Hoax or confirmation of angelic hybrids?

[seanD]

then why did you bring it up? (the bible and the verses in question)

Because it's related to biblical scripture. But alternative theological arguments simply don't work. Those who deny the theology of Genesis 6 are doing it for religious reasons. So naturally they automatically deny the OP outrightly regardless of any further discussion about the science; and thus there is no longer room for discussion. For those who deny the theology of Genesis 6, then there's no need to take part in the thread.

[Sparko]

Because it's related to biblical scripture. But alternative theological arguments simply don't work. Those who deny the theology of Genesis 6 are doing it for religious reasons. So naturally they automatically deny the OP outrightly regardless of any further discussion about the science; and thus there is no need to debate about it.

so you want to use the bible as supporting you, but don't want anyone to question that or discuss it? Dang you are as bad as Augustine2004.

[Phat8594]

Because it's related to biblical scripture. But alternative theological arguments simply don't work. Those who deny the theology of Genesis 6 are doing it for religious reasons. So naturally they automatically deny the OP outrightly regardless of any further discussion about the science; and thus there is no longer room for discussion. For those who deny the theology of Genesis 6, then there's no need to take part in the thread.

Regardless of your take on Genesis 6. The 'evidence' in the youtube video isn't evidence at all. I would have thought that this has already been shown by now.

[Sparko]

Regardless of your take on Genesis 6. The 'evidence' in the youtube video isn't evidence at all. I would have thought that this has already been shown by now.

especially if you read the DNA report (on the proponent's website!) It goes into great detail about how contaminated and degraded the DNA was and how it came to be so. Yet the proponents ignore the normal reasoning and jump to claiming that it means "alien" - pretty whacked out.

[seanD]

Regardless of your take on Genesis 6. The 'evidence' in the youtube video isn't evidence at all. I would have thought that this has already been shown by now.

It hasn't. So far I've just seen hand-waving similar to yours.

[Sparko]

It hasn't. I've just seen hand-waves similar to yours.

I gave you a link to the DNA report.

[seanD]

so you want to use the bible as supporting you, but don't want anyone to question that or discuss it? Dang you are as bad as Augustine2004.

I started another thread here

[thewriteranon]

Yet the proponents ignore the normal reasoning and jump to claiming that it means "alien" - pretty whacked out.

ancientaliens.jpg

I still don't understand how Peter and Jude are referring to nephilim as angel-human hybrids, though.

[seanD]

I gave you a link to the DNA report.

Okay, thanks.

[seanD]

I gave you a link to the DNA report.

You realize that the site you linked to actually supports Llyod Pye's theory, correct? Or did you just quickly google search and not read through the whole report? Argument from contamination was a result of older tests.

[Sparko]

You realize that the site you linked to actually supports Llyod Pye's theory, correct? Or did you just quickly google search and not read through the whole report? Argument from contamination was a result of older tests.

I told you in my post it was from the proponent's site. If you read the actual report and not the proponents conclusions you will see that there is nothing to support an alien/angel theory. The proponents just take the contamination and such as evidence of alien dna and claim that since the DNA could not be read, it must be alien.

[RBerman]

Your unwarranted hostility is duly noted (and very strange). I'm just interested in someone explaining the science behind it and how accurate the process is. That doesn't mean the claims are necessarily true. As I said before, I'm trying to figure out if the science is correct or incorrect. If the former is true, then it falls squarely on the person making the claim -- whether he lied about the scientific application of it, what motives he may have, etc.

The science behind the appearance of the skull is straightforward. It's the skull of a young child with hydrocephalus. Which other science were you wondering about?

They do. Jude not only mentions the process but they both reference the source that describes the process in detail. Besides, the alternative to explain Genesis 6 is extremely weak sauce and makes no logical sense. The evidence is overwhelming. You're just in denial about it for religious reasons. BIt conflicts with your inerrancy beliefs.

Where does Jude mention human/angel hybrids?

[seanD]

One thing I was hoping for in this thread was for someone with knowledge about genetics to break down the research and explain why the DNA tests could be flawed. Robert Carter goes into detail about why he believes this is so. Interesting read...

http://alienresistance.org/AnAnalysi...dStarchild.pdf