Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,940 Year: 21,976/19,786 Month: 539/1,834 Week: 39/500 Day: 39/96 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Giant People in the bible?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 331 of 352 (533290)
10-29-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Calypsis4
10-29-2009 2:33 PM


Re: 7 to 9 feet tall is not the issue
And just a few weeks ago, 8'11 was 'ludicrous'.

Who claimed 8'11' was ludicrous? Please provide the justification for this comment.

Or are you "lying"?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 2:33 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 332 of 352 (533291)
10-29-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Calypsis4
10-29-2009 3:14 PM


Evidence please
I will add my voice to the choir. Provide evidence for you claim of people that lived that were 25' tall.

You don't have any do you. You made the claim, now back it up. Or retract it.
"the bible says" is not evidence.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 3:14 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 333 of 352 (533293)
10-29-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Calypsis4
10-29-2009 2:29 PM


Re: 7 to 9 feet tall is not the issue
Og, king of Bashan was much taller than Goliath. He measured about 13 ft tall. Deut. 3:11.

BibleGateway, King James version writes:

11For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Found here
Looks like THAT passage was referring to his....bed. I thought you knew scripture better then that. is YOUR bed exactly your height/width? (would make for an uncomfortable nights sleep, eh? what with not being able to move at all without falling off) He was a king, I am sure he had grand sleeping arrangements so he could fit all his lady friends, comfortably.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 2:29 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 334 of 352 (533297)
10-29-2009 10:18 PM


Physical limits of human stature
I agree that claiming giants up to 25 feet tall is a pretty outrageous allegation. And bio physically absurd.

The vast majority of the reported "giant skeletons" in more modern times (1850-1950) or the encounters with living giants, have usually ranged in height from 7-9 feet, with some reported at 10-12.

I have already mentioned my case concerning the find at Castelnau-Le-Lez, of human bones of twice the volume and length of normal man (5 1/2 foot man) suggesting an individual approx. eleven feet stature. And if this approximation is correct, I don't think we can rule out 10 to 12 feet as a possibility for the human species.

It should be noted, that the physicians who had known Wallow all his life had predicted that he would surpass 9 feet at age 22. He was 22.4 when he died and 8 feet 11.1 inches. Surprisingly, he was still growing at a rate of 2-3 inches per year and his bones had not fused. So Wadlow's case still leaves open the question... How much taller could he have grown?


Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 11:03 PM John Williams has not yet responded
 Message 337 by Theodoric, posted 10-30-2009 5:41 PM John Williams has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 444 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 335 of 352 (533303)
10-29-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by John Williams
10-29-2009 10:18 PM


Re: Physical limits of human stature
I agree that claiming giants up to 25 feet tall is a pretty outrageous allegation. And bio physically absurd.

Correct. And that applies to anything over about 8 or 9 feet as well. The cube/square rules show that ramping up an individual that averages somewhat under 6 feet to 8 or 9 feet results in significant problems in a number of areas, particularly the ankle and knee.

At least one study which which I am familiar stems from examination of Bigfoot prints, and shows that a lot of them can be demonstrated to be frauds because they simply enlarge a normal human foot to Bigfoot size. This is a sure sign of fraud, as the bone and soft tissues would have to be significantly different from a normal human foot to support a critter of that size and weight. One example: the human ankle is close to the rear of the foot. In a critter much heavier that joint needs to be located closer to the center of the foot because the stress on the Achilles tendon becomes too great for the strength of the tissues.

The vast majority of the reported "giant skeletons" in more modern times (1850-1950) or the encounters with living giants, have usually ranged in height from 7-9 feet, with some reported at 10-12.

And most have documented medical problems, along with problems with normal locomotion. How many could carry heavy weapons and still be effective in early warfare?

I have already mentioned my case concerning the find at Castelnau-Le-Lez, of human bones of twice the volume and length of normal man (5 1/2 foot man) suggesting an individual approx. eleven feet stature. And if this approximation is correct, I don't think we can rule out 10 to 12 feet as a possibility for the human species.

