Giants Human Skeleton

[Pein]

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin.

Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans – of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings – is, to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Lyall Watson,
"The Water People". Science Digest, p 44

[hobie]

I believe some of the pictures are legit.

[chad_tukes]

If this is proven right. Evolution is wrong.

Evolution claims we come from a smaller becomes bigger, stronger, smarter...
Creation claims that there were giants in the earth in those days. -Genesis 6:4

is this real?
YouTube - GIANT HUMAN skeletons

how can you prove EVOLUTION wrong when there is EVIDENCE that evolution happened/is happening?

or nagpa buta-buta lang ka?

[kebotDiNaMute]

And how did you came up to this assumption that it was arrogance? Careless? Didn’t you see the first line of my statement that I already wrote an apology for not watching because I choose not to see it? I just wonder how you pass your academics if your "mentality" [aka logic] is like this. Barely, you didn’t get the concept of my stand.


Insufficient studies? <<-- these words are inconsistent lang daan and I suppose you have sufficient study than mine, do you? Hyperbaric Condition? Do you know what exactly “hyperbaric condition” really is? Do you have any condition or conclusive observation about the validity of hyperbaric condition in evolutionary concept? Kebz, you are discussing science to a NURSE – we eat scientific discoveries all the time! And here you asked me to read about PITUITARY GLAND? I suppose you are a scientist now? Correct? You think by copying and pasting statements from the net makes you legit? Read more about hyperbaric experiments? I think you belittle my intelligence and thus you made yourself ARROGANT from all these copying and pasting techniques. I am not saying that I am a scientist but I am in the realm of science and its discoveries. That includes EVOLUTION.


Demand sample? Oh puleaseeee! Have you read all those threads about inconsistencies of the bible? Genesis book in one of them. If not, you’re an expert of copying and pasting… why not use google or Wikipedia [your favorite source of truth] to find those YOU DEMAND…! Oh by the way, you understand misrepresentation but not errors and loopholes… haha, I can’t believe how shallow you are in the first place.


One word kebz, HYPERBOLE.


Kebz, try reading your first entry properly and you will KNOW why people react. CREATOR? Hmmmm… I believe in God kebz but his creation? That remains no proof at all. Unless otherwise you can provide me an ultimate proof.

"because I choose not to see it?"
--- what is this attitude? you don't bother to watch but you bother to attack it? hehehe. if wala ka kita so how can you know the message when in fact you don't want to.

"Kebz, you are discussing science to a NURSE – we eat scientific discoveries all the time! "
--- trip you are talking to a man who plays logic everyday... too bad for you, this is no scienctific forum. Maybe you are attending a wrong class nurse.

"Do you have any condition or conclusive observation about the validity of hyperbaric condition in evolutionary concept?"
--- two piranhas under oxygen rich tank, almost similar oxygen content. They grew much bigger than ordinary. The hyperbaric atmosphere was observed in a lot of ways, Ice Sheets, bubbles inside a fossilized material... so they investigate the content of the air... blah blah blah.

"And here you asked me to read about PITUITARY GLAND? "
--- nope i ask you to read Hyperbaric Condition that AFFECT PITUITARY GLAND.

"You think by copying and pasting statements from the net makes you legit?"
--- don't hold the information upon yourself. Spread it. A lot of things we do not know. I never said its mine. Ill be behind bars because of copyright issues...

"That includes EVOLUTION. "
--- forcing a theory to be TRUE. Remove the theory and it will be TRUE. It might have been accepted but never confirmed TRUE. EVIDENCE B? Do you know your BIG (FART) BANG is TRUE? and yes it HAPPEN ALL THE TIME... i bet you won't believe me.

Oh by the way, you understand misrepresentation but not errors and loopholes… haha, I can’t believe how shallow you are in the first place.
--- yes i am shallow to your POV. Let me explain.
--- misinterpretation are HUMAN standard, that goes with ERRORS and LOOPHOLES.
--- My God never misinterpret nor have errors, because if he did, his word will be for the selected few who will understand him and his errors. Tell you what, all you need to do is believe and accept his sacrifice then his word will be with you.
--- I believe you can never comprehend how it is to believe in God. Its hard, we are bounded by his laws. But its ok, his laws are never wrong, MENS' Laws are subject to errors. Whats the Implication... We save life as much as we can, you abort babies because you think it is RIGHT...
--- am I shallow, hmmm. 2Billion people believe in the Bible, I wonder why you are smarter and we are dumber... Gud luck mam.
--- One word TRIP, CLIMAX

[kebotDiNaMute]

how can you prove EVOLUTION wrong when there is EVIDENCE that evolution happened/is happening?

or nagpa buta-buta lang ka?

