Nephilim

[PLAYER57832]

Well my point is more that the skeletons posted as proof would not work. A scaled up human simply couldn't work, it's certainly possible that something that looked humanoidish could exist but it wouldn't really look much like the skeletons that have been posted.

The thing is, in this case it's really easy to label it as fact because we can easily calculate it and there are no explanations for how it could even function. Unless the bones are somehow different from every other mammal we've ever encountered these giants can't exist. We know how much bones can take, we know how much a giant of that size would weigh, therefore we know they can't exist like that.

Again, "no explanation" is NOT the same as proof. Do I believe it is likely that 13 foot giants existed, outside of a few anomolies? No, because there is a distinct lack of evidence where, if reports are true, evidence of some kind ought to exist (that is, for lionz sake.. in a time when there are many remains, why other remains, but none of giants?). Do I believe it is remotely possible? Too many things believed to be "firmly true" have since been shown false. To believe it did happen, I would have to see evidence. None currently exists.

The reason I harp on this, again, gets back to credibility. You are in the habit of making many statements about "proof" when arguing against religion that are really a matter of belief. Unless you can divest yourself from this heavy bias, you will make errors -- very big and critical errors.

[PLAYER57832]

I guess we can throw out Wikipedia as a credible source then?


Honibaz

Of course!

Except that a lot of what they post is what is known as "standard knowledge".. things that are verified so many times in so many sources that they no longer need a real reference. (general historical events, a dophin is... etc.) A lot of other information is just plain opinion (so and so thinks this about xyz). It is fine for those types of information. It is also OK to just give you and idea of something, with the proviso that you need to do further research to verify its information.


ALSO, some of what is in Wikki, particularly recently, is actually posted by credible sources. I would still question it because there is potential for someone else to have edited things to change them, but while being in Wikki certainly does not make it true, being in Wikki does not necessarily mean it is false, either.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

You're like the anti-me in terms of adamant statements maybe. What if you're wrong about something?

Robert Schoch might be like a poster boy for natural claims regarding the Yunaguni Monument, but even he has actually made it clear that he felt the Yonaguni Monument was primarily a natural structure that people in ancient times carved out of living bedrock and enhanced to suit their purposes maybe. http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

How about you personally contact the Washington Post and ask if it reported on 06/22/1925 that there were skeletons (plural?) found by a mining party measuring 10 to 12 feet near Sisoguiche, Mexico? You would not believe me even if I told you I got a reply confirming that was the case maybe. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/co ... v=globebot

You mean coelacanths? Were they not considered The missing link between fish and tetrapods until a 1938 discovery of a living one? Wow. What if horseshoe crabs, nautilus, and coelacanths did not exist a million years ago and neither did the earth itself? http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

[Johnny Rockets]

PLAYER,

You're like the anti-me in terms of adamant statements maybe. What if you're wrong about something?

Robert Schoch might be like a poster boy for natural claims regarding the Yunaguni Monument, but even he has actually made it clear that he felt the Yonaguni Monument was primarily a natural structure that people in ancient times carved out of living bedrock and enhanced to suit their purposes maybe. http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

How about you personally contact the Washington Post and ask if it reported on 06/22/1925 that there were skeletons (plural?) found by a mining party measuring 10 to 12 feet near Sisoguiche, Mexico? You would not believe me even if I told you I got a reply confirming that was the case maybe. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/co ... v=globebot

You mean coelacanths? Were they not considered The missing link between fish and tetrapods until a 1938 discovery of a living one? Wow. What if horseshoe crabs, nautilus, and coelacanths did not exist a million years ago and neither did the earth itself? http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

Perhaps the Yonaguni monument was just remnants of a civilization long gone?
Their territory flooded out due to rising sea levels or a shift of plates.
There is no logical connection to automatically link it to a biblical flood, but the argument of whether they are man made or not is moot as ancient man has proven the ability to make grand structures before.

I contacted the Washington Post. I'll let you know their reply when it comes back.
I also asked them about:

Because you can believe the possibility of the existence of this has kept me up at night....

Lionz Wrote:What if horseshoe crabs, nautilus, and coelacanths did not exist a million years ago and neither did the earth itself?

Are you serious? It's called "science" and "carbon dating." You might know it as "The Devils Work" and one of the "Great Lies" that satan spreads.

I love some of the links you are posting to add weight to your questions.
This came up when I clicked on your last offering:


Scientific Evidence Disproves Evolution Theory

Facts prove Universe is about 6,000 years old, not billions of years old.
by Dr. Kent Hovind, PhD.

