DNA Replication, The Giants

[newnature]

I’m sorry, I’m computer dumb, I don’t know how to link, but on YouTube 'DNA Replication' check this machine out? I’m going to show that it was in this DNA Replication, that we have this story in Genesis 6:1-4 about the heroes of old, the men of renown?

Genesis 6:1-4;
When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wife's from among those that pleased them=Yahweh said, 'My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.'=It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth=when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

The one-third of the angels that took Lucifer's side, while the earth was in the first heaven; these are the beings that played around with the DNA code, within the daughters of men DNA Replication? It is this playing around with the DNA Replication, that how these heroes of old, the men of renown came to be, these angels tricked the code in the machine? In Jude 6, we have some angels that decided not to keep to their first decision, staying on Yahweh’s side. During the first heaven, Lucifer made a move to set his face against Yahweh, and one-third of the angles sided with Lucifer? These angles were the ones involved causing these heroes of old, the men of renown, by playing around with the DNA Replication; but Yahweh wiped out these heroes of old, the men of renown? After the flood, we see these giants on the earth again, but the angles involved in this, were not Lucifer and his clans doing; but some angles that stayed on Yahweh’s side during the first heaven disruption. They left Yahweh’s side after the flood, and started playing around with that code in the DNA Replication again, that is how those giants were on the earth after the flood? This is why these angels are chained up, in Jude 6?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I’m sorry, I’m computer dumb, I don’t know how to link, but on YouTube 'DNA Replication' check this machine out? I’m going to show that it was in this DNA Replication, that we have this story in Genesis 6:1-4 about the heroes of old, the men of renown?

Genesis 6:1-4;
When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wife's from among those that pleased them=Yahweh said, 'My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.'=It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth=when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

The one-third of the angels that took Lucifer's side, while the earth was in the first heaven; these are the beings that played around with the DNA code, within the daughters of men DNA Replication? It is this playing around with the DNA Replication, that how these heroes of old, the men of renown came to be, these angels tricked the code in the machine? In Jude 6, we have some angels that decided not to keep to their first decision, staying on Yahweh’s side. During the first heaven, Lucifer made a move to set his face against Yahweh, and one-third of the angles sided with Lucifer? These angles were the ones involved causing these heroes of old, the men of renown, by playing around with the DNA Replication; but Yahweh wiped out these heroes of old, the men of renown? After the flood, we see these giants on the earth again, but the angles involved in this, were not Lucifer and his clans doing; but some angles that stayed on Yahweh’s side during the first heaven disruption. They left Yahweh’s side after the flood, and started playing around with that code in the DNA Replication again, that is how those giants were on the earth after the flood? This is why these angels are chained up, in Jude 6?
Hey there NewNature,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

You can not embed videos into your posts, but you can easily post the link. Just copy and paste it, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGvPKxVNbCE&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_987109

Is that the video you were thinking of?

In general, the ideas you suggest seem to be much too speculative to be taken seriously. Things like DNA and genetic manipulations are modern scientific concepts. There is no trace of them in the Bible.

All the best,

Richard

[newnature]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtLXpgjHL0&feature=related

Thanks ram, I think this is it, I don't know what that guy is teaching, but I want to show, that this machine could have been tricked? Just trying to learning.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtLXpgjHL0&feature=related

Thanks ram, I think this is it, I don't know what that guy is teaching, but I want to show, that this machine could have been tricked? Just trying to learning.
That series of 4 videos is Chuck Missler. He has a radio show, website, and has written a few books. If I were to give him a title, it would be something like "Super Science-Fiction Style Christian Speculator." Besides being into aliens and UFOs and nephilim, he also was real big on how the world was going to fall apart because of Y2K.

What exactly did you mean when you said: "I want to show, that this machine could have been tricked?"

As for trying to learn ... bravo! :thumb: Me too! :winking0071:

All the best,

Richard

[newnature]

That series of 4 videos is Chuck Missler. He has a radio show, website, and has written a few books. If I were to give him a title, it would be something like "Super Science-Fiction Style Christian Speculator." Besides being into aliens and UFOs and nephilim, he also was real big on how the world was going to fall apart because of Y2K.

