Were There Giants in the Land?

Can't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician and can't believe any picture on the Internet. About all you can validate these days is what you can physically see, touch, smell, hear and apply a lot of good reasoning from past experiences. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck on the Internet, it might not be a duck; but someone just having fun with your head. Kinda sad, but that's the way it is.

Cool stuff and because I heard about these things before photo-shopping and the internet, I thank you for posting it and the links.

It would help if you spelled two or three things correctly therein.

Wow, what an epiphany! Next you'll be telling us that the movie "Clash of the Titans" is a docudrama chronicling a war between mankind & the gods of Mount Olympus, and that H.P. Lovecraft's classic tales "The Call of Cthulhu", "At the Mountains of Madness", "The Whisperer in Darkness" & "The Shadow Out of Time" are all true stories.

Oh boy, who would have ever known that......

47-inch femur? I'm no zoologist, but I doubt that even giraffe femurs (or humeri) are that long, and I will ask my wife about dinosaurs. (She used to work in the American Museum of Natural history.)

I'll have to reread the OP to see where any of these specimens currently reside. There seems to be a lot of folklore in this....

"There seems to be a lot of folklore in this"

There probably is, and I pointed out some scams. The hope is to separate the folklore and scams from history, and it is difficult. As to where the specimens reside, the OP tells some, but many may not have been saved.

Ask you wife if they use real bones in the exhibits of the American Museum of Natural history, or if they make replicas that are more durable. I have been to the museum in Denver where I saw large dinosaur skeletons. One was a brown color, so they either painted the bones or used something else.

-S

I checked with my wife, who confirms part of what I thought, but not all.

As she recalls, some dinosaur femurs are more than four feet long, but would be proportionally thicker and not easily confused with the bones of more delicate animals.

I know of three types of fossil formation, and there may be others. 1) An actual bone might be surrounded by sediment and preserved more or less intact. 2) A bone could be surrounded by sediment that solidifies around the bone, the bone later dissolving and leaving behind a hollow space or "cast." 3) Mineral-containing solutions can perfuse into the porous bone structure, leaving behind a "rock" of the same shape as the original bone. This last, I think, is the predominant mechanism (e.g., petrified wood).

Especially in Case 2, it would be possible to pour wax, bronze, or whatever into what amounts to a mold, and thus to make replicas. In case 3, the perfusing mineral might be brown, or some other color than bone white.

Some of the AMNH specimens are replicas; others are real bone or mineralized replacement of bone. I haven't been there, but I bet they would identify correctly which is which.

Less honest entities would simply fake it. Quite a few people need to think more cogently about such questions, and not to be fooled by quacks.

Once you remove the hoaxes, there is some interesting content to those sites.

I don't see why finding a race of giants would be against Darwin's theory of evolution. It is well known that many humanoids branches have existed and disappeared. If evidences of a giant species existed, it could be placed somewhere in the evolution tree as a branch that "probably" ended.

I find it disturbing that people are accusing the Smithsonian to hide scientific evidences since they would not destroy the natural evolution theory, it would re-enforce it. It looks like the believer in another theory are making up stuff to try to support their vision.

From many of the articles, we see that in general, most giants are produced by the natural diversification forces that tries many variations of each species. Eventually, one of these variation will be advantageous and will prevail producing a different version of the original specie.

Hi Marcot,

"I find it disturbing that people are accusing the Smithsonian to hide scientific evidences since they would not destroy the natural evolution theory, it would re-enforce it."

Where did you read this? A lot of scientists are Atheists, which is a belief system. It is conceivable that they would cover up anything that opposes their belief. I'm not sure it would reinforce evolution as much as it would reinforce the Bible.

-S

That's an interesting point of view, especially given the fact that it was religious leaders and not scientists who tried to suppress the fact that dinosaurs once existed because dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible.

Anyway, why would any archeologist or paleontologist want to suppress news of the discovery of fossilized giants or their tombs? If anything, they would be all too happy to discover them since it would make their careers, especially since giants can easily be explained or at least theorized as the hominid descendants or relatives of Gigantopithecus.

Now, if fossils of a chimera, centaur or gorgon were to be discovered on the other hand, then that's entirely another matter since this would suggest that Greek mythology may be substantially based on truth after all.

Especially if several members of the dig team were turned to stone upon laying eyes on the gorgon's face.

Especially if several members of the dig team were turned to stone upon laying eyes on the gorgon's face.

PMSL!

I agree with your interpretation of an archeologist's reaction...and the discovery's effect on our understanding of evolution.

SG: So what if it substantiates one part of the written version of what was the oral history of a nomadic tribe? Would that be so bad? Other parts of that collection of historical records have been externally substantiated (cross-referenced to Egyptian records and mostly to do with battles and their dates). It wouldn't mean that everything in that collection was gospel truth (pun intended).

