. So, superman is a comicbook character. Angels are supposed to be real, right?

[tinrobot]

139. That image of an angel is exactly the same as Superman

A two-dimensional image created by a human being to represent a fictional character.

The only way either can fly is to print the image on a sheet of paper and fold it into an airplane.

[rd_kent]

140. Why so obtuse?

We are not talking about THAT angel in the OP, were talking about angels from the bible

[tinrobot]

141. Most angels in the bible don't have wings

Most descriptions of angels in the bible do not indicate wings. They're mostly described as apparitions or spirits of one sort or another.

The wings were added by artists much later as a way to visually differentiate angels from mortals so the masses (who didn't read) could understand the stories being told. Much like a comic book.

[moobu2]

149. Where are all these angels descriptions?

[rrneck]

142. Would somebody please

find the good doctor a yard to rake or something? He must be the most bored sumbitch on the planet.

[marginlized]

151. eye witness accounts

"You know who I am" he said.
The speaker was an angel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnZx1Aejg1g

[Feron]

152. I've seen a horse fly..I've seen a dragon fly...

Yeah, I've seen a housefly

Yeah, I seen all that too...

I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band,
And seen a needle wink its eye
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
When I see an elephant fly


I've seen a front porch swing, heard a diamond ring
I've seen a polka dot railroad tie
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

I saw a clothes horse rear up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that, I only heard
Just to be sociable, well, I'll take your word

I heard a fireside chat, I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
When I see an elephant fly



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOcVkofa1AU

[rd_kent]

153. Kick

[struggle4progress]

156. It's ancient visual metaphor

When the Greeks portrayed Hermes, none of them thought he could fly with the aid of little wings on his feet; it was intended to represent his speediness

http://cymraes.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2009/01/hermes02-l.jpg

People still use such metaphors today, and everybody understands them, except the hopelessly literal-minded. Here's a headline from last summer:

A horse's nay saved its owner, and the equine flew to shelter
August 7, 2009
http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-horses-nay-saved-its-owner-and-the-equine-flew-to-shelter-20090807-ebtz.html

The headline conjures images of Pegasus, but of course nobody thinks the horse really flew