What exactly did you mean when you said: "I want to show, that this machine could have been tricked?"

As for trying to learn ... bravo! :thumb: Me too! :winking0071:

All the best,

Richard

Chuck Missler, that guy is a little out their, UFOs and the bible, not? Because those angles in Jude 6 are chained up, I was thinking maybe that machine could have been tricked? The first time before the flood, could the code have been tweaked by Satan and his clan; after the flood those angles in Jude 6, tweaked the DNA Replication machine? It is cool how that DNA Replication is a machine?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Chuck Missler, that guy is a little out their, UFOs and the bible, not? Because those angles in Jude 6 are chained up, I was thinking maybe that machine could have been tricked? The first time before the flood, could the code have been tweaked by Satan and his clan; after the flood those angles in Jude 6, tweaked the DNA Replication machine? It is cool how that DNA Replication is a machine?
Yeah, Chuck is a bit "out there" with his speculations. You will find at time 3:27 in part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG7vWRH9CaM&feature=related) he displays a faked photo of the skeletons of giants. We recently had to debunk those pics (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24616&postcount=5) here on this forum because one of our members got fooled by them.

So the "machine" you are talking about being "tweaked" is the "DNA Replication machine?" I agree it is cool, very cool indeed. My wife Rose and I are studying DNA, genetics, and evolution a lot. But I don't understand how that "machine" could be tweaked since it exists in each cell of each living creature on the planet. Are you talking about the introduction of a mutation into the human genome of each person? That seems pretty strange too ...

[newnature]

Yeah, Chuck is a bit "out there" with his speculations. You will find at time 3:27 in part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG7vWRH9CaM&feature=related) he displays a faked photo of the skeletons of giants. We recently had to debunk those pics (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24616&postcount=5) here on this forum because one of our members got fooled by them.

So the "machine" you are talking about being "tweaked" is the "DNA Replication machine?" I agree it is cool, very cool indeed. My wife Rose and I are studying DNA, genetics, and evolution a lot. But I don't understand how that "machine" could be tweaked since it exists in each cell of each living creature on the planet. Are you talking about the introduction of a mutation into the human genome of each person? That seems pretty strange too ...

No, nothing like that with genome or mutation stuff, I'm thinking about what goes on in the womb of a womb, when that machine puts the baby together?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, nothing like that with genome or mutation stuff, I'm thinking about what goes on in the womb of a womb, when that machine puts the baby together?
I'm not sure what you mean by "machine" in this context. There is not really any machine. The egg is fertilized by the sperm, and then the fertilized egg begins to divide and develop into the baby in accordance with the information encoded in the DNA. What is the "machine" you keep mentioning?

[newnature]

Hi everyone, forgive my lack of insight on this subject, I'm a simple researcher of Yahweh's word. I use Yahweh, I have a understanding on the other names our Father used, but it is a limited understanding, all I know is since the Mosaic covenant came about way back in the day, our Father reviled his name as Yahweh? This DNA thing, back in 1986, a friend and I were doing some researching; but my friend kept reading some kind of medical journal? My friend all of a sudden looked up and said, this DNA thing could be tied into why Yahweh flooded the earth; I thought cool. I'm always digging into our Father's word; to me Yahweh's word is one big movie picture, do I see the whole picture, no; but I do see some of the backbone of the storyline of what Yahweh wants us to see? Please allow me to throw it out their, we can always reason it out, if I wrong, I will grow before you good people. So three years ago I was staying at a mision, was join a program to learn more about was they taught, it is one thing to study someones belief, but to see all the different ways these people were teaching the same subject was something else; but one night they played this show on this DNA machine thing, as I was watching that show, my mind clicked, that is what is behind what was done in Jude 6 and before the flood; now, I don't know how, but I know that somehow this is the reason behind the giants and after the flood, what those ten spies saw in Canaan? Maybe someone will come along, might know a little more, I'm just a learner, always trying to learn by throwing it out their. I know not to buy that book from that guy Ram told us about, how cool is that?

