First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Giants of the Attack on Titan Anime not that farfetched.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/8/14 , edited 11/28/14
From https://www.facebook.com/thegrigorianime


Giants of the Attack on Titan Anime not that farfetched.


I recently started watching Attack on Titan (AOT) which arguably right now the most popular series at the moment. These huge Titans go after mankind kind destroying cities and eating human beings. “Over one hundred years prior to the beginning of the story, giant humanoid creatures called Titans suddenly appeared and nearly wiped out humanity, devouring them without remorse or reason. What remains of humanity now resides within a country surrounded by three enormous concentric walls”

The height of these Titans are anywhere from 9 ft to over 45 ft with the exception to the colossal giant which is about 200 ft. and are missing their genitalia. Now please keep an open mind: Attack on Titan doesn't sound too far off from Biblical and ancient sources from thousands of years ago.

Native American, Asia, South America, Middle East, Africa and Europe in ancient history somewhere there has always been documented giant beings and I'm not talking about kiddie stories, actual ancient documents from thousands of years ago. People will ask where are all the bones of these giants? After doing many hours of research and sifting through hundreds of hoaxes there are actually documented findings from the 1800's to the 1950's. It would seem like after such a great find the bones would be on display for the whole world to see but most of the time any more information would seem to disappear and that's where forbidden archeology comes in. Archeology that's either destroyed or locked away because it doesn't fit into mainstream Archeology, but that's another story for another day. Another reason why they haven't found many bones? These giants were warriors and after death or war the dead were not buried as often they were burned, which was easier then to bury and to prevent disease. Even the famous Josephus (37 to 100 AD) even wrote about these bones being found and on display.

Now lets get to the meat. In the Bible the most famous giant was Goliath who was anywhere from 10 ft. to 14 ft. depending on how accurate our measurements are today compared to thousands of years ago. Oh ya they had 6 finger and 6 toes which made them distinct from taller human beings. But that's nothing in comparison to what is about to explored. In Biblical or Dead Sea Scroll documents there were 3 class of Giants. The 1st class were direct descendants of Angels and human women mating. These grew to be the largest if they lived long enough through war. The 2nd class of giants when Male and female giants mated. The 3rd class were Giants and humans mating. Obviously when a giant grew big enough he could not longer mate with a human women unless they were a giant woman. The 3rd class of giants would be the smaller species of giants.

The Book of Enoch also describes a giant 3000 ells. Which would have been enormous at the very minimum 200 feet. Of course the writer may have been describing something so big he couldn't imagine and more than likely the direct offspring of Angel/Human. Amos 2:9 states "Yet I destroyed the Amorites (giants) before them, though they were tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks. Well a Cedar can grow anywhere from 120 ft to 180ft depending on the cedar species.

In Genesis 6:4 that the Bible calls them “men of renown.” The Hebrew word here, “Shem” refers to being famous and legendary. It is as if the Bible is indicating that when the reader hears of legends of “demigods”, titans or legendary heroes who were part god, that this is who those “myths” were referring to.

Now to the mankind eating giant. In Attack on Titan, these giants eat human beings. According to the Book of Enoch it states “And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.” So these ancient giants eventually ate human beings.


What does this all mean? If your a true believer in Bible then you have to believe in giants, Titans and even monsters. Even for the non-believer with all these ancient documents there is a glimmer of hope that fantasy becomes reality. So it's quite possible that these enormous “Titans” did exist. We keep finding new types of species of animals either extinct or not extinct every year. Only time and Archeology will tell when one day they find something extraordinary that they will release to the world.



Here is one blog I found I like but I also encourage everyone to do their own research. There is too many scriptures and documents to put in such a short article. http://www.babylonrisingblog.com/Nephilim3.html

I wanted to point out some various Old newspaper articles. I have found hundreds of these either from newspapers no longer in print and some that are still are from actual government sites or news agencies. It doesnt point to physical proof but it points to they were finding bones and I think they could easily distinguish human bones, skulls and heights from these finds from other types. Its interesting how many of these articles range from the 1800's until 1947. They all can not be liars and obviously something happened that stopped them from publishing these articles. These archaeologists and scientists were not dumb or stupid by the way, But these articles are plentiful from that time period.

