Evolution, what missing link?

So wait Godsands. You're saying, firstly, that God created Nephilims before Adam and Eve.

Let's use occams razor:

Creationism:
Giant human like skulls are fallen angels

Evolution:
Giant human like skulls are a distant cousin to humans

At 8/20/2009 2:22:57 PM, GodSands wrote:
Ok so out of the horse you posted which horse is more of a horse than the rest or the one which is less of a horse? Remember science is not opinionated. By saying the mordern horse is more of a horse is opinionated, not factual. So what more of a horse could you get, you cannot say, "This one is more of a horse than this one over here." They are all as horse like as each other. Because if you think that, you will be getting into the mordern day horses, which of the mordern day horse is more or less or a horse.

You are speaking nonsense.

The modern horse is a horse, by definition. I think we can agree on that. Again, by definition, a modern horse is a horse - that is not an opinion...

The earlier versions of horses, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, Hyracotherium are not horses at all. By definition, they are not modern horses, they are Pliohippus (by definition), Merychippus (by definition), Mesohippus (by definition), and Hyracotherium (by definition).

That means, none of them are modern horses at all. That is also not an opinion. We could use your language and say they are "less" of a horse than the modern horse in the same way that a dog is "less" of a horse than a modern horse because they are all different species.

Unlike the dog, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, and Hyracotherium are the ancestors of the horse. That means that their offspring (through hundreds of thousands of generations) eventually produced the modern horse.

Of course, the only problem with me using occams razor is that we are treating is like an unexplained phenomenon. When it's not.

At 8/20/2009 2:27:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am not at all getting what you are saying.

I am sure you are telling the truth with this sentence :)

: At 8/20/2009 2:29:34 PM, JBlake wrote:

At 8/20/2009 2:22:57 PM, GodSands wrote:
Ok so out of the horse you posted which horse is more of a horse than the rest or the one which is less of a horse? Remember science is not opinionated. By saying the mordern horse is more of a horse is opinionated, not factual. So what more of a horse could you get, you cannot say, "This one is more of a horse than this one over here." They are all as horse like as each other. Because if you think that, you will be getting into the mordern day horses, which of the mordern day horse is more or less or a horse.

You are speaking nonsense.

The modern horse is a horse, by definition. I think we can agree on that. Again, by definition, a modern horse is a horse - that is not an opinion...

The earlier versions of horses, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, Hyracotherium are not horses at all. By definition, they are not modern horses, they are Pliohippus (by definition), Merychippus (by definition), Mesohippus (by definition), and Hyracotherium (by definition).

Unlike the dog, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, and Hyracotherium are the ancestors of the horse. That means that their offspring (through hundreds of thousands of generations) eventually produced the modern horse.

The earlier versions of horses, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, Hyracotherium are not horses at all. By definition, they are not modern horses, they are Pliohippus (by definition), Merychippus (by definition), Mesohippus (by definition), and Hyracotherium (by definition).

"The earlier versions of horses, Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, Hyracotherium are not horses at all. By definition, they are not modern horses, they are Pliohippus (by definition), Merychippus (by definition), Mesohippus (by definition), and Hyracotherium (by definition)."

So the eariler versions of horses aren't actually horses, so why do you keep calling them eariler versions or horses, your implying that they are horses? At the end of the day they are horses.

You cannot say a modern day horse is more of a horse than the other horses, I see that all these horses were created by God at the same time. Please point out which horse is less of a horse? The modern day horse is just as horse like than the rest. Where is your divition in that one horse is not as horse like as the others? Because they are deeper in the groud when found? Rubbish! That gives no proof that the modern day horse is any more of a horse. (Modern day horse as in, the horse of today).

You need to give be a list of horses or any type of creature that has a factual list of fossils that show one fossils is less like, say a horse than the other horses. What makes you think that todays horse is the most horse like? Is the question. I want scientific proof not any opioionated yap.

