GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Giants  (Read 640 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Giants
« on: Sat May 11, 2019 - 12:21:57 »
https://hubpages.com/education/American-History-Censored-Mound-Builders-Giants-of-Antiquity-and-Hollow-Earth

Quote
American History Censored: Mound Builders, Giants of Antiquity and Hollow EarthAmerican History Censored

Considering the plethora of ancient archeological sites in North America conspicuously left out of our mainstream education here in America, this article, American History Censored: Mound Builders, Giants of Antiquity and Hollow Earth will show that North America was inhabited with a social sophisticated and technologically advanced ancient race of man. Although much speculation has been bandied about of this race's origins, I will once again make the connection to our Hollow or Inner Earth ancestors that simple can no longer be ignored or censored.

The question most often asked and which is the most perplexing to those new to this information is why would those that formulate our education system and write our history books consistently leave out, censor and distort the abundant discoveries of this ancient giant race of North America..................................... ......

Not so concerned with the hollow earth part or not. Do you think there has been a cover up or not?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Giants
« on: Sat May 11, 2019 - 12:21:57 »

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #1 on: Sat May 11, 2019 - 21:55:06 »
The mound builders aren't mysterious at all.   They were native Americans, and the mounds were build by stone age technology.    They even messed up on a few of them, leading to severe erosion and flooding.

The book 1493, does a good job of looking at the societies and civilizations  as the time Columbus arrived.  The mound builders were devastated by diseases brought by the Europeans, which moved ahead of the explorers.

It's a great read for anyone interested in this aspect of American history.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=book+1493&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1rXpnP6U4gIVL__jBx0CXQSBEAAYASAAEgIkavD_BwE&hvadid=241899891512&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026821&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=984030249378268208&hvtargid=aud-676677759524%3Akwd-47947721147&hydadcr=14464_10217557&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_7c8fa8rpoi_e

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Giants
« Reply #1 on: Sat May 11, 2019 - 21:55:06 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #2 on: Fri May 24, 2019 - 08:34:51 »
Not referring to mound mysteries, its the giants I'm referring to. I had a hard time finding this video again, concerning an actual human bone.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+giant+femur+stored+in+museum&&view=detail&mid=DA3B6CF2AA90C78221DEDA3B6CF2AA90C78221DE&&FORM=VRDGAR

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #3 on: Fri May 24, 2019 - 17:56:57 »
This is the famed Heidelberg man femur from South Africa.  If one scaled this according to normal human proportions, it would have been about 8 feet tall.   By comparision, the tallest known modern human was just short of 9 feet tall.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Giants
« Reply #3 on: Fri May 24, 2019 - 17:56:57 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Giants
« Reply #4 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 07:15:13 »
This is the famed Heidelberg man femur from South Africa.  If one scaled this according to normal human proportions, it would have been about 8 feet tall.   By comparision, the tallest known modern human was just short of 9 feet tall.

Are you always such a naysayer? Everyone else is always wrong or can be explained away by those quasi experts that you find acceptable?

Curiosity begs me to ask who you believe was the size of those in Gen 6:4?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Giants
« Reply #4 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 07:15:13 »



Online NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1911
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Giants
« Reply #5 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 08:04:18 »
Are you always such a naysayer? Everyone else is always wrong or can be explained away by those quasi experts that you find acceptable?

Curiosity begs me to ask who you believe was the size of those in Gen 6:4?

People using most modern translations would find this an odd question.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #6 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 09:14:09 »
Barbarian observes:
This is the famed Heidelberg man femur from South Africa.  If one scaled this according to normal human proportions, it would have been about 8 feet tall.   By comparison, the tallest known modern human was just short of 9 feet tall.

Are you always such a naysayer?

I'm just noting the evidence.   The femur us of a huge archaic human being.  Heidelberg man is archaic H. sapiens.   You think 8 feet qualifies as "giant?"   I'm inclined to think so.   Just because a modern human happened to be taller, doesn't change anything.

 
Quote
Everyone else is always wrong or can be explained away by those quasi experts that you find acceptable?

It's obviously archaic human.  Note the angle of the neck off the trochanter.  Human.  I don't even have a doctorate in human anatomy, and I can see it. 

Quote
Curiosity begs me to ask who you believe was the size of those in Gen 6:4?

