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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #30]

That being said, to the subject; Nephilim.

I have a few things to say about them...

1. Biblically speaking, there isn't very much to go on (in depth) about them. From what is written, apparently, angels (demons) somehow were allowed to come on earth and take physical forms, and copulate with human beings, thus creating giant humans.

This is all very intriguing to think about, but that is really all we have to go on. Josephus mentions in his Antiquity of the Jews that these giants were also handsome in their facial features. Since we know so little, all we can do is speculate.

2. The account given by the twelve spies who were sent out to scout the new land, they stated that all the people who lived there were great in size. If you take their report at face value, that would mean that the entire civilization was filled with giants (men, women, and children). That must have been one heck of a sight.

3. I understand that most think that the land was rid of the giants after the Israelites took it over...but what does that say about Og, whose encounter with the Israelites was after the Canaan conquest? Remember, Og was a giant king who had a bed that was 13 ft long...and then we had Goliath who was also considered of massive size.

4. I'm not buying the Nephilim/Sasquatch link, which is completely unwarranted with no connection whatsoever.

This was going like the typical analysis of a biblical description, no matter out outlandish the story is, until you got to #4. Why on earth would you not allow the Sasquatch link as an option given that there is also no justification or connection whatsoever for items 1-3?

For #1, I can see that this is utterly inconsistent with ToE so you may like it for that reason, but if these demons could take physical forms and copulate with humans (really?), why would they thus produce giant humans? Why not miniature humans? Or butterflies?

For #2, it would indeed be one heck of a sight if there was some definition of "great in size." Were they like NBA players of today? Or Sumo wrestlers? Or maybe the scouts came across some good mead and became Jimmy Buffet's "God's Own Drunk" when they penned the tale?

For #3, what does the length of his bed have to do with anything? Og was also purported to have founded 60 cities with incredibly high walls (none less than 60 miles (!!!!) in height):

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... nd-maps/og

And this from Wikipedia regarding Og:

The Jewish Talmud embellishes the story, stating that Og was so large that he sought the destruction of the Israelites by uprooting a mountain so large, that it would have crushed the entire Israelite encampment. The Lord caused a swarm of ants to dig away the center of the mountain, which was resting on Og's head. The mountain then fell onto Og's shoulders. As Og attempted to lift the mountain off himself, the Lord caused Og's teeth to lengthen outward, becoming embedded into the mountain that was now surrounding his head.

Sounds legit, except that a guy so big that a mountain could rest on his head might need a bed more than 13 feet long. Then you discount the Sasquatch link as if it were too much of a stretch! I just don't understand you religious types sometimes. How can you even consider such obvious storytelling to be reality?

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #30]

This was going like the typical analysis of a biblical description, no matter out outlandish the story is, until you got to #4. Why on earth would you not allow the Sasquatch link as an option given that there is also no justification or connection whatsoever for items 1-3?

First of all, I am entirely open to the idea of Sasquatch existing, even on earth today. I just don't see a link to Big Foot and 13ft human giants.

I am intrigued by the Patterson-Gimlin film and very much open to the film's authenticity.

But in no way am I looking at that film, or any depiction of Sasquatch and concluding that this ape-like creature is a human or human-related.

No sir.

For #1, I can see that this is utterly inconsistent with ToE so you may like it for that reason, but if these demons could take physical forms and copulate with humans (really?), why would they thus produce giant humans? Why not miniature humans? Or butterflies?

Because maybe they had super-sperm. I don't know. I don't have all the answers...as I said, we don't have much to go by (even Biblically)...all I can do is take the Bible at its word.

Now, I understand that this doesn't suit your fancy, but you aren't a Bible believer, are you? No.
But I am

For #2, it would indeed be one heck of a sight if there was some definition of "great in size." Were they like NBA players of today? Or Sumo wrestlers? Or maybe the scouts came across some good mead and became Jimmy Buffet's "God's Own Drunk" when they penned the tale?

Nice humor The reports from the spies stated that they (the spies) seemed like grasshoppers in their own eyes as they looked up at the giants, and that in the eyes of the giants, they (the spies) seemed like grasshoppers.

