Nephilim

[nobspeople]

Nephilim, in the Hebrew Bible, a group of mysterious beings or people of unusually large size and strength who lived both before and after the Flood. The Nephilim are referenced in Genesis and Numbers and are possibly referred to in Ezekiel. The Hebrew word nefilim is sometimes directly translated as “giants” or taken to mean “the fallen ones” (from the Hebrew naphal, “to fall”), but the identity of the Nephilim is debated by scholars.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nephilim

Some within the cryptozoology field believe sasquatch are nephilim (or descendants of). They site things like: strength, height, supernatural abilities (tracks disappearing in the middle of no where, gliding stride, speed, 'clocking' and lack of dead bodies for examples), sightings from almost every continent and inability to be photographed (though, to be fair, there are photos and videos showing alleged bigfoot).

Is it possible the nephys (my term) survived into modern day and are, in fact, cryptic creatures like bigfoot*?
Why or why not?

*Nephys could also be said to be reason for sightings of things like dogmen, goatmen, glimmerman, among others.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to Jemima in post #38]

You've posted on this board a few times since my rebuttal so if you don't have a response here I'm taking it as a win.

[JoeyKnothead]

Frankly, I'm upset that so many atheists just ignore the most fundamental, conclusive evidence for creationism. Just fess up atheists, creationism is the only way we can rationally explain the banana...

[Jemima]

[Replying to Jemima in post #38]

You've posted on this board a few times since my rebuttal so if you don't have a response here I'm taking it as a win.

Oh there comes a time when a post just stands on its own...nothing more to be said. Post #38 says it all really.

Claim your victory if you think it applies.....this is not my ego trip.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit'll be noted here directly...

These diagrams are from berkeley.edu.com....



Am I seeing any creature there that is linked to the other by any actual means except guesswork and assumption? Where is the proof of relationship or that one creature evolved into the other? Where are the transitional fossils?
Are any of these animals not classified in science as equines?

You're seeing animals that develop in the manner of eukaryotes, not prokaryotes. That fact alone lets us know they share some similarities with all other forms of life, but not all. Going further, we see they have a spinal chord, which some other critters have decided they don't want them no part of. Then we see they have the hair and mammary glands of mammals, unlike the insects, who don't feel the need to whip out a breast every time one of their youngns gets hungry.
On down the line, we note they're perrisodactylids, owing to their fancy toe walking ways. Here's where it gets interesting, because there's some debate on if this is where the first high heel shoe was developed. Though physical data is lacking, the inference most fits the observation.
That's just that bit. We also notice they have a brain not found in some animals or humans, teeth not found in some animals or humans (though a single tooth can be found on most species of Alibamus incesticus).
And eyes and ears, which not all critters have, and how they have the bilalateral symmetry some life forms don't display, and that whole quadrupedal thing, where some prefer em to have some arms for the hugging.

We could continue noting dis/similarites 'til the cows come home. Oh, and how they're not cows, but do look at em longinly, not unlike a shephard on a cold winter night.

How about whales?

What do we see here?
The opening statement above this "evogram" is...

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

So is that what the graph is indicating? What do you assume that this graph is trying to depict if not an evolutionary chain?

The graph is indicating that hippos and whales share much dna, but not so much as to require inviting one another over for family reunions. "Family tree" is kinda an outdated mode of thought, where today those in the study consider it a "bush", where direct links are a bit more fuzzlejumbed together.

This is pakicetus, which science has to call a "whale" because its evolutionary chain doesn't work if they call it something else. What do you think?
Is this a whale? Seriously....?

Naw, they don't hafta call it a whale. They could just stick with "kind" and call it a day. Unfortunately for scientists though, they hafta report their findings in accordance with acceptable biological definitions.

Please note the size of the creatures depicted below and see that unlike the evogram above, they are shown as actual size.

Edit: Screen size'll affect how big or little this critter looks.

Man is standing in relative size to pakicetus, and is the size of a dog. And we are taken through a series of unrelated creatures in a supposed line to whales.

Not that he owns em, but Hector's dolphin adults can be as small as four feet and weigh around 90 pounds. It's just they don't bark.

Can you see what I see? Wishful thinking is what I see, not proof, not evidence, just science trying to imply something for which there is no actual evidence.

The evidence is presented, it's our interpretation thereof where it gets all goofy.

I accept that creationists reject the ToE. It's just I find it the most compelling notion regarding the dis/similarities we observe in life forms.

Here we notice that some whales have decided to get all baleeny, while others have chosen a more toothy smile. So, we have some similarities which link em, and some dissimilarities that have some of em deciding that wearing masks is an infringement on their freedom to infect others at will.

Since it is my belief that no animals can change their taxonomy, then no matter how much minute change any creature underwent, it would basically remain true to its kind. Science can speculate and assume, but it cannot prove that the mechanism that triggers adaptation can take any creature outside of its kind.

So I ask how we can confirm God created these "kinds".

But remember, in this section of this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative.

Darwin saw different varieties of finches, but they were all still finches....and marine adapted iguanas that were still members of the iguana family.....and tortoises that were still clearly tortoises, though a different variety to their mainland cousins.....so how much evolution would it take to make them into something other than their own kind? Tell me what proof science has that adaptation can take any species beyond its taxonomic family.