The PhD. after his name obviously stands for Phucking Dumb-Ass.

But hey, this is good. As time goes on we'll have rebutted every circus side show link on the internet and perhaps we'll ground you more into the real world.

Johnny

[Snorri1234]

Well my point is more that the skeletons posted as proof would not work. A scaled up human simply couldn't work, it's certainly possible that something that looked humanoidish could exist but it wouldn't really look much like the skeletons that have been posted.

The thing is, in this case it's really easy to label it as fact because we can easily calculate it and there are no explanations for how it could even function. Unless the bones are somehow different from every other mammal we've ever encountered these giants can't exist. We know how much bones can take, we know how much a giant of that size would weigh, therefore we know they can't exist like that.

Again, "no explanation" is NOT the same as proof. Do I believe it is likely that 13 foot giants existed, outside of a few anomolies? No, because there is a distinct lack of evidence where, if reports are true, evidence of some kind ought to exist (that is, for lionz sake.. in a time when there are many remains, why other remains, but none of giants?). Do I believe it is remotely possible? Too many things believed to be "firmly true" have since been shown false. To believe it did happen, I would have to see evidence. None currently exists.

The reason I harp on this, again, gets back to credibility. You are in the habit of making many statements about "proof" when arguing against religion that are really a matter of belief. Unless you can divest yourself from this heavy bias, you will make errors -- very big and critical errors.

Gravity is not a matter of belief.

This is not a topic where there is no evidence against the existence of it. We know that 13 foot giants go against the most basic science that we have. Robert Wadlow required braces to walk because he was so tall. It's physically impossible for someone built roughly like a human to be that tall and walk around. The only way they could is if MAGIC made it happen.

This is not about religion, this is about fairy tales.

[PLAYER57832]

This is not about religion, this is about fairy tales.

Well, you have a big, gaping bias against anything to do with religion, as your "fairy tale" comment aptly shows. That you cannot see it, doesn't meant it's not there. It WILL harm your ability to think critically about science, but there is no point in harping on it further.

These bias' are one big reason why science has such strict standards when it comes to calling something "fact" versus "highly probably theory", etc.

[Lionz]

Snorri,

Is it not believed that adult male Gigantopithecus blacki stood about 3 m tall?

And was Maximinus not 8 foot 6 and known for being able to pull laden carts unaided? Wadlow was quite oddly proportioned even if we dont take an overall height into account perhaps.

Johnny,

Is the Yonaguni Monument not dated to be from a time in which it's claimed the most advanced culture in Japan was small groups of hunter-gatherers?

See Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth and Evidence from Biology sections here with points laid out under them? How about respond to them if so?
http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

You want to discuss carbon dating? How about go to #1 and look for a seventh post at #2?

1) http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=12

2) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=390

And you provide a textbook ad hominem against Kent Hovind as opposed to actually addressing points made under sections regarding evidence from space, earth and biology? And ironically follow that up with a boastful statement suggesting you can rebut stuff and ad hominen against me?

Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can't be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn't work, these "objective" scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.

Maybe that's misquoted by me for all I know and you should look for it here... http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

[Snorri1234]

Snorri,

Is it not believed that adult male Gigantopithecus blacki stood about 3 m tall?

Stood? No, it's unlikely he could really walk on two legs much.

And was Maximinus not 8 foot 6 and known for being able to pull laden carts unaided?

No. He also did not wrestle bears each day before breakfast.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

You're like the anti-me in terms of adamant statements maybe. What if you're wrong about something?

I am wrong about plenty.. so what? This not a matter of me being wrong. It is a matter of what is proven and what is not.

Robert Schoch might be like a poster boy for natural claims regarding the Yunaguni Monument, but even he has actually made it clear that he felt the Yonaguni Monument was primarily a natural structure that people in ancient times carved out of living bedrock and enhanced to suit their purposes maybe. http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

Read on. When you are disproving something, you need to start with the assumption that it could be true. If you START by assuming you already know the truth, then that's bias. So yes, he starts by saying, even in the article I posted "it is possible...". However, then he goes on to show why that is almost certainly not the case.

You wish to claim it as "proof" of ancient civilizations or misrepresentations of science. That is just wrong, on several counts.

First, as I said, when you talk about "proof" and "facts", you have to have evidence that is irrefutable, completely and 100% irrefutable. That there are fully natural explanations takes this into the realm of "possibility", at the very best.