And where the ", Pliohippus , Merychippus, Mesohippus, Hyracotherium" horses at all? Or are they horses, because stop saying eariler versions of horse if thet arn't actually horses. They are either horses or not.

: At 8/20/2009 2:28:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

So wait Godsands. You're saying, firstly, that God created Nephilims before Adam and Eve.

Let's use occams razor:

Creationism:
Giant human like skulls are fallen angels

Evolution:
Giant human like skulls are a distant cousin to humans

Speak to me on MSN, I can't have two disgusions at onces.

At 8/20/2009 2:53:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 2:28:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

So wait Godsands. You're saying, firstly, that God created Nephilims before Adam and Eve.

Let's use occams razor:

Creationism:
Giant human like skulls are fallen angels

Evolution:
Giant human like skulls are a distant cousin to humans

Speak to me on MSN, I can't have two disgusions at onces.

MSN is probably the worlds worst place, besides a busy city street, to engage in a debate.

: At 8/20/2009 3:10:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 8/20/2009 2:53:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 2:28:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

So wait Godsands. You're saying, firstly, that God created Nephilims before Adam and Eve.

Let's use occams razor:

Creationism:
Giant human like skulls are fallen angels

Evolution:
Giant human like skulls are a distant cousin to humans

Speak to me on MSN, I can't have two disgusions at onces.

MSN is probably the worlds worst place, besides a busy city street, to engage in a debate.

Evolution according to it has not produced giants like in the Bible. Evolutionists fit the facts around the theory not the theory around the facts. Come on MSN still, I see no problem with MSN.

At 8/20/2009 3:19:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 3:10:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 8/20/2009 2:53:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 2:28:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

So wait Godsands. You're saying, firstly, that God created Nephilims before Adam and Eve.

Let's use occams razor:

Creationism:
Giant human like skulls are fallen angels

Evolution:
Giant human like skulls are a distant cousin to humans

Speak to me on MSN, I can't have two disgusions at onces.

MSN is probably the worlds worst place, besides a busy city street, to engage in a debate.

Evolution according to it has not produced giants like in the Bible. Evolutionists fit the facts around the theory not the theory around the facts. Come on MSN still, I see no problem with MSN.

I am on MSN.

I've just been reading through this post, looked at GS's response to my last post, and I still have no idea what the f*ck a Nephilim is, and how a Neandertal is related, and how anyone could seriously believe this.

: At 8/20/2009 5:07:51 PM, Volkov wrote:

I've just been reading through this post, looked at GS's response to my last post, and I still have no idea what the f*ck a Nephilim is, and how a Neandertal is related, and how anyone could seriously believe this.

Oh right. Any question you want to ask me or even God?

At 8/20/2009 5:12:07 PM, GodSands wrote:
Oh right. Any question you want to ask me or even God?

Yeah - what kind of things are you smoking? I'm serious as well.

I'm a pretty respectful guy, and I'll gladly listen to your contentions, but the stuff you are contending makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

It is devoid of all logic and reality. It reminds me of a Cheshire Cat. It hurts my mind to even read it.

So, honestly, what are you, God, and the rest smoking?

That's what I tried to tell you, Volkov. You provide him with facts and he responds with nonsense. I doubt his ability to comprehend any of what has been said in this (or any other) thread.

: At 8/20/2009 5:15:31 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 8/20/2009 5:12:07 PM, GodSands wrote:
Oh right. Any question you want to ask me or even God?

Yeah - what kind of things are you smoking? I'm serious as well.

I'm a pretty respectful guy, and I'll gladly listen to your contentions, but the stuff you are contending makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

It is devoid of all logic and reality. It reminds me of a Cheshire Cat. It hurts my mind to even read it.

So, honestly, what are you, God, and the rest smoking?

(I laugh). I do not smoke, I did once when I was drunk at my friends house before I became a Christian.