1. New York Times Feb 11, 1902 (Giants over 12 feet tall)
Giant Skeletons Found
Screenshot from NYT search results

Here is the actual article Link: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B00E5DA1530E733A25752C1A9649C946397D6CF


2. From the Library of Congress Government Website (25 foot giant)
The Columbian., March 16, 1888, Image 2 "This indeed was a giant."
You can find this article yourself here:http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83032011/1888-03-16/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1836&sort=date&date2=1922&words=Giant+Indeed&sequence=0&lccn=&index=4&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=this+indeed+was+a+giant&year=&phrasetext=&andtext=&proxValue=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=10


3. From the Library of Congress Government Website (80 inch thigh bone, Making this a huge freakin giant) Notice how its mention like every other news because these finds were happening all the time.
The state republican., September 03, 1891, Image 1
Article link:http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90061576/1891-09-03/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1836&index=0&rows=20&words=giant+human+size+skeletons+Two&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=two+human+skeletons+of+giant+size&y=15&x=10&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
Image article:
17112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/8/14
The Giants Probably Went Extinct For Lack Of Food Especially With Them Being So Huge There Prey Must Have Been A Pretty Big Creature Too Sustain A Large Animal Like That But Just Knowing Creatures Like Existed Shows You Scary Back Then Was.
7046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Manhattan
Offline
Posted 7/8/14
I would love to believe this and this idea, but are there more any archaeological documents other than scripture or ancient texts that have any examples of giants other than the less-than-reliable image of that random old guy?
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14
Seriously? A '47 inch femur'? I'd like to see some actual references that such a thing was found but sadly I'm afraid the likely result is something along the lines of 'I believe it's really a giant's femur I don't care if all those 'scientists' say it's a mastodon. They're just part of this darwinist conspiracy!'

More importantly, I'm not sure that scaling the size of bones necessarily scales the amount of weight they are able to support by the same amount. I have little reason to believe that a giant the size of Attack on Titan could possibly be that large with bones made of calcium of the same proportions that they are on humans.

This isn't even evoltion anymore, this is basic biomechanics which doesn't really allow you to scale size while maintaining muscle strength to support the extra mass. Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

There's a reason that really really tall people tend to have heart problems and it has nothing to do with being born with bad hearts, but rather, you can't make an animal uniformly large while expecting them to function the same. Basic 'animal' physiology doesn't allow it, so unless god is also using magic to pump their hearts and keep their bones and muscles able to support their weight, or they're not made of the same stuff humans are made of... you cannot have a titan.

I'm a lot more likely to believe that we have an old man who misidentifies some massive bone from some extinct animal, than we had bipeds on this earth the size of mammoths. The former doesn't contradict my understanding of basic biomechanics.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

Seriously? A '47 inch femur'? I'd like to see some actual references that such a thing was found but sadly I'm afraid the likely result is something along the lines of 'I believe it's really a giant's femur I don't care if all those 'scientists' say it's a mastodon. They're just part of this darwinist conspiracy!'

More importantly, I'm not sure that scaling the size of bones necessarily scales the amount of weight they are able to support by the same amount. I have little reason to believe that a giant the size of Attack on Titan could possibly be that large with bones made of calcium of the same proportions that they are on humans.

This isn't even evoltion anymore, this is basic biomechanics which doesn't really allow you to scale size while maintaining muscle strength to support the extra mass. Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

There's a reason that really really tall people tend to have heart problems and it has nothing to do with being born with bad hearts, but rather, you can't make an animal uniformly large while expecting them to function the same. Basic 'animal' physiology doesn't allow it, so unless god is also using magic to pump their hearts and keep their bones and muscles able to support their weight, or they're not made of the same stuff humans are made of... you cannot have a titan.

I'm a lot more likely to believe that we have an old man who misidentifies some massive bone from some extinct animal, than we had bipeds on this earth the size of mammoths. The former doesn't contradict my understanding of basic biomechanics.


Here some links check these out but I always encourage you to do your own research.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

From the Library of Congress search results:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=giant%2Bhuman%2Bbones&y=11&x=7&dateFilterType=yearRange




698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14 , edited 7/9/14

petacat wrote:

I would love to believe this and this idea, but are there more any archaeological documents other than scripture or ancient texts that have any examples of giants other than the less-than-reliable image of that random old guy?