Second, even if it is possible that this was created by humans (and note, as Schoch explained, had you bothered to read the link I posted, that is not actually what the evidence indicates), to prove it was such would need other corroborating evidence or at least some firmer evidence.

Thirdly, if this IS shown to be made by humans, it is actually very much evidence against your theories anyway. The truth is that more and more scientists believe that human civilization is much older than was previously thought, not younger. (for example, the "clovis first" theory of American settlement is almost certainly incorrect)

How about you personally contact the Washington Post and ask if it reported on 06/22/1925 that there were skeletons (plural?) found by a mining party measuring 10 to 12 feet near Sisoguiche, Mexico? You would not believe me even if I told you I got a reply confirming that was the case maybe. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/co ... v=globebot

I don't dispute it was reported. I dispute it was an accurate account. Big difference! How about if you look up the term "yellow journalism" and "the history of credible journalism". Do you realize that we almost got ourselves into a war because of an utterly fictititious account of a girl who was kidnapped in Randolph Hearst's bewspapers? This report might even have been fully believed by the reporters of the time, but it has since been proven false.

You mean coelacanths? Were they not considered The missing link between fish and tetrapods until a 1938 discovery of a living one?

Have you have been listening to Chuck Irwin lately? (though he could not remember the name in his "talk")
Yes,there was an acient fish called the Ceolocanth discovered off the coast of Africa a few decades ago. Ironically, the first published picture (the cover of National Geographic) was actually a small hoax. What was presented as a live specimen was actually dead. (and NG since tightened up its standards). However, the fish really do exist and have since been studied, though its in a difficult region to access.

The rest of your statement is absolutely incorrect, or plain irrelevant. Its not that it "was thought to be a missing link". It IS an example of evolutionary progression. It IS an example of an early evolutionary species. So, too, is the more modern lungfish, sea lampreys... etc, etc. This idea that because something is still alive, it "cannot be a transition species" is just silly. I lost all my college noted years ago in a move or I could look up more specifics readily, but even if the Ceolocanth itself is not in the direct line of descendency to modern species, its position as a transition species means that such a move is possible. There are many, many skeletons. This is one step, one added piece and link in the evolutionary puzzle. That it was found expanded scientific knowledge of evolution. In no way was it a defeat of evolution, despite what folks like Mr Ingrim wish to assert.

Wow. What if horseshoe crabs, nautilus, and coelacanths did not exist a million years ago and neither did the earth itself? http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

Then God made the world to appear as if it were old and nothing in science is true... at all. But, funny part is, that is not even what Dr Morris or other Creation scientists, Institutes are asserting. Instead, they insist on putting forth outright lies as if they were proof.

You know, in the 1940's it was commonly put forward that fossils were just "lies of the devil", put into stone to "trick us". Thirty years ago, students in the then relatively new young earth creationist schools were being taught that "dinosaurs were just a myth". (I am talking about a specific school and specific children with whom I had many discussions -- NOT a hypothetical example!) The thing is, the evidence for them was so overwhelming even Dr Morris had to concede the point.

This is the biggest problem with Creation Science. It rests both on claims that science is full of liars.. just not true and/or completely misrepresents what is known. It takes things that even are facts and just absolutely and completely misrepresents them until they become outright lies. Chuck Ingrim in his "arguments" tape, for example, starts out by asserting that Evolution means that the processes were wholly random and without God. When you start with such a definition, then of course, it is "anti-Christian". Problem is, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS! (another one that drives scientists up the wall are the many claims about evolution "violating the second law of thermodynamics")

As for Noah, the rest of Genesis... that requires several additonal threads. If you wish to get back into Evolution, I suggest you review the old thread by Widowmaker. Sadly, he deleted most of his original arguments. However, much of my arguments start, I believe around page 73 or so. OR, if you wish to start a new one, with your arguments.. go for it. I will be happy to answer.

[Snorri1234]

This is not about religion, this is about fairy tales.

Well, you have a big, gaping bias against anything to do with religion, as your "fairy tale" comment aptly shows. That you cannot see it, doesn't meant it's not there. It WILL harm your ability to think critically about science, but there is no point in harping on it further.

These bias' are one big reason why science has such strict standards when it comes to calling something "fact" versus "highly probably theory", etc.

Except that my "bias against religion" has nothing to do with this topic. I dismiss giant humans for the same reason I dismiss unicorns and the Loch Ness monster.


In fact, I dismiss them for the same reason I dismiss the existence of dragons. The way they're supposed to exist is impossible.