[newnature]

I'm not sure what you mean by "machine" in this context. There is not really any machine. The egg is fertilized by the sperm, and then the fertilized egg begins to divide and develop into the baby in accordance with the information encoded in the DNA. What is the "machine" you keep mentioning?

The machine reading the information off the code; and putting it together, does that make sense?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The machine reading the information off the code; and putting it together, does that make sense?
Yes, that was what I was talking about when I asked:
So the "machine" you are talking about being "tweaked" is the "DNA Replication machine?"
But you said:
No, nothing like that with genome or mutation stuff, I'm thinking about what goes on in the womb of a womb, when that machine puts the baby together?"
This is what I found confusing. The "machine" is the cell that copies its DNA and reads it to give instructions to build proteins, turn genes on and off, and other stuff. It's all very technical, so it's probably not possible to try to answer questions about obscure verses in Genesis 6 that talk about things no one has clear knowledge of anyway. When it comes to mysterious parts of the Bible, I tend to think that "less is more." Making guesses using modern science probably won't lead to truth, and even if it did, how would we know? Scripture is already buried under a mountain of crazy ideas that folks have been making up for thousands of years, so I tend to think our job is to clear things up as much as possible, and to avoid creating new speculations that can not be proven.


Hi everyone, forgive my lack of insight on this subject, I'm a simple researcher of Yahweh's word. I use Yahweh, I have a understanding on the other names our Father used, but it is a limited understanding, all I know is since the Mosaic covenant came about way back in the day, our Father reviled his name as Yahweh? This DNA thing, back in 1986, a friend and I were doing some researching; but my friend kept reading some kind of medical journal? My friend all of a sudden looked up and said, this DNA thing could be tied into why Yahweh flooded the earth; I thought cool. I'm always digging into our Father's word; to me Yahweh's word is one big movie picture, do I see the whole picture, no; but I do see some of the backbone of the storyline of what Yahweh wants us to see? Please allow me to throw it out their, we can always reason it out, if I wrong, I will grow before you good people. So three years ago I was staying at a mision, was join a program to learn more about was they taught, it is one thing to study someones belief, but to see all the different ways these people were teaching the same subject was something else; but one night they played this show on this DNA machine thing, as I was watching that show, my mind clicked, that is what is behind what was done in Jude 6 and before the flood; now, I don't know how, but I know that somehow this is the reason behind the giants and after the flood, what those ten spies saw in Canaan? Maybe someone will come along, might know a little more, I'm just a learner, always trying to learn by throwing it out their. I know not to buy that book from that guy Ram told us about, how cool is that?
Your humble approach is very admirable.

But what do we really know about any "giants" in the Bible? That word is not even in the Hebrew. It got into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate which followed the Greek Septuagint (LXX) which used the word gigantes to translate the Hebrew nephilim. The word is not even in the original documents! It came into our modern English translation following a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew original, and we see therefore that our speculative explanation based on the modern science of DNA might be just a little bit misdirected, if you know what I mean.

All the very best!

Richard

[newnature]

Yes, that was what I was talking about when I asked:
So the "machine" you are talking about being "tweaked" is the "DNA Replication machine?"
But you said:
No, nothing like that with genome or mutation stuff, I'm thinking about what goes on in the womb of a womb, when that machine puts the baby together?"
This is what I found confusing. The "machine" is the cell that copies its DNA and reads it to give instructions to build proteins, turn genes on and off, and other stuff. It's all very technical, so it's probably not possible to try to answer questions about obscure verses in Genesis 6 that talk about things no one has clear knowledge of anyway. When it comes to mysterious parts of the Bible, I tend to think that "less is more." Making guesses using modern science probably won't lead to truth, and even if it did, how would we know? Scripture is already buried under a mountain of crazy ideas that folks have been making up for thousands of years, so I tend to think our job is to clear things up as much as possible, and to avoid creating new speculations that can not be proven.


Your humble approach is very admirable.

But what do we really know about any "giants" in the Bible? That word is not even in the Hebrew. It got into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate which followed the Greek Septuagint (LXX) which used the word gigantes to translate the Hebrew nephilim. The word is not even in the original documents! It came into our modern English translation following a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew original, and we see therefore that our speculative explanation based on the modern science of DNA might be just a little bit misdirected, if you know what I mean.

