EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[gnostic]

What height do you considered to be a giant, ghostaka?

The tallest known man, and I am talking real evidence, was Robert Pershing Wadlow, who died in 1940. Wadlow was 2.72 m tall (or 8'11.1"). He would be considered very tall, but not a giant in my book. I supposed that it is possible for someone to be as tall as 3 metres, but I doubt that very much. Anyone over 3 metres, I would truly call a giant.

There are no archaeological evidence of any man being 3 metres tall.

Goliath was said to be NEARLY 3 metres tall. But there is issue about Goliath's height. Six cubits would be close to 3 metres, while the Septuagint only record him as being only 4 cubits tall, which would only measure up to 2 metres. There are many sportspeople who are 2 metres or so tall, so Goliath could hardly be considered giant. Hence, Goliath could possibly be as tall as this Wadlow guy, or considerably shorter, all depending on the text or translations.

In any case, Goliath is definitely not a giant.

There absolutely no proof of a race of giants, eg. Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-7, the supposed offspring of (fallen) angels and mortal women, and supposedly wiped out by the biblical flood.

Again, I would ask you. At what height these supposed giants to be?

If it anywhere under 3 metres, then I would considered to be giants, just very tall humans.

If it is over 3 metres, then where is your proof?

In the timeline of the modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens - 30,000), there has been no skeletal remains or fossils of such (over 3 metres) giants, then you are basing this "giants" on faith, not proof, which in anyone's book, completely worthless, unless the people are religious incline.

If God made Adam as a giant, then where's the physical evidence?

 

[fantome profane]

When you cannot find evidence, (as if all of KSA has been excavated-- it hasn't), it does not disprove without a doubt. If one commits a murder and there is no evidence linking them to the crime scene; are they innocent?

All of this, yet it does not prove that "giants" never existed.

You cannot use the means of hypothesis as a time machine .

What do you think, Autodidact?

Peace be upon you.

But there is evidence. You can make the choice to dismiss the evidence if you wish, but there is evidence. Not absolute proof, but very good solid evidence. If you choose to be an absolute skeptic you can dismiss all the evidence. You can dismiss the normal sized fossils, the normal sized tools, the normal sized shelters. You can dismiss the laws of physics and the realities of biology. You can if you choose to dismiss all of this. But there is evidence.

And on the other hand there is no evidence for the existence of these 90 feet tall people. And again you can say if you wish that the lack of evidence proves nothing. You can say that all the giant fossils, giant tools, giant buildings have been completely destroyed, or just yet to be found.

You can choose to reject a reasonable idea that has a great deal of evidence supporting it and choose to accept ridiculous idea that has no evidence supporting it. You are completely free to make this choice. But it is not a reasonable choice.

 

[Autodidact]

Muslims do not mummify their dead nor do they place them in coffins.

Is it only Muslims who were bigger? I'm confused. I thought you were talking about people from a time way before Islam.

Houses would be bigger.
Weapons would be bigger.
​

Skeletons would be bigger.

Exactly. When we find artifacts from ancient times, as well as skeletons, they should all be bigger than today's. In fact, if we find very ancient human remains, shouldn't they all be over 100 feet tall?

Is this in fact what we find? When we do find artifacts, jewelry, houses, weapons, and bones of ancient people, are they in fact bigger than today's people?

When you cannot find evidence, (as if all of KSA has been excavated-- it hasn't), it does not disprove without a doubt. If one commits a murder and there is no evidence linking them to the crime scene; are they innocent?

Well, you sure can't convict them.

All of this, yet it does not prove that "giants" never existed.

God I get so tired of repeating myself. It's as though some people suffer a form of brain damage that makes it impossible for them to learn new information. This is SCIENCE we're doing now, Ghostaka. It doesn't depend on proof. It depends on evidence. What we're going to do is to look at the evidence, as you have described it, and see whether or not it support the hypothesis. O.K.?

You cannot use the means of hypothesis as a time machine .

What are you talking about?

What do you think, Autodidact?

I think we haven't started yet.

O.K. Now YOU, Ghostaka, are saying that, using a scientific approach, if your hypothesis is true, we should expect all ancient artifacts and skeletons to be much larger than today's. In particular, any excavation from Saudi Arabia before (what year?) should yield artifacts and skeletons much larger than today's. If we have any human fossils from pre-historic times, they should all be bigger than today's. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Autodidact]

What height do you considered to be a giant, ghostaka?

The tallest known man, and I am talking real evidence, was Robert Pershing Wadlow, who died in 1940. Wadlow was 2.72 m tall (or 8'11.1"). He would be considered very tall, but not a giant in my book. I supposed that it is possible for someone to be as tall as 3 metres, but I doubt that very much. Anyone over 3 metres, I would truly call a giant.

There are no archaeological evidence of any man being 3 metres tall.

Goliath was said to be NEARLY 3 metres tall. But there is issue about Goliath's height. Six cubits would be close to 3 metres, while the Septuagint only record him as being only 4 cubits tall, which would only measure up to 2 metres. There are many sportspeople who are 2 metres or so tall, so Goliath could hardly be considered giant. Hence, Goliath could possibly be as tall as this Wadlow guy, or considerably shorter, all depending on the text or translations.

In any case, Goliath is definitely not a giant.

There absolutely no proof of a race of giants, eg. Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-7, the supposed offspring of (fallen) angels and mortal women, and supposedly wiped out by the biblical flood.

Again, I would ask you. At what height these supposed giants to be?

If it anywhere under 3 metres, then I would considered to be giants, just very tall humans.

If it is over 3 metres, then where is your proof?