Chad what you have seen is a VARIATION OF ITS KIND. Darwin change it to NEW SPECIES. Haven't you seen this? If Evolution does happen, claim you millions. Chad Did you know what happen to BIG BANG? Have you Seen the STAR/Planet FORMING? have you seen the Frog Becomes PRINCE?

If you don't have the answer chad, then theory will always be a theory. Never dictate its a fact, Dictating is a dangerous quality.

[kebotDiNaMute]

typo
--- claim your millions

[Pein]

YouTube - Cambrian Explosion: bigger problem for Darwinism than ever

kani bro tinuod ni?

[kebotDiNaMute]

YouTube - Cambrian Explosion: bigger problem for Darwinism than ever

kani bro tinuod ni?

hehehe, di na cla ka 2bag ana pein kay c darwin puro ra IMAGINE (naliwat man cguro si bro nasyo).

if naay mo 2bag ana pein, nahan ko minaw...

/kebot sits down and order POPCORN PLEASE!

[Pein]

The Fossil Record

A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.

But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.

If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.

Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".

There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.

"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25

The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years [ET*] without leaving a single fossil.

A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

Evolution Fossil Record

hmmmmm...

[abortretryfail]

this is interesting... whether there's any truth is another thing...

Aside from mythology and folklore (see Tall tales), remains of extremely tall people have been reported, and documented in the Americas and other parts of the world. These are usually classified as remains that indicate persons of between 7 (2.15 m) and 12 feet (3.65 m) in stature. The book Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman (1971) recounts the following alleged finds:

• A decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 3.28 metres (10 feet 9 inches tall), was unearthed by labourers while ploughing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.
• A human skeleton measuring 3.6 metres (12 feet) tall was unearthed at Lompock Rancho, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it.
• Several mummified remains of humans with reddish hair claimed to range from 2-2.5 metres (6.5 feet to over 8 feet) tall were dug up at Lovelock Cave, (70 miles) north-east of Reno, Nevada, by a guano mining operation. These bones supposedly substantiated claims for legends by the local Paiute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cah. However, there appear to be no verified Paiute legends about giants or that call the Si-Te-Cah giants [5]. Some of these artifacts can also be found in the Nevada State Historical Society's museum at Reno. Adrienne Mayor states that these skeletons are normal sized.[5] She also points out that hair pigment does not stay stable after death, and that ancient very dark hair can turn rusty red or orange due to a variety of conditions such as soil condition, temperature, etc.
• A 9' 11" (3.02 meters) skeleton was unearthed in 1928 by a farmer digging a pit to bury trash in Tensas Parish, Louisiana near Waterproof. In 1931 a 10' 2" (3.1 meters) skeleton was unearthed by a boy burying his dog in 1933 in Nearby Madison Parish.

Aside from in Forbidden Land, we can find other unverified examples or legends about the remains of giants:

• A 9' 8" (2.95 meters) skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana in 1879 (Indianapolis News, November 10, 1975).
• In Clearwater, Minnesota, the skeletons of seven giants were found in mounds. These had receding foreheads and complete double dentition[citation needed]
• A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people", and beside each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, October 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 197.
• Near the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario there is a span of mountains five miles long that is in the shape of a man wearing a headdress lying down on his back. The span is called "The Sleeping Giant" from local Ojibway legend that identifies the giant as Nanabijou, the spirit of the Deep Sea Water, who was turned to stone when the secret location of a rich silver mine, now known as Silver Islet, was disclosed to white men. [6]
• Patagons of Patagonia in South America, are giants claimed to have been seen by Ferdinand Magellan and his crew.[7] Drake reported only finding people of 'mean stature'[8] although his Chaplain reported giants. However, even before Magellan, a Spanish romance called Primaleón of Greece was published in 1512 in which a dashing explorer discovers savages, one named Patagon, whose descriptions are very similar to those of Magellan.[9]

from Giant (mythology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia