Giants

[MichaelScott]

Following the scientific method which includes any theory must be capable of falsification in order to be rationally considered at all removes personal bias. Undoubtedly everyone has their biases, but science done as actual science accounts for and eliminates those.

There are actual plains Indian stories that tell of talking buffalos that marry Indian women and produce offspring. Like any ideology this idea had many tribal adherents. Similar to 450 foot angel-human hybrids.

I’m not suggesting what people should or should not believe. I’m merely stating that belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. If someone believes that the jet contrails in the sky are actually chemicals being discharged by the government to keep our minds under control, and I know people who really believe this, then I say they are certainly entitled to their belief but without real evidence, it has no connection to reality.

[Doc Dan]

There is no such thing as purely objective science. That is a myth. Every time a person examines anything there is going to be a bias of some sort, no matter what. Even computers can be biased as they are only as good as the (faulty and biased) programmer. The best we can do is eliminate as many biases and other issues that we can.

[tvenuto]

There is no such thing as purely objective science. That is a myth. Every time a person examines anything there is going to be a bias of some sort, no matter what. Even computers can be biased as they are only as good as the (faulty and biased) programmer. The best we can do is eliminate as many biases and other issues that we can.

If only they had thought of a way around this....

Blinded experiment.

Sources of error are always going to be present but they can be noted and accounted for.

[The Meat man]

There is no such thing as purely objective science. That is a myth. Every time a person examines anything there is going to be a bias of some sort, no matter what. Even computers can be biased as they are only as good as the (faulty and biased) programmer. The best we can do is eliminate as many biases and other issues that we can.

If only they had thought of a way around this....


Sources of error are always going to be present but they can be noted and accounted for.

Tvenuto, I believe that Doc has a valid point. Blind tests help but the problem is not solved there. It goes further than that. The other issue is that our interpretation of evidence is always affected by our individual worldview.

Remember the context of this discussion is of questions of ancient history, not present day lab experiments. The two different fields of study require two differing approaches. One cannot conduct a double blind scientific test to prove or disprove the possible existence of ancient giants.

When dealing with past events, especially ancient history, there will almost always be some degree of uncertainty which will leave room for different interpretations and different opinions, all of which may not be entirely implausible.

[MichaelScott]

It all comes down to evidence. Without it there is only belief and opinion. Appeals to authority are not relevant.

[The Meat man]

It all comes down to evidence. Without it there is only belief and opinion. Appeals to authority are not relevant.

I agree, Michael. My point though, is that when dealing with questions of this sort, what constitutes "evidence" is often not as clearly defined as might be wished, and thus leaves room for differing interpretations of said evidence.

[cabfrank]

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

[JD Spydo]

Those are some good points you are making "Meat Man" Because there is always so much subjective information being thrown about when referring to historical events and accounts of records of almost anything in the past.

Take dinosaurs for instance>> Many Bible believers like myself think that the world is only 6500 to 7000 years old :eek: There is just no way possible that can be. An archaeologist I talked to told me that they tested the stonework at Puma Punku and it was well over 10,000 years old and some scientists think the precision cut stones at that site could even be much, much older than that.

Also I happen to believe there was a "Pre-Adamite" ( Before Adam & Eve) civilization. All the ancient cities they are now finding very deep under water off many shorelines prove to me that something big was going on even before Noah or any of his contemporaries were ever born. Like this topic we are on i.e. "THE GIANTS"
There are just so many indicators that they did indeed exist before and after the flood IMO. I do find extremely interesting that most of the books on the subject are all pretty recent which I find interesting and baffling at the same time :confused: The Native American accounts of the Giants being here on the North American shelf at one time is pretty solid proof to me that most of the history books we learned about in school are indeed up for debate.

Because I've seen enough evidence to be fairly certain that at least 3 other explorers found this great land before Columbus did. I guess it all boils down to this>> There is a great deal more that we do not know than we are led to believe. Some of my own family's accounts of the Civil War didn't even match up with what any of the history books told us in my humble opinion. At this point I just want to know when the Biblical Giants did finally die off or were killed and conquered?

[The Meat man]

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

This is also true. We are constantly uncovering more archeological discoveries and expanding our knowledge of the distant past.


Well JD, I'm one of them. :) I believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and I think there is good evidence supporting a young Earth. However I will be the first to acknowledge that the evidence as we understand it does not lie entirely on one side or the other. There are good cases to be made for both viewpoints.

I haven't looked into the subject of ancient giants very much but I have found this thread to be quite interesting, and I think there are lots of discoveries yet to be made. :)

[Doc Dan]

It all comes down to evidence. Without it there is only belief and opinion. Appeals to authority are not relevant.

Appeals to authority are not relevant, and yet that is precisely what is happening. People are appealing to the authority of the scientists without checking it out for themselves. This is a logical problem.