All the very best!

Richard

In Numbers 13:32-33, some of these scouts Moses sent into the land flowing with milk and honey: they spread calumnies among the Israelites about the land they had scouted, saying, "The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size, we saw the Nephilim there=the Anakites are part of the Nephilim=and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them." The fear some of these scouts instill in the Israelites lead to the ultimate punishment, forty years of wandering in the desert and the death of the exodus generation; because of these Goliath looking dudes. I think Goliath is depicted as a giant, but I do know what you mean Ram, always trying to learn something, cool stuff.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In Numbers 13:32-33, some of these scouts Moses sent into the land flowing with milk and honey: they spread calumnies among the Israelites about the land they had scouted, saying, "The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size, we saw the Nephilim there=the Anakites are part of the Nephilim=and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them." The fear some of these scouts instill in the Israelites lead to the ultimate punishment, forty years of wandering in the desert and the death of the exodus generation; because of these Goliath looking dudes. I think Goliath is depicted as a giant, but I do know what you mean Ram, always trying to learn something, cool stuff.
Good point. I was only talking about the fact that the word "giant" does not actually appear in Genesis 6. But the large size of some people called "nephilim" is mentioned in the passage you cite:

Numbers 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [nephilim]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
But again, the word "giants" does not actually occur in the text. In any case, it seems to me the real problem is that we know next to nothing about the nephilim, so speculating about space aliens and/or fallen angels corrupting the human genome is pretty far "outside the bounds" of serious study of Scripture.

[newnature]

Good point. I was only talking about the fact that the word "giant" does not actually appear in Genesis 6. But the large size of some people called "nephilim" is mentioned in the passage you cite:

Numbers 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [nephilim]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
But again, the word "giants" does not actually occur in the text. In any case, it seems to me the real problem is that we know next to nothing about the nephilim, so speculating about space aliens and/or fallen angels corrupting the human genome is pretty far "outside the bounds" of serious study of Scripture.

At least we will not be fooled by anyones books or course on this subject matters; it is crazy all the different teachings out their, a little outside the bounds perhaps, but I learned a lot, thanks for the learning.

[alec cotton]

Greetings ( battering) RAM
I had to take a day or two off to search for information to correct ,verify or discount my conclusions. I found them substantiated by those whom most people trust. Before I copy some of their statements I would like to comment on the nephelim. Giants were literal giants. Goliath was huge and his vital statistics are given . He had some brothers who were the same size. I wouldn't like to be married to his sister. King Og was a whopper and his Iron bed is noted. Now I have never thought as sons of God as spirit beings who fell like hailstones from heaven . I have always thought of them as sons or descendants of Adam and the daughters of men as the non Adam races . To me , Adam was not the first human being but the first 'man' Adam was special. He was created for a particular purpose and for a special reason. When considering D.N.A. I quickly came to the conclusion that this substance is one of the tools which God uses to fulfil his purpose. It is composed of four elements which researcher have labelled with letters. The thing that struck me was that the number four in the bible seems to denote earth or things earthly. One researcher spent Thirty years trying to find a beneficial mutation in fruit flies . You can produce millions of generations in that time but not one was beneficial.

Many individuals who believe in evolution are convinced that there exists an abundance of transitional forms to support evolution. However, what they regard as "transitional" are simply biological similarities between various species or groups, and are not true or actual transitions in Nature. Creationists believe that the biological similarities between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex. Evolutionists believe that the biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry between all forms of life.
The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson)
The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Contrary to the impression given by evolutionary books and magazines, evidence of transition is rare and limited to variation within kinds. Sensationalistic claims of ‘evolutionary ancestors’ make it into the newspapers; retractions and more sober evaluations of new fossils do not. As Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, put it:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwen's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (correspondence .W. Sunderland)
There is a mountain of evidence which indicates that all animals were deliberately formed to fulfil a certain purpose. Deliberation, direction and purpose are apparent . There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the transition was incidental, accidental or gradual. Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge.
Alec

[Rose]

