Now now Aqueous, I know it's easy to get riled up when people can't be bothered to review their own sources, but just take a moment to take a breath and calm down. No need to start attacking the person now. Just do what you do best and just stick to the facts, k?
Ancient Giants of America
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Now now Aqueous, I know it's easy to get riled up when people can't be bothered to review their own sources, but just take a moment to take a breath and calm down. No need to start attacking the person now. Just do what you do best and just stick to the facts, k?
Alek Wek. Dinka Tribe. Top Model.
Sorry to snip the quote Cap - just commenting on the picture... damn she doesn't exactly look to be healthy here - very thin for her height, I would almost say Gaunt, and her legs look incredibly slim like they have virtually no muscle at all... and maybe it's just the way those shoes (I've always despised high heels and the way they muck with posture and the alignment of the body) are screwing with her body, but her very stance just seems to scream that she's only upright by some sheer force of willpower...
A tall woman with skinny legs does not look attractive in a short dress and high heels.
She looks like a bean pole.
Not a good picture of her I'd imagine.
Women will only achieve parity with men when they feel no need to dress like this.
@River
Hey, River, where are you?
I'm agreeing with you.
There were giant American Indians.
Fact.
She looks like a bean pole.
Not a good picture of her I'd imagine.
Women will only achieve parity with men when they feel no need to dress like this.
@River
Hey, River, where are you?
I'm agreeing with you.
There were giant American Indians.
Fact.
One almost gets the impression that the 19th century itself is some kind of magic wand which "giant skeptics" wave around for rendering these accounts invalid. But there actually are specific reasons for dismissing individual cases, as well as the broader reason of them being incongruous with the history uncovered by anthropology, archeology, and other sciences. Unfortunately, the gullible support far outnumbers the debunking material (though that's hardly surprising). Giving a misplaced confidence to the causal browser of the web that "little visible criticism of _X_ equals _X_ being legitimate fact".
When Giants Roamed the Earth
Mark Rose: White nonetheless recognized immediately that the giant was a hoax: it was obviously a statue, and not a very good one, and there was no reason for the two laborers to have been digging a well at the spot they found it. Even so, White overheard "a very excellent doctor of divinity, pastor of one of the largest churches in Syracuse" declare that, "Is it not strange that any human being, after seeing this wonderfully preserved figure, can deny the evidence of his senses, and refuse to believe, what is so evidently the fact, that we have here a fossilized human being, perhaps one of the giants mentioned in Scripture?"
"Therefore it was," recalled White, "that, in spite of all scientific reasons to the contrary, the work was very generally accepted as a petrified human being of colossal size, and became known as 'the Cardiff Giant.'"
[...]
For Josiah Priest, writing in his American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West, ancient North America had been crowded with Egyptians, Romans, Lost Tribes of Israel, "Hindoos," and others. And giants? Priest cites Scripture on giants and notes, "There are those who imagine that the first inhabitants of the globe, or the antediluvians, were much larger than our race at the present time." And he reports discoveries such as one in Indiana of "several sculls, legs and thigh bones, which plainly show that their possessors were persons of gigantic stature." Laughable today, American Antiquities was a bestseller when it appeared in 1835, going through five editions and 22,000 copies.
The evidence is quite extensive for these giants
Regardless of the time in which they were found
An inch , is an inch , is an inch , regardless whether is was now or 200yrs ago
The fact remains that these giants remains were found
Twist it around all you like , but this twisting doesn't change the evidence found
Regardless of the time in which they were found
An inch , is an inch , is an inch , regardless whether is was now or 200yrs ago
The fact remains that these giants remains were found
Twist it around all you like , but this twisting doesn't change the evidence found
Its not a matter of belief , its a matter of evidence
And the evidence is obviously supplied
You believe the evidence, correct?
You believe that it's genuine rather than fraudulent, correct?
Of course
So then you can't claim it's not a matter of belief.
Ah ...I see what your getting at , its about belief
Then no its not about belief
It is about real evidence , real physical evidence
The evidence is all there and there is many , many findings of
I don't know about that. Do you "believe" in evolution?