If I remember from upthread this was from back in the late 1800s and the bones are not currently available for study.

It should be noted that physicians in the 1800s were notoriously poor at identifying unusual bones. The literature is full of misidentifications and other boo-boos. They had little training in "bare" bones, and no X-rays to work with. There was only a limited science of osteology at that time, and physicians were not generally trained in it. The regression formulas to establish height from long bones were not well developed until the early 1950s (Trotter & Glesser 1952). Physicians saw live patients, not loose bones, and they certainly had little to no training in non-human bones. Finally, physicians in the 1800s were often the best educated individuals in a small town, and were relied upon to look at strange findings, but that isn't saying much.

It should be noted, that the physicians who had known Wallow all his life had predicted that he would surpass 9 feet at age 22. He was 22.4 when he died and 8 feet 11.1 inches. Surprisingly, he was still growing at a rate of 2-3 inches per year and his bones had not fused. So Wadlow's case still leaves open the question... How much taller could he have grown?

From Wiki:

quote:
On July 4, 1940, while making a professional appearance at the National Forest Festival, a faulty brace irritated his ankle, causing a blister and subsequent infection. Doctors treated him with a blood transfusion and emergency surgery, but his condition worsened and on July 15, 1940, he died in his sleep. He was 22.

An individual of this stature, with these medical conditions, is not likely to have become a warrior carrying heavy armor and weapons. It looks like he needed braces of some kind just to get around and died at a very young age.

The sum of all of the "evidence" posted on this thread for giants in biblical times is pathetic. We have a number of medically-challenged individuals of that stature in recent history, but we don't have suitable collections of bones showing giants in the past.

What we most likely had was tall tales (sorry about the pun--but not very!).


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by John Williams, posted 10-29-2009 10:18 PM John Williams has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5873
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 336 of 352 (533400)
10-30-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by terry107
09-24-2009 9:22 PM


Re: Giants??
Why doesn't a godly saint such as yourself spend less time being sarcastic and combative and spend more time on a decent rebuttal?


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by terry107, posted 09-24-2009 9:22 PM terry107 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 337 of 352 (533438)
10-30-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by John Williams
10-29-2009 10:18 PM


Re: Physical limits of human stature
I have already mentioned my case concerning the find at Castelnau-Le-Lez, of human bones of twice the volume and length of normal man (5 1/2 foot man) suggesting an individual approx. eleven feet stature. And if this approximation is correct, I don't think we can rule out 10 to 12 feet as a possibility for the human species.

As has been shown repeatedly on this thread, there is no evidence to back up this claim. No bones just the writings of one person. Not evidence in the least. Conjecture and anecdote, nothing more.

It should be noted, that the physicians who had known Wallow all his life had predicted that he would surpass 9 feet at age 22. He was 22.4 when he died and 8 feet 11.1 inches. Surprisingly, he was still growing at a rate of 2-3 inches per year and his bones had not fused. So Wadlow's case still leaves open the question... How much taller could he have grown?

No one doubts he was still growing. Damage to the pituitary gland tends to have this effect. But this reinforces the argument that 10-12' tall in ancient times is just not feasible. Look at all of the health issues suffered by people over 8' in the last 2 centuries. How were they going to be able to function in the bronze age?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by John Williams, posted 10-29-2009 10:18 PM John Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by John Williams, posted 10-31-2009 9:07 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 338 of 352 (533552)
10-31-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Theodoric
10-30-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Physical limits of human stature
Not evidence in the least? That seems rather extreme to say.

Bronze age gigantism? I think it would be very rare, but possible, and they would likely live a short life--similar to the giants that have existed in the 17th to 19th centuries. Then again, what was the average lifespan of the dolmen culture, 25 to 40?

