Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Giant People in the bible?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 286 of 352 (530707)
10-14-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Calypsis4
10-14-2009 2:44 PM


Need I say more?
Need I say more?
You haven't said anything yet, you've just posted a bunch of pictures.
Why don't you try providing some real evidence for a change?
And Ancient American? I've been doing archaeology in North America for nearly 40 years and I've never heard of that magazine. Sounds like its way out on the fringe, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 2:44 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 3:26 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 287 of 352 (530710)
10-14-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Coyote
10-14-2009 3:20 PM


Re: Need I say more?
The genius is also lazy. I let it be known how easy it is to find the sources but he doesn't wish to find them.
Not surprising for someone who lives in denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2009 3:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 3:43 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 288 of 352 (530717)
10-14-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Calypsis4
10-14-2009 3:26 PM


Re: Need I say more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 3:26 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 5:17 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 289 of 352 (530739)
10-14-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Calypsis4
10-14-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Need I say more?
The Bible also says in II Samuel 21:20 that the son of Goliath had six fingers and six toes. Was this a myth?
No more than was the fact that Goliath was over 9 ft tall.
Notice this:
X-rays of adults with six fingers and/or six toes:
[thumb=100]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/150px-Polydactyly_01_Rhand_AP.jpg[/thumb=100]
[thumb=100]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/150px-Polydactyly_01_Lfoot_AP.jpg[/thumb=100]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
The following is an oriental girl with six fingers on each hand. But she has them not only on both hands but...
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100B3820.jpg[/thumb=300]
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100B3780.jpg[/thumb=300]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/774518/six_fingers/
Also six toes on each foot. She utilizes all of them without a problem so it is difficult to classify it as a deformity.
The Bible also speaks of 'unicorns'. But what did unicorns look like? Where are they described? Since the word 'unicorn' means 'one horned' then why wouldn't this creature qualify?
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/tsintao2-1.jpg[/thumb=200]
Evolutionists tell us that dinosaurs preceded man and that men never saw a living dinosaur. But we don't accept that. The evidence tells us otherwise.
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/tsintaosaurus.jpg[/thumb=300]
The Bible stands true. That is because it has always been true.
The artwork on historical record bears up the fact that men were contemporaneous with the dinosaur. More on that later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 3:43 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by AdminNosy, posted 10-14-2009 7:10 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 290 of 352 (530766)
10-14-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Calypsis4
10-14-2009 5:17 PM


Topic
Unicorns are not the topic of this thread. Focus please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 5:17 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 291 of 352 (532711)
10-25-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Calypsis4
10-14-2009 2:44 PM


Pics of giants
Calypsis4
Thank you for those photographs. I had never seen these before. It appears that giants in the vicinity of 7 to 9 feet have been medically documented in the last century alone. The bones at Castelnau indicated someone even taller than this, at roughly 11 feet -- as calculated by the Anthropologist who discovered the bones.
From what I have been able to read, the absolute biophysical limits to human stature are not yet completely known, and scientists believe it is possible to grow even taller than 9 feet --according to the documentary: Inside Extraordinary Humans: The Science of Gigantism (2007)).
I would suspect anything from 12 - 15 feet would require a complete redesign of the human physique--and would resemble a ground sloth or Cave bear in structure and therefore very unlikely .
Sultan Kosen is 8 feet 1, and rather feeble looking. He needs assistance in walking, and so did Wadlow. However, if you look at other giants such as Vin Myllyrinne who stood 8 foot 3, he was as rather fast on his feet for a giant and didn't need assistance from a cane until he was in his middle age.
Most of the tallest giants in history have been Acromegalic, or abnormal in growth. But it is by no means impossible that equal height can indeed be achieved through genetics. Look at Yao Ming, a genetic giant who at 7 feet 6 barefoot, had parents who were between 6 1/2 to 7 feet tall. And genetic heights of 8 feet or more have been reported for some individuals among the Dinka and Watutsi in Africa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Calypsis4, posted 10-14-2009 2:44 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2009 10:37 PM John Williams has not replied
 Message 293 by Calypsis4, posted 10-26-2009 8:41 AM John Williams has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 292 of 352 (532713)
10-25-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by John Williams
10-25-2009 10:19 PM


Re: Pics of giants
And genetic heights of 8 feet or more have been reported for some individuals among the Dinka and Watutsi in Africa.
Of course Bigfoot is usually claimed to be eight foot or more in height, as well as of robust build.
Maybe that's what the early bible authors were describing. What do you think?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by John Williams, posted 10-25-2009 10:19 PM John Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Calypsis4, posted 10-26-2009 8:43 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 293 of 352 (532753)
10-26-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by John Williams
10-25-2009 10:19 PM


Re: Pics of giants
John Williams. You're welcome.
There are quite a few older examples of people who were even taller than those I posted but it is so hard to verify them by merely written accounts. But the examples I provided silences critics who say human beings could never be that big.
Best wishes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by John Williams, posted 10-25-2009 10:19 PM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by John Williams, posted 10-26-2009 10:30 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 294 of 352 (532754)
10-26-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Coyote
10-25-2009 10:37 PM


Re: Pics of giants
Of course Bigfoot is usually claimed to be eight foot or more in height, as well as of robust build.
No one said a word about 'bigfoot'. As usual, he tries to obscure the issue and ignore the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2009 10:37 PM Coyote has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5080 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 295 of 352 (532851)
10-26-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Calypsis4
10-26-2009 8:41 AM