[Johnny Rockets]

And you provide a textbook ad hominem against Kent Hovind as opposed to actually addressing points made under sections regarding evidence from space, earth and biology? And ironically follow that up with a boastful statement suggesting you can rebut stuff and ad hominen against me?

When text book ad hominid exist specifically against you and your theory, you know your a fucking joke in your field.

You point out some fucking forum with crap written in the same vein of your unintelligent slanted beliefs. You post links to tabloid level organizations that spread lies and misinformation to the gullible masses that ignorantly share your beliefs that are not founded in any form of logical science.

I can't rebut you point for point when your only ability to field an argument is to throw a tonne of garbage crackpot data and links about and then when disproved, quote scripture and bring up ANOTHER unicornz are realzz!! infantile topic.

I'd rather debate structural engineering with this guy:


But I shall remain to beat down your silly assertions as these other gents are doing so in a much to genteel fashion.

Rock

[2dimes]

Rockets, I've procured transportation. You can post when we get to Lebonon. Get on board. Did you bring your best shovel? No F-15s please I just watered the lawn.

[PLAYER57832]

Is it not believed that adult male Gigantopithecus blacki stood about 3 m tall?

Fossils of these creatures exist, but they don't seem to be part of the direct human chain. I tried to access the Encyclopedia Brittanica articles, but could not. This article was referenced, though. There are only a few fossils, so most ideas on their looks are "sketchy". They seem reasonable, but may well be false.

Here is an excerpt from the following link http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html that explains why [I highlighted the especially important part in bold]:

According to Ciochon et al. (1990), Gigantopithecus blacki was 10 feet tall and weighed 1,200 pounds. This is speculative, since it is with some uncertainty that one reconstructs such a massive creature from a few jaw bones and teeth, however many. The way they arrived at this picture was first to estimate the size of the head from the jaw, and then to use a head/body ratio of 1:6.5 in order to determine the body size. For comparison they cite a head/body ratio of 1:8 for the Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as 'Lucy'. The more conservative ratio for Gigantopithecus was arrived at out of consideration of the massive jaw as an adaptation to the mastication of fibrous plant matter (probably bamboo). Gigantopithecus was probably proportionally a markedly big jawed creature. For the head shape they based their assumptions on the orangutan, since evolutionarily they place Gigantopithecus on the same line as the orangutan, finding a common ancestor for them both in Sivapithecus. However, the orangutan could not serve as a model for the body, since it is unlikely that a 1,200 pound ape would be as arboreal. Therefore they chose the largest primates known, the gorilla and the extinct giant baboon Theropithecus oswaldi, as their models for the body. They gave Gigantopithecus an intermembral index 108 (gorilla at 120 + Theropithecus at 95 divide by 2 = 108 rounded up - very scientific!) (Ciochon et al., 1990).

Since Ciochon (et al, 1990) with aid of Bill Munn (Hollywood monster maker/dinosaur reflesher) were interested as well in building a very impressive life size model we would be wise to consider the dimensions with some caution, and note that they represent the biggest Gigantopithecus that could be built rationalized from the actual remains, and that it is a male. Females may have been half the size of the males, since the teeth fall markedly into two distinct size groupings (Ciochon et al., 1990), as I will discuss later in terms of sexual dimorphism and what inferences have been drawn.

Elwyn L. Simons and Peter C. Ettel (1970) paint a somewhat different picture. They trace Gigantopithecus back to a dryopithicine origin and their corresponding reconstruction is essentially a giant gorilla, 9 feet tall, weighing 600 pounds. It is not nearly as attractive as the giant orangutan/gorilla cross created by Ciochon et al. and Bill Munn (1990)

Is the Yonaguni Monument not dated to be from a time in which it's claimed the most advanced culture in Japan was small groups of hunter-gatherers?

Even if true, this would be evidence of an older civilization. In no way does it support your young earth theories!

See Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth and Evidence from Biology sections here with points laid out under them? How about respond to them if so?
http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

You want to discuss carbon dating? How about go to #1 and look for a seventh post at #2?

1) http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=12

2) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=390

And you provide a textbook ad hominem against Kent Hovind as opposed to actually addressing points made under sections regarding evidence from space, earth and biology? And ironically follow that up with a boastful statement suggesting you can rebut stuff and ad hominen against me?

This is getting into a lot of stuff most of us (johnny, snorri, Neoteny, myself) have been over many times. I, at least, would be happy (well, willing anyway ... lol) to go over them again, but it will need a thread of its own. Also, you might try reading what we already posted on Widowmakers old "Creation versus Evolution" thread.. though he, unfortunately, deleted most of his original arguments long ago, the rest of the thread does remain.

Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can't be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn't work, these "objective" scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.

Ironically enough, substitute disdain and adament increduality for "ridicule and satire" and this pretty well describes most Young Earth Creationist attempts to "dispute" real science. Though ridicule and satire are definitely rearing their ugly heads in Young Earth Creationists talks as well.

[Johnny Rockets]

Rockets, I've procured transportation. You can post when we get to Lebonon. Get on board. Did you bring your best shovel? No F-15s please I just watered the lawn.

I picked up a sweet shovel, should be up to spec...




It was tricky to find, luckily I had a little help....



I'm bringing a few cases or port, and a little bit of transport for when we dock....



Rockets

[PLAYER57832]

Lionz, you can start here for rebuttals to Young Earth Creationism. These are specifically geared towards Dr Morris' arguments:
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebutt ... _index.htm

These are in reference to Johnathan Wells "10 questions"
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/10 ... -questions

I will bring up carbon 14 information later, but the big thing is that it is not the most accurate testing method. That folks like Dr Morris harp on it is as fustrating to real scientists as the continual harping on "Darwin got it wrong in some details, so the whole theory is just obviously false" (he did get a LOT wrong, but was remarkable for his time and science has long since moved forward.)
Here is a discussion of a far better method, radiometric dating (and note, I believe even better methods have since been discovered.. also this has bee corroborated through various other means, including models of genetic drift, etc.)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23

[2dimes]

First I was super excited. Then it slowly sank in that we're a few billion dollars short of actually doing this. I'm going to go to Harvey's now to drown my sorrows with a hamburger.

[PLAYER57832]

Lionz, here is the best link I have found explaining about Carbon 14.

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-crea ... -14-dating

[Johnny Rockets]

First I was super excited. Then it slowly sank in that we're a few billion dollars short of actually doing this. I'm going to go to Harvey's now to drown my sorrows with a hamburger.

Oh no you don't!

I'll pay to fuel the tank of the USS Lawn Clippings, and we'll save cash by sleeping in hostels and eating sand.

I didn't pay 40 grand for this giant bone finding shovel for you to back slide into that nasty burger addition.

Think of the things we will find! If we get there tomorrow we'll be posting pics of our outrageous biblical finds in no time!

J

[Lionz]

Snorri,

Can you find an Gigantopithecus model that's not standing? It's unlikely he could really walk on two legs much according to what?

Was Maximinus not so strong that he could pull laden carts unaided according to the Historia Augusta?
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... age450.jpg

PLAYER,

Can you define proven? And am I personally claiming anything proves anything?

I might have read little to nothing under Acknowledgments in a source by you referring to Schoch, but maybe you would be surprised by how much I read in general and I even provided a source that can take you to words from Schoch that you provided and also words from him you have not read yet. He even threw out one or more idea having to do with it possibly being a quarry from which blocks were cut perhaps.

If it's shown to be made by humans, it's actually very much evidence against a theory of mine? How so, if so? If orthodox history generally holds that tool-making began taking place about 5,000 years ago and it's been dated to be from a point in time before that in which it's claimed the most advanced culture in Japan was small groups of hunter-gatherers, then who's it sticking out like a sore thumb for? How would scientists believing that human civilization is much older than was previously thought be against a theory of mine at all if I hold that Adam and earth were both created about 6,000 years ago?

The report has since been proven false according to what?

Not sure if I have ever listened to a Chuck Irwin maybe. What if the Father created different kinds of creatures with the ability to bring forth after their kinds? Is it logical to see different breeds of dogs and then jump to a conclusion that whales and ants have common ancestry as a result? What suggests to you that they do?

See Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth and Evidence from Biology sections here with points laid out under them? We might have quite a full plate at the moment, but how about respond to them later on if so?
http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

You mean to claim creation science rests on claims that science is full of liars? Maybe you should ask yourself if you are ultimately arguing that the Tanakh and works in the so called NT were written by liars. Was there death before Adam? Was Adam created from dust of the ground? Was there a flood that covered the earth? Have individuals died and been resurrected?

Carbon dating is a radiometric dating method and you're confused about terminology maybe.

