|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Giant People in the bible? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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 hereLooks 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Williams Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 157 From: Oregon, US Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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: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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Williams Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 157 From: Oregon, US Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hows about a giant bunny
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Williams Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 157 From: Oregon, US Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024