Re: Pics of giants
Yes it's hard to verify some of the old accounts of giants. Only since the 1800's do we have photographs available to give us an idea. There was also Machnow the Russian, said to be 9 feet 4 inches tall, I think he was closer to 8 feet though.
There are also plenty of written accounts of tall human remains, (7 -12 feet) and found right here in the U.S.
Remember the cave at Lovelock, Nevada? Someone was trying to equate the giant Indians found there as Bigfoot remains. Utter garbage.
Well, In 1911 David Pugh and James Hart excavated that cave and came upon several red-haired mummies of men and women, the most spectacular was of a man who in mummified state was 6 feet 6 inches tall with a noose around his neck-- Hart called him "a giant". In the next 12-13 years over 60 skeletons and mummies were found in that cave, and Mrs Clara Beatty, former Director of Nevada Historical Society in Reno, spoke of the discovery of the "skeletons of giants", together with them stone and bone implements, beads, duck and geese decoys, two giant-sized rabbit skin robes, and sixteen-inch long moccasins. Mrs. Beatty was especially Well qualified to tell of all this as she had daily contact with all the items in the Historical Society's museum in the State Building.
(A 16 inch moccasin would equal a size 20 - 22, so apparently they had big feet, suggesting an enormous stature-- but they weren't "Bigfoot").
Of course, it doesn't stop there. For what it's worth, the Nevada State Journal in Reno printed a quick "Historical item of the week" for October 3, 1936 which mentioned the discovery of a mummy with reddish hair on the skull, that measured "9 1/2 feet" in length found in a cave near Lovelock, Nevada. The article says, "The mummy is now in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It is the largest human specimen ever discovered."
There is also the case of the curiously gigantic partial mummy which was on display in the Mark Twain museum in Virginia city, Nevada-- said to have been found near Washoe Lake in the 30's or 50's, 7 feet 4 inches tall with hair retaining reddish qualities.
Near the rim of Winnemucca Lake, a cave which contained the bones of a man who was estimated at over 7 feet tall was found c. 1953...
There's a lot more...
But case in point, big skeletons don't equal Sasquatch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Calypsis4, posted 10-26-2009 8:41 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 10-26-2009 10:56 PM John Williams has not replied
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:10 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 352 (532854)
10-26-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by John Williams
10-26-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Pics of giants
All of these giant skeletons, from relatively recent excavations at Lovelock Cave. Lots of tall tales (if you'll pardon the pun).
Where are the bones?
Have they been studied recently?
Are they available currently for study?
It should be very easy to reexamine those skeletons using modern techniques and determine, using current regression formulas, just what their height was (those formulas weren't available in the early decades of the last century).
So where are the bones?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by John Williams, posted 10-26-2009 10:30 PM John Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 AM Coyote has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 297 of 352 (532861)
10-27-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Coyote
10-26-2009 10:56 PM


Re: Pics of giants
All of these giant skeletons, from relatively recent excavations at Lovelock Cave. Lots of tall tales (if you'll pardon the pun).
Not surprising that such a statement would come from one who lives his life in lies.
But those photographs of John Aason (9'2), Petrussen (8'8), and Robert Wadlow (8'11) were no lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 10-26-2009 10:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 10-27-2009 12:26 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 300 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 10:29 AM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 298 of 352 (532863)
10-27-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by John Williams
10-26-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Pics of giants
Right, John.
I have never believe in 'Bigfoot' or 'Sasquatch'. I don't believe in little green men either.
I do believe God's Word and what it says about giants and dinosaurs(dragons) is right on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by John Williams, posted 10-26-2009 10:30 PM John Williams has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 299 of 352 (532864)
10-27-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 12:08 AM


Re: Pics of giants
All of these giant skeletons, from relatively recent excavations at Lovelock Cave. Lots of tall tales (if you'll pardon the pun).
Not surprising that such a statement would come from one who lives his life in lies.
But those photographs of John Aason (9'2), Petrussen (8'8), and Robert Wadlow (8'11) were no lie.
The claim was for a number of relatively recent skeletons from the Lovelock Cave area.
That should be very easy to back up!
So where are the bones? And where are the recent studies using the recent regression formulas that were not available in the early part of the last century?
Or are all of these early skeletal claims now somehow lost? Now that's convenient!
And knock off the "lies" stuff. That does your cause no good whatsoever, but it does make you appear rather pathetic.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by John Williams, posted 10-27-2009 9:45 PM Coyote has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 300 of 352 (532930)
10-27-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 12:08 AM


Reality bites, don't it
But those photographs of John Aason (9'2), Petrussen (8'8), and Robert Wadlow (8'11) were no lie.
quote:
In June 2008 Dr. Kerby Oberg of Loma Linda University confirmed that the 2.19 m (7 foot 2.4 inch) skeleton they had in their collection, was Johan Aasen. This together with Dr. H. Gray's published "The Minneapolis Giant" from May 1937 where Johan is measured at 7 feet, brings Johan to a height between 7 feet and 7 feet 2 inches.
Source
Oh and about Johann Petursson
quote:
His height was 2.205 m. (7 ft 2 in), his weight was 135 kg (298 lbs).
quote:
While exhibiting himself with the Ringling stand in Sarasota, Florida he often claimed to have stood 8 ft 8 inches tall. He wore US shoe (42 cm).
Source
Oh by the way he was not known as the "Russian giant". He was "The Viking Giant". Your sources really suck.
You did get Robert Wadlow correct but that is about all you got correct. You also might want to visit this site. Pulsa303 : Situs Judi Slot Online Deposit Pulsa 10rb Tanpa Potongan 2022 Lots of pictures you can copy and post. Looks like they use real evidence too.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 11:02 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024