Greetings ( battering)

Many individuals who believe in evolution are convinced that there exists an abundance of transitional forms to support evolution. However, what they regard as "transitional" are simply biological similarities between various species or groups, and are not true or actual transitions in Nature. Creationists believe that the biological similarities between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex. Evolutionists believe that the biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry between all forms of life.
The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson)
The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Contrary to the impression given by evolutionary books and magazines, evidence of transition is rare and limited to variation within kinds. Sensationalistic claims of ‘evolutionary ancestors’ make it into the newspapers; retractions and more sober evaluations of new fossils do not. As Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, put it:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwen's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (correspondence .W. Sunderland)
There is a mountain of evidence which indicates that all animals were deliberately formed to fulfil a certain purpose. Deliberation, direction and purpose are apparent . There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the transition was incidental, accidental or gradual. Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge.
Alec

Hi Alec,

It seems your focus is on the absence of transitional life forms, but that is really not the main issue at hand. The single celled Protozoa (the first animal form) existed billions of years ago. This early life contained the same eukaryotic cell structure and DNA as life does today, so whether you believe that God created the DNA code allowing life to design itself by natural selection, or that God intervened at each step and created each individual form of life is not the point.

The main point is: the way DNA is structured it can design itself! Look at what happen each time a baby is formed from a single cell....a complete new life is formed! All the information needed to shape that new life was coded in the DNA.


Blessings,
Rose

[alec cotton]

Hi Alec,

It seems your focus is on the absence of transitional life forms, but that is really not the main issue at hand. The single celled Protozoa (the first animal form) existed billions of years ago. This early life contained the same eukaryotic cell structure and DNA as life does today, so whether you believe that God created the DNA code allowing life to design itself by natural selection, or that God intervened at each step and created each individual form of life is not the point.

The main point is: the way DNA is structured it can design itself! Look at what happen each time a baby is formed from a single cell....a complete new life is formed! All the information needed to shape that new life was coded in the DNA.


Blessings,
Rose

I see the goal posts moved again. Sometimes when I write I am asked for chapter and verse . Other times I am asked to give the source of information.
I thought that the main thrust of this thread was whether evoilution was deliberate or accidental. Now you say that the main point is that the way that D.n.A is stuctured it can design itself. That is an erroneous assumption . That tactic ,which is often used is followed by statements which presume that the assumption is a proven fact when it was only conjecture in the first place. Everything that I wrote is fact. Here is another fact which blows that Idea out of the water. D.N.A is (as you well know) an instruction code. It is not self regulating , nor can it be . Direction , determination and purpose are readily seen Those elements prove that there is a mind doing the directing .
Being an instruction code : it needed to be planned by by an architect and the builder is God.
Alec

[Silence]

Hello Everyone,
I visited a website yesterday that I haven't been to in a long time and found something that relates to the discussion here about giants in the bible. Like Chuck Missler, Mr. Heiser is another person that openly discusses UFOs and "alien abductions", so he will probably be written off by many as a nut case. He certainly has the academic credentials to be taken seriously on the topic of near eastern languages. And after searching to find a rebuttal by anyone to Mr. Heiser's claim about the meaning of the word 'naphal' and not finding any, I tend to accept his position that nephilim really does mean "giants". The article can be found here - http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf . I doubt that this will settle the dispute over what "nephilim" really means in the bible, but if anyone knows of a rebuttal to Mr. Heiser's argument I would like to know how to find it.

[newnature]

What about a miscarriage, could this machine somehow missed up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtLXpgjHL0&feature=related
their might be something to this machine somehow, trick the machine.
Why did this machine misread the code, as a result, a miscarriage. Satan and his clan could have tricked that machine somehow?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Greetings ( battering) RAM
I had to take a day or two off to search for information to correct ,verify or discount my conclusions. I found them substantiated by those whom most people trust. Before I copy some of their statements I would like to comment on the nephelim. Giants were literal giants. Goliath was huge and his vital statistics are given . He had some brothers who were the same size. I wouldn't like to be married to his sister. King Og was a whopper and his Iron bed is noted.

