Did Angels evolve from lesser beings?

[CrowCross]

A question for the Theistic Evolutionist Christians....

Did Angels evolve from a lesser being or were they created "fully angel"?

Should geologist find fossils of angels on earth?

 

[Josheb]

A question for the Theistic Evolutionist Christians....

Did Angels evolve from a lesser being or were they created "fully angel"?

They did not evolve if Genesis 1:11-12, 21, and 1:24-25 applies to angels and Matthew 22:30 are correct. Angels do not procreate and if they did, they'd procreate solely according to their own kind.

Should geologist find fossils of angels on earth?

No, and if they did it would not be a transitional fossil.

 

[CrowCross]

They did not evolve if Genesis 1:11-12, 21, and 1:24-25 applies to angels and Matthew 22:30 are correct. Angels do not procreate and if they did, they'd procreate solely according to their own kind.

No, and if they did it would not be a transitional fossil.

I agree. No procreation was involved with the creation of angels unlike the human race.
The angels were created individually.

It does stand to reason if a Theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution to bring about mankind...then why not the same for angels?
Conversely....if God made the angels as a special act of creation then why not Adam and Eve?

 

[Josheb]

I agree. No procreation was involved with the creation of angels unlike the human race.
The angels were created individually.

It does stand to reason if a Theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution to bring about mankind...then why not the same for angels?
Conversely....if God made the angels as a special act of creation then why not Adam and Eve?

Well, having read a lot on the subject of evolution from various points of view (Christian and otherwise) I think the entire matter something of a trap. No one on this side of the grave is going to figure out what evolution happened and what did not. At least not for a very long time. I am confident that whatever the secular archeologists uncover will bear a cohesive witness affirming scripture. Our understanding of scripture may change, but nothing in scripture will ever be disproven. I liken it to the invention of the telescope and the uncovering of heliocentrism. Geo-centrism was never the correct reading of scripture. Learning the earth orbits the sun does not alter scripture one iota. It simply showed our hubris. Adjustments were made based on the facts and truth marched on just as preserved as it has ever been.

The topic of evolution is rife with its own hubris. Scientists (both theist and non-theist) hide behind the purported objectivity of science and the lack of bias supposedly inherent in the endeavor , and philosophers and theologians aren't much better. None of them consider what is uncovered (science rarely discovers anything; it simply uncovers what has always been) relevant to the nearly infinite alternatives possible if evolution is true and correct at all. God can make silicon-based lifeforms or, purportedly, boron, sulfur, nitrogen, and phosphorus are other contenders and that limits the field to the chemicals we know to exist. Who in heaven and earth knows what chemicals exist on Venus, Mars, or TRAPPIST-1e. The idea God cannot make life on a fiery planet or one frozen in ice is absurd. Humans may not be able to life on such planets, but Glerbazindorfs or Ankmonitors sure can. Similarly, God can make entire species that cannot and do not evolve and those that can and do evolve and He can make a planet on which both exist alongside one another. But since the speculations regarding what a Deity can do is not the domain of science these matters never get addressed.

After the discovery of Ardi, the archeologist Tim White described how the tree of human evolution is more of a bush and no one has any idea how it connects to the rest of animal evolution. "We don't know from which creature humans and chimpanzees evolved," and "People expected the oldest remains to resemble more and more those of a chimpanzee but that is not the case." Ardi team partner Owen Lovejoy stated, "If you were to ask someone on the street today, 'What did an early ancestor of humans look like?' they would probably say, well, it would look like Lucy and, before that, it would look like a chimpanzee. What the fossils that are being described in Science today will tell you is that both of those conclusions are very incorrect." If Google images of the evolutionary tree are searched it will be seen the more recent drawings depict humans as a distinct branch, not one predicated on primates. Evolutionary science cannot shake the necessity of a connection.

Angels aren't even mentioned .




Btw, all acts of creation are special. Just saying .