One thing you have to look at is that every ancient civilization from every Continent has some kind of history that describes giants whether there were huge or smaller. There are so many hoaxes out there you have to sift through it all.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

From the Library of Congress search results:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=giant%2Bhuman%2Bbones&y=11&x=7&dateFilterType=yearRange

Other Interesting things to watch/read:

https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/tag/giants/

Giants: Hiding in Plain Sight Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr8I-LWICT8

Giants, Mighty Men of Old - Steve Quayle - Hagmann & Hagmann
37 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14
I'm guessing the femur could not have belonged to a dinosaur as its structure would be different? I'm assuming the femur is specifically designed for bipedal creatures, am I correct?
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14
I found this its part of the Dead Sea Scrolls found called the Book of Giants. This was found with other ancient texts.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/giants/giants.htm

http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

JuJuRoll wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

Seriously? A '47 inch femur'? I'd like to see some actual references that such a thing was found but sadly I'm afraid the likely result is something along the lines of 'I believe it's really a giant's femur I don't care if all those 'scientists' say it's a mastodon. They're just part of this darwinist conspiracy!'

More importantly, I'm not sure that scaling the size of bones necessarily scales the amount of weight they are able to support by the same amount. I have little reason to believe that a giant the size of Attack on Titan could possibly be that large with bones made of calcium of the same proportions that they are on humans.

This isn't even evoltion anymore, this is basic biomechanics which doesn't really allow you to scale size while maintaining muscle strength to support the extra mass. Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

There's a reason that really really tall people tend to have heart problems and it has nothing to do with being born with bad hearts, but rather, you can't make an animal uniformly large while expecting them to function the same. Basic 'animal' physiology doesn't allow it, so unless god is also using magic to pump their hearts and keep their bones and muscles able to support their weight, or they're not made of the same stuff humans are made of... you cannot have a titan.

I'm a lot more likely to believe that we have an old man who misidentifies some massive bone from some extinct animal, than we had bipeds on this earth the size of mammoths. The former doesn't contradict my understanding of basic biomechanics.


Here some links check these out but I always encourage you to do your own research.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

From the Library of Congress search results:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=giant%2Bhuman%2Bbones&y=11&x=7&dateFilterType=yearRange



That's not how you do research. Looking for newspaper clippings of "man finds giant" is not the same as "A paper published by anthropologists have confirmed that this is a giant fetus of a human-like biped in the Journal of Anthropology" or something of the sort.

In other words, I'm asking you to give me the research, not "hey look, some guy is claiming to have proven all of biomechanics wrong and that there's a vast scientific conspiracy where even mathematicians and engineers are in on it!"

None of those newspaper clippings cites any papers. None of them cite experts who have independently verified the claim. That's because newspapers are poor sources of scientific information, they always have been, and they continue to be poor sources today. National Geographic, Washington Post, a New York Times article from 1904, these aren't good sources of scientific information.

Yet you really want to come back to me with these asserting that somehow all of biomechanics is a lie? Do muscles really work by some magic property we've yet to discover that lets them overcome the square-cube law?

You seem to have a remarkably low standard of evidence required to consider all of established science wrong. I'm curious. Do you apply this same standard to the bible? By what basis do you question the views you already have?

11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14 , edited 7/9/14

andrew286 wrote:

I'm guessing the femur could not have belonged to a dinosaur as its structure would be different? I'm assuming the femur is specifically designed for bipedal creatures, am I correct?


I don't think that looks like a biped* femur.

https://yy1.staticflickr.com/6173/6187039893_6cffb31f02_z.jpg

That's a mammoth's femur.

http://lrrpublic.cli.det.nsw.edu.au/lrrSecure/Sites/Web/gondwana/Animal_Fossils_of_Gondwana/lo/fossils_07/applets/graphics/_ph_/elephant.jpg

Elephant femur.

http://www.prehistoricstore.com/newitems/m716.jpg

Tyrannosaurus femur.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/128624003-human-femur-bone-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=4zogn49pJrnByPwkfLfZaZIz9ScERNWkPg%2fpX1ZFuh99VB%2bxnCb%2fCykQq62Y0XQiPC%2fr84OXmRNipR6H%2b26lGQ%3d%3d

Human femur. Notice, how thick the Tyrannosaurus bone is compared to the rest. Why do you think that is? As I mentioned, you can't scale an animal uniformly large and keep the same proportions because muscle strength scales by a square power law, but mass scales by a cube power law.