The Church has no official teaching on this passage, although some ancient writers have speculated that the “sons of God” may have been fallen angels, given that Nephilim, a Hebrew word often rendered as “giants,” may also mean “fallen ones.” However, given that angels do not have bodies, which are needed for the procreation of human children—barring a miracle—and given that in heaven human beings live like angels and thus do not get married (Matt. 22:30), the identity of the “sons of God” points to mere humans


No one actually knows what "Nephilim" means, so it's fruitless to speculate.
« Last Edit: Sat May 25, 2019 - 09:28:09 by The Barbarian »

Offline seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Giants
« Reply #7 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 09:35:51 »
However, given that angels do not have bodies, which are needed for the procreation of human children—barring a miracle—

It has happened. Procreation without a human body.  (thinking Jesus here)

I will refer you to Hebrews 13:2

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

This seems to disprove your claim of  "given that angels do not have bodies,". And why not? if Jesus had a human body to get around on earth, why would angels here to do a job also not have a human body?
« Last Edit: Sat May 25, 2019 - 09:38:40 by seekingHiswisdom »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Giants
« Reply #8 on: Sat May 25, 2019 - 19:03:07 »
Some people are just rattled by facts.

Offline seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Giants
« Reply #9 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 07:51:38 »
Some people are just rattled by facts.

Referring to me by any chance?

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #10 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 08:38:43 »
Are you always such a naysayer? Everyone else is always wrong or can be explained away by those quasi experts that you find acceptable?

Curiosity begs me to ask who you believe was the size of those in Gen 6:4?

Barb fancies himself a "scientist" of the 100% sure and never wrong caliber. Until of course proved wrong, as they so very often are. Most of the time by one of their own of a slightly different caliber or perspective. Evolutionists of course have to admit that the world was once filled with plants and animals much larger than we have today, but they can't go there with humanity, it would cause big problems for certain aspects of their deep time fairy tale. I don't think they have enough faith in the true elasticity of their new religion. It has demonstrated great abilities of adaption and evolution shall we say, to conform to whatever evidence may be newly discovered.

There is a lot of evidence that this world at one point was better suited to bigger and better life forms than it now is. There is even an ever growing amount of evidence that humanity itself was more advanced at one point in time, than we are today in certain aspects and of course according to science of a different nature in a different world. All of this is easily within the range of reality for those who accept the creation and flood accounts for what they simply say. It is the deep timer evolutionists that run into problems with such. It just doesn't fit their scenario which they prefer above what scripture plainly states. They of course insist that it does not plainly state, what it plainly states. So be it.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #11 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 08:54:51 »
http://www.beforeus.com/email/article/article6_The_Lost_World_of_Giants.html

Entire presentation quote below was taken from may be viewed at above link.

Quote
THE LOST WORLD OF GIANTS

 
INTRODUCTION


"Bones of an alligator which was as long as a house and as tall as its ceilings have been found on the banks of the Amazon River in South America. Scientists estimate from the alligator's 1.5 metre skull that it was about 2.5 metres tall, and about 12 metres long. Professor Carl Frailey, from Overland Park, Kansas, said the creature probably weighed about 120 tonnes. 'This would make it heavier than Tyrannosaurus rex… the mightiest of dinosaur predators', he said." (The Sunday Mail, Brisbane, November 17, 1991)

Can you imagine it? Perhaps at this moment you are seated in a room that has a 2.5 meter (8 foot) ceiling. So now, fill up the room with the alligator's head and upper body, then walk out and back through the whole house. That's all alligator.

Essentially, everything in the fossil record was larger in the past than it is today.

The environmental conditions of that early world would exercise the full genetic viability of all life forms. There is evidence that the earth supported plant and animal life of fantastic size and numbers.

The fossil record shows that all terrestrial life has decreased in size. The largest members of the animal kingdom are either becoming extinct, or shrinking as if touched by a magic wand. Mammals were often twice the size of their current counterparts.

There were kangaroos as large as today's hippopotamuses, with skulls a meter long. Sheep were as big as today's horses. Frogs were 6 to 10 feet (2 to 3 meters), with heads half a meter long - and jaws more powerful than those of a modern ox. Fossil eagles have been found; these birds were 40 feet (13 meters) long and 12 feet (4 meters) high. Oh yes, and lobsters 6 feet (2 meters) long.