There was a noted scientist about 10 years or a bit more ago who was making major breakthroughs in her field. She and her team were making one breakthrough after another. Billions were spent on research, dissertations written based on her research, and etc. Finally, someone decided to put the 'evidence' to the test and repeat what she had done. It turned out it was all fraud except the first breakthrough. She said it was the pressure to perform that caused her to do these things. There is a lot of pressure to conform, and we should recognize this. Science is always, always about questioning the evidence, or it is not science.

However, unless we want to go back every day and retest, we have to trust these authorities, therefore, there is a potential weakness and logical problem.

[Doc Dan]

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

This is also true. We are constantly uncovering more archeological discoveries and expanding our knowledge of the distant past.


Well JD, I'm one of them. :) I believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and I think there is good evidence supporting a young Earth. However I will be the first to acknowledge that the evidence as we understand it does not lie entirely on one side or the other. There are good cases to be made for both viewpoints.

I haven't looked into the subject of ancient giants very much but I have found this thread to be quite interesting, and I think there are lots of discoveries yet to be made. :)

I do not at all think the earth is 6000 years old. That is to completely misunderstand the Bible and actual hard science. What I do believe, and there is mounting evidence to back this up, is that there were human civilizations here for a very long time that were destroyed in the Great Flood (probably caused by a meteor or comet strike on the ice shelf that fractured the earth's crust and melted the ice caps, flooding the earth, darkening the skies, and bringing about the extinction of most animals and people). I think it is clear the earth is very old (by our standards) and things were changed after the Flood significantly, so much so that it even effected human longevity. We still have not recovered from that disaster.

[MichaelScott]

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

yes it does. if one claims that something exists,then there must be evidence of its existence or the claim is only one of belief. you can claim anything you want but that doesn’t make it real, only evidence does.

[Sjucaveman]

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.

yes it does. if one claims that something exists,then there must be evidence of its existence or the claim is only one of belief. you can claim anything you want but that doesn’t make it real, only evidence does.

Michael you cannot prove a negative.

[cabfrank]

Yeah, Michael, no offense but that is incorrect. Just because you can't see or find something, or prove that it is there, does not mean it is not.

[Doc Dan]

They are correct, I am afraid. This is the old logical fallacy: There is no such thing as a Chinese person. I know hundreds of people and have seen many more and not one of them is or was Chinese. Therefore, Chinese do not exist.

[MichaelScott]

You are missing the point. Let’s substitute aliens for Chinese. You can say all you want that aliens exist, but unless you can produce one (evidence) its only your belief or opinion.

[Doc Dan]

You are missing the point. Let’s substitute aliens for Chinese. You can say all you want that aliens exist, but unless you can produce one (evidence) its only your belief or opinion.

What is actually means is that I would have no evidence of aliens but I cannot say whether they exist or not. However, there might be enough circumstantial (to me, at this point) indications that there is a probability that they exist. I can say no more than that. To say it is mere belief is not logical.

In this group we are also dealing with another fallacy that runs like this: Millions of people have seen unknown lights in the night sky. Alien life on other planets is fast becoming a reality.

[The Meat man]

It stands to reason that a thing's existence does not depend upon our understanding of it.

Michael, wouldn't you say that "belief" can also be based, at least to some degree, on evidence? I mean certainly there is such a thing as blind belief or faith, but I would say that there can also be belief that is based on evidence, especially in a case where the evidence may be incomplete, but which points to a reasonable conclusion. In such a case, one would not have proof, or even conclusive evidence: and yet the belief would be based in reason and evidence.

We have been straying a bit off topic but I have found it to be a very interesting discussion so far. Thanks to all participating!

[JD Spydo]

It stands to reason that a thing's existence does not depend upon our understanding of it.

We have been straying a bit off topic but I have found it to be a very interesting discussion so far. Thanks to all participating!

I agree with your last statement "Meat Man" :) When we've been on topic it has been a very interesting thread. The Giants did exist!! there is no longer any doubt in my mind. Just the Native American testimonies alone convince me notwithstanding the Biblical accounts>> and please folks I respect all of you who don't believe in the Bible. I have a few very good friends who are Athiest and we get along great for the most part.

I didn't used to be a believer in scripture but I've seen enough evidence in people's lives as well as solid evidence of this planet being a creation of the Almighty>> frankly I can't come up with any other plausible explanation. After reading a lot of stuff by Joseph Lumpkin, Timothy Alberino, Steve Quayle, Richard Dewhurst and several other scholars that have presented rock solid evidence on the existence of ancient giants. And King David's battle with the Phillistine giant Goliath is only one of several accounts I find to be valid.

There have also been several accounts in the ancient civilizations in South America ( especially Peru, Bolivia and Brazil). But again the accounts of Native American tribes is so convincing. I would love to know more about those accounts that several scholars have documented in the Solomon Islands.

[James Y]

There have also been reports of giants in Malta; even supposed sightings in recent times.

Jim