It would also give credence to parts of the Greek myths/legends that DV1000 missed: namely that of the Titans.

There are tales of giants in most myth/legend series, all round the world, it would be interesting if these were proved to have some foundation in fact...and to explore what other aspects of the old legends have a beginning in reality. And how many are children's stories, like the Moomintrolls

"That doesn't change the fact that at one time, religious leaders tried to suppress the facts of the existence of dinosaurs because they didn't fit into the Book of Genesis."

There's nothing in Genesis that forbids dinosaurs. It says God created all creatures. That includes dinosaurs. I wouldn't be surprised if some leaders tried to suppress it, but can you provide a link? I hate liars whichever camp they are in.

Call a press conference, let the whole world see what you've discovered, and let the scientists analyze exactly what you have found.

That is what this site says they have done, with disastrous results. Read the bottom three sections. There are plenty of sites calling this a hoax. The question is did they investigate after the tracks were destroyed? Finding the truth here is probably impossible now.

"I think you've let your personal beliefs influenced you."

So my beliefs have influenced my beliefs have they? Sounds like circular reasoning. Do you have trouble with spreadsheets? BTW, I think you have misinterpreted my beliefs. Let me make it clear. I don't find evolution and the creation to be mutually exclusive as many Christians and Atheists do.

"A so-called brontosaur is nothing more than a misidentified apatosaur."

Whatever it is called now it is a vegetarian. In the Denver Museum of Nature and Science it had the head of a meat eater for 26 years. The director said that was "very embarrassing". It was called a brontosaurus when I first saw it. A similar thing happened here three. Perhaps the head change demanded a name change.

Museums are far from being error-free zones. For many years the Natural History Museum (I think it was ther) had an exhibition on evolution of the horse. It had no basis in fact, they had simply arranged skeletons in order of size.

It took the British Museum a while to spot a bit of mischief that had been hung on their walls;

I blogged about the brontosaurus name change.

Robert Wadlow suffered from a condition called gigantism that caused him to grow to almost 9 feet tall at the time of his death. Humans are related to apes, so there is no reason why there cannot be hominid relatives of Gigantopithecus. In Indonesia, there had long been reports of hairy midgets called orang pendek, which were long thought to be mythical until fossils of a previously unknown midget hominid now called Homo floriensis were found, lending credence to the possibility of orang pendek's existence. As several of us have pointed out, there is nothing biologically impossible about the existence of giants, but just because one day their fossils may be found doesn't prove that religious mythology of any form is true or false, it simply proves that giants exist.

One more thing, what is written is most religious books are actually allegorical in nature, not literally the truth. Unless you really believe the sun stood still for several hours.

I believe the sun is always standing still, relative to earth.

and I would be pretty cautious in saying the Bible is allegorical. A lot of geographical / historical locations have been found, and a great deal of evidence has been found to support the stories found (sometimes only) in the bible.

Our knowledge of geophysical science is too young and inexperienced to say that 'sun standing still' can't happen. You know that there is geological evidence that shows the magnetic poles have have relocated several times. So what happens when the core of the planet spins, or the earth gets hit by an asteroid the size of Manhattan?

We do not know, and can not accurately predict.

Chris

several

The mid atlantic ridge would seem to indicate a bit more than several. I think the planet just flipped upside down on each of those occasions, but that's just my opinion. It explains why all the dinosaurs dropped off the place.

Of course giants existed at one time. Gigantopithecus, an ape 10 feet tall was a very real creature that did exist at one time, and cryptozoologists theorized that far from being extinct, isolated colonies of them still exist and are responsible for sightings of the yeti & the sasquatch.

Hi Guest,

I'm not sure why you needed to post this twice (or was it thrice?). Are you referring to a thread rather than a post that was deleted? This thread is not about religion (nor evolution for that matter), though I have no personal reason to avoid either. I just don't want this to degrade like "Antiscience Part I" did.

I see that Kris has evolved into a flying squirrel. What will Chris evolve into, a champion speller? (This paragraph off topic)

-S

No, there was a religious based post with threatening overtones. I reported it. This is now the placeholder that Admin has put in it's place.

Chris

I see there is a new book coming on the subject by my favourite author.

Oh goodie! Thanks Chris. I'm off to order and autographed fist edition. I wonder if he has any autographed first editions left of his other books that I could also buy to catch up on all he has to teach!!! Oh joy! Oh Felicitousness!!

Oh what am I smoking...?!