 

[CrowCross]

Well, having read a lot on the subject of evolution from various points of view (Christian and otherwise) I think the entire matter something of a trap. No one on this side of the grave is going to figure out what evolution happened and what did not. At least not for a very long time. I am confident that whatever the secular archeologists uncover will bear a cohesive witness affirming scripture. Our understanding of scripture may change, but nothing in scripture will ever be disproven. I liken it to the invention of the telescope and the uncovering of heliocentrism. Geo-centrism was never the correct reading of scripture. Learning the earth orbits the sun does not alter scripture one iota. It simply showed our hubris. Adjustments were made based on the facts and truth marched on just as preserved as it has ever been.

Biblical Archeologists have shown that the flood of Noah rapidly buried the creatures present on earth at that time and fossilized them. This has informed us that the creatures captured as fossils in our geological column best describe a flood rather than each strata representing millions of years.
There are many examples I can present.

The topic of evolution is rife with its own hubris. Scientists (both theist and non-theist) hide behind the purported objectivity of science and the lack of bias supposedly inherent in the endeavor , and philosophers and theologians aren't much better. None of them consider what is uncovered (science rarely discovers anything; it simply uncovers what has always been) relevant to the nearly infinite alternatives possible if evolution is true and correct at all. God can make silicon-based lifeforms or, purportedly, boron, sulfur, nitrogen, and phosphorus are other contenders and that limits the field to the chemicals we know to exist. Who in heaven and earth knows what chemicals exist on Venus, Mars, or TRAPPIST-1e. The idea God cannot make life on a fiery planet or one frozen in ice is absurd. Humans may not be able to life on such planets, but Glerbazindorfs or Ankmonitors sure can. Similarly, God can make entire species that cannot and do not evolve and those that can and do evolve and He can make a planet on which both exist alongside one another. But since the speculations regarding what a Deity can do is not the domain of science these matters never get addressed.

Yes, God is all powerful as the bible describes Him as such and can do whatever He wants to do. From out earthly position and what is recorded in the bible it doesn't read as if God used small gradual changes to create earth and mankind.

After the discovery of Ardi, the archeologist Tim White described how the tree of human evolution is more of a bush and no one has any idea how it connects to the rest of animal evolution. "We don't know from which creature humans and chimpanzees evolved," and "People expected the oldest remains to resemble more and more those of a chimpanzee but that is not the case." Ardi team partner Owen Lovejoy stated, "If you were to ask someone on the street today, 'What did an early ancestor of humans look like?' they would probably say, well, it would look like Lucy and, before that, it would look like a chimpanzee. What the fossils that are being described in Science today will tell you is that both of those conclusions are very incorrect." If Google images of the evolutionary tree are searched it will be seen the more recent drawings depict humans as a distinct branch, not one predicated on primates. Evolutionary science cannot shake the necessity of a connection.

Keeping in mind this is an atheistic hypothesis. A process where they suggest a God wasn't involved.

Angels aren't even mentioned .

Angels are mentioned as being created.
My question regarding this issue is..if God used evolution to create mankind did He also use evolution to create angels and if He did what were their predecessors. Was there a branch of the "bush" that evolved into angels?

Btw, all acts of creation are special. Just saying .

One could say that....but many would disagree and say there was no need for God.
The theistic evolutionist would say God used this process to form man which contradicts the revealed Word of God.

 

[Josheb]

Biblical Archeologists have shown that the flood of Noah rapidly buried the creatures present on earth at that time and fossilized them. This has informed us that the creatures captured as fossils in our geological column best describe a flood rather than each strata representing millions of years.
There are many examples I can present.

Yes, God is all powerful as the bible describes Him as such and can do whatever He wants to do. From out earthly position and what is recorded in the bible it doesn't read as if God used small gradual changes to create earth and mankind.

Keeping in mind this is an atheistic hypothesis. A process where they suggest a God wasn't involved.

Angels are mentioned as being created.
My question regarding this issue is..if God used evolution to create mankind did He also use evolution to create angels and if He did what were their predecessors. Was there a branch of the "bush" that evolved into angels?

Which part of "I think the entire matter something of a trap. No one on this side of the grave is going to figure out what evolution happened and what did not," isn't clear?

One could say that....but many would disagree and say there was no need for God. The theistic evolutionist would say God used this process to form man which contradicts the revealed Word of God.