Australian koalas were as big as rhinos. In the northwest of South Australia, between 500 and 1,000 skeletons were found of a colossal wombat as large as a rhinoceros! It was given the name Diprotodon.

In New Zealand zoologists from Christchurch chipped out of a cave roof the fossil skeleton of a penguin 7 feet (2.2 meters) tall.

On the Matakaoa foreshore, near Te Araroa, were found preserved prints of a huge animal. The prints extended for some distance. Some were 28 inches (70 centimeters) in breadth.

Personnel at the Dominion Museum suggested the tracks might be those of either the Megatherium or the Labrynthodon, huge mammals estimated to have weighed up to 30 tons.

The Assistant-Director of the Auckland Institute and Museum wrote an article for the Auckland Star and objected to the foregoing information, since "such a statement is not in accordance with the modern scientific view of evolution and of geology." It was believed that New Zealand's wildlife had evolved in isolation independently from the rest of the world, hence its uniqueness. But if this were so, then these giants must have evolved parallel with the same giants INDEPENDENTLY in more than one place. This stretched credulity to the limit.

Well, perhaps we should begin to review our scientific theories!

In North and South America fossil crocodiles have been found in the rocks up to 18 meters (54 feet) long. Present-day Australian crocs are small by comparison and grow only to 6 meters (20 feet) long, and that is awesome enough. The coalfields around Manchester and Newcastle (UK) as well as those in Pennsylvania and Alabama (USA), contain giant fossil horse tail rush plants as tall as a five storey building. Today horse tails plague British and USA gardens at only 45 cm (18 inches) tall. The common Tasselfern found in Australia and other countries grows only a few feet tall, but in the rocks its fossil ancestors are over 30 meters (100 feet) tall. Alongside such giant preserved plants are fossil cockroaches, forty times bigger than the ones we see today.

On a Nova Scotia field trip led by Australian John Mackay, a giant fossil slater or wood louse was photographed. This monster has been found on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean amongst fossil trees in the coal fields of Nova Scotia and Western Scotland. The fossil was so well preserved that its stomach contents were intact. There is no difficulty in identifying it as a giant member of the wood lice or roly poly family which is still here with us. They used to be nearly 2 meters (6 feet) long. Today they are only about ½ inch (1 centimeter) long.

A huge fossil ammonite was discovered on the west coast of New Zealand. It is nearly 2 meters (6 feet) across. This giant shellfish's only known present day cousin is the Nautilus shell, which measures from 5 to 25 centimeters (2 to 10 inches).

Says English scientist Alfred Russell Wallace: "It is quite clear, therefore, that we live in a zoologically impoverished world, from which all the hugest and fiercest and strangest forms have disappeared." (The Geographical Distribution of Animals, pp. 150,151) Even Charles Darwin was astonished to discover that "now we find mere pigmies compared with the antecedent allied races." (Sir Henry Howarth, The Mammoth and the Flood, p. 351)

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #12 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 09:18:26 »
This is the famed Heidelberg man femur from South Africa.  If one scaled this according to normal human proportions, it would have been about 8 feet tall.   By comparision, the tallest known modern human was just short of 9 feet tall.

Others claim it would have been about twelve feet. By just looking, I would say it is at least twice the size of the normal bone if not a bit larger.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #13 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 09:19:42 »
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-human-finger.htm

If the testimony at the above link be true, it certainly creates some problems for the present evolutionary scenario.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #14 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 18:06:55 »
Barb fancies himself a "scientist" of the 100% sure and never wrong caliber.

Amo fancies himself a mind-reader.   My wife being a remarkably astute insurance analyst, I only have to walk across the room to be reminded of all the things I don't know. 

Quote
There is a lot of evidence that this world at one point was better suited to bigger and better life forms than it now is.

The record height for an anatomically modern human is almost a foot higher than your archaic H. sapiens.  So there is that.

Quote
There is even an ever growing amount of evidence that humanity itself was more advanced at one point in time, than we are today in certain aspects and of course according to science of a different nature in a different world.

Sounds intriguing.   Show us that evidence.   



 

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #15 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 18:20:57 »
Others claim it would have been about twelve feet.

Comes down to evidence.    Scaled up, it's about 8 feet.   Don't know why that's such a concern; the largest known anthropoid primate, Gigantopitheicus, was up to 10 feet tall.