Mind you, he could be right...we can't prove that aliens were never here (a negative proof being a scientific impossibility)

I sort of agree about the warming... but your presentation is not quite what I remember was his basic plot. I don't remember him talking so much about 'ice age', but about the the planet Nibiru, as cause of the flood, where the gods knew it was coming, as they had sensors placed on the ice. They knew it was floating on mud, and would displace when the planet came by. I guess they knew this as they may have seen it before. (supporting evidence was the Piri Re'is map, made as a copy from a far older map)

I did miss your link. I'll check it out. (sometimes people hide their links in periods and such. )

Chris

The bit in italics is a c'n'p from his website...straight from the horse's mouth.

Hiding links...whatever next. They'll be hiding them in smilies next!

Sitchin also clarifies 'Giants' with respect to the Hebrew Bible.

For a long time, the expression "The Nefilim were upon the Earth" has been translated as "There were giants upon the earth"; but recent translators, recognizing the error, have simply resorted to leaving the Hebrew term Nefilim intact in the translation.

So this might also mean they were not dimensionally larger, but mentally larger, as in knowing vastly more than humans, much as we would speak of fellow members of CR4 as being Giants in their field.

Chris

LOL - I've just made the same comment about giants in answer to your previous post.

Kris will be sniggering over this thread...I spent some time in PM discussing whether the alien/previous civilization theory could stand up - I was for; Kris, Del et al took turns in disputing.

I'm not saying the giants/Nephilim etc weren't Aliens, or indeed a previous high technological Earthly civilization, I'm just saying that the "evidence" ZS is presenting isn't factual.

Remember: the Sphinx is a lot older than she looks

"the Sphinx is a lot older than she looks"

It's that skin cream they have been putting on her.

She still looks hot (35C) , but hangs out with a bunch of squares!

I hear she used to be a dog! (anubis)

Isaac Newton said "For I have stood on the heads of giants." He was talking intellectuals like Galileo. Clearly the Bible does not mean that:

"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ... nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man" (Deuteronomy 3:11)

A cubit is about 20 inches, you do the math. People do not make beds much bigger than they need. Now you're going to argue that he slept in it sideways with 6 wives in with him. _{Stop giving him ideas.}

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" (Numbers 13:33)

Not everyone's a fan...

...and I'm going to get you for wasting too much of my day!! Still, it made me smile.

I've read a bunch of that. I've seen it before. I'm unconvinced. sorry.

For me, ZS has done what no other historian or author did before. He made sense. For all the quibbling over the details, ZS had created a very large, comprehensive picture of the diversity of the ancient legacy of verbal, clay, stone, etc, evidence, and has created a single themed concept that makes overwhelming sense to me.

Like a 1000 piece 3D jigsaw puzzle, he is the first to say "It's a landscape picture!" (or whatever) and have most of the essential pieces in place, where every other researcher makes me feel like this picture below. For me, it is now just left to other searchers to say "Oh, you have a single piece out of place". (and certainly there has been an abundance of supporting data discovered or revealed by others in the intervening years since 1977)

Chris

The problem I have with ZS (and I admit I've only heard of him from your link) is that he appears to be translating those sources to suit his own theories - and I mean translating not interpreting.

I don't have a problem with someone interpreting an agreed translation differently - but to say you're translating something and then have a completely unrelated message as a result, that's not cricket (if you'll pardon the rather English idiomatic phrase).

I don't think the scientists/paleontologist/historians have got it all right, and there are things in both ZS's and von D's theories that either sound plausible or can not (yet?) be disproved. The answer probably lies somewhere between the two camps...three camps if you include the relgious texts which undoubtedly contain truth in a form.

However, skewing, creating and ignoring evidence to reinforce one's point is wrong, whoever does it. It appears that ZS does that more than most - most of what I read on his site were spurious linkages and logical non-sequitors.

I guess what I'm saying is that just as I don't swallow either religion's or science's answers whole, I'm not swallowing his either.

I guess what I'm saying is that just as I don't swallow either religion's or science's answers whole

Bravo !

Zealots exist on both side of the devide. Taking time to listen to people with views that differ from ones own is the quality that marks us out as thinking poeple. CR4 is not exactly the place a creationist woud vist for a pat on the back, but reasoned discussion is for the better of all. Slightly presumptious, and OT, but I imagine people who work for/with you ,love you with passion - it takes insight to manage. You clearly have it. Now go give me a GA somewere,sweetie-pie*

*sorry all, just a joke slipped in that ER knows. Put them ironing boards away/

but I imagine people who work for/with you ,love you with passion

There's passion, but not of the sort you're imagining . Can I come and manage you, as you so obviously can see my talents clearly

_{Off the the Bath to carry out your request...}...see you soon, honeybun...

Haven't clicked all those links yet (sorry if it's a repeat), but this is fun.

Hi Kris,

Thanks for the link. I don't have time to read much of it or to respond to this thread right now. We are having an audit this week at work, and it's 'weeding time' at home. It was poor timing on my part. I will respond as soon as I can to the posts I think need responding to.