Sometimes I feel more battered than battering. :p

In any case, where is the evidence that there were ever any giants? Do we have any skeletons to view? There are many hoaxes (fake photos) on the internet, but I've never heard of any genuine skeletons of giants.



Now I have never thought as sons of God as spirit beings who fell like hailstones from heaven . I have always thought of them as sons or descendants of Adam and the daughters of men as the non Adam races . To me , Adam was not the first human being but the first “man” Adam was special. He was created for a particular purpose and for a special reason.

That's very curious. Are you saying that God created humans in general and then created Adam separately? So we have two "races" of humans that could interbreed? Does that mean that the non-Adamic humans were without sin? What was the difference between Adamic and the other human "races"? And you believe there was death before the fall? Your suggestion creates a thousand questions and it seems like it would be pretty difficult to prove from either the Bible or scientific evidence.


One researcher spent Thirty years trying to find a beneficial mutation in fruit flies . You can produce millions of generations in that time but not one was beneficial.

Beneficial mutations have been found in the laboratory and are frequently observed in nature. I'll provide links to the evidence if you first provide links to the evidence for your claim about the "thirty years" ....



Many individuals who believe in evolution are convinced that there exists an abundance of transitional forms to support evolution. However, what they regard as "transitional" are simply biological similarities between various species or groups, and are not true or actual transitions in Nature. Creationists believe that the biological similarities between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex. Evolutionists believe that the biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry between all forms of life.

The pattern of the phylogenetic tree (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html) was originally built upon similarity of form as distributed throughout the history of the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif

The phylogenetic tree is strong evidence of evolution because species that lived millions of years ago (common ancestors of all who came later) "just happen" to fit (as expected) lower on the tree of life. But the truly amazing proof emerged just recently with our ability to map out the genomes of many species because the same pattern of the phylogenetic tree was derived using genetic information. Therefore, we have two mutally confirming independent lines of evidence.

Now the most important thing to understand is the amount of information that is represented in the phylogenetic tree. It represents the SUM TOTAL of all human knowledge of the relation between all species that have ever lived. The fact that there are some gaps in the fossil record does not affect the validity of this tree in any way.

Bottom line: The Theory of Evolution explains the Phylogenetic Tree. If creationists say they have a better theory, I'd like to hear it.



The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. (Wesson)

Of course there are "gaps" in the fossil record! The vast majority of animals that ever lived were not fossilized and so left no record. That does not stop us from seeing the "big picture." There are enough lines in the drawing to imply the whole image. Remember, the phylogenetic tree represents hundreds of thousands of observations by scientists over the past couple centuries. It is a true "mountain" of evidence that simply cannot not be refuted.



The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

It is quite telling that you need to quote a 19th century scientist to support your argument against the conclusions of tens of thousands of 21st century scientists! Darwin was just one fallible scientist. He is not the "final authority" on anything. The 21st century Theory of Evolution does not stand or fall on the validity of anything he wrote. Think about it! He wrote before we knew anything about DNA!!!! Come on Alec! This is not how you refute any scientific theory. Your posts are text-book examples of "quote mining" where you are looking for "proof texts" as if the writings of scientists were verses in some "scientific bible." That's not how it works. You KNOW that Darwin would not agree with your conclusions, so it seems a bit absurd to be taking one little quote from him as if it disproved everything else he said.

Please think about this. Why do you "believe" the quotes that seem to refute evolution but reject the quotes, from the same scientists, that support it??? Is that not inconsistent? If they are "authorities" that can be trusted when they say something that fits your argument, why are they not "authorities" when the state that creationism is contrary to the evidence?



Contrary to the impression given by evolutionary books and magazines, evidence of transition is rare and limited to variation within kinds.

I don't think you know what you mean by "transition." Species do not "transition" from one to another, like a cat turning into a dog. The Theory of Evolution talks about cats and dogs having a common ancestor. The common ancestor had descendants that branched into separate breeding pools that evolved independently to ultimately become cats or dogs.