So a MASSIVE biped like the Tyrannosaurus needed a much stronger bone to support the additional weight, well proportionally beyond what human bones look.

So a bone that thin for an animal that large doesn't seem to me a biped.

But lets look at other anatomic features of the human bone, compared to a mammoth.

http://www.oxford174.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Femur-function.jpg

So we have some terms to work with.

Notice the greater trochanter on the human bone curves inward in almost a little "c". The Trochanteric fossa is a little alcove on the human bone.

Instead for the mammoths and elephant, it's a nub, which makes sense, since the bone doesn't need the to attach muscles with the flexible range for a human biped.

http://www2.victoriacollege.edu/dept/bio/Pig/HumanSkeleton/webpages/femur.jpg

Also when I look at both views of a human bone, I don't see much curvature to it. There's no real 'kink' and it just doesn't appear to bend as drastically as it does in the picture of the old man.

http://www.skeletonsandmore.com/securecart/lifesize-set-of-2-human-femur-bones-pi-510.html

Human femurs appear to be much straighter in comparison.

Admittedly it's not a great photo, but really, I think anyone who believes that giants roamed the earth is probably guilty of wishful thinking.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14 , edited 7/9/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


JuJuRoll wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

Seriously? A '47 inch femur'? I'd like to see some actual references that such a thing was found but sadly I'm afraid the likely result is something along the lines of 'I believe it's really a giant's femur I don't care if all those 'scientists' say it's a mastodon. They're just part of this darwinist conspiracy!'

More importantly, I'm not sure that scaling the size of bones necessarily scales the amount of weight they are able to support by the same amount. I have little reason to believe that a giant the size of Attack on Titan could possibly be that large with bones made of calcium of the same proportions that they are on humans.

This isn't even evoltion anymore, this is basic biomechanics which doesn't really allow you to scale size while maintaining muscle strength to support the extra mass. Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

There's a reason that really really tall people tend to have heart problems and it has nothing to do with being born with bad hearts, but rather, you can't make an animal uniformly large while expecting them to function the same. Basic 'animal' physiology doesn't allow it, so unless god is also using magic to pump their hearts and keep their bones and muscles able to support their weight, or they're not made of the same stuff humans are made of... you cannot have a titan.

I'm a lot more likely to believe that we have an old man who misidentifies some massive bone from some extinct animal, than we had bipeds on this earth the size of mammoths. The former doesn't contradict my understanding of basic biomechanics.


Here some links check these out but I always encourage you to do your own research.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

From the Library of Congress search results:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=giant%2Bhuman%2Bbones&y=11&x=7&dateFilterType=yearRange



That's not how you do research. Looking for newspaper clippings of "man finds giant" is not the same as "A paper published by anthropologists have confirmed that this is a giant fetus of a human-like biped in the Journal of Anthropology" or something of the sort.

In other words, I'm asking you to give me the research, not "hey look, some guy is claiming to have proven all of biomechanics wrong and that there's a vast scientific conspiracy where even mathematicians and engineers are in on it!"

None of those newspaper clippings cites any papers. None of them cite experts who have independently verified the claim. That's because newspapers are poor sources of scientific information, they always have been, and they continue to be poor sources today. National Geographic, Washington Post, a New York Times article from 1904, these aren't good sources of scientific information.

Yet you really want to come back to me with these asserting that somehow all of biomechanics is a lie? Do muscles really work by some magic property we've yet to discover that lets them overcome the square-cube law?

You seem to have a remarkably low standard of evidence required to consider all of established science wrong. I'm curious. Do you apply this same standard to the bible? By what basis do you question the views you already have?



That wasnt point, there isnt very much information because all this took place along time ago. You should read the book forbidden archaeology. anthropologists have always found strange shit but if it doesnt fit mainstream then they get their careers ruined, The square cube law has not been proven by human means in todays times. But you know the information is out there. Just because anthropologists and scientist want to prove evolution so bad they dismiss everything else doesnt mean its not true. Scientist and anthropologists have been wrong in the past and will be in the future,. By the way those articles say they found this or that. So my question is what happened to the bones? It became forbidden.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

JuJuRoll wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

That's not how you do research. Looking for newspaper clippings of "man finds giant" is not the same as "A paper published by anthropologists have confirmed that this is a giant fetus of a human-like biped in the Journal of Anthropology" or something of the sort.