I noticed a link (in your link) called 'Walking Amidst the Dinosaurs'. When we were first married, my wife and I went to a place called Mesa Verde near the 4-corners region (where Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico come together). There I paid a Native American boy a small fee to show us dinosaur tracks in the rocks. Guess what? There were human tracks in with them (small ones). There was no way they could have been carved (eroded round edges, no tool marks). That proved to me that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I have long believed that as discoveries are made, that science and the Bible will come closer together. Not all the Bible can be taken literally. The 6 days of creation just means 6 periods of time. Some ancient Catholic monk decided that the earth was made 6,000 years ago, but some Christians believe 6 literal days. It's not part of my religion. The time periods of paleontologists is also in question.

-S

No problem about the timing - it gives us all time to consider.

You may find yourself in a minority here about the dinosaur/people co-existing thing. Archbishop Usher didn't make a very compelling case with his chronology.

Mesa Verde sounds a great place to visit, though I'm not swayed by a sight some youngster showed you. The crystal skulls, supposedly made by ancient peoples, have been show to be modern fakes (by lab analysis of tooling).

Nature holds many strange phenomena.

No, the people are not midgets.

People of religious and scientific persuasion often see what the want to see. I'm not having a dig at you - it would be great to hear more detail on the footprints you saw. Hope the work gets sorted and you can rejoin us soon. The chaos on my desk is testemony to how interesting CR4 is. Reasoned discourse on various topics is what makes it so (along with a pinch of joking to brighten the day).

Nice picture Kris. Where is that? I have been to Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. They have some large stalactites and stalagmites there.

Question: Do you know how to tell them apart?
Answer: The mites go up and the tites come down.

Thanks for the link to Ussher. Interesting stuff.

"The crystal skulls, supposedly made by ancient peoples, have been show to be modern fakes (by lab analysis of tooling)."

!#&!%$! scammers! What do you suppose their motive was?

"it would be great to hear more detail on the footprints you saw."

I have been looking on the web for confirmation of the site, but no luck yet. It may have been near the 4-corners monument which is close by. There you have the dubious honor of standing in 4 states at once, especially dubious if it's 2.5 miles off the mark as some say. I asked my wife last night for confirmation of seeing the human footprints. She didn't even remember the dinosaur tracks! Its been nearly 40 years and I guess her memory is going south like her hearing. If I can get her to tell me where she hid the photo albums I'll see if we took any pictures. I'll post what I can find.

-S

The cave is informally know as the 'Cave of the giant crystals'. Some place in Mexico/South America. One of the documentary channels did a fascinating show on it. Yep. Discovered during mining operations, which sadly are the very thing that could destroy it - the temperature, water levels etc are critical to formation and it's stability. Speculation was that more of the same might exist further within the mountain. It's almost like something Jules Verne might have dreamed up, and could easily be taken for a photoshop hoax.

The tights going down is a classic example of how to remember stuff. My Grandfather first told me that, though he restrained himself to 'little mights on the ground', thus allowing me to figure out the tites bit. His knowing look was half of what made it so funny and memorable.

Re the skulls; Mexico has many poor people, and a fair number of rich visitors. Although poor, people can still be ingenious at rigging up simple equipment such as lathes. The ability to grind rock is also something not beyond thier capability. Even the museums holding the better known examples acknowledge that their specimens are 20th century creations. Again, this is something that detailed information can be found on via documentary. No suggestion the museums are infallible, but acknowledging that an artifact is not what it was first presented as, is a big step. A lot of experts in various fields seem to agree with the reassessment. Such an example doesn't imply that all all such things are suspect - it's merely a reminder that all finds are potentially going to be re-examined and found to be other than what was first thought.

Thanks for taking the time to check with your wife and photo album. I've seen some amazing stuff, and it would take me ages to try dig up the relevant pictures and recall the what/where/when of it.

Fossilised footprints have always bemused me. How can they become fossilised? Or rather, how can something as impermanant as a footprint (human, dinosaur or giant*) survive long enough to be fossilised?

*Theres a Giant's Footstep in Blaise Park in Bristol...I remember standing in it as a child as disbelieving. I think this was supposed to have been made in the rock (heavy so-and-so) rather than fossilised.

Agree with you thank Bible and Science will get closer, and that time scales on both sides are questionable. The same is also true for the Egyptian Chronology, which in turn affects the Biblical chronology. There are two schools of thought on how these link together and the less popular one (non-orthodox currently) sets the date of the Bible stories back further than currently accepted.

Kris's link to Walking with Dinosaurs is interesting...some of it is non-logical leaping, but interesting. The figurine has no back legs, so I think they're models of things that have been talked/read about not seen first hand - like our drawings and models of dragons.