Quote
By just looking, I would say it is at least twice the size of the normal bone if not a bit larger.

The neck of the trochanter (the only intact part for which we can measure length here) has it about 1.5X  the the length of the comparison femur.    So that would come out to about a 90 inch tall individual, or about 7 and a half feet, if the modern femur is average for human male.   NASA has a great anthropometry resource, which you can check for yourself:
https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #16 on: Sun May 26, 2019 - 18:24:56 »
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-human-finger.htm

If the testimony at the above link be true, it certainly creates some problems for the present evolutionary scenario.


Looking at the X-ray of the rock, it doesn't look remotely like the X-ray of a finger:




Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #17 on: Sat Jun 08, 2019 - 18:53:04 »
Looking at the X-ray of the rock, it doesn't look remotely like the X-ray of a finger:






No big surprise that a fossilized basically rock finger looks different than a flesh and bone finger when X-rayed.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #18 on: Sat Jun 08, 2019 - 19:13:19 »
Amo fancies himself a mind-reader.   My wife being a remarkably astute insurance analyst, I only have to walk across the room to be reminded of all the things I don't know. 

The record height for an anatomically modern human is almost a foot higher than your archaic H. sapiens.  So there is that.

Sounds intriguing.   Show us that evidence.

A whole lot of people are not buying the evolutionary model of history anymore. True enough, most of them still avoid the biblical scenario as well because they just don't want to go there. Even though that scenario supplies a good explanation for what they observe and or reject about evolution or most modern explanations of history. They lean toward alien influence or cyclical civilizations for an explanation of all the megalithic structures and apparent remanence of advanced societies and technology that doesn't fit the present evolutionary or historical narrative now prevalent. A whole lot of buried structures exist all over the world, which of course could easily indicate something like a global flood with huge mud flows and lava flows as well of course if the crust of the earth was broken open as the bible suggests. The following video takes a look at some of the evidence. The guy has some really good points concerning ancient construction techniques very similar to those of the present, and what seems to be left over indications of technology. He goes way overboard with his views in giants though and thinks the world and technology are much older than present narratives allow for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65n1csc96D0

More of his videos may be viewed at -

https://www.youtube.com/user/thc682132




Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #19 on: Sat Jun 08, 2019 - 21:36:47 »
No big surprise that a fossilized basically rock finger looks different than a flesh and bone finger when X-rayed.

If it was a petrified finger, an x-ray would have shown bones.  But there are none. Since the bones would have been calcium phosphate, the petrified soft tissues would have a different density, and there fore the finger bones would have shown up.  But as you see, no bones.   

A finger-shaped rock with no bones.


Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #20 on: Sat Jun 08, 2019 - 21:40:04 »
A whole lot of people are not buying the evolutionary model of history anymore.

Actually, it's the other way around.   More and more Americans are accepting what science has found:



Which of the sites your guy talks about have been proven to be buried by a world-wide flood, and what is the evidence for his belief?




 

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #21 on: Sun Jun 09, 2019 - 12:22:25 »
Actually, it's the other way around.   More and more Americans are accepting what science has found:



Which of the sites your guy talks about have been proven to be buried by a world-wide flood, and what is the evidence for his belief?

Just like the vast majority of all the fossils all over the world which even evolutionists freely admit or must confess were likely buried and preserved in flood conditions. There are buried remains of structures and even cities all over the world. Of course the most obvious and simple explanation is ignored.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #22 on: Sun Jun 09, 2019 - 16:16:02 »
Just like the vast majority of all the fossils all over the world which even evolutionists freely admit or must confess were likely buried and preserved in flood conditions.

No, that's wrong. For example, polystrate fossils require slow, periodic deposition over decades.   Oviraptor was found in a collapsed desert sand dune.   The very human-like Australopithecine tracks at Laetoli were made in the ash of a then-recent volcano eruption.   Fossil found in lake varves were buried gradually by thin layers, two per year. 

Archaeoptyrx was first found in what was an anoxic marsh mud.

The many early Cambrian fossils in the Burgess shale were found in a mudslide that buried a shore community in very placid waters.    As Kurt Wise points out, whale fossils are found in what creationists consider post-flood deposits, and that this is one of the toughest problems for creationism.