In the timeline of the modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens - 30,000), there has been no skeletal remains or fossils of such (over 3 metres) giants, then you are basing this "giants" on faith, not proof, which in anyone's book, completely worthless, unless the people are religious incline.

If God made Adam as a giant, then where's the physical evidence?

Ghostaka already told us: over 100 feet.

 

[McBell]

If it is over 3 metres, then where is your proof?

See, the thing is, He honestly believes that if you cannot prove his statements false that they are by default proven correct.

 

[Tiapan]

Surely its a relative thing you are giant if you are taller than average. Given the average height of humans during biblical times was a fair bit shorter (around 1.5m) than the average today, I would say a 2m person then would have been very tall. Someone higher than 2m could be considered a giant.

 

[gnostic]

Ghostaka already told us: over 100 feet.

sorry, autodidact and ghostaka, I must have miss this part.

To ghostaka, there are huge difference between a person who is under 9 feet tall (or less than 3 metres) and a person of 90-100 feet tall.

There is certainly no evidences of the later (90-100 feet tall). If you believe that Adam was created as a giant, then you might as well as believe in the Greek Hundred-Handed and the Cyclopes.

We have evidence of other animals being tall or so big (eg. whales, dinosaurs, etc), but nothing to indicate that humans had ever grown so big.

 

[Tiapan]

It would be difficult for normal mammalian bone to support the weight of a 30m human, or any other animal that big supporting its weight against gravity. This is a limitation of the tensile and shear strength of bone, so a terrestrial animal of this size would be impossible. The only possibility I can see is if they lived underwater like a whale, where buoyancy over comes gravity. But like a whale walking around on land is not feasible.

 

[Autodidact]

It would be difficult for normal mammalian bone to support the weight of a 30m human, or any other animal that big supporting its weight against gravity. This is a limitation of the tensile and shear strength of bone, so a terrestrial animal of this size would be impossible. The only possibility I can see is if they lived underwater like a whale, where buoyancy over comes gravity. But like a whale walking around on land is not feasible.

Or if they were magic. You forget, you're talking to a religionist. All things are possible with Allah.

 

[gnostic]

The tallest (land) animal today, is the giraffe. They are wondrous and gentle creature, but they are hardly the most powerful or most graceful animal. They can grow as high as little more than 5 metres tall. There are no evidences of any human, since the dawn of man, could grow as tall as the tallest giraffe, let alone 90-100 feet tall (27-30 m).

You might as well as believe in King Kong. And King Kong was no where near 90 feet tall.

Surely its a relative thing you are giant if you are taller than average. Given the average height of humans during biblical times was a fair bit shorter (around 1.5m) than the average today, I would say a 2m person then would have been very tall. Someone higher than 2m could be considered a giant.

Granted that the average height of Israelites would consider over 2 metres to be giants, but that's not the height that Ghostaka is indicating. He seriously believed that earlier people were 100 feet tall. That's a huge jump from over 7-8 feet to 100 feet.

That the typical lunacy belief of religious people, which is the tendency to over-exaggerate and make up numbers.

 

[DarkSun]

sorry, autodidact and ghostaka, I must have miss this part.

To ghostaka, there are huge difference between a person who is under 9 feet tall (or less than 3 metres) and a person of 90-100 feet tall.

There is certainly no evidences of the later (90-100 feet tall). If you believe that Adam was created as a giant, then you might as well as believe in the Greek Hundred-Handed and the Cyclopes.

We have evidence of other animals being tall or so big (eg. whales, dinosaurs, etc), but nothing to indicate that humans had ever grown so big.

Not to mention that a 100 foot tall person is a biological, chemical and physical impossibility.

 

[slave2six]

Not to mention that a 100 foot tall person is a biological, chemical and physical impossibility.

At least as long as we are living on this planet...

 

[DarkSun]

At least as long as we are living on this planet...

This is true. :sarcastic

Perhaps these giants lived on the moon or something? The gravitational field is much weaker there.

 

[Tiapan]

I wonder why our Islamic brothers have not made any comment on my earlier post " Creationists should take their blinkers off. Part 1" a page or two back. I spent some time on it so I hoped they would read it.

 

[Autodidact]

Do other Muslims in the thread agree that human beings used to be over 100 feet tall, and gradually got shorter?

For my information, what exactly does the qu'ran say about this?

 

[rageoftyrael]

renewing thread........ now.

 

[shortfade2]

renewing thread........ now.

AHAHAHA!!! lol! thats great. Frubals to you.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Dear lady, when did you ask me how tall he (PBUH) was!? Making accusation is rude and dealing with them is tedious. But as for you question:

As per hadith, it is verified on the authority of Abu Hurayrah -- that Muhammad (PBUH) sad: "Allah created Adam with the height of sixty dhira and ever since that time, the heights of children of Adam have been reducing".

Such statements show the futility of trying to reason with belief.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Do other Muslims in the thread agree that human beings used to be over 100 feet tall, and gradually got shorter?

For my information, what exactly does the qu'ran say about this?

I've just skimmed your back-n-forth with Ghostaka over the last few pages. :bow: Very nice.

Just a little FYI -- > http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-17-voa51.cfm?moddate=2005-02-17
c. ~ 200,000 years. and still 'normal' sized.

Also, you might find this both illuminating and entertaining (if you have WAY too much free time. (I only skimmed it) ).
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/90feet-adam.htm

 

[nonbeliever_92]

evolution is a scientific fact, the theory of evolution is just the scientific explanation of how evolution goes about happening, but is not a fact. god i hope that made sense becuase i'm sooo tired...