Got me thinking: What about Nessie? Even the British Government (1930) thought she might be real...and the most popular (likely?) explanation is that she's a dinosaur...

....I like this one.

It sounds hilariously absurd, but it's got my vote in the credibilty stakes. Another documentary (oh, no, I'm sounding like a TV addict !) ran a "Nessie test''; Chuck a suitable branch of wood in the water, and observe what tourists reported seeing. A goodly number were convinced they had seen a living creature (scientist probably published papers disputing whether on not the wood could have floated ). Any cop will tell you, eyewitness accounts of some crime they saw on the street vary wildly. After the split second in which an impression is formed, it's hard to step back and be objective.

Anybody want to comment on this?

For an alternative view, please see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

This Web page has links to many similar controversies.

I think creationism (especially in the sense of anti-evolutionism) is both scientifically and theologically unsound.

Your reply was a copout. I hope this doesn't offend you. I want to know what you think of the petrified finger and the sledgehammer embedded in solid rock. They are a contradiction to current theory and time-lines of "science". I haven't got time to read all the multiple links that people can present. If you can explain either one with your links, then make a quote from one of them or state what you think they mean by yourself. I won't accept plain prejudice without any explanation or theory. I put science in quotes because I think paleontology and geology are not very scientific. Even so, I have not stated a position on the finger or the hammer. Lets make this a discussion, not an exchange of biases with no reason. People can agree or disagree when you actually say something relevant.

The Web page I cited refers to the items you mentioned in posts 70 and 71. The page contains 20 articles plus an acknowledgment section. It was produced by Greg Kuban, who is a Christian and evidently a competent paleontologist.

The second article, "On the Heels of Dinosaurs," addresses the Paluxy question in detail, and also mentions briefly the finger and embedded hammer (if they are the same finger and hammer).

Another creationist site, Answers in Genesis, has criticized Carl Baugh's work quite sharply. According to Kuban, many if not most creationists have distanced themselves from the Paluxy claims.

All of this material is worth reading. I gave a Web link in response to your two posts, which themselves were mere Web links. So I "copped out"? Please explain.

Venturing OT into theology: God is presumably the ultimate free agent; He can create the universe in any way He wants. In particular, He could create quarks or superstrings or whatever with some neat combinatorial properties that would give rise to further particles, atoms, molecules, compounds, proteins, DNA, life, and evolution.

Assuming some sort of creation model, creation need not be a one-shot "abracadabra" process. It could instead be a launching--and then unfolding--process. Much of creationism attempts to pigeonhole God into the former sort of process, using lots of obfuscation and deception to do so. This is what I meant by "theologically unsound."

Please revisit some of your assumptions.

GA.

Wish I had time to read all the links properly.

A better comment. We may have something to discuss now.

"The page contains 20 articles plus an acknowledgment section."

What's your point? OK, I have read On the Heels of Dinosaurs. All I get out of it is that the "big man tracks" were metatarsal dinosaur tracks. I can accept that. So creationists (lets define them as those who stick fast to the 6,000 year old earth and don't believe any part of evolution) are pulling away from the paluxy evidence. Good for them. I am not one of them. The same article says that other human prints were cut out and their whereabouts are unknown. This site has had 70-80 years of doctoring, so no proof is going to be found here.

"mentions briefly the finger and embedded hammer (if they are the same finger and hammer)."

Too brief to be of much use. It says "The hammer, reportedly from a paleozoic formation near London, Texas, is encased in a concretion and thus may be unrelated to the age of the host rock." What kind of answer is that? Did they carbon date it? How did two objects of allegedly different dates get fused together? What is your opinion?

"So I "copped out"? Please explain."

Because you didn't give an opinion to the content of what I posted and still haven't. I interpreted your response to say "You are wrong, and here's the proof". If that's not what you mean then I am sorry.

"Venturing OT into theology:..."

I will not vote off topic for anything related to God or evolution in this thread. Here's what I wrote in the Cosmology user's group: "God created the laws that created the universe..." That includes the laws relating to evolution. That doesn't mean I swallow everything evolutionists say. Every group has their 'quacks'.

"This is what I meant by "theologically unsound"

Thanks for the explanation.

"Please revisit some of your assumptions."

You are the one making assumptions. You saw the word 'bible' in the URL and assumed I was a creationist, because it is a creationist's site. I am not. I thought I had made that clear before.

There are several things that strike me as off-key in this whole thread:

1. The title. It sounds like a Biblical quotation, or at least paraphrase.

2. The uncritical presence of Paluxy and like "information" that has been all but universally criticized on scientific grounds, and by a substantial fraction of religious believers as well.