Num 13

They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

I am sure in the eyes of a grasshopper, human beings look like giants!! Just sayin.

For #3, what does the length of his bed have to do with anything?

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

Og was also purported to have founded 60 cities with incredibly high walls (none less than 60 miles (!!!!) in height):

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... nd-maps/og

And this from Wikipedia regarding Og:

The Jewish Talmud embellishes the story, stating that Og was so large that he sought the destruction of the Israelites by uprooting a mountain so large, that it would have crushed the entire Israelite encampment. The Lord caused a swarm of ants to dig away the center of the mountain, which was resting on Og's head. The mountain then fell onto Og's shoulders. As Og attempted to lift the mountain off himself, the Lord caused Og's teeth to lengthen outward, becoming embedded into the mountain that was now surrounding his head.

Sound legit, except that a guy so big that a mountain could rest on his head might need a bed more than 13 feet long. Then you discount the Sasquatch link as if it were too much of a stretch! I just don't understand you religious types sometimes. How can you even consider such obvious storytelling to be reality?

I don't view the Jewish Talmud as a authoritative book in any way, shape, or form.

[DrNoGods]

[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.

[Jemima]

[Replying to Jemima in post #28]

Who told you that? What proof do they have for this assertion? Is it possible that you believe something that can’t be proven? Did you know that nothing about evolution can be proven? It’s all based on assumption, conjecture and suggestion......throw in some jargon and all the science buffs feed on the same garbage.

The proof is in the fossil record (this does exist ... it isn't imaginary)

You do understand that the fossil record is one of the poorest sources of "evidence" there is? It is very imaginative (rather than imaginary) because it involves a great amount of speculation and suggestion to connect the fossils to one another without any truly identifiable transitional links. The gaps are glaring and so far no one has identified all those "common ancestors" that science keeps insisting were there to create the branches of their imaginary tree.

and in the genetics work of the last 4-5 decades.

All genetics prove is that we are all made by the same Creator out of the same materials. If you want to believe that you are related to a banana, then what can I say? Watch out for monkeys.

Evolution can be seen directly every day ... how do you think the Delta variation for the covid-19 virus came about (just one example among many that could be used)? Mutations that enable it to better find hosts to survive and repdroduce itself is how, and this is generally how evolution by natural selection works.

Hang on, are we talking about adaptation or evolution here? You don't really believe that they are one and the same thing do you?
Nothing science has ever done has proven that adaptation is anything but the ability to adapt a single species to accommodate a change in environment or a change in food source. Adaptation cannot change one creature into another, which makes evolution impossible.
Did Darwin see the finches changing into some other species of birds? Or were they all simply adapted varieties of finches? What about the iguanas? Were they becoming something other than another variety of iguanas? Adaptation is not the little brother of evolution.....not even close. That is a suggestion, not a fact.

There is no assumption, conjecture and suggestion involved, or silly jargon. If you don't believe it, then you are simply ignoring the mountains of evidence that proves it (presumably because it disproves some religious stories of creation and the idea that humans are special). Simply stating that there is no evidence for evolution is sticking your head in the sand and refusing to see it right in front of you.

Well, some of us are sticking our heads in the sand and accusing others of ignoring the "mountains of evidence"....which really are no such thing. There are "mountains" all right ...."mountains" of assumptions based on very little evidence, and not a single shred of proof that any of it actually happened outside of their imagination.

As for the water on other planets issue, Mars once had lots of liquid water on its surface which could have harbored life long ago. The surface pressure and temperature now are usually below the triple point of water so liquid water can't exist on the surface, but some large moons of planets have more water than Earth. For example, two of Jupiter's moons have more water than Earth:

https://www.businessinsider.com/water-s ... ns-2016-10

What is exciting about maybe there being water on other planets? Does water miraculously produce life? Please tell me how....?

Whether simple life has ever existed on these moons (or Mars) we don't know yet, but it can't be dismissed because of old religious books describing creation stories that we know today cannot possibly be true (along with other stories like Noah's flood). What will you say if life is found on another planet of moon during your lifetime? Will you simply refuse to believe it as you do with the evidence for evolution?