Right I will make it clear. The Nepilim are gaints, who had sexual realtions with the daughters of man. The word Nephillm is Hebrew for "those causing others to fall". The Nephilim themselves are not fallen as such since when Lusifa rebelled against God the Angels has the perfect understanding of what right and wrong/good and evil is, therefore because of that, they were doomed to hell. However since they are not in hell, they are not yet fallen angels. So they came to earth and had sexual relations with the daughters of man, giving birth to beings that inherited the DNA from the human and from the Nephilim, Zues and other Nephilim were seen as gods by the greeks because of their mighty strength and power over the Greeks. Heracles, son of Zues was very powerful and mightly. The earth and the universe was created 6000 yeras ago, and the flood of Noah was 4400 years ago. God flooded the earth because of the Nephilim, the Nephilim knew of Jesus, as said in John 1:1. "The Word was with God in the Beginning..." So what the Nephilim tried to achieve was to infect the humans DNA so that no one would listen to God. While God's plan was to lead His people to the promise land so that would be where Jesus would be born.

So God flooded the entire planet and killed all the wicked Nephilim and humans, alsong with the creatures. (There are still the Nephilim about today, not all came to earth). So when God flooded the earth, by that time the Neanderthal man which was a decentend of the Nephilim and of the human DNA mixed together, as they both cross breeded. Over hundred of years the Nephilim got smallers because of the human DNA. It fits right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in that creatures become worse over time. Unlike evolution. The Neanderthal man was stronger than the normal human, thought to be more intelligent and better at survival. Evolutionists conclude the reason for them dying out was because of their bad ability to adapt to climate. Unlikey, since you could just get warm with animal fur etc. The flood seems to reasonable, in that it covers the silly idea that they weren't good at adaptation, because of some ice age.

So the argument that JBlake made was, that the eariler horse was not a horse at all, but rather another animal related to the horse. I am asking how he came to that conclution without the wild speculation. He said, "The earily version of the horse was not a horse at all." Well what was it? The same animal? If it was a different animal then it was not a horse, and if it was the same species of animal then it was a horse, and micro evolution drove it not macro evolution. He pointed out that the modern day horse was the most horse like than anyother, which I believe is false, you either have a horse or you do not have a horse. You cannot have a horse which is less like a horse than another horse. Same goes for anyother creature.

Th structure of the horse works with the characteristics of a horse. A horse is a horse because of it's boderly structure and because of it's boderly structure it's charactor is build. Every horse looks slightly different, but not in a sense that they non looks like a horse. In a sense that my horse Abby is different to my other horse Sampson (I do not own any horses). In their height, weight, speed, colour, etc. I really get annoyed when people love their animals so much that they suggest it has a personallity. This is untrue, animals do not have different personallities, they have emotions, and they are different because of their boderly structure, but there is no personallity. People has personallites, because they have spirits. People have spirits because they give meaning to what they do, unlike animals where they do things because the DNA demands it. You do not see mother rabbit telling the babies rabbits to come out of the borrow, they just do it unless there is a unsusal cercumstance, like a illness or a disease.

So as my first question was, give me a creature of your own choice that is less of the creature than the other creature in it's same species. Example: Give me a cat of any sort that is less of a cat than anyother cat. Is a Tiger less of a cat than a lepod or a Jaguar? For examples. Well is it?

At 8/20/2009 2:49:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
So the eariler versions of horses aren't actually horses, so why do you keep calling them eariler versions or horses, your implying that they are horses? At the end of the day they are horses.

They are earlier versions of horses in that they are ancestors of modern horses. I explained that several times. They were not horses at all - they were the ancestors of horses. That means that their descendants are what we know today as horses.

You cannot say a modern day horse is more of a horse than the other horses, I see that all these horses were created by God at the same time. Please point out which horse is less of a horse? The modern day horse is just as horse like than the rest. Where is your divition in that one horse is not as horse like as the others? Because they are deeper in the groud when found? Rubbish! That gives no proof that the modern day horse is any more of a horse. (Modern day horse as in, the horse of today).

This is just plain nonsense. Absolutely I can say that modern day horses are more horses. Modern day horses are, by definition, horses. Their ancestors, as I have told you repeatedly, were not horses at all (and thus, you could say they are "less" of a horse than modern horses).

