What about the genetic code to grow angel wings?

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a dumb question. You're not going to argue the existance of angels, but if someone claims they're spirits, you're going to demand evidence that spirits exist. As if disproving the existance of spirits would somehow prove that angels have DNA.

Erm, that doesn't appear to be anything close to what he's doing or is even remotely implied by the question.

It's very simple: if somebody makes a positive claim, it is not unreasonable to demand evidence of the claim. Nobody else here has positively asserted the existence of angels, just questioned the possibility of humans gaining wings through DNA.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Erm, that doesn't appear to be anything close to what he's doing or is even remotely implied by the question.

It's very simple: if somebody makes a positive claim, it is not unreasonable to demand evidence of the claim. Nobody else here has positively asserted the existence of angels, just questioned the possibility of humans gaining wings through DNA.

Exactly.

I remind you (tomato1236) of the OP's question: "Could we potentially alter human dna to evolve into a speices of winged people ressembling angels in the future?"

Never implying that angels, as such, are in any way real.

On the other hand, Midnight Pete made this claim: "Angels are spirit. They don't have DNA because they are spirit.

A claim that begs the question of evidence.

 

[tomato1236]

Exactly.

I remind you (tomato1236) of the OP's question: "Could we potentially alter human dna to evolve into a speices of winged people ressembling angels in the future?"

Never implying that angels, as such, are in any way real.

On the other hand, Midnight Pete made this claim: "Angels are spirit. They don't have DNA because they are spirit.

A claim that begs the question of evidence.

It just seems pretty ridiculous to request evidence in response to a statement that is obviously based in someone's religious beliefs rather than science. Do you really think he's going to produce evidence that Angels are spirit? You think a dude on this forum is going to be able to even prove that there's such a thing as an angel or a spirit when no one else has? Why ask the question?

 

[jarofthoughts]

It just seems pretty ridiculous to request evidence in response to a statement that is obviously based in someone's religious beliefs rather than science. Do you really think he's going to produce evidence that Angels are spirit? You think a dude on this forum is going to be able to even prove that there's such a thing as an angel or a spirit when no one else has? Why ask the question?

Because definitive claims should not be made without proper empirical backing.
Now, if he had said something to the effect of "I personally believe angels are spirit..." that might have been a different matter.
But people should be careful about stating their personal unfounded beliefs as truth.

 

[tomato1236]

Because definitive claims should not be made without proper empirical backing.
Now, if he had said something to the effect of "I personally believe angels are spirit..." that might have been a different matter.
But people should be careful about stating their personal unfounded beliefs as truth.

So you didn't know before you replied that "I personally believe" was in effect here? I mean, when you read his statement, you thought he was making it because he had evidence? Or did you know he was basing it on his beliefs and you were just being a punk instead of inferring the obvious?

 

[jarofthoughts]

So you didn't know before you replied that "I personally believe" was in effect here? I mean, when you read his statement, you thought he was making it because he had evidence? Or did you know he was basing it on his beliefs and you were just being a punk instead of inferring the obvious?

Really? Look my title...

Seriously, people have to deal with that saying these things as if they were accepted facts does not fly. Making claims about reality without any sort of evidence or empirical backing is nonsense and it should be challenged at every turn.

It is not an accepted fact that there exists such a thing as a soul, gods, spirits, ghosts or anything supernatural whatsoever. And if you claim that such things are indeed real you should be prepared to back that statement up with evidence.

No evidence. No game.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Because definitive claims should not be made without proper empirical backing.
Now, if he had said something to the effect of "I personally believe angels are spirit..." that might have been a different matter.
But people should be careful about stating their personal unfounded beliefs as truth.

This is Religious Forums, is it not? I should be safe to talk about angels here without being accosted. With the number of atheist posters and moderators, "Religious Forums" has become a non-sequitur. This forum needs a new name.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is Religious Forums, is it not? I should be safe to talk about angels here without being accosted. With the number of atheist posters and moderators, "Religious Forums" has become a non-sequitur. This forum needs a new name.

This is the Religious Debates part of the forum, more specifically under the heading of Science vs Religion.
There are separate parts of the forum where you can make such unsubstantiated claims unchallenged.

This is not one of them.

 

[tomato1236]

This is the Religious Debates part of the forum, more specifically under the heading of Science vs Religion.
There are separate parts of the forum where you can make such unsubstantiated claims unchallenged.

This is not one of them.

Well Pete, sort of looks kinda like some of us will often have to generally qualify most everything we try to say.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well Pete, sort of looks kinda like some of us will often have to generally qualify most everything we try to say.

If what you have to say is a positive claim in response to a question as it was in this thread, then yes.

 

[tomato1236]

If what you have to say is a positive claim in response to a question as it was in this thread, then yes.

I basically get it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Well Pete, sort of looks kinda like some of us will often have to generally qualify most everything we try to say.

I don't know why it is not just implicitly understood that these are my religious beliefs I'm talking about. Imagine that. Talking about religfious beliefs on Religious Forums.

It's hard being an atheist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well Pete, sort of looks kinda like some of us will often have to generally qualify most everything we try to say.

Bring it!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know why it is not just implicitly understood that these are my religious beliefs I'm talking about. Imagine that. Talking about religfious beliefs on Religious Forums.

It's hard being an atheist.

Because you were making assertions in response to a question.

Is it really so surprising to you that when giving an empirical answer you're asked for empirical evidence? In a science vs. religion thread?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I don't know why it is not just implicitly understood that these are my religious beliefs I'm talking about. Imagine that. Talking about religfious beliefs on Religious Forums.

It's hard being an atheist.

I don't know why it's not just universally understood that claims about reality has to be backed up by evidence. Imagine that. Making claims about reality without any logical basis whatsoever.

It's hard being a theist.

 

[tomato1236]

I don't know why it's not just universally understood that claims about reality has to be backed up by evidence. Imagine that. Making claims about reality without any logical basis whatsoever.

It's hard being a theist.

I don't know why nothing is universally understood.

What it really comes down to is your punk status.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I don't know why nothing is universally understood.

What it really comes down to is your punk status.

Again, review my title and tell me why you are so surprised.

 

[tomato1236]

Again, review my title and tell me why you are so surprised.

Oh. It's because I'd never heard that word until I looked it up just now.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh. It's because I'd never heard that word until I looked it up just now.

Then I expect your mystery has been solved.

 

[tomato1236]

Then I expect your mystery has been solved.

Well thanks for putting that out there as a warning. If my vocabulary wasn't so limited, I would have seen your request for evidence, shaken my fist and moved on.