Nephilim

[Serbia]

Cause you say so Snorri?

Sure. Also because giant men can not actually exist. Getting much higher than 9 or 10 feet is going to fucking kill you because our biology can't be done at that point. Eventually the legs will just crack, the aorta will rupture and all types of other nasty shit will happen.

Simply increasing the size doesn't work, psychics is a hell of a thing to try to ignore.

Yes but if you dig deeper into this theory, you'll find that it goes hand in hand with a more oxygen-rich environment. See, pre-flood, the atmosphere was thicker, the 'hyperbaric chamber effect", which caused massively sized creatures, such as the dinosaurs, huge plants, and human giants.

Uh.....that wouldn't change anything. The only way legs of giant men wouldn't break is if the gravity was lower.

No, that would definitely change things. It changes everything. Because you're changing the frame of the person as well, by changing the oxygen intake. You're not adding more mass to the same frame, you're massively bulking up the frame, and adding a body to match it.

Besides, why don't elephants and giraffes chronically break limbs simply by standing in place? You're making as many assumptions as the OP is.

[Snorri1234]

There were citations on at least 3 of those cases - missing some little things like uhm . . . reading comprehension skills?


Honibaz

Old newspaper articles are not citations.

[Serbia]

The reason this argument is so difficult to argue against is that it's the same as a religious argument. It's not just a simple "oh YAY we haz GIATNZ0RS naow!!!", they're talking about a world completely different from the one we're living in now. Everything was different, from the atmosphere to the creatures to the vegetation, even the axis of the earth is thought to have possibly shifted. They hold up dinosaurs as an example, because if you try to take creatures that size and put them on this planet today, they couldn't survive. So your modern-day arguments don't work.

[Snorri1234]

Uh.....that wouldn't change anything. The only way legs of giant men wouldn't break is if the gravity was lower.

No, that would definitely change things. It changes everything. Because you're changing the frame of the person as well, by changing the oxygen intake. You're not adding more mass to the same frame, you're massively bulking up the frame, and adding a body to match it.

No no no, bulking up the frame is exactly what wouldn't work. Every time you increase the size two-fold, the mass increases 8-fold. You simply couldn't walk on two legs when you get as tall as these human giants.

Besides, why don't elephants and giraffes chronically break limbs simply by standing in place? You're making as many assumptions as the OP is.

Because their build is completely different. Thicker bones and walking on four legs go a long way.

[Snorri1234]

Also this is the best thing ever. HISTORICAL CASES OF GOLIATH!

[Serbia]

Uh.....that wouldn't change anything. The only way legs of giant men wouldn't break is if the gravity was lower.

No, that would definitely change things. It changes everything. Because you're changing the frame of the person as well, by changing the oxygen intake. You're not adding more mass to the same frame, you're massively bulking up the frame, and adding a body to match it.

No no no, bulking up the frame is exactly what wouldn't work. Every time you increase the size two-fold, the mass increases 8-fold. You simply couldn't walk on two legs when you get as tall as these human giants.

Besides, why don't elephants and giraffes chronically break limbs simply by standing in place? You're making as many assumptions as the OP is.

Because their build is completely different. Thicker bones and walking on four legs go a long way.

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

[2dimes]

If I tried walking on my two year olds legs they'd snap under my weight yet I can walk on my larger legs with thicker bones. How does it work?

[Symmetry]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is genius. I love that you think each era's scientific ideas are accurate for their time.

[Serbia]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is genius. I love that you think each era's scientific ideas are accurate for their time.

I'm not arguing either side of the issue. I'm explaining my understanding of the "nephilim" side of it. And I'm not saying the ideas were different, I'm saying that according to the theory, LIFE was different, the world as you know it today didn't exist in the same way, meaning the laws of science were different.

AGAIN, I'M NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING, MERELY LAYING OUT THE BELIEFS OF ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE.

[Symmetry]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is genius. I love that you think each era's scientific ideas are accurate for their time.

I'm not arguing either side of the issue. I'm explaining my understanding of the "nephilim" side of it. And I'm not saying the ideas were different, I'm saying that according to the theory, LIFE was different, the world as you know it today didn't exist in the same way, meaning the laws of science were different.

AGAIN, I'M NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING, MERELY LAYING OUT THE BELIEFS OF ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE.

Heh- fair enough, but as long as it's not actually testable it's not science, it's faith. As soon as you decide to show "evidence" then you open that evidence up for scientific questioning. If you want it to be proof of faith, then there have to be questions about how these arguments prove something.

