Giants

Your avatar isn't a human skull. Is it even bone? And when horns grow on skulls (human or otherwise) they don't just mold out of the forehead, they have structures at the base. (Look at a cow skull sometime.)That femur isn't even close to a human femur. You can even see it on the outline behind the leg. The femur is bent in the middle; human legs - even extremely large ones - aren't. Also it's not likely that a femur that narrow could support a "giant" who stood on two legs. It doesn't seem nearly thick enough but I could be wrong.Sorry if we don't take evidence that consists of "well, we had the evidence, but evolutionists stole it" very seriously. You might have noticed that this is a common defense of cranks. Why should we take you any more seriously than the UFO guys or the Flat Earthers?

That's not a human skull. The upper mandible is way too small. The braincase at the back is way too wide. Plus no human has ever had horns. I'd be very doubtful if it was even made of bone. I've never seen horns grow like that from skulls of any animal, either. Try again.

This is true. And you are correct point out that this does not immediately invalidate them as sources. However it does mean that their claims must be judged by how well they are corraborated by other sources, and by physical evidence. Why? If they're collections of folklore, why not treat them as such? Especially since the accounts disagree with the majority of evidence? Remember not all folklore is labeled as such. And it's only recently that people have made a distinction between folklore and history. Just because it has the veneer of historicity is no guarantee that it is in fact historical truth.

I was going to bring that up, and forgot. The funniest one to me was the broken-off knee end of a femur that was classified as a fossilized giant's scrotum.

Yes, because that's how you get the Nobel Prize. And that's why the conspiracy stories don't make any sense.

Because people like a good story, and they didn't have TV? How do any tall tales get started?

Which was based on what sources? Town newspapers, I bet. And word of mouth, local folklore, and other dubious sources that comprised popular, local histories in the 1800's.

With a creationist president? Not likely. You'll have to substantiate this. See, you're pretty clueless about the history of science. If you look back almost all of the Nobel Prizes in science are delivered to those who overturned a dominant paradigm. It's not easy, to be sure. But if your theory is better than it comes to be accepted, and you get accolades. It's inevitable. Look at Einstien, Planck, Wagner.And biologists largely have no emotional investment in the theory. Ask any of the biologists here. If there was a better theory they'd accept it immediately. That's how science works.

So what does it matter what their intentions were? The road to hell is paved with 'em, after all.No matter their intent, what they made was a collection of local folklore, nothing more. That speaks more about the techniques of historicity in the 1800's than anything else.

Again, this is true. And DC85 has provided the grain of truth from which stories of giants' bones were based - discoveries of dinosaur fossils before dinosaurs were known to have existed.What more do you need? You've made our point for us, I think.

Yeah, being forced to learn the facts sucks, huh?But lucky for you it's obvious you won't learn any biology anyway, so I guess you're safe from evolution. Like water off a duck's back.

Well, better you debate us than your teacher - unless you're lucky, he/she probably doesn't know any more about the theory than you do.

Yes it is, but the President largely sets American policy. Hence, war in Iraq and tax breaks, which nobody was into until the President told them to.Maybe you missed it, but the President pushed that bill through about faith-based religous funding? Despite a little thing we like to call the First Amendment? In case you hadn't noticed we seem to have a president these days who feels like he can do whatever he pleases, despite 200 years of precident to the contrary. You're 14. What biologists do you know? You haven't given any evidence of full skeletons having been found. You haven't even given an anecdote about full skeletons. (You certainly haven't presented any full skeletons.) Simply put, the "full skeletons" are the kind of natural exaggeration you would expect. They found a bone. They told a story about a skeleton.Honestly what a world of credulity you live in. If it's in a book, it must be true! Except for science, of course.

Why? What on earth is so offensive to you about the idea that all species of life on earth are the result of a mechanism of random mutation and natural selection?Mutations happen. Natural selection happens. This has been proven to give rise to new species that are adapted to their environments. Given that that's the entire theory right there, and that we observe it happening, what about evolution do you think cannot be described as "fact" in the same way that we say gravity is a fact? Well, of course not. Often it takes wisdom to know when you are wrong.Ok, ok. My bad. We're devolving into insults, so let's back off. You keep talking about the "facts". I'd like to know what you think those are.

Sure there is. Looking at the data objectively. That's how differences of viewpoint are decided. Remember we're not talking about whether or not Creed is a good band; we're talking about whether or not something existed. If things exist, they leave evidence that everybody can agree on. You've presented anecdotes and a bunch of stories about giant bones.But you haven't presented a bone! If there's evidence for giants, show me! Don't just talk about it, or talk about other people talking about it. Let's see the giants' bones!