Relevance to the op? I thought we were discussing the premise of angelic evolution, not human. I covered a lot of terrain in Posts 2 and 4, but it is all related, directly or indirectly, to the op. There's no scriptural basis for thinking angels are a product of evolution, and evolutionary science doesn't entertain the prospect. What others say is often nonsense and ignoring the (also nonsensical) presuppositions in the topic of evolution is common.

 

[CrowCross]

Which part of "I think the entire matter something of a trap. No one on this side of the grave is going to figure out what evolution happened and what did not," isn't clear?

Relevance to the op? I thought we were discussing the premise of angelic evolution, not human. I covered a lot of terrain in Posts 2 and 4, but it is all related, directly or indirectly, to the op. There's no scriptural basis for thinking angels are a product of evolution, and evolutionary science doesn't entertain the prospect. What others say is often nonsense and ignoring the (also nonsensical) presuppositions in the topic of evolution is common.

My response included....

Angels are mentioned as being created.
My question regarding this issue is..if God used evolution to create mankind did He also use evolution to create angels and if He did what were their predecessors. Was there a branch of the "bush" that evolved into angels?

I wasn't picking a fight...I was simply asking questions.
I was addressing what was presented.

 

[Josheb]

My response included....

Angels are mentioned as being created.
My question regarding this issue is..if God used evolution to create mankind did He also use evolution to create angels and if He did what were their predecessors. Was there a branch of the "bush" that evolved into angels?

I wasn't picking a fight...I was simply asking questions.
I was addressing what was presented.

Did angels evolve from lesser beings?

 

[CrowCross]

Did angels evolve from lesser beings?

Angels were created...

Psalms 148:2 and 148:5, which state, “Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts…Let them praise the name of the LORD! For He commanded and they were created."

Like man...Adam and Eve...no evolution required nor mentioned.

 

[Josheb]

Angels were created... Like man...Adam and Eve...no evolution required nor mentioned.

Correct.

Was there a branch of the "bush" that evolved into angels?

You just answered that question. Angels created. No evolution required nor mentioned.


Something else you'd like to discuss because this op's inquiry is easily and readily answered in the negative?

 

[CrowCross]

Something else you'd like to discuss because this op's inquiry is easily and readily answered in the negative?

I'm simply looking for an example in the "positive".

 

[Arial]

My question regarding this issue is..if God used evolution to create mankind did He also use evolution to create angels

Since the question is for the theistic evolutionist, this is a false equivalency/category mistake, fallacy.

It assumes if God uses one means of creation for humans, then he must use the same means for angels. You can acknowledge that it is such a fallacy and reword it in a way that isn't. Or you can demonstrate that it is not a false equivalency. The purpose in doing so will help to pinpoint whatever point it is you actually intend to make.

 

[CrowCross]

Since the question is for the theistic evolutionist, this is a false equivalency/category mistake, fallacy.

It assumes if God uses one means of creation for humans, then he must use the same means for angels. You can acknowledge that it is such a fallacy and reword it in a way that isn't. Or you can demonstrate that it is not a false equivalency. The purpose in doing so will help to pinpoint whatever point it is you actually intend to make.

NWRT

 

[Arial]

NWRT

Not only is it worth responding to----unless of course you have no intention of carrying on a debate about theistic evolution but only in saying the things you want to say---it is also a requirement of the forum rules that you do so if you want to continue posting about the connection between evolution, angels, and creation.

If it is not a fallacious question and argument, demonstrate why it is not. If you recognize that it is, rephrase the question in a way that is not a category mistake/false equivalency fallacy. It will only hurt a little bit and not very much to admit that the question needs to be rephrased. (As long as it is an actual question with an actual point and not just a matter of scoffing at persons and their beliefs which differ from yours.)

Why is it you think the rules don't apply to you? No response to this post is needed and if one is given that impugns persons or ruling punitive action will be taken. Mod Hat. Just do what you need to do with the question.

Also, your OP question has been answered. Angels did not evolve from something, they were created. But to say that mean there is no evolution of humans is itself a false equivalency fallacy.

And in case you think I am being a stickler about this because I am a proponent of theistic evolution, you would be wrong. I am not a theistic evolutionist.