I have a huge respect for faith, and remarkably little for those who think that faith has a rational basis. Those arguments demean both faith and rationalism.

[Serbia]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is genius. I love that you think each era's scientific ideas are accurate for their time.

I'm not arguing either side of the issue. I'm explaining my understanding of the "nephilim" side of it. And I'm not saying the ideas were different, I'm saying that according to the theory, LIFE was different, the world as you know it today didn't exist in the same way, meaning the laws of science were different.

AGAIN, I'M NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING, MERELY LAYING OUT THE BELIEFS OF ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE.

Heh- fair enough, but as long as it's not actually testable it's not science, it's faith. As soon as you decide to show "evidence" then you open that evidence up for scientific questioning. If you want it to be proof of faith, then there have to be questions about how these arguments prove something.

I have a huge respect for faith, and remarkably little for those who think that faith has a rational basis. Those arguments demean both faith and rationalism.

And that's why I compare this to arguing religion. Just as you cannot "scientifically" prove the existence of God, so you cannot "scientifically" prove this theory on nephilim, at least the theory the way I understand it to be.

[Snorri1234]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

By thicker I mean VERY MUCH THICKER.


But they believe gravity was lower at the time? Why don't they just go to "LOL A WIZARD DID IT" immediately?

[Snorri1234]

And that's why I compare this to arguing religion. Just as you cannot "scientifically" prove the existence of God, so you cannot "scientifically" prove this theory on nephilim, at least the theory the way I understand it to be.

You can very much prove that it would need magic though. There is no evidence to suggest gravity was lower before there was a flood of which we also have no evidence.

There is also no reason to assume these things, and all the evidence actually directly contradicts it.

[Symmetry]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is genius. I love that you think each era's scientific ideas are accurate for their time.

I'm not arguing either side of the issue. I'm explaining my understanding of the "nephilim" side of it. And I'm not saying the ideas were different, I'm saying that according to the theory, LIFE was different, the world as you know it today didn't exist in the same way, meaning the laws of science were different.

AGAIN, I'M NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING, MERELY LAYING OUT THE BELIEFS OF ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE.

Heh- fair enough, but as long as it's not actually testable it's not science, it's faith. As soon as you decide to show "evidence" then you open that evidence up for scientific questioning. If you want it to be proof of faith, then there have to be questions about how these arguments prove something.

I have a huge respect for faith, and remarkably little for those who think that faith has a rational basis. Those arguments demean both faith and rationalism.

And that's why I compare this to arguing religion. Just as you cannot "scientifically" prove the existence of God, so you cannot "scientifically" prove this theory on nephilim, at least the theory the way I understand it to be.

Sure, so you would accept that all of the "evidence" suggested so far is pretty much bull? It does a disservice to people who believe in nephilim by suggesting that there's actual evidence, rather than their faith to support their beliefs?

[Serbia]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

By thicker I mean VERY MUCH THICKER.


But they believe gravity was lower at the time? Why don't they just go to "LOL A WIZARD DID IT" immediately?

I'm saying VERY MUCH THICKER too - did you see the size of the bones? We're not talking just bigger, we're talking huge.
And yeah, that's another option, but basically, that is what they are saying, except that instead of "wizard" they are saying "GOD", which is even more powerful than a wizard, and the end of debate and the beginning of faith, which is why this argument, like religion, will never convince anyone who isn't already considering a conversion, whether consciously or not.

And sym, I'm not suggesting there is any evidence on either side. I'm fascinated by the whole thing on some level, and because of my upbringing I'm somewhat familiar, but obviously it's not something I've spent any time on in years, and honestly had no idea what "nephilim" is or means, in fact even now I don't actually fully grasp what the word means or refers to.

[Lionz]

See sources for stuff here?
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/artic ... mball.html
Josephus?
Pliny the Elder?
De Soto?
Narvaez?
Coronado?
Amerigo Vespucci?
Sir Francis Drake?
Buffalo Bill autobiography?
Chronicler of Magellan's named Antonio Francesco Pigafetta?
A Pedro de Castaeda who accompanied Coronado?
Ohio county history from various years in later 1800s?
Don Cieza de Leon and Agustin de Zarate texts from 1553 AD and 1555?
1761 Gianthologia by P. Joseph Tarrubia?
A work called The Firelands Pioneer from 1858?
Apologie from 1627 by George Hakewill?
The Adair County (Kentucky) News from 1897?
Ironton Register, Proctorville from 1892?
History of the Indies by Joseph de Acosta?
And more?