In other words, I'm asking you to give me the research, not "hey look, some guy is claiming to have proven all of biomechanics wrong and that there's a vast scientific conspiracy where even mathematicians and engineers are in on it!"

None of those newspaper clippings cites any papers. None of them cite experts who have independently verified the claim. That's because newspapers are poor sources of scientific information, they always have been, and they continue to be poor sources today. National Geographic, Washington Post, a New York Times article from 1904, these aren't good sources of scientific information.

Yet you really want to come back to me with these asserting that somehow all of biomechanics is a lie? Do muscles really work by some magic property we've yet to discover that lets them overcome the square-cube law?

You seem to have a remarkably low standard of evidence required to consider all of established science wrong. I'm curious. Do you apply this same standard to the bible? By what basis do you question the views you already have?



That wasnt point, there isnt very much information because all this took place along time ago. You should read the book forbidden archaeology. anthropologists have always found strange shit but if it doesnt fit mainstream then they get their careers ruined, The square cube law has not been proven by human means in todays times. But you know the information is out there. Just because anthropologists and scientist want to prove evolution so bad they dismiss everything else doesnt mean its not true. Scientist and anthropologists have been wrong in the past and will be in the future,. By the way those articles say they found this or that. So my question is what happened to the bones? It became forbidden.


"That wasnt point, there isnt very much information because all this took place along time ago. "

Umm, so?

La Ferrassie 1 was discovered in 1909 and I can go on google scholar and find tons of articles written about it for the past hundred years.

Same with La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1, people still are publishing papers on those fossils over a hundred years after they were discovered, published in journals of anthropology.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544039690179X

So this has been a conspiracy a hundred fifty years in the making? Again, scientists have a large habit of writing papers from old fossils, but the fossils you provided claiming "giant" seems to go against basic biomechanics as well as evolutionary biology... plus the fact that we don't find any massive fossils people claim as "human" anymore makes me a lot more likely to think people in the past were wrong, than any modern conspiracy keeping up over a hundred years of lies in the scientific community, and papers from the New York Times in 1909 are the proof.

... You seem to have a ridiculously high standard for what 'valid' science is, but seem to have an equally absurd low standard for accepting evidence contrary to the entire weight of the scientific community.

"The square cube law has not been proven by human means in todays times."

Proven? IT'S MATH!!! Muscle strength is proportional to the amount of surface area that the muscle contracts, which expands by the a square power law if you isometrically expand an object. THAT'S BASIC MATHEMATICS! Saying 'this isn't provable' is like saying "triangles in Euclidean space cannot have all lines intersect at right angles'. You are simply wrong. Volume grows by a cube law, surface area square, and I'm left wondering if you've ever been exposed to even high school level calculus.

"But you know the information is out there"

Yes, apparently in poorly cited newspaper clippings from 100 years ago that have no academic research attached at all. That's not normally a good quality source of 'information' in my book.

"Just because anthropologists and scientist want to prove evolution so bad they dismiss everything else doesnt mean its not true."

They have proven it. By any standard by which the word 'proof' means anything useful in the English language, evolution has been proven. Quite strongly. But you seem to be willing to accept ridiculously low quality standards of information to argue "it's false". I am quite confident you never apply the same standard to your own facts.

For example, "just because some old guy says a human bone is really a giant fossil, and dismisses everything else saying its not, doesn't mean it's a giant fossil!"

Have you stopped to consider that your information is of a poor quality?

" Scientist and anthropologists have been wrong in the past and will be in the future,"

To quote Issac Asimov from his "Relativity of Wrong".

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

You require science not only to be wrong, but progressively worse. Accepting evolution is simply accepting that science is a process of improving knowledge, and what we know today is more accurate than it was yesterday. So expecting "everything to be wrong such that we were actually right in the past" is kinda like saying "hey look the world really IS flat".

Such a thing seems contrary to how science progresses. We didn't go from a geocentric solar system to a heliocentric solar system back to a geocentric solar system. So why would we go from creationism to evolution back to creationism?

Science is wrong, but it improves. Religious nonsense like 'giants' simply seems wrong.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


JuJuRoll wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

That's not how you do research. Looking for newspaper clippings of "man finds giant" is not the same as "A paper published by anthropologists have confirmed that this is a giant fetus of a human-like biped in the Journal of Anthropology" or something of the sort.