Sensationalistic claims of ‘evolutionary ancestors’ make it into the newspapers; retractions and more sober evaluations of new fossils do not. As Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, put it:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwen's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (correspondence .W. Sunderland)

That's just more quote mining (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html) Alec. The quote by Dr. Colin Patterson does not, in any way, refute the theory of evolution, as explained here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html). Again, I must ask, why do you accept their quotes as "true" only when they support your thesis, but deny the truth of everything they say in support of evolution?



There is a mountain of evidence which indicates that all animals were deliberately formed to fulfil a certain purpose. Deliberation, direction and purpose are apparent . There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the transition was incidental, accidental or gradual. Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge.
Alec
Where is that mountain? I have never seen any evidence at all. Here's the problem: there have been millions of species coming into and going out of existence for the last billion years. So are you saying that God has been continuously creating new species for the last billion years, and that he let most of the species he created go extinct long ago? Why did he do that? What was his purpose? And why did he do it in a way that makes evolution look as irrefutable as gravity?

Great to be chatting,

Richard

[Rose]

I see the goal posts moved again. Sometimes when I write I am asked for chapter and verse . Other times I am asked to give the source of information.
I thought that the main thrust of this thread was whether evoilution was deliberate or accidental. Now you say that the main point is that the way that D.n.A is stuctured it can design itself. That is an erroneous assumption . That tactic ,which is often used is followed by statements which presume that the assumption is a proven fact when it was only conjecture in the first place. Everything that I wrote is fact. Here is another fact which blows that Idea out of the water. D.N.A is (as you well know) an instruction code. It is not self regulating , nor can it be . Direction , determination and purpose are readily seen Those elements prove that there is a mind doing the directing .
Being an instruction code : it needed to be planned by by an architect and the builder is God.
Alec

That is precisely the point! DNA is an instruction code that is self regulating....that process is called Natural Selection. Now whether the code of DNA came about by chance, or was designed by God is a question that will probably never be proven as a fact, but what is a known fact is that DNA has the ability to improve upon itself by mutation, and then selection...which is how all the diversity of life is accounted for.

Blessings,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's an article that lists a bunch of transitional fossils:

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html)

And here's an excellent video that discusses the evolutionary relationship between cats and dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08&feature=player_embedded

[newnature]

As a learner to this, what about a bumblebee, it should not be able to fly? Yahweh is behind that bumblebee flying, no way nature could have done it. In jude 6, these angels that are chained up, they could have tricked that machine, this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the bloodline or seed was to come through Abraham=through Isaac seed; Canaan was the hot spot.

[newnature]

As a learner to this, what about a bumblebee, it should not be able to fly? Yahweh is behind that bumblebee flying, no way nature could have done it. In jude 6, these angels that are chained up, they could have tricked that machine, this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the bloodline or seed was to come through Abraham=through Isaac seed; Canaan was the hot spot.

I was just thinking, this sixth day, its only been around for what 6 or 7 thousand years; I showed in another thread where Adam was the only living being alive on the earth with breath life. The animals and caveman that got wiped out, before Adam came along, we have bones and such, how cool; but Yahweh wiped that out for a reason, could Yahweh have been making a point to Satan; after all, what did Lucifer do. Nothing got crossed over between Adam, Genesis 2:4=story of the heaven and earth; then the story of earth and heaven is about the sixth day. Something could have tricked that machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtLXpgjHL0&feature=related
maybe put a nick in the clamps, or that little lever thing. Cool stuff, just some thoughts, one never knows what one can learn, unless they ask, thanks for all the learning.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As a learner to this, what about a bumblebee, it should not be able to fly? Yahweh is behind that bumblebee flying, no way nature could have done it.
The idea that the Bumblebee should not be able to fly is not correct. It's an urban myth. You can read a little about the history of this misunderstanding in this article (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/5400/title/Math_Trek__Flight_of_the_Bumblebee). Here is a snippet:
Often, the statement [that they bumblebee should not be able to fly] is made in a distinctly disparaging tone aimed at putting down those know-it-all scientists and engineers who are so smart yet can't manage to understand something that's apparent to everyone else.
And here is the final explanation:
So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.

Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account.
Ain't the internet great? We can verify facts in seconds. All the information in the world is instantly accessible. It's a great time to be alive!