Quote
There are buried remains of structures and even cities all over the world. Of course the most obvious and simple explanation is ignored.

The most obvious and simple explanation would be that floods and other natural disasters are common phenomena on the Earth and that this is why we find those remains.    The fantastic and complicated explanation would be that a worldwide flood did it all at once, and somehow made it look as though it happened in many separate incidents.

But to address your claim, you now see that it's just the opposite of what you said.   More and more people are accepting the fact that living things evolve from other living things.
« Last Edit: Sun Jun 09, 2019 - 16:18:35 by The Barbarian »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #23 on: Mon Jun 10, 2019 - 03:51:09 »
No, that's wrong. For example, polystrate fossils require slow, periodic deposition over decades.   Oviraptor was found in a collapsed desert sand dune.   The very human-like Australopithecine tracks at Laetoli were made in the ash of a then-recent volcano eruption.   Fossil found in lake varves were buried gradually by thin layers, two per year. 

Archaeoptyrx was first found in what was an anoxic marsh mud.

The many early Cambrian fossils in the Burgess shale were found in a mudslide that buried a shore community in very placid waters.    As Kurt Wise points out, whale fossils are found in what creationists consider post-flood deposits, and that this is one of the toughest problems for creationism.

The most obvious and simple explanation would be that floods and other natural disasters are common phenomena on the Earth and that this is why we find those remains.    The fantastic and complicated explanation would be that a worldwide flood did it all at once, and somehow made it look as though it happened in many separate incidents.

But to address your claim, you now see that it's just the opposite of what you said.   More and more people are accepting the fact that living things evolve from other living things.

Baloney! They are all in mud and or flood conditions. Large amounts of mud spread around is a flood condition. Nor do you or yours know the exact conditions which created the fossils but in your own puffed up minds as self proclaimed prophets of exactly what happened ions ago. Neither is this to say, that all fossils are flood related. Do I need to post one article after another after another again from your own, referring to flood conditions as the likely cause of so many fossils?

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #24 on: Mon Jun 10, 2019 - 04:03:03 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rctoqWu3i0

As so very many have come to realize, at a certain point in time going back in observing the evidence, it becomes apparent that ancient structures and tech were more advanced further back in time. Much of this advanced construction was used and built upon by less advanced peoples who came after these original builders were gone, and there knowledge with them. It may very well be that the megalithic structures are remnants of the preflood world either left on the surface or discovered below it by post flood less advanced people. Or perhaps they are remnants of lost knowledge from Noah and his immediate descendants as humanity rapidly devolved mentally and physically in an changed world no longer adapt to providing the proper conditions for people and creatures as large or with the longevity the former world could support.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #25 on: Mon Jun 10, 2019 - 07:39:34 »
Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. For example, polystrate fossils require slow, periodic deposition over decades.   Oviraptor was found in a collapsed desert sand dune.   The very human-like Australopithecine tracks at Laetoli were made in the ash of a then-recent volcano eruption.   Fossil found in lake varves were buried gradually by thin layers, two per year.

Archaeoptyrx was first found in what was an anoxic marsh mud.

The many early Cambrian fossils in the Burgess shale were found in a mudslide that buried a shore community in very placid waters.    As Kurt Wise points out, whale fossils are found in what creationists consider post-flood deposits, and that this is one of the toughest problems for creationism.

The most obvious and simple explanation would be that floods and other natural disasters are common phenomena on the Earth and that this is why we find those remains.    The fantastic and complicated explanation would be that a worldwide flood did it all at once, and somehow made it look as though it happened in many separate incidents.

But to address your claim, you now see that it's just the opposite of what you said.   More and more people are accepting the fact that living things evolve from other living things.

Baloney!

Sorry, denial won't change reality.   

Quote
They are all in mud and or flood conditions.

Nope.  See above.   Even worse for your story are the insect nests found in petrified soil half way down in the Grand Canyon.   Think you can explain what insects were doing, building nests in the middle of the flood?

 
Quote
Large amounts of mud spread around is a flood condition.

It's also a normal erosion condition.    You've got Zebra's syndrome.   You hear hooves, and you say "Aha!  Zebra!"

Quote
Nor do you or yours know the exact conditions which created the fossils...