Well.....if its the same as the "evidence for evolution" then I can tell you now, there will be no proof....only speculation about what might have happened when no one was around to document anything or witness anything except the Creator, and you want me to believe people who weren't even there?
Sorry, you can believe them if you like.....I'll stick to what makes more sense to me and has more actual evidence than science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jemima in post #34]

You do understand that the fossil record is one of the poorest sources of "evidence" there is?

No ... just the opposite. It paints a clear enough picture to prove many transitions and branches. There ARE transitional forms, but as is typical anti-evolutionists simply proclaim otherwise in spite of the direct evidence. You're very wrong on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
(and references at bottom)

All genetics prove is that we are all made by the same Creator out of the same materials. If you want to believe that you are related to a banana, then what can I say? Watch out for monkeys.

First, genetics does not prove a Creator (or disprove a Creator). It is simply our understanding of how DNA works to code for proteins, turn certain genes on and off, how it can mutate and what those mutations do, etc. It is a scientific discipline that has no relation to things like Creators, or religions. And we are in fact related to other great apes (we are one) as well as earlier mammals. Genetics has proven this beyond any doubt even without the fossil record.

Hang on, are we talking about adaptation or evolution here? You don't really believe that they are one and the same thing do you?

They ARE one and the same thing. Enough adaptation leads to new species and a different animal. That's how it all works. Why do all anti-evolutionists grasp onto this idea that so-called "mirco" evolution is OK (adaptation) but "macro" evolution (speciation) somehow isn't possible through the exact same process. This is demonstrably wrong, but like transitional forms they just proclaim that one is OK (because it doesn't upset their religious stories ... there is no other obvious reason and certainly not a conclusion from actual real-world evidence), but the other is not (again, for no other reason than incredulity, or refusal to accept something because it is at odds with a religious viewpoint).

Adaptation cannot change one creature into another, which makes evolution impossible.

Sigh ... wrong again. Speciation does happen and there is plenty of solid evidence for it. You're just dismissing it by ignoring the science of the last 100 years. You can make statements like this all day long, but they are easily proven to be incorrect. Evolution is possible, it did/does happen, and this is irrefutable without the head firmly in the sand.

There are "mountains" all right ...."mountains" of assumptions based on very little evidence, and not a single shred of proof that any of it actually happened outside of their imagination.

Just more proclamations discounting things we already know, and have known for many decades now. Denying science has never helped anyone, and refusal to believe that evolution happens is nothing but science denial for religious reasons. It certainly isn't because there is any evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong. No one has disproved it yet ... but plenty make baseless statements against it purely because it is at odds with religious tall tales of creation events, or a belief that humans are special.

Well.....if its the same as the "evidence for evolution" then I can tell you now, there will be no proof....only speculation about what might have happened when no one was around to document anything or witness anything except the Creator, and you want me to believe people who weren't even there?

And yet another textbook anti-evolutionist reply. There seems to be a standard list of statements like this that everyone in that category uses. I suppose if you can't refute the science (and you can't), may as well just proclaim that evolution is wrong without any backup. Do you really believe that nothing that happened in the historical past can be verified unless a human was around to see it happen in real time? That may be the silliest argument in the anti-evolutionist's grab bag behind only the idea that sufficient stages of "micro" evolution do in fact lead to "macro" evolution.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jemima in post #34]

What is exciting about maybe there being water on other planets? Does water miraculously produce life? Please tell me how....?

You're the one who brought this up in post 25, and gave a list of planets and their small amounts of water relative to Earth. I was simply pointing out that there are large bodies in our solar system (eg. moons) that do have more liquid water than Earth. The life that evolved on Earth did so because of the environmental conditions here and their ability to function within those constraints. It did not happen the other way around (ie. the atmosphere and geology were "created" specifically for the kind of life that exists here).

The atmosphere was very different (lacking any significant oxygen) before cyanobacteria created the "great oxygenation event" which killed off a lot of the existing microbial life and allowed oxygen compatible life to replace it. Of course I expect you don't believe that event happened because there were no humans around to see it, but we have banded iron formations and lots of other evidence that this happened. Science is very fascinating if it isn't ignored, or dismissed out of hand in favor of old religious stories.