How is it more of a horse? Because the modern horse is the prototype of a horse (since they are the only horses). Anything that does not fit precisely the same description is "less" of a horse (or, as I said, not a horse at all). The fossils I showed you before show many clear differences between horses and the ancestors of horses. First and foremost is in their size. Additionally, their overall structure is different; their DNA is different.

You need to give be a list of horses or any type of creature that has a factual list of fossils that show one fossils is less like, say a horse than the other horses. What makes you think that todays horse is the most horse like? Is the question. I want scientific proof not any opioionated yap.

I just showed you a factual list of fossils showing the ancestors of horses that are less horse-like than modern horses. I have met this burden.

I can't answer any of that post GS, because it makes no sense. Take your last paragraph, for instance;

So as my first question was, give me a creature of your own choice that is less of the creature than the other creature in it's same species. Example: Give me a cat of any sort that is less of a cat than anyother cat. Is a Tiger less of a cat than a lepod or a Jaguar? For examples. Well is it?

What does this even mean? Who said anything about a cat "being less of a cat"? When did this enter the vocabulary of science and evolution?

I don't know.

: At 8/20/2009 6:04:57 PM, JBlake wrote:

At 8/20/2009 2:49:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
So the eariler versions of horses aren't actually horses, so why do you keep calling them eariler versions or horses, your implying that they are horses? At the end of the day they are horses.

They are earlier versions of horses in that they are ancestors of modern horses. I explained that several times. They were not horses at all - they were the ancestors of horses. That means that their descendants are what we know today as horses.

You cannot say a modern day horse is more of a horse than the other horses, I see that all these horses were created by God at the same time. Please point out which horse is less of a horse? The modern day horse is just as horse like than the rest. Where is your divition in that one horse is not as horse like as the others? Because they are deeper in the groud when found? Rubbish! That gives no proof that the modern day horse is any more of a horse. (Modern day horse as in, the horse of today).

This is just plain nonsense. Absolutely I can say that modern day horses are more horses. Modern day horses are, by definition, horses. Their ancestors, as I have told you repeatedly, were not horses at all (and thus, you could say they are "less" of a horse than modern horses).

How is it more of a horse? Because the modern horse is the prototype of a horse (since they are the only horses). Anything that does not fit precisely the same description is "less" of a horse (or, as I said, not a horse at all). The fossils I showed you before show many clear differences between horses and the ancestors of horses. First and foremost is in their size. Additionally, their overall structure is different; their DNA is different.

You need to give be a list of horses or any type of creature that has a factual list of fossils that show one fossils is less like, say a horse than the other horses. What makes you think that todays horse is the most horse like? Is the question. I want scientific proof not any opioionated yap.

I just showed you a factual list of fossils showing the ancestors of horses that are less horse-like than modern horses. I have met this burden.

How about because they were ancertors they were horses, not that because they were ancsetors they were not horses. What tells you that they were ancestors? Where is this direct proof which gives no room for the notion that God made them both?

(and thus, you could say they are "less" of a horse than modern horses). -- No I couldn't since they are no horse at all according to you. They are either horses or they are not horses. Either one, not abit of both.

: How is it more of a horse? Because the modern horse is the prototype of a horse (since they are the only horses). -- I didn't say the modern horse is more of a horse, it is just as horse like as the ones that I believe died out in the flood. Just because the modern day horse is called the horse does not mean that the other dead species of horse, could also be known as the horse. You do not call the house cat, the cat because you call it a cat generally, you call other cats, cats too, like the lion, tiger etc. Did you know the zebra is in the horse family? The modern day horse is called a horse because humans relate to it the most. As if the modern day horse has lived up to our own wants, in sports, jobs, etc... No zebra is used in a sport or in any job like the police force.