Or perhaps this Bronze age giant was constitutionally tall... As G. de Lapouge has suggested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Theodoric, posted 10-30-2009 5:41 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 339 of 352 (533570)
11-01-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Granny Magda
10-29-2009 3:19 PM


Re: You're No Fun
hows about a giant bunny


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2009 3:19 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by bluescat48, posted 11-01-2009 10:06 AM Peg has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 340 of 352 (533583)
11-01-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Peg
11-01-2009 6:00 AM


Re: You're No Fun
Hi Peg seems a while since I've seen you here but.

Your "bunny" is simply a genetic freak, there are documented oversise freaks in many species of living things like 1000lb pumpkins. They in no way show that an oversize race of humans ever existed, single freaks, yes coupled with human imagination and story telling could lead one to believe in a giant race of humans

Edited by bluescat48, : TYP


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Peg, posted 11-01-2009 6:00 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by lyx2no, posted 11-01-2009 1:12 PM bluescat48 has responded
 Message 346 by Peg, posted 11-02-2009 1:40 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 341 of 352 (533591)
11-01-2009 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by bluescat48
11-01-2009 10:06 AM


Re: You're No Fun
Your "bunny" is simply a genetic freak,

And a 28mm lens. Look at this set of steps used by Wiki: wide-angle lens, to illustrate the distortion caused by a 28mm lens.

Anyone want to see my giant thumb which is the same size as my trunk?

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by bluescat48, posted 11-01-2009 10:06 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Granny Magda, posted 11-01-2009 2:24 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply
 Message 343 by bluescat48, posted 11-01-2009 5:21 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 342 of 352 (533597)
11-01-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by lyx2no
11-01-2009 1:12 PM


Peg IS Fun
Hi Lyx2no and Bluescat,

To be fair guys, I think Peg was making a bit of a joke. Not that I consider that a reason why we shouldn't dress the bunny up in bronze armour and see how it does at leading an army of rampaging Philistines into battle. Y'know, just as an experiment. Then, when some smartass kid with a slingshot slays the beast... I happen to cook a pretty mean rabbit stew. Treble helpings all round!

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by lyx2no, posted 11-01-2009 1:12 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by John Williams, posted 11-01-2009 8:38 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 343 of 352 (533614)
11-01-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by lyx2no
11-01-2009 1:12 PM


Re: You're No Fun
I wasn't stating whether I thought the "bunny" was actually that big or not, my point is yes there have been "giant" this that and the other thing, but they, in no way, show evidence of a race of human giants during the bronze age.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by lyx2no, posted 11-01-2009 1:12 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 3337 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 344 of 352 (533627)
11-01-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Granny Magda
11-01-2009 2:24 PM


Re: Peg IS Fun
Yeah, I guess you're right, a single big bunny doesn't make the case for a race of big bunnies. I think flukes like that just give us an idea how big something could "potentially" get, nearing the maximum size for the species--whether that's desirable or undesirable.

I agree there just isn't enough physical evidence yet that an entire "race" of Bronze age giants existed, who were 10 to 12 feet tall. I think 6 1/2 to 7 1/2 feet could be desirable if the growth was genetic and the limbs were strong. People like that could throw spears farther, possibly run faster with longer stride (Usain Bolt a great example) and a host of other attributes. And I think evolution has seen this sort of example in the tall warriors in parts of North America, Africa, and Australia who sometimes exceeded 7 feet.

9 to 11 feet being in anyway desirable for a human frame is a hard pill to swallow as current knowledge stands, I will agree there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Granny Magda, posted 11-01-2009 2:24 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by lyx2no, posted 11-01-2009 10:12 PM John Williams has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 345 of 352 (533632)
11-01-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by John Williams
11-01-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Peg IS Fun
I think flukes like that…

There is no fluke like that. That is a normal size rabbit and a wide-angle lens. Look at the size of the guy's watch. It's diameter is equal to the width of his mouth. Is your watch nearly that big? If it were, how would it fit on your wrist? How big is this guys wrist then?

Agreed, Peg is fun; but we can't use Peg's jest to "…give us an idea how big something could "potentially" get, nearing the maximum size for the species…"


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by John Williams, posted 11-01-2009 8:38 PM John Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Granny Magda, posted 11-02-2009 5:10 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019