Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 1:29 PM
407 online now:
Coyote, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,942 Year: 27,548/21,208 Month: 1,461/1,714 Week: 304/365 Day: 31/42 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
33Next
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(4)
Message 391 of 489 (775965)
01-07-2016 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Big_Al35
01-07-2016 4:12 AM


Thanks guys ... I think I did miss something of the list.

Yes. There's the bit where we proved you were wrong.

The pointy skulls are not evidence of giants, because they go with normal-sized skeletons.

People moving big rocks is not evidence of giants, because people have moved even bigger rocks without giants.

If there's nothing else you'd like to present as evidence, we're done here. Thanks for playing, you didn't win anything but you have our best wishes and our fervent hope that one day you'll make a full recovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Big_Al35, posted 01-07-2016 4:12 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 392 of 489 (775997)
01-07-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Tangle
01-07-2016 6:00 AM


Hi, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

It would be great for both science and religion to find good evidence for giants. Science has nothing against giants except it hasn't found them. If and when it does, they'll be part of our Paleontological history, put in all the books and the finder will be world famous.

So let's see it.

Boom. Giant. Robert Wadlow: the tallest man in recorded history, at almost 9 ft tall. Of course, he couldn't lift or move giant boulders either, on account of joint problems caused by the mechanical stresses of his enormous size, so I doubt he would have been much use to the Russians, the ancient Egyptians or the builders of Sacsayhuaman.

Still... giant.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 6:00 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 3:12 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5165
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 393 of 489 (776008)
01-07-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 2:27 PM


I guess that means we need to find more than one skeleton and define giant.

Science is really fucking picky, picky picky.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 2:27 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 4:10 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1590
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 394 of 489 (776012)
01-07-2016 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Big_Al35
01-07-2016 4:12 AM


Big_Al35 writes:

Thanks guys ... I think I did miss something of the list. So at number 8 we have;

Once the victim has volunteered, proposed or offered you can then go on the offensive with
1) It doesn't exist
2) It's fake
3) Nit pick the minutiae of their posts and attempt to tear it apart.
4) I don't know what you're talking about
5) You are a buffoon or stark raving mad.
6) Launch personal attacks.
7) Turn the whole debate into a debacle using comedy, innuendo, false flags and strawman tactics.
8) In all your dealings with the victim behave like a robot. Show no emotion and abide by your programming, that is to say, 'the computer says NO'.

I don't know but maybe this would be 9) Ask questions like:

A) Where can we find documented fossils of rock moving giants; in museums, university collections, Smithsonian, private collections, etc.?

B) Have any papers about giant human fossils been published in magazines or journals? Are there any books about them?

C) How did you find out about the giants?

D) Is there evidence in the human genome that humans and giants interbred? Could modern day giants be hiding in plain sight?

E) Are the Globalists really Giants? (That would explain why Globalists are suppressing all news about Giants.)

Edited by Tanypteryx, : added a question


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Big_Al35, posted 01-07-2016 4:12 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 395 of 489 (776021)
01-07-2016 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Tangle
01-07-2016 3:12 PM


Hi Tangle.

This sort of 'giant' isn't unprecedented: more than a dozen cases of people over 8 ft (244 cm) tall are known (here is a list of them).

Here is a verified 8-foot-tall skeleton from late 16th-century Germany. Not exactly a 'fossil,' but it's from a time period that most Americans don't know much about, so it might as well be a fossil, as far as they're concerned.

And, here is an example of a giant who married another giant, and gave birth to a (stillborn) giant baby. So, maybe gigantism can be hereditary, and there is a hypothetically viable evolutionary pathway for the emergence of giant humans.

So, the idea that there could have been a tribe of 8-foot giants in the past isn't completely unreasonable. What exactly that would prove with regards to evolution-denial is unclear, however.

And, of course, the idea that there were people big enough to carry the stones of Sacsayhuaman in their arms is unreasonable.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 3:12 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 5:52 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5165
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 396 of 489 (776025)
01-07-2016 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Blue Jay
01-07-2016 4:10 PM


Oh sure there are tall people like there are small people. But we know the standard deviation from the norm of H. sapiens and the outliers. I think most people when speaking of giants really require something beyond the extremes of what we already know and require that to be a norm within this new species.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2016 4:10 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 01-08-2016 10:54 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16176
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 397 of 489 (776074)
01-08-2016 10:05 AM


Image of Giant Human Skeleton Excavation
I can't find the message now, but wasn't an image of the excavation of a giant human skeleton part of Al's evidence for giant humans? This isn't the image that was presented, but it's the same general idea:

Or am I misremembering?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by JonF, posted 01-08-2016 11:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 400 by NoNukes, posted 01-08-2016 5:35 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 398 of 489 (776079)
01-08-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Tangle
01-07-2016 5:52 PM


Hi, Tangle.

Tangle writes:

Oh sure there are tall people like there are small people. But we know the standard deviation from the norm of H. sapiens and the outliers. I think most people when speaking of giants really require something beyond the extremes of what we already know and require that to be a norm within this new species.

Wadlow is at least 10-12 standard deviations from the mean. That's a pretty unheard-of outlier.