[DeMotts]

You do understand that the fossil record is one of the poorest sources of "evidence" there is? It is very imaginative (rather than imaginary) because it involves a great amount of speculation and suggestion to connect the fossils to one another without any truly identifiable transitional links. The gaps are glaring and so far no one has identified all those "common ancestors" that science keeps insisting were there to create the branches of their imaginary tree.

What do you think of something like Hyracotherium / Mesohippus / Merychippus / Pliohippus / Equus fossils, where we have really complete fossils that can be dated, and we can clearly see a progression from a very small 1-2 foot animal into a modern horse, with interspersed steps along the way as other ancestors broke off from this lineage. Do complete fossils with transitional forms convince you at all that something can evolve? Or is this not compelling and you need something different.

All genetics prove is that we are all made by the same Creator out of the same materials. If you want to believe that you are related to a banana, then what can I say? Watch out for monkeys.

Would you say you have a strong understanding of modern genetics? I'm a bit of a novice on the subject so if you've actually done some research here I'd love to know more about it.

Nothing science has ever done has proven that adaptation is anything but the ability to adapt a single species to accommodate a change in environment or a change in food source. Adaptation cannot change one creature into another, which makes evolution impossible.

If you extended your example of your single species adapting to a change in the environment and the environment kept changing for millions of years and the organism adapted for several million generations do you think the organism would change a lot or very little?

What is exciting about maybe there being water on other planets? Does water miraculously produce life? Please tell me how....?

I guess my point was missed, my apologies. Explaining how much water is in the solar system (Earth contains only 2-4% of the water in the solar system) and then comparing that with the mind boggling number of stars and planets that exist (between 10^15 and 10^19 in our galaxy alone, multiplied by a couple trillion galaxies we've observed) make it abundantly clear that there are many, many other watery planets in the goldilocks zone. So certainly not proof of water miraculously producing life but definitely many planets with conditions that could potentially support life (warm temperatures, liquid water, energy source, atmosphere). Many many times over. I completely understand if this doesn't mean anything to you, to me it's significant.

Well.....if its the same as the "evidence for evolution" then I can tell you now, there will be no proof....only speculation about what might have happened when no one was around to document anything or witness anything except the Creator, and you want me to believe people who weren't even there?
Sorry, you can believe them if you like.....I'll stick to what makes more sense to me and has more actual evidence than science.

I always like to ask: what evidence would convince you of evolution? And what evidence has so far convinced you of creationism.

[Jemima]

[Replying to DeMotts in post #37]

What do you think of something like Hyracotherium / Mesohippus / Merychippus / Pliohippus / Equus fossils, where we have really complete fossils that can be dated, and we can clearly see a progression from a very small 1-2 foot animal into a modern horse, with interspersed steps along the way as other ancestors broke off from this lineage. Do complete fossils with transitional forms convince you at all that something can evolve? Or is this not compelling and you need something different.

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?

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?

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....?



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

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.



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.

Would you say you have a strong understanding of modern genetics? I'm a bit of a novice on the subject so if you've actually done some research here I'd love to know more about it.

No, not a strong understanding.....I have read many articles about genetics and seen some very tiresome explanations about us all being related to bananas, but all genetics reveals to me is more guesswork, counting on those phantom "common ancestors" who are never identified. If they ever existed then why do we never find out who or what they were? If science cannot produce them, then how do we know that they ever existed outside of their imagination? Evolution cannot exist without them.

If you extended your example of your single species adapting to a change in the environment and the environment kept changing for millions of years and the organism adapted for several million generations do you think the organism would change a lot or very little?

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.

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.

I guess my point was missed, my apologies. Explaining how much water is in the solar system (Earth contains only 2-4% of the water in the solar system) and then comparing that with the mind boggling number of stars and planets that exist (between 10^15 and 10^19 in our galaxy alone, multiplied by a couple trillion galaxies we've observed) make it abundantly clear that there are many, many other watery planets in the goldilocks zone. So certainly not proof of water miraculously producing life but definitely many planets with conditions that could potentially support life (warm temperatures, liquid water, energy source, atmosphere). Many many times over. I completely understand if this doesn't mean anything to you, to me it's significant.

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.

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

I always like to ask: what evidence would convince you of evolution? And what evidence has so far convinced you of creationism.

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.

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.....?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jemima in post #38]

What is your expertise in paleontology, cosmology, molecular genetics, Jemima? In a few paragraphs you dismiss the work of thousands, perhaps millions, of experts in their fields and suggest that they are all wrong. If course it is just your opinion, but your opinion is worthless unless you can demonstrate conclusively that all those people are actually wrong. In your opinion a few ancient stories about a magical being written by unknown primitive and superstitious people ignorant of the world they inhabit carries more weight than the tons of accumulated knowledge that dedicated scientific research has produced. The mind boggles.

[DeMotts]

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 are seeing a series of animals that have been found in complete fossil form, featuring very similar bone structures that have undergone gradual changes (what you would call transitional fossils), dated in a linear fashion from early Eocene rock (50mya) all the way up to Pleistocene rock (1mya) in a fairly direct line from the long-extinct Hyracotherium to the extant Equus we see today. It is literally exactly what you say we never have, complete fossils of transitional forms with solid dating showing the progression between a completely different extinct ancient animal to a modern animal.

I'm not saying this is 100% fact, but when I look at the different animals, combined with their dates, locations, and gradual changes it appears the most likely explanation is that one changed into the other over a long period of time. This is the mechanism that you described previously, a species adapting to it's environment slightly, just over a long period.

I would like to know your explanation for Hyracotherium and Mesohippus et al. What are we seeing here? Why are the non Equus forms extint? Where did they go? Why are they found in rock that is dated to millions of years ago? Is the dating wrong?

How about whales?

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....?

I'll answer your question with a question: why do modern whales have finger bones? Why do we find skeletons of ancient whales that have four limbs? What happened to these animals? They were aquatic so they should have survived the flood. Where are they now?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/1 ... d-in-egypt

Would you say you have a strong understanding of modern genetics? I'm a bit of a novice on the subject so if you've actually done some research here I'd love to know more about it.

No, not a strong understanding.....

Ok then let's not bother here.

If you extended your example of your single species adapting to a change in the environment and the environment kept changing for millions of years and the organism adapted for several million generations do you think the organism would change a lot or very little?

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.

I mean, you're saying "it's my belief that no animal can change it's taxonomy" and then you're saying science "assumes". But you're just "assuming" you're correct here. You're just saying it's your belief. So that's what it is, a belief. You're posting graphs of animals we've found fossils for, whales with feet, you're admitting that animals can adapt over time to changes in their environment, and then you're just kind of arbitrarily stating that animals can't move outside of their "taxonomic family", an artificial classification that humans invented to help organize things. What is the hard wall here? If the earth suddenly entered an ice age, or slowly oxygenated over millenia, and organisms changed gradually, would they just reach a point where they say "Oh whoa whoa wait, one more change and I'm outside of my taxonomic family, I can't do that, I'm going to stop my genetic variation despite the changes in the environment because there is a hard wall here and my DNA locks at this point. I've changed a little bit every generation for many generations but that's enough, I'm done changing, even though the environment is still changing. I'm done I'm going to stop now." What is stopping an animal from changing further?

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

Water does not guarantee life, sure. Science doesn't know where it started, but postulates that life comes from a common ancestor. You have an explanation for where life started but you don't know it to be true either.

I always like to ask: what evidence would convince you of evolution? And what evidence has so far convinced you of creationism.

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.

This doesn't answer my question unfortunately, though I appreciate your spiritual approach of observing the world around you. What evidence, or what kind of evidence would convince you that evolution may be a reasonable explanation of how organisms change over time into other organisms?

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.....?

Since you previously said that you don't have any professional genetic/biology experience I would be very interested to know what samples of DNA you've examined that specifically show that something has been created from nothing, and not been the product of it's heritage.