If we don't know what has happened in the past in regards to how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere, then how useful is the carbon-14 method? The flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms to form fossil fuels and fossil fuel amounts indicate there was a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existance prior to the Flood if the earth was created about 6,000 years ago and the flood is not mythological perhaps. The earth had a biosphere just prior to the Flood that had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than right now possibly. Would that not cause a serious dilution in carbon-14 and mean the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has increased tremendously? Did Willard Libby’s calculations not even show that carbon-14 would only take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state if earth started with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and carbon-14 is still out of equilibrium, then what does that tell you about how old earth is? Less than 30,000 years?

Note: Maybe I said carbon-12/carbon-14 instead of carbon-14/carbon-12 in error earlier and I have fixed it.

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

I might have ocd combined with a major fear of lying, but that's pulled from another post of mine and I've messed it up moving it around for all I know and it's misquoted by me for all I know perhaps.

You refer to one or more page that treats dendrochronology like it's an anchor that's helping to hold down reliability of the carbon-14 method? Is there a single tree anywhere in all of existance dead or alive that's been dated to be more than 5,000 years old with tree ring dating? Is there a limit for how long a tree can live that just happens to back up scripture if trees have truly been growing on earth for hundreds of millions of years and there's not? Individuals have tried to link up rings on trees and chain them together perhaps, but seperate disturbances can be lined up in error and throw things off and inferred missing rings is common in BCP chronology perhaps.

I'm not sure where an old Widowmaker thread is maybe, but how about we move some stuff to an evidence for Him thread or start up a thread or both if you want?

Johnny,

You're free to refuse to debate whatever you want and tell yourself it's for whatever reason you want perhaps. How about let me know if you want to discuss the carbon-14 method or discuss whether or not there's evidence suggesting the earth is not millions of years old if you decide you want to later?

[Snorri1234]

Snorri,

Can you find an Gigantopithecus model that's not standing? It's unlikely he could really walk on two legs much according to what?

Wait...you have models that are actually standing on two legs? Weird as f*ck.

checked gis, yeah dude even the crazy motherfuckers who thought he was 3 meters long didn't believe he walked upright. basically, he was sort of like a gorilla.

Was Maximinus not so strong that he could pull laden carts unaided according to the Historia Augusta?

Sure thing. But taking Historia Augusta seriously is like taking The Onion seriously.

[Snorri1234]

Tangent: Dudes, what about the theory that Historia Augusta was basically the old roman version of The Onion?

[Lionz]

http://www.bfro.net/images/lineupWeb_v4_1231_swatch.jpg

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

All sources concur that Maximinus was physically a very large and imposing man and he soon found himself in the military. Of his appearance Herodian writes:

He was in any case a man of such frightening appearance and colossal size that there is no obvious comparison to be drawn with any of the best-trained Greek athletes or warrior elite of the barbarians.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.bfro.net/images/lineupWeb_v4_1231_swatch.jpg

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

All sources concur that Maximinus was physically a very large and imposing man and he soon found himself in the military. Of his appearance Herodian writes:

He was in any case a man of such frightening appearance and colossal size that there is no obvious comparison to be drawn with any of the best-trained Greek athletes or warrior elite of the barbarians.

I consider the dude who won the Worlds Strongest Man competition huge and fightening too, doesn't make him a giant.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.bfro.net/images/lineupWeb_v4_1231_swatch.jpg

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

http://alleba.com/search/imageview.php? ... us&start=0

All sources concur that Maximinus was physically a very large and imposing man and he soon found himself in the military. Of his appearance Herodian writes:

He was in any case a man of such frightening appearance and colossal size that there is no obvious comparison to be drawn with any of the best-trained Greek athletes or warrior elite of the barbarians.

I consider the dude who won the Worlds Strongest Man competition huge and fightening too, doesn't make him a giant.

Also, you still quoted old historians who are unreliable.

[2dimes]

First I was super excited. Then it slowly sank in that we're a few billion dollars short of actually doing this. I'm going to go to Harvey's now to drown my sorrows with a hamburger.

Oh no you don't!

I'll pay to fuel the tank of the USS Lawn Clippings, and we'll save cash by sleeping in hostels and eating sand.

I didn't pay 40 grand for this giant bone finding shovel for you to back slide into that nasty burger addition.

Think of the things we will find! If we get there tomorrow we'll be posting pics of our outrageous biblical finds in no time!

J

But they said they need a rather large deposit for us to use the boat. Too bad too because it had lots of nice places to sleep so we'd be able to waste the money that would have been spent on those hostels. I think the boat has 32 years of fuel on board if recall the discovery channel correctly.

I good with going but we won't have the boat. The balloon thing looks like it might have space for mattresses and blankets etc.