But it is fair to say river is exhibiting a belief, however, because he doesn't actually have evidence. What he has are a bunch of doctored photos, fables, and legends, that he chooses to accept instead of the actual historical and scientific record.
Sure
But has this got to do with this topic ?
What actually is not evidence ?
What photos are doctored
The historical and scientific record is all there
It wasn't addressed to you.
Anything you've presented to this point.
I dunno, the ones where the guys are digging out gigantic human skeletons?
No, it isn't. You don't seem to care where your information comes from. I could tell you that I have personally seen a 35-foot-tall human skeleton, and you'd believe me, and later cite my story as evidence. You're far too credulous.
The thing is that , I'm talking about the giants of Ancient America
Which has nothing to do with this , lone photo
A quote from Arthur Schopenhauer , and I Quote
" All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second, it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. "
Right now we are at stage 1
Which has nothing to do with this , lone photo
A quote from Arthur Schopenhauer , and I Quote
" All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second, it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. "
Right now we are at stage 1
Personally I would have said: Do you believe "in" evolution, and I class myself as an 'empirical sceptic'.
I consider that I posess the rational belief that evolution is the best description we currently have of speciation and diversification, however, that belief is open to being reconsidered should sufficient evidence be presented to me. I don't claim to know it because I'm educated enough to understand how little I actually understand. I'm a chemist with a broad background knowledge of other sciences (I would generally class myself as something of a polymath). I don't have an especially in depth knowledge of evolutionary biology, however, I have studied second and third year Paelonotology at University (my degree was supposed to be a chem/geology double major). The evidence that I have been able to assess of my own accord leads me to accept the hypothesis, or some similar variation of it and is sufficient for me to place some degree of trust, which could be considered rational faith according to the definition of faith as being "a strong belief or trust in someone or something" in evolutionary biologists that they are presenting a true, correct, and accurate picture and interpretation of their evidence. This is neccessary because I do not have the neccessary expertise, or indeed, the time, to repeat every experiment of every evolutionary biologist to confirm my findings - which is the alternative to having rational faith in their evidence. The strength of that rational faith is as strong as they evidence they are able to present.
This is in opposition to religous faith, or the "unquestioning faith of a child" talked about in the christian bible, which requires the acceptance of assertions regardless of the available evidence.
To quote Tim Minchin's Storm, starting around 5m30s (big-boy pants required for the video and quote).
I think that you'll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as any fundamentalist
Wow that's a good point, let me think for a bit.
Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
If you show me that say, homeopathy works
Then I will change my mind, I will spin on a fucking dime.
I'll be as embarresed as hell, yet I will run through the streets yelling "IT'S A MIRACLE! TAKE PHYSICS AND BIN IT! Water has memory, and while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!"
You show me that it works, and how it works, and why it works, and when I have recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my cock.
Because the word has been so thoroughly co-opted by modern socio-political rhetoric, I generally try and avoid using it, especially since so many of the phrases where its use in this context could be considered accurate are colloquial, but here, sometimes I slip into lazier writing. But I followed, to some degree at least, the debate yourself, paddoboy, Dumbest Man on Earth and one or two others, and it's not a debate I've ever been particularly interested in having.
I agree, it's bordering on relgious faith, as illustrated by his blatant refusal to consider any opposing viewpoints and his arbitrary dismissal of opposing arguments. This is no different, in my opinion, to the irrational religious faith that the likes of Undefined or Farsight have in their hypotheses, however, consider the context of my statement and I think you will understand that that is precisely the point that I was making to river.
Observe:
River was claiming that his position was not one of belief, and I was pointing out to him that it fundamentally is.
It fundamentally is about belief.
You believe you are correct.
You believe the evidence is accurate.
More to the point, so far you are displaying all of the classic shows of religious faith in an idea.
As I said, it fundamentally is about belief.
In my post #18 , I said FACT , if you care to take the time , its about an hour , about the mounds and giant skeletons found ( about the last 20-25 minutes of the video )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4sI34aIZ0