3. The change of your tagline to eliminate a Biblical reference.

4. The citation of the unproven "sasquatch" as an "explanation" of some dubious footprints.

No doubt there are some naifs who might be fooled by all of this, but probably no well-informed persons, and certainly no genuine God. (But then my theological views are rather unconventional.)

Another copout.

"The title. It sounds like a Biblical quotation"

I think everybody knows that Bible scriptures started this whole controversy. I stated it as a question to signify that I wasn't necessarily endorsing it. The title was chosen to attract people with opposing views and it worked beautifully. I hindsight, I should have attracted more of the other side. What title would you have used?

"The uncritical presence of Paluxy and like "information" that has been all but universally criticized on scientific grounds, and by a substantial fraction of religious believers as well." ^{[citation needed]}

I presented this thread not to take sides but to invite discussion. As I said to Rose, I was only interested in the finger and the hammer from that link. That creationist site was the only place I could find them. Your copout "rebuttal" to that was all from Glen J. Kuban who was accused of destroying evidence by the Dr. Carl Baugh. All of the links are written by Kuban and seem to be his rebuttal in different forms. So they are just one link. Personally I wouldn't trust either one of them. One liar is as good as another.

"The change of your tagline to eliminate a Biblical reference."

I change my avatar and tag line regularly. I wasn't using it before this thread. In this case I did it because of you. I suspected it was part of the reason why you jumped to conclusions and assumed I was a creationist.

"The citation of the unproven "sasquatch" as an "explanation" of some dubious footprints."

Out of context. So it seems you are too cowardly to answer my questions personally, and instead you resort to personal criticism. I can be swayed, but you have not tried in any appropriate way.

For the thread title, something like "Have there been hominids of remarkably greater stature than modern humans?" would have been better, I think. Then I would focus on reasonably well verified and uncontested specimens, if any, that bona fide anthropologists and paleontologists might be puzzling over. I would certainly avoid the Paluxy claims.

The hydraulic problems (blood pressure issues) of twenty- or thirty-foot-tall hominids would be daunting, to say the least. Giraffes have some highly unusual and specialized adaptations for this, and maybe elephants also, but in the absence of better evidence, this stretches the imagination too far for hominids, I think. (I don't know--just trying to be sensible.)

Greg Kuban seems to be on the level, whether or not totally correct. You were quick to slur both him and Carl Baugh as "One liar is as good as another." I think that Baugh was crashingly wrong, but I don't necessarily think he was lying. There have been allegations of fakery, but I would peg the problem more as misinterpreting and slanting things to a preconceived conclusion.

I have followed this to a degree, but not very closely. Even so, it seems to be common knowledge (among the knowledgeable, anyway) that ideas of coexisting dinosaurs and humans do not hold up, except on The Flintstones. You may quibble with Kuban if you like, but I already gave his examples of even creationists backing away from the Paluxy claims. This is not a ^{[citation needed]} type of issue; it is as plain as day.

I am not trying to sway you, because I suspect that would be impossible, but it might be valuable to sway other persons who are not locked into various mental commitments.

Your title would have been good. I was not trying to call Kuban a liar, but to express that he is at one extreme and Baugh is at the other. When an Atheist sees a documentary like I presented in post 84, he sees it as an attack as does a creationist IMO. Those two must have had a long history of friction. I see that Kuban has a link against the documentary, again going after the paluxy portion. After seeing the documentary then reading Kuban's words about the finger, I was not impressed. However I took notice of the part of Baugh claiming to have a doctorate degree. Kuban says he has none. Kuban referenced an article by himself that I have not read. Still, I will take his side on this issue until I see a rebuttal by Baugh that changes it. Although I have never thought doctorates give people more credibility, I have a dim view of those who misrepresent themselves.

"...it seems to be common knowledge (among the knowledgeable, anyway) that ideas of coexisting dinosaurs and humans do not hold up"

Assuming that you have read my post 84, you are now calling me a liar. I am not implying (as creationists have) that it disproves evolution. It could just as easily mean that man is millions of years old. It seems that either way, "science" takes offence because it doesn't fit their model. It is just a mystery that needs an explanation. I do not care what Kuban and Baugh say. Nothing can change what I saw. I am not "locked into a mental commitment." My beliefs don't coincide with any religion as far as I know. They have evolved over time.

If I have misperceived things, I apologize. If I criticize creationism, and you are not a creationist, then why are you reacting so much? Unfortunately, the whole tenor of the thread is hard to distinguish from a creationist thread. Or if not a creationist thread, a gadfly thread à Charles Fort (a writer in the last century who sought out unexplained oddities that he tried to fling into the face of science.)

Somewhere in all these examples there could conceivably be some specimens that, if sufficiently attested and replicated, would call into question the largely accepted time line for evolution. I'm with you in that this wouldn't deny evolution altogether, but the creationists will milk any such controversy for all it's worth, and then some--and will try to deny evolution. Whether you mean to or not, I think you may be playing into their hands.

One of the four-foot femur fotos mentioned that the "bone" was a sculptured reconstruction. What's that all about? Where did the original specimen, if any, go?

Although there are infrequent cases of data fudging, or failing to give credit to associates or student assistants, or just plain mistakes, the world of science is largely self-correcting. Despite a few backslidings, everyone recognizes that Mother Nature (or God's observable creation) will be the final arbiter. I haven't yet detected a like ethos in religion or politics.

I'll take the bait...

The cross-sectional cuts determined by compression studies that it was a woman's footprint. Estimates indicate her stature approximately 305 cm (10 feet) and 454 kg (1,000 lbs).

Please provide links to studies of modern humans that proves one can determine the sex of the walker through analysis of the compression of the subsrate on which they're walking.

According to Dr. Carl Baugh, the archeologist who coordinated the excavations, these strata were laid down during the first few days of Noah's flood when water levels were low enough to allow daily tidal changes to form layers of mud so fleeing creatures could seek higher ground—the upper strata showed no prints.

So we have an agreed and substatiated (i.e. by evidence from several sources) of the date of Noah's Flood? Please do tell - I haven't heard about that work yet.

This interesting photograph is of a hammer found in similar strata. It's iron head and wooden handle are solidified in sandstone. Metallurgical studies show that it was constructed of a type of iron that could not have been made under present atmospheric conditions. It is believed that before the flood our atmosphere was compressed to approximately twice its current density, and no ultraviolet radiation.

In June 1934, the Hahn family discovered a rock, sitting loose on a ledge beside a waterfall outside of London, Texas. The site primarily consists of 75-100 million years old cretaceous rock. Noticing this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, they cracked it open, exposing the hammer head. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur (no carbon). Density tests indicate exceptional casting quality.

The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane shows the interior metal to be very pure, with no bubbles.

OK, so now we're saying atmopheric pressure is ~2.2 bar and the fauna is 2 - 3 times the size today. It that likely?

I knew that the human footprints, found side by side with dinosaur tracks, if genuine, destroyed the theory of evolution all by themselves.

Does it? Or does it just mean we got the timescales wrong? Recent research I caught being reported on the radio indicated that the rate of evolution is likely to be faster than previously thought.

A "belief" (acceptance? of) in evolution doesn't preclude a belief in God...what is directing or what set in motion the process?

Was it this thread where I mentioned my "science experiment" theory?

The Bible quotations are out of context and commentaries are highly misleading:

The "daughters of man" are Cain's race, the earthly, carnal offspring of the Satan-incarnate Serpent, they are hybrid and not a spoken Word of God's creation.

It the writer actually suggesting that someone (Eve? Cain? Cain's daughter?) had carnal relations with the Serpent? This is now getting outside what is suitable for inclusion on an engineering site, but I had to question this...and the Collossians quote is waay way out of context (I've read it often enough: it's the BCP Easter Day reading).

The bit from Genesis is interesting - God says that he won't always be around...something his Son later contradicts

Brevquot exceeded....

"I'll take the bait..."

I've hooked a big one! Ha Ha sorry, couldn't resist

I confess to having not read much of this. I was only interested in responses to the finger and the hammer. I just went back and looked at the picture of the "footprint". It does not look carved as Glen J. Kuban asserts, nor is it consistent with a human print as Dr. Carl Baugh asserts. The same texture is in the middle as the outside of the print. If it was carved, she was darned good. Human prints don't have a mound in the middle. They show an arch like that of the link I posted in post 71. That is the way the ones I saw looked. The print could possibly be a Sasquatch, but I assume it is the one concluded to be a metatarsal.

"So we have an agreed and substantiated (i.e. by evidence from several sources) of the date of Noah's Flood?"

I wouldn't know, and don't have time to look.

"OK, so now we're saying atmospheric pressure is ~2.2 bar and the fauna is 2 - 3 times the size today. It that likely?"

I find the pressure thing to be laughable. The word fauna is not found in the link. Where did that come from?

"Does it? Or does it just mean we got the timescales wrong?"

Just the timescales IMO.

"Was it this thread where I mentioned my "science experiment" theory?"

No, not unless you hid it in a dot link or something. Elaborate if you want to.

"The Bible quotations are out of context and commentaries are highly misleading:"

I highly agree. The words 'Cain' and 'serpent' are not found together in any verse of the bible.
With an estimated 38,000 Christian denominations (Wikipedia), you have to assume that many are "off on a tangent".

What are "BCP Easter Day reading" and "Brevquot"?