Actually,l paleontologists know very precisely what caused these fossils.  But in your own puffed up mind as a self proclaimed prophet, you think you imagine exactly what happened eons ago.

You imagine one big flood when the geologic record and human history shows many individual floods.

 
 

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #26 on: Mon Jun 10, 2019 - 08:05:27 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rctoqWu3i0

As so very many have come to realize, at a certain point in time going back in observing the evidence, it becomes apparent that ancient structures and tech were more advanced further back in time.


Hmmm... no, that doesn't seem to be the case.   The earliest known built structures were constructed of mammoth bones stacked up to produce shelters.  Not very sophisticated.

Later, we see stone structures, made from rocks shaped to fit together.   

Gobekli Tepe, in Turkey, is the oldest known city, apparently built by hunter-gatherers who didn't farm.


Doesn't look that sophisticated to me. 

Henges of the monolith culture exist around the coastline of Europe.    Perhaps the most sophisticated is Stonehenge:
 

It seems to have been a sort of calendar/observatory for marking things like solstices and maybe eclipses.   But still very primitive structurally.

Mesopotamian civilizations moved a bit beyond that, with much better stone cutting and brick making. 

The Egyptian pyramids were the culmination of a long history of development from primitive mastabas to Djoser's Step Pyramid, to the final pyramids at Giza.   None were breakthroughs in building technique.   




The Arch was a true innovation, apparently invented by the Etruscans and developed fully by the Romans.   Much later, the more efficient catenary arch was developed.
 
Nothing to indicate anything other than the accumulation of knowledge over time.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #27 on: Wed Jun 12, 2019 - 19:20:34 »
More baloney from Barb.

Here is another video from Wise Up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOtu8g0y70A

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #28 on: Wed Jun 12, 2019 - 21:37:54 »
More baloney from Barb.

Here is another video from Wise Up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOtu8g0y70A

Yes, buildings tended to be built with stone in the stone age, and after.  The Porcena  Grotto appears to be Etruscan, who were iron age people.


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #29 on: Fri Jun 14, 2019 - 08:52:25 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0M8JqyPzpg

Some good points and or questions about the bogus narrative given to us by the likes of Barb and those who think we already know it all. We can't even get the truth about what is happening today around the world, let alone thousands of years ago. Agenda driven news twisting facts to their own ends isn't just a recent development. The widely accepted evolutionary and historical narrative is no different. Self confident and promoting "scientists and historians" have and continue to pass their own speculative narratives off as indisputable truth. There will always be those though, who prefer to do a little thinking for themselves.

Once again, the biblical global flood scenario could supply answers to the obvious gaping holes in the present narrative being questioned in the video provided. Most simply choose not to go there, because they don't like the truths which it leads to. 

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #30 on: Fri Jun 14, 2019 - 09:04:49 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #31 on: Fri Jun 14, 2019 - 09:19:22 »
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=underground+cities+burrowewd+or+buried&&view=detail&mid=97069D1982042182B30097069D1982042182B300&&FORM=VDRVRV

More. Structures and cities carved or cut out of rock and earth, of more likely dug back out having been buried by floods or the flood.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #32 on: Fri Jun 14, 2019 - 09:30:33 »
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=underground+cities+burrowewd+or+buried&&view=detail&mid=94B5594B15013C9F914194B5594B15013C9F9141&&FORM=VDRVRV

This video is just another Baloney narrative regarding underground cities buried long ago and dug out or discovered and used by later generations.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • Manna: 136
Re: Giants
« Reply #33 on: Fri Jun 14, 2019 - 14:58:07 »
None of these seem particularly technologically advanced.   They seem perfectly possible to build with technology known to exist at the time.


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4159
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Giants
« Reply #34 on: Sat Jun 15, 2019 - 09:02:25 »
None of these seem particularly technologically advanced.   They seem perfectly possible to build with technology known to exist at the time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and state that they were absolutely built with technology and or knowledge which existed at their time. That of curse is not the question. Just like the evolution creation debate, the same evidence is here to be examined by all. Just how old it is, what exactly it was, and how technologically advanced or knowledgable the builders were, are some of the areas of disagreement among those examining the same. There will of course be difference of opinions among those of different world views. Deep time evolutionists, young earth creationists, those of the alien influence mindset, and those of the cyclical civilizations mindset, to mention a few. They are all looking at the same evidence.