My reason for bringing this up was to make sure we're all aware of the extent of the real evidence for giants, so you wouldn't get caught in a situation where it looks like you're backpedaling or changing the goalposts.

My point is that it isn't completely inconceivable that some type of 'giant' existed at one time in the Earth. The biblical giants, like Goliath and Og, where usually described as fitting within the 9-12-foot range, which, while beyond anything we've ever observed, are not beyond the reach of honest mistake or 'fish story' exaggeration. The worth1000 and other such internet-meme giant photos are clearly stupid.

-----

To Percy:

Percy writes:

I can't find the message now, but wasn't an image of the excavation of a giant human skeleton part of Al's evidence for giant humans?

Big Al mentioned the internet photos in Message 275. I was trying to think a bit broader than just Big Al's claim though.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 5:52 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2016 5:00 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 404 by Big_Al35, posted 01-09-2016 5:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3993
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 399 of 489 (776080)
01-08-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Percy
01-08-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Image of Giant Human Skeleton Excavation
I posted this as a pretty obvious hoax. I don't think Al has posted any such images.

Claim: The skeleton of a giant human was uncovered during gas exploration in Saudi Arabia.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 01-08-2016 10:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10071
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 400 of 489 (776106)
01-08-2016 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Percy
01-08-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Image of Giant Human Skeleton Excavation
Already addressed by JonF

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 01-08-2016 10:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5165
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 401 of 489 (776130)
01-09-2016 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Blue Jay
01-08-2016 10:54 AM


BJ writes:

Wadlow is at least 10-12 standard deviations from the mean. That's a pretty unheard-of outlier.

Sure but we know the mean and SD of 'normal' populations of humans in different environments. So we know the mean for H.sapiens is 1.75m (or whatever) and that 95% of skeletons will be +/- 10cm (or whatever) of that. We also know the furthest outliers so far found.

If we found a skeleton 1cm larger than the largest we've ever seen we would not conclude that this was a different species or even a different race. If we found loads of them though, we might because it's no longer probable that it's just an extreme outlier.

But if we found a single skeleton 4m tall, we'd probably call that a proper giant and maybe a different species

My point is that it isn't completely inconceivable that some type of 'giant' existed at one time in the Earth.

Sure. Just like some types of very small people have.

The biblical giants, like Goliath and Og, where usually described as fitting within the 9-12-foot range, which, while beyond anything we've ever observed, are not beyond the reach of honest mistake or 'fish story' exaggeration. The worth1000 and other such internet-meme giant photos are clearly stupid.

A race of 9ft foot plus people or even a new species would be a fabulous find - but because 9ft is known to occur as an extreem abnormality in 'normal' life, it would require a lot of skeletons to make us believe they were the norm. Finding a single 15ft skeleton would be another thing entirely.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 01-08-2016 10:54 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by jar, posted 01-09-2016 9:43 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 406 by Big_Al35, posted 01-09-2016 5:48 PM Tangle has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29627
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 402 of 489 (776137)
01-09-2016 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Tangle
01-09-2016 5:00 AM


not just the bones
It's not just the bones; there are other indicators that may even be more common and more lasting than bones.

If we found an ancient city where all the doorways were over 12 feet high and over 6 feet wide and all the furniture was sized for giants and remnants of clothes and armor were similarly sized and structures built to support 500-800 pound people and tools and weapons too big for today's humans to use, and all other features also supporting big ass people then it might be reasonable to think big ass people lived there.

But we don't find such evidence. In fact what we do find seems to indicate that the norm has been around pretty much what we see today.

Edited by jar, : applin redunce stuff


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2016 5:00 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2016 10:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5165
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 403 of 489 (776143)
01-09-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by jar
01-09-2016 9:43 AM


Re: not just the bones
Yup. Also, these big guys would be a pretty formidable competitor - all things being equal. If they had actually existed, at the very least we'd find stacks of evidence for them because they'd likely be pretty numerous.

But, of course, if the globalists are suppressing all this, we'd never know.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by jar, posted 01-09-2016 9:43 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 404 of 489 (776165)
01-09-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Blue Jay
01-08-2016 10:54 AM


Blue Jay writes:

The worth1000 and other such internet-meme giant photos are clearly stupid.

Well if you were a globalist, what would be the best way to supress genuine photos of giants? A creative competition such as the worth1000 encouraging outrageous images and fakery. These fake images can then be circulated and promoted. Soon they will be as numerous as the genuine shots and nobody except the experts will be able to distinguish between them. Anyone with a genuine shot can then be silenced or brow beaten and the 'so called authorities' can claim it was fake all along like all the rest. Yet another globalist strategy.

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 01-08-2016 10:54 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by jar, posted 01-09-2016 5:23 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 409 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2016 5:55 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 411 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2016 6:06 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 412 by DrJones*, posted 01-09-2016 7:03 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 416 by ringo, posted 01-10-2016 2:34 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29627
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 405 of 489 (776167)
01-09-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Big_Al35
01-09-2016 5:08 PM


Al, do you actually have any evidence that there is such a thing as a globalist?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Big_Al35, posted 01-09-2016 5:08 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Theodoric, posted 01-09-2016 5:51 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 414 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2016 10:40 PM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
33Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017