In other words, I'm asking you to give me the research, not "hey look, some guy is claiming to have proven all of biomechanics wrong and that there's a vast scientific conspiracy where even mathematicians and engineers are in on it!"

None of those newspaper clippings cites any papers. None of them cite experts who have independently verified the claim. That's because newspapers are poor sources of scientific information, they always have been, and they continue to be poor sources today. National Geographic, Washington Post, a New York Times article from 1904, these aren't good sources of scientific information.

Yet you really want to come back to me with these asserting that somehow all of biomechanics is a lie? Do muscles really work by some magic property we've yet to discover that lets them overcome the square-cube law?

You seem to have a remarkably low standard of evidence required to consider all of established science wrong. I'm curious. Do you apply this same standard to the bible? By what basis do you question the views you already have?



That wasnt point, there isnt very much information because all this took place along time ago. You should read the book forbidden archaeology. anthropologists have always found strange shit but if it doesnt fit mainstream then they get their careers ruined, The square cube law has not been proven by human means in todays times. But you know the information is out there. Just because anthropologists and scientist want to prove evolution so bad they dismiss everything else doesnt mean its not true. Scientist and anthropologists have been wrong in the past and will be in the future,. By the way those articles say they found this or that. So my question is what happened to the bones? It became forbidden.


"That wasnt point, there isnt very much information because all this took place along time ago. "

Umm, so?

La Ferrassie 1 was discovered in 1909 and I can go on google scholar and find tons of articles written about it for the past hundred years.

Same with La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1, people still are publishing papers on those fossils over a hundred years after they were discovered, published in journals of anthropology.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544039690179X

So this has been a conspiracy a hundred fifty years in the making? Again, scientists have a large habit of writing papers from old fossils, but the fossils you provided claiming "giant" seems to go against basic biomechanics as well as evolutionary biology... plus the fact that we don't find any massive fossils people claim as "human" anymore makes me a lot more likely to think people in the past were wrong, than any modern conspiracy keeping up over a hundred years of lies in the scientific community, and papers from the New York Times in 1909 are the proof.

... You seem to have a ridiculously high standard for what 'valid' science is, but seem to have an equally absurd low standard for accepting evidence contrary to the entire weight of the scientific community.

"The square cube law has not been proven by human means in todays times."

Proven? IT'S MATH!!! Muscle strength is proportional to the amount of surface area that the muscle contracts, which expands by the a square power law if you isometrically expand an object. THAT'S BASIC MATHEMATICS! Saying 'this isn't provable' is like saying "triangles in Euclidean space cannot have all lines intersect at right angles'. You are simply wrong. Volume grows by a cube law, surface area square, and I'm left wondering if you've ever been exposed to even high school level calculus.

"But you know the information is out there"

Yes, apparently in poorly cited newspaper clippings from 100 years ago that have no academic research attached at all. That's not normally a good quality source of 'information' in my book.

"Just because anthropologists and scientist want to prove evolution so bad they dismiss everything else doesnt mean its not true."

They have proven it. By any standard by which the word 'proof' means anything useful in the English language, evolution has been proven. Quite strongly. But you seem to be willing to accept ridiculously low quality standards of information to argue "it's false". I am quite confident you never apply the same standard to your own facts.

For example, "just because some old guy says a human bone is really a giant fossil, and dismisses everything else saying its not, doesn't mean it's a giant fossil!"

Have you stopped to consider that your information is of a poor quality?

" Scientist and anthropologists have been wrong in the past and will be in the future,"

To quote Issac Asimov from his "Relativity of Wrong".

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

You require science not only to be wrong, but progressively worse. Accepting evolution is simply accepting that science is a process of improving knowledge, and what we know today is more accurate than it was yesterday. So expecting "everything to be wrong such that we were actually right in the past" is kinda like saying "hey look the world really IS flat".

Such a thing seems contrary to how science progresses. We didn't go from a geocentric solar system to a heliocentric solar system back to a geocentric solar system. So why would we go from creationism to evolution back to creationism?

Science is wrong, but it improves. Religious nonsense like 'giants' simply seems wrong.


Evolution hasnt been proved because it seems like its all stopped. no animals or humans are turning into anything else. So i guess the dinosaurs and hippos are also under the square cubed laws? That doesnt make sense at all.