But those finces fit niches. This is were we see that adaption can produce changes across time and species.

I just love the way science states things as if they know for sure what is "out there" as if they have visited all these galaxies and tested their atmospheres and gauged their water content. Science can speculate.....but it doesn't know. It can estimate, but it cannot prove any of it.

That's rich, coming from someone who thinks there's a God behind it all.

Water does not guarantee life. All existing life sprang from pre-existing life. Science knows this and cannot prove otherwise.

Do you contend that atoms are alive? We care composed of many forms of matter that of themselves are not living.

When I was searching for answers in my younger days, evolution was just beginning to infiltrate science in a big way. It has continued to make its assessments and assumptions about many things, but the proof for me was right in front of my nose.....creation itself testified to me that the complexity found in nature could not come about by a myriad series of fortunate flukes. It is too well planned and executed to be the product of blind chance.

To call them "flukes" is a bit off. Changes in alleles have been observed, and it's these changes that drive evolution. That's fact right there, noting we say or do can change that.

I could write volumes about the things I have examined over the years, but suffice it to say, I saw that the information contained in the DNA of all living things, did not write itself, any more than any computer program that we use, could appear by accident. Its really as simple as that. I can give you specifics if you like.....?

Of course DNA didn't write itself. It's just chemicals that never even went to kindergarten. We observe chemicals come together to create new stuff, and that changes to the structure of DNA can have profound effects on a critter's ability to crit.

But please, specific away...

[DeMotts]

[Replying to Jemima in post #38]

You've posted on this board a few times since my rebuttal so if you don't have a response here I'm taking it as a win.

Oh there comes a time when a post just stands on its own...nothing more to be said. Post #38 says it all really.

Claim your victory if you think it applies.....this is not my ego trip.

Jemima: "There's no transitional fossils!!"

Me: *posts transitional fossils*

Jemima: I've looked at DNA!!

Me: What DNA?

Jemima: Nevermind

Ok bud

[JoeyKnothead]

Let's now turn our attention to the monotremes, and specifically the platypus. I know I got me my problems, but this'n here's just in a fuss.

It's got the bill of a duck, lays eggs like a duck, the webbed feet of a duck, but lord have mercy, does it put on the airs of being it a mammal.

It can't decide on if it'd rather speak in quack, or, being from Australia, to just up and kill ya.

It's got the lectrolocators of a shark, and the venomous spines of a scorpion. And here folks fuss about the sex change folks.

This thing doesn't know if it wants to be cute and cuddly, or just downright onry. It's a mixed up muddled up conglomeration of spare animal parts hastily thrown together by a god on his last shift at work, ahoping he'll get to Mary fore Joseph comes home and crucifies em both.

This is evolution defined - a niche fitting critter better suited to biblical tales than classificational correctness. It's so confused it can't tell if it's country, or rock and roll. It can't even pick a favorite Nascar driver.

This is a critter mid point twixt being it an egg layer like them reptiles or birds, and a breastual feeding hairarial mammal.

It's so confused, it voted for Trump. Twicet!

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #32]

Because usually people sleep in beds that are appropriate for their size.

But what if you were an actual king with a harem? 20-30 wives would be nothing in those days, and a 13' bed would hardly accommodate a fraction of them if you were in the partying mood on a Friday night (and as women were property, especially for a king, you wouldn't need to get consent or hope the invitations were accepted). Such a king would surely not settle for a mere 13' bed even if he were 5' tall.

Stories of giant humans, global floods killing off all air-breathing life, etc. are pure fiction. Good fiction for its day, but it just doesn't comport with reality.

Doesn't history tell us that a king's harem was separate from the king's quarters?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #32]

Because usually people sleep in beds that are appropriate for their size.

But what if you were an actual king with a harem? 20-30 wives would be nothing in those days, and a 13' bed would hardly accommodate a fraction of them if you were in the partying mood on a Friday night (and as women were property, especially for a king, you wouldn't need to get consent or hope the invitations were accepted). Such a king would surely not settle for a mere 13' bed even if he were 5' tall.

Stories of giant humans, global floods killing off all air-breathing life, etc. are pure fiction. Good fiction for its day, but it just doesn't comport with reality.

Doesn't history tell us that a king's harem was separate from the king's quarters?

History tells us some goats suffer the affections of men.

What's your point?

[We_Are_VENOM]

History tells us some goats suffer the affections of men.

Which is probably why we don't look at certain things in history with glee.

What's your point?

The point is; from what I gather, Doc was making the case that Og's bed was that big because he had 20-30 women (concubines) that he slept with..in other words, the more women you have, the more room in your bed you need.

I think that is the point he was getting at.

My point is; if the king's quarters were separate from the royal harem (according to history), then chances are, Og wouldn't have slept in a bed that big if it weren't for the fact that he was a giant sized human being.

Get it?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #49]

if the king's quarters were separate from the royal harem (according to history), then chances are, Og wouldn't have slept in a bed that big if it weren't for the fact that he was a giant sized human being.

Maybe he liked a big bed. Maybe he moved around a lot. Maybe he had a complex. Maybe he was a giant. Maybe the story isn't true at all. Chances are all sorts of reasonings are available. Which is more likely?