In jude 6, these angels that are chained up, they could have tricked that machine, this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the bloodline or seed was to come through Abraham=through Isaac seed; Canaan was the hot spot.

I still don't understand what you mean by "trick the machine." Could you give me a precise example of what you mean by that phrase?

It seems like you are following Missler's speculation that Satan intended to "corrupt the human bloodline" so that the Messiah could not be born. Is that correct? If so, could you show me where the Bible talks about how the Messiah could not be born if the human bloodline was corrupted? I have not found that in the Bible. Indeed, the Messiah was born of a virgin, so we don't have to worry about the bloodline of the father, and if God could do that miracle, it doesn't seem like we need to worry about the bloodline of the mother. So where did this idea of demons "tricking the machine" come from, and why should we believe it?

[alec cotton]

Now I am puzzled. Goliath was a giant He was about eight feet six inches tall and about four feet across the shoulders. His spearhead weighed nearly half a hundred weight. That's what I call a giant. Og, king of Bashan had an iron bedstead fourteen feet long and six feet wide. He was a giant . I know it isn't recorded but legend has it that his wife's vital statistics were 24:26:28 and that was just her head. As regards Adam being the first human being ; I don't buy that . First I read that God made man and man multiplied . There wasn't a man to till the ground . God created Adam and placed him in a specified location. Cain killed Abel in a fit of jealousy. God said , 'as a punishment you will be an outcast and a vagabond ' . Cain replied , 'my penalty is more than I can bear. Every man's hand will be against me . Every man?!. There was only his dad!. 'Every man ' indicated that the world was populated. The next statements confirm the notion. Cain journeyed to a distant country and married a wife. In that place he built a city. One man cannot build one house and supply the materials and feed and clothe himself in one lifetime. And he even built a city.That obviously does not mean that he built a city with his own hands any more than it means that Solomon built the temple.He was the architect or instigator



Beneficial mutations have been found in the laboratory and are frequently observed in nature. I'll provide links to the evidence if you first provide links to the evidence for your claim about the "thirty years" ....


Try as I might I could not find it again but while we are here ,will you tell me of one disease that has been cured as a direct result of D.N.A research.
Quote :

Bottom line: The Theory of Evolution explains the Phylogenetic Tree. If creationists say they have a better theory, I'd like to hear it.


Same old deceptive trick The word evolution as used here really means ' evolution by the ( gradual or incremental) selection of the species, which occurred without direction , purpose or intervention. Of course life on earth evolved . Combustion engines evolved . Computers evolved , but not by accident. It has often been suggested to me on this forum : let us start with what we know . O.K. Let us start. It is an undeniable fact that at the end of each geological period there was mass extinction It is a fact that no new species have been observed in the fifty or so million years duration of any geological period. It is an observable fact that a vast raft of new species is ALLWAYS observed at the beginning of the geological period. It is an observable fact that every species is adapted to suit a particular environment. I do not pretend to know what mechanism is used to achieve that but I dare to make a guess. The director ,uses the existing ,living D.N.A and manipulates it to produce Fauna and flora suitable for the altered environment.For what it is worth, I believe that when mankind has served the purpose it too will be extinguished ,.For it does not yet appear what we shall be .This mortal must put on immortality. We will have a body like unto his glorious body . It does not appear yet what we shall be, but when he appears we will be like him. Mass extinctions have occurred periodically. Dare I say systematically. Is there any reason ro assume that the sequence has ended?. You asked me to quote the source of my information and then accuse me of quote mining . Is that fair?.I don't like quoting. I don't like name dropping . I like to observe for myself and use my own judgement and draw my own conclusions.

Quote
So are you saying that God has been continuously creating new species for the last billion years, and that he let most of the species he created go extinct long ago? Why did he do that? What was his purpose? And why did he do it in a way that makes evolution look as irrefutable as gravity?


Once again you use the word evolution loosely . That way it means something and nothing. I don't believe that God let all those species go extinct . I am certain that he extinguished them. Why did he do it !/?. Who am I to plunge my grubby hands into the heart of the living God and plunder its treasures!!!!.
Alec