11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/9/14
"Evolution hasnt been proved because it seems like its all stopped. no animals or humans are turning into anything else."

Since you seem to get your understanding of reality from cartoons, I regret to inform you that evolution doesn't work as Pokemon. No animals, or humans, will ever turn into anything else. Evolution doesn't state they do. Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. Vertebrates are always vertebrates. It's a branching process, a divergence process, not a Pokemon transformation process.

There never was a step in evolution where a mammal suddenly stopped becoming a mammal. Rather, you'd have different mammal populations and due to things like genetic isolation, they would no longer be able to breed. We have real life geographic examples of this with "ring species". A can mate with B can mate with C can mate with D can mate with E cannot mate with A. Some members of D and A might be able to mate, but generally fewer than C or A. Same with B and E vs B and D. If populations happen to reconnect, and no longer become separated, then you're less likely to get a 'different species' but at no point in this process does one animal suddenly stop being what it was before.

All human offspring will still be human, but given a million years, those 'humans' wouldn't likely be able to have children with humans today. There would never be a generation where humans suddenly stop being humans. Dogs will never suddenly stop being dogs. Evolution isn't pokemon.

"So i guess the dinosaurs and hippos are also under the square cubed laws? That doesnt make sense at all. "

Huh? Yes, of course they abide, that's the whole point of me posting the T-Rex bone... it's a biped that supported a much MUCH MUCH more massive body than humans, which is why it needs such a thicker bone proportionally compared to mammoths or elephants or humans. Mammoths, elephants, even hippos have four legs to support their massive weight. So they don't need their bones to be so thick proportionally compared to humans, they can distribute weight more evenly.

The T-rex couldn't. It is very big, but only has two legs to support its weight. So if you scaled a human to a T-rex size, and inserted their femur into the T-rex, it'd shatter, because it'd be a much thinner weaker bone for a much more massive body. You can't scale the size of an organism isometrically without increasing the proportion of bone and muscle MORE than the overall size scale. You need a human to have non-human bone structure and proportionality to be the size of a T-rex.

Quadrupeds have a much easier time being big than bipeds, they get to spread weight out evenly.
698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

"Evolution hasnt been proved because it seems like its all stopped. no animals or humans are turning into anything else."

Since you seem to get your understanding of reality from cartoons, I regret to inform you that evolution doesn't work as Pokemon. No animals, or humans, will ever turn into anything else. Evolution doesn't state they do. Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. Vertebrates are always vertebrates. It's a branching process, a divergence process, not a Pokemon transformation process.

There never was a step in evolution where a mammal suddenly stopped becoming a mammal. Rather, you'd have different mammal populations and due to things like genetic isolation, they would no longer be able to breed. We have real life geographic examples of this with "ring species". A can mate with B can mate with C can mate with D can mate with E cannot mate with A. Some members of D and A might be able to mate, but generally fewer than C or A. Same with B and E vs B and D. If populations happen to reconnect, and no longer become separated, then you're less likely to get a 'different species' but at no point in this process does one animal suddenly stop being what it was before.

All human offspring will still be human, but given a million years, those 'humans' wouldn't likely be able to have children with humans today. There would never be a generation where humans suddenly stop being humans. Dogs will never suddenly stop being dogs. Evolution isn't pokemon.

"So i guess the dinosaurs and hippos are also under the square cubed laws? That doesnt make sense at all. "

Huh? Yes, of course they abide, that's the whole point of me posting the T-Rex bone... it's a biped that supported a much MUCH MUCH more massive body than humans, which is why it needs such a thicker bone proportionally compared to mammoths or elephants or humans. Mammoths, elephants, even hippos have four legs to support their massive weight. So they don't need their bones to be so thick proportionally compared to humans, they can distribute weight more evenly.

The T-rex couldn't. It is very big, but only has two legs to support its weight. So if you scaled a human to a T-rex size, and inserted their femur into the T-rex, it'd shatter, because it'd be a much thinner weaker bone for a much more massive body. You can't scale the size of an organism isometrically without increasing the proportion of bone and muscle MORE than the overall size scale. You need a human to have non-human bone structure and proportionality to be the size of a T-rex.

Quadrupeds have a much easier time being big than bipeds, they get to spread weight out evenly.


Here is a article that someone sent me. So if they think a gorilla was the size of King Kong how can that be?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1208_051208_giant_ape.html
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.