And sources for stuff here?
http://www.stangrist.com/giants.htm
Indianapolis News from 1975?
American Antiquarian from 1880 and 1885?
St. Paul Pioneer Press from 1883 and 1888?
Chicago Record from 1895?
St. Paul Globe from 1896?
Review - Miner from 1931 and 1939?
Washington Post from 1925?
The New York Herald-Tribune from 1925?
The Los Angeles Times from 1927?
And more?

Also, if there was a canopy of liquid or solid H20 suspended around earth using the Mysner Effect and it had mass that fell to the surface of the earth, mass of the earth itself would have changed quite a bit and it could have contained air pressure that later escaped? Do amber airbubbles not have more oxygen concentration than earth currently does? Also, what if earth has even increased in mass over time by growing internally? What is even inside earth? Who really knows? What does man really know? Would a ten lb. rock fall faster than a five lb. rock? Well, when has it been taught throughout history that that was not the case?

[2dimes]

Ah, but what about increased bouyancey from all that extra oxygen making the atmosphere heavier?

[Symmetry]

Look, faith is a powerful force, and we all have faith in something. Expanding that to mean that all beliefs are equal is pretty poor. Faith should not require proof. You shouldn't run around testing God. I have respect for people who simply believe. I disrespect people who think there's evidence, as if God and the Bible are court cases with sides.

Myself, I don't have faith. I don't treat it as a debate between faith and non-faith based on evidence. Those that suggest evidence in either direction tend to have a prior motive.

[Serbia]

Ah, but what about increased bouyancey from all that extra oxygen making the atmosphere heavier?

Honestly, I'd rather debate why I think the Red Wings are the team to beat in the Western Conference this year, or why Ovechkin is a better player than Cindy Criesbaby, or why I think Chicago won't get past the second round (in a word - goaltending).

This is just mildly interesting, though I am likely to not post in here after tonight.

[notyou2]

Ah, but what about increased bouyancey from all that extra oxygen making the atmosphere heavier?

Honestly, I'd rather debate why I think the Red Wings are the team to beat in the Western Conference this year, or why Ovechkin is a better player than Cindy Criesbaby, or why I think Chicago won't get past the second round (in a word - goaltending).

This is just mildly interesting, though I am likely to not post in here after tonight.

Them's fighten werds Serb!!!!!

[Lionz]

Who does not want to know what is true and has happened in the past deep down?

[Phatscotty]

has anyone read any of the 12th planet books?

[Serbia]

Ah, but what about increased bouyancey from all that extra oxygen making the atmosphere heavier?

Honestly, I'd rather debate why I think the Red Wings are the team to beat in the Western Conference this year, or why Ovechkin is a better player than Cindy Criesbaby, or why I think Chicago won't get past the second round (in a word - goaltending).

This is just mildly interesting, though I am likely to not post in here after tonight.

Them's fighten werds Serb!!!!!

Then I'm doing it right.
I do hate Crosby, but at the same time - yeah, he's good. Annnnnd... that might be the last time I ever say that.

[Snorri1234]

Same thing? And anyway, again, the world was completely different according to the theory, and you're arguing using current scientific laws, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

By thicker I mean VERY MUCH THICKER.


But they believe gravity was lower at the time? Why don't they just go to "LOL A WIZARD DID IT" immediately?

I'm saying VERY MUCH THICKER too - did you see the size of the bones? We're not talking just bigger, we're talking huge.

Yes huge but still scaled up from a normal human bone. What I'm saying is that that wouldn't work. An elephant thighbone is maybe twice as long and 5 or 6 times as thick as a human one. Probably thicker. To keep walking on two legs you need even thicker bones, a twelve foot human needs legs the size of tree-trunks, maybe thicker than those of an elephant.

And yeah, that's another option, but basically, that is what they are saying, except that instead of "wizard" they are saying "GOD", which is even more powerful than a wizard, and the end of debate and the beginning of faith, which is why this argument, like religion, will never convince anyone who isn't already considering a conversion, whether consciously or not.

No they're not saying that at all. As with creationism, the believers want to have their cake and eat it to. They try to twist science towards their pre-conceived notions and ignore it when it contradicts them.

[2dimes]

Who does not want to know what is true and has happened in the past deep down?

Seriously, if we can find a giant skeleton is there anyone that doesn't want to see the thing? I'm sure there's a bunch not willing to travel but if I brought one by...