: At 8/20/2009 6:14:33 PM, Volkov wrote:

I can't answer any of that post GS, because it makes no sense. Take your last paragraph, for instance;

So as my first question was, give me a creature of your own choice that is less of the creature than the other creature in it's same species. Example: Give me a cat of any sort that is less of a cat than anyother cat. Is a Tiger less of a cat than a lepod or a Jaguar? For examples. Well is it?

What does this even mean? Who said anything about a cat "being less of a cat"? When did this enter the vocabulary of science and evolution?

I don't know.

I used the cat family as an example. I think you just can't answer my question. I did say if you could, logically and reasonality, it would give proof to evolution.

I can't believe you guys are justifying Godsands by responding to such crud. Unless you're enjoying yourself of course, but a lot of you seem angry. Don't bother, his opinion means nothing anyway and he is so terrible at explaining his "logic" that he is unlikely to persuade anyone to his side.

Good point, leet4A1.

: At 8/20/2009 6:33:49 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

I can't believe you guys are justifying Godsands by responding to such crud. Unless you're enjoying yourself of course, but a lot of you seem angry. Don't bother, his opinion means nothing anyway and he is so terrible at explaining his "logic" that he is unlikely to persuade anyone to his side.

Maybe they are out of their comfort zones?

At 8/20/2009 6:37:12 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 6:33:49 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

I can't believe you guys are justifying Godsands by responding to such crud. Unless you're enjoying yourself of course, but a lot of you seem angry. Don't bother, his opinion means nothing anyway and he is so terrible at explaining his "logic" that he is unlikely to persuade anyone to his side.

Maybe they are out of their comfort zones?

Somehow I doubt it.

: At 8/20/2009 7:24:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

At 8/20/2009 6:37:12 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 6:33:49 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

I can't believe you guys are justifying Godsands by responding to such crud. Unless you're enjoying yourself of course, but a lot of you seem angry. Don't bother, his opinion means nothing anyway and he is so terrible at explaining his "logic" that he is unlikely to persuade anyone to his side.

Maybe they are out of their comfort zones?

Somehow I doubt it.

I don't.

At 8/21/2009 7:04:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 7:24:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

Somehow I doubt it.

I don't.

You should doubt more.

: At 8/23/2009 1:25:31 PM, regebro wrote:

At 8/21/2009 7:04:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 8/20/2009 7:24:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:

Somehow I doubt it.

I don't.

You should doubt more.

I wouldn't bet my life on it. So neah I best not.

At 8/19/2009 5:50:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

The last sentence is highly problematic. If we take evolution to be true, it does NOT mean you and I and everyone else should be witnesses to it occuring, because evolution occurs through GENERATIONS, not seconds. Which means that for a normal human being to be able to bear witness to the process of evolution he would have to live for at least a few millenia to detect a slight change in the characteristics of human beings. However, scientists observe fruit flies which reproduce much more quickly than most other creatures and note small changes in their biological characteristics after some time of observation. This is how evolution is proved by observation.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss, evolutionists would need to find a fossil or a group of fossils that as a living creature, has died right next to it's mother or father, and then the next creature dies which was an offspring from the same creature that died beside it. So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

Evolutionists don't have to find fossils that, as a living creature, died right next to its parents, seeing how the tragedy of the children dying with their parents does not necessarily occur in most cases. What evolutionists look for in looking for fossils, however, are fossils found in different layers of soil. Creatures tend to live in the same area for numerous generations unless there is a very sudden and drastic climate change. As new soil accumulates on top of old soil, and ancient animals die and are buried in the soil, by digging through these layers of soil, evolutionists discover the newest fossils near the top layer of soil and the older ones at the bottom layers. And by observing these fossils evolutionists note small changes in the biological structure of these creatures through time, and by doing so, prove that evolution exists.

On the other hand you have creationism, and after reading through 6 pages of how fallen angels turned into giants and how Adam and Eve were supposed to be 7 or 8 ft tall, I'd like to ask: exactly how are these solid, concrete FACTS rather than human fiction? Exactly how can you prove, by logical deduction upon the basis of undeniable FACTS, that creationism exists? Seeing how evolution and creation are held to be mutually exclusive, by proving that evolution existed, exists, and will continue to exist, we can disprove that the creation happened. Even if you do not accept that evolutionists have managed to prove that evolution has taken place, is taking place, and will continue to take place - just because nobody can exactly prove that creationism does not exist does not mean that it exists, as this makes it an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your entire concept is constructed merely of logical fallacies, ill-conceived reasoning and an utter lack of knowledge in the matter at hand, and does nothing than provide readers something ridiculous to laugh about.

: At 8/25/2009 11:57:14 PM, taltaltel wrote:

At 8/19/2009 5:50:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

The last sentence is highly problematic. If we take evolution to be true, it does NOT mean you and I and everyone else should be witnesses to it occuring, because evolution occurs through GENERATIONS, not seconds. Which means that for a normal human being to be able to bear witness to the process of evolution he would have to live for at least a few millenia to detect a slight change in the characteristics of human beings. However, scientists observe fruit flies which reproduce much more quickly than most other creatures and note small changes in their biological characteristics after some time of observation. This is how evolution is proved by observation.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss, evolutionists would need to find a fossil or a group of fossils that as a living creature, has died right next to it's mother or father, and then the next creature dies which was an offspring from the same creature that died beside it. So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

Evolutionists don't have to find fossils that, as a living creature, died right next to its parents, seeing how the tragedy of the children dying with their parents does not necessarily occur in most cases. What evolutionists look for in looking for fossils, however, are fossils found in different layers of soil. Creatures tend to live in the same area for numerous generations unless there is a very sudden and drastic climate change. As new soil accumulates on top of old soil, and ancient animals die and are buried in the soil, by digging through these layers of soil, evolutionists discover the newest fossils near the top layer of soil and the older ones at the bottom layers. And by observing these fossils evolutionists note small changes in the biological structure of these creatures through time, and by doing so, prove that evolution exists.

On the other hand you have creationism, and after reading through 6 pages of how fallen angels turned into giants and how Adam and Eve were supposed to be 7 or 8 ft tall, I'd like to ask: exactly how are these solid, concrete FACTS rather than human fiction? Exactly how can you prove, by logical deduction upon the basis of undeniable FACTS, that creationism exists? Seeing how evolution and creation are held to be mutually exclusive, by proving that evolution existed, exists, and will continue to exist, we can disprove that the creation happened. Even if you do not accept that evolutionists have managed to prove that evolution has taken place, is taking place, and will continue to take place - just because nobody can exactly prove that creationism does not exist does not mean that it exists, as this makes it an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your entire concept is constructed merely of logical fallacies, ill-conceived reasoning and an utter lack of knowledge in the matter at hand, and does nothing than provide readers something ridiculous to laugh about.

Sort of skimmed read this, and I am pretty tired so I will point out this one thing, you said fallen angels turned into giants, this is wrong, they were giants and angels do not have wings as you imagine. They are very large, tall beings able to tear you in half in almost no time. Culture and art has completely drove the idea of how an angel looks up the wall the wrong way!

At 8/31/2009 5:45:21 PM, GodSands wrote:

Sort of skimmed read this, and I am pretty tired so I will point out this one thing, you said fallen angels turned into giants, this is wrong, they were giants and angels do not have wings as you imagine. They are very large, tall beings able to tear you in half in almost no time. Culture and art has completely drove the idea of how an angel looks up the wall the wrong way!

Angels have wings alright, and they know how to use them.

: At 8/31/2009 6:02:15 PM, Maikuru wrote:

At 8/31/2009 5:45:21 PM, GodSands wrote:

Sort of skimmed read this, and I am pretty tired so I will point out this one thing, you said fallen angels turned into giants, this is wrong, they were giants and angels do not have wings as you imagine. They are very large, tall beings able to tear you in half in almost no time. Culture and art has completely drove the idea of how an angel looks up the wall the wrong way!

Angels have wings alright, and they know how to use them.

Sure...

im the missing link