My wife showed me the boxes of the pictures (that are not organized in albums), and I looked earlier until my back hurt. Much more to go through. Stay tuned.

-S

Noah's Flood Date

The website stated we "know" it as fact.

Fauna

Collective term for animals (as opposed to plants) usually of a region, as in "flora and fauna". The website talked about various large animals, in addition to "humans". It's quicker to type "fauna", and I didn't think it was that exotic a word...if English is not your first language, I apologise for the presumtion on my part.

Science Experiment

I mentioned this recently, must be on another thread:

I have a (half baked) hypothosis/theory/daydream that the universe is actually someone's 'O' Level (age 16 exams) science project that has been a) stuck in the back of the wardrobe or b) left over the summer holidays.

Obviously a little tongue in cheek, but illustrates a point...

BCP Easter Day reading

BCP = Book of Common Prayer: Compiled by Thomas Cranmer in 1662 after Henry VIII split from Rome.

Easter Day Reading - do I have to explain this bit?

Looking forward to the pics!

Hi Rose,

It seems you have pulled a fast one, perhaps not intentionally.

The website stated we "know" it as fact.

Again I say that the page I posted (#70) had nothing about Noah's Flood or fauna. When I used 'Edit', then 'Find on this page' from the top of my screen, the only place the word Noah was found was at the bottom in "Links to further resources". When you click on that you go to the site Kris gave us in #26. That one has fauna in it, and I know what it means. There are some interesting giant fauna there that I hadn't seen. Also the words you had in bold in #77 did not come from #70, unless you see something different than I see when I click on it. Is that possible?

do I have to explain this bit?

I get it, they read that on Easter in your church.

Looking forward to the pics!

Apparently you missed #84

-S

Noah's Flood Date

Since you brought this up and it fits the original topic of history and myths, I have decided to post this. Caution! It look like a creationist's site (who else would want to prove this). However he doesn't seem to have the attitude you mentioned. Feel free to tear it up.

Well, that went over like a lead balloon.

Thank you.

That tells us all we need to know about your intellectual ethics.

As if we hadn't figured it out already.

Hey Tornado, "intellectual" is a bit strong a term.

Yes, maybe "anti-intellectual" might have been better.

Or

Supervaluationism

Given a supervaluationist semantics, one can define the predicate 'supertrue' as meaning "true on all precisifications". This predicate will not change the semantics of atomic statements (e.g. 'Frank is bald', where Frank is a borderline case of baldness), but does have consequences for logically complex statements. In particular, the tautologies of sentential logic, such as 'Frank is bald or Frank is not bald)', will turn out to be supertrue, since on any precisification of baldness, either 'Frank is bald' or 'Frank is not bald' will be true. Since the presence of borderline cases seems to threaten principles like this one (excluded middle), the fact that supervaluationism can "rescue" them is seen as a virtue.

or

Semantic ambiguity arises when a word or concept has an inherently diffuse meaning based on widespread or informal usage. This is often the case, for example, with idiomatic expressions whose definitions are rarely or never well-defined, and are presented in the context of a larger argument that invites a conclusion.

Or is this all too charitable?

It's just Vagueness doctrine?

That is indeed probably all too charitable. Normally that would be a virtue, but I don't think so in this basket case. We'll just have to see what develops.

intellectual"develops"? - a bit strong a term?

"Decays" would indeed be better.

Like?

Please provide links to studies of modern humans that proves one can determine the sex of the walker through analysis of the compression of the subsrate on which they're walking.

I learned long ago that you can't prove anything to anybody. They always have a reason for not believing your "proof". However this is somewhat relevant.

A video on YouTube shows a CT scan on dinosaur tracks. Sound starts about 3 minutes in, so stay with it. It gets more interesting at the end. Let me know what you think of this.

For your amusement relating to giant mythology:

I saw in one of Kris's links a picture of a boy with 6 fingers on each hand. This is supposed to be a link to giants. That made me think of a paragraph from the same Wikipedia page as my OP that I had left out. It reads:

There is even a story in William Cody's autobiography about an encounter with the Pawnee Indians that reads. "While we were in the sandhills, scouting the Niobrara country, the Pawnee Indians brought into camp some very large bones, one of which the surgeon of the expedition pronounced to be the thigh bone of a human being. The Indians said the bones were those of a race of people who long ago had lived in that country. They said these people were three times the size of a man of the present day, that they were so swift and strong that they could run by the side of a buffalo, and, taking the animal in one arm, could tear off a leg and eat it as they ran." They too had six fingers on their hands, which was why the Indians raised their hands when they greeted someone, so that they could count the fingers, for they feared the six fingered men.

One of my sons was reading over my shoulder. When he read the last sentence he said "Couldn't they have just looked at their size?" "You'd think!" I said