There were Giants in days of old

[Genersis]

Fine be sceptical, I like to read stuff that supports the biblical history....SORRY.
Its a Christian site. Others might find it interesting as well.
Ancient stories are not evidence, so what constitutes ancient evidence, rock paintings?
And YES one of the reasons I posted this article is it supports the biblical perspective, it supports the bible.....
So what??

The reason i asked about the bible was because I was wondering why anyone would want to believe in the existence of giants so badly.
Don't get me wrong, that would be cool, but i'm just not buying any of this stuff.

What are you getting at with rock paintings?

 

[Born to Watch]

This sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. If I'm not mistaken BtW, your belief in the bible relies on dismissing all the evidence with respect to the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, etc., etc..

I am glad my belief system is not built on such shaky ground!

This will turn in to a boring evo creo argument and I have yet to see solid evidence the earth is as old as the pseudo science/religion of atheism teaches.

The whole Geological time scale is wrong and is a 200 year old science theory that is proven false yet all evolution hangs on it as fact.

You believe with all your heart what you want to believe.
For mine I believe in creation and @ 7-8 thousand year old Earth and Giants.
If I am proven wrong then I miss understood the bibles teachings. I can live with not knowing everything.

For mine evolution is a lie, unproven and heretical.
Live with it. I have seen no evidence, lots of theory and no evidence ever.


Rock paintings were all drawn the week before they were discovered by naughty graffiti artists to tease scientists. They are all faked, every rock painting ever.

 

[Genersis]

This will turn in to a boring evo creo argument and I have yet to see solid evidence the earth is as old as the pseudo science/religion of atheism teaches.

The whole Geological time scale is wrong and is a 200 year old science theory that is proven false yet all evolution hangs on it as fact.

You believe with all your heart what you want to believe.
For mine I believe in creation and @ 7-8 thousand year old Earth and Giants.
If I am proven wrong then I miss understood the bibles teachings. I can live with not knowing everything.

For mine evolution is a lie, unproven and heretical.
Live with it. I have seen no evidence, lots of theory and no evidence ever.


Rock paintings were all drawn the week before they were discovered by naughty graffiti artists to tease scientists. They are all faked, every rock painting ever.

Do you even know what any of those things are?
I'm led to believe you don't by what you said either before or after those words/phrases...

So rock paintings thought to be painted by the ancient humans of the time are denied, but a dubious foot print left by a one footed giant of which we haven't even confirmed if they exist yet is perfectly reasonable to accept.
PLEASE tell me you are being sarcastic or trolling?

 

[Born to Watch]

No no no.
The rock paintings were done by graffiti aliens, maybe I forgot to explain that bit!

 

[Genersis]

No no no.
The rock paintings were done by graffiti aliens, maybe I forgot to explain that bit!

Good.
Now i know never take your posts seriously ever again.

 

[gasman64]

Your giant foot post makes me think you have interests in a giant shoe factory....so tell me. How's business?

 

[tBCfC]

The whole Geological time scale is wrong and is a 200 year old science theory that is proven false yet all evolution hangs on it as fact.

"Proven false"? Anyone who did that would probably get the Nobel prize. And correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has.

For mine evolution is a lie, unproven and heretical.

So you're saying the Pope is a heretic?

Live with it. I have seen no evidence, lots of theory and no evidence ever.

There's more evidence for evolution than there is for your trumped up idea that the CIA funds the Greens!

Seriously, you seem to have a very badly calibrated nonsense compass!

 

[WayonDown]

I don't really think this thread needed to go any further past the second post. "mathclub" pretty much ended it where it should have. If that was solid rock and someone tried to leave a footprint, the amount of weight (force) that's required to leave an imprint like that would sooner shatter the rock. The other alternative is that it was formed by someone stepping on molten lava (and then staying that for a while while the rock hardened) which is highly unlikely and completely devoid of both reason and any evidence. Who's not to say that some individual with shady motives went and chiseled that out themselves? That print looks awfully fresh.

God created an orderly world, full of reason and logic. Faith is one thing, but when you start trying to put your own misguided faith-based ideas into something that is clearly not needing anything like that, you're in error and just water down God-given reason. Insisting that the Earth is 7000-years-old is like insisting the Earth is flat; no one really cares, you can continue believing what you want, luckily it has no impact on progressing scientific research.

If you have a big problem with science in general (which by your posts you seem to do) please get off the computer and the internet, don't dabble with anything that is a product of scientific endeavour, and by the way, the Earth being millions and millions of years old is not a 200-year-old theory.

 

[Blessedj01]

Easy answer. Shaquille O'neal left that footprint. He must have been doing some dunk practice...and landed on the rock.

I kid you not. He wore size 22 custom shoes.

http://largefeet.com/images/news/bruce_05.jpg

 

[WayonDown]

Easy answer. Shaquille O'neal left that footprint. He must have been doing some dunk practice...and landed on the rock.

The real question is where his other foot landed, and to complete the investigation; whether the dunk was successful.

 

[Blessedj01]

...probably successful, unless it was a free-throw.

 

[bazlynda]

This is a disappointing thread, and shouldn't be as long as it is.
I am quite comfortable with young earth creationism but even I wouldn't consider this to be a Giant's footprint.
Rather than argue about what we might want to believe, lets look at the facts.
It is in granite, which basically rules it out as a foot print immediately.
Granite is easily weathered and is capable of forming different weathering patterns. It is a bit like seeing a rabbit in the clouds - it doesn't mean there is a rabbit up there.
And if you look at the actual picture there are a number of weathering patterns in the same rock.
Also, there is only one footprint, not a series.
The footprint is at least 4 times the size of a normal footprint. I can't really see a Giant that is 24 feet tall having the exact same shape foot as a 6 foot human.
There are enough scientific arguments for creationism that we don't need to let such ridiculous claims take up our time.
It is not a footprint, merely a weathered rock that looks like a footprint.
Thats an easy win to Mathclub !

 

[Humble Pie]

Good for a pub yarn

 

[Born to Watch]

This is a disappointing thread, and shouldn't be as long as it is.
I am quite comfortable with young earth creationism but even I wouldn't consider this to be a Giant's footprint.
Rather than argue about what we might want to believe, lets look at the facts.
It is in granite, which basically rules it out as a foot print immediately.
Granite is easily weathered and is capable of forming different weathering patterns. It is a bit like seeing a rabbit in the clouds - it doesn't mean there is a rabbit up there.
And if you look at the actual picture there are a number of weathering patterns in the same rock.
Also, there is only one footprint, not a series.
The footprint is at least 4 times the size of a normal footprint. I can't really see a Giant that is 24 feet tall having the exact same shape foot as a 6 foot human.
There are enough scientific arguments for creationism that we don't need to let such ridiculous claims take up our time.
It is not a footprint, merely a weathered rock that looks like a footprint.
Thats an easy win to Mathclub !

You should change your user name to "The Oracle" because you suggest you seem to know everything.
Yes its in granite suggesting IT WAS TAKEN FROM A PREEXISTING FOOTPRINT a (MOLD).
Its a foot print not a weathering pattern, if it was a weathering pattern why is it unique, why are there not millions of footprint weathering patterns just like it?
Its not in the clouds, its on a ROCK
There are a number of other weathering patterns true, but they dont look like footprints or hand prints or IPhones do they....again it is unique.

WOW one footprint not a series, thinking its a one footed kangaroo man giant now, or maybe there was only one print saved.
Australopithecus is based on a few bones found scattered over kilometers and science bases evolution of humanity on these few bones.

One footprint you said, one footprint. Thats the only logical statement in your whole post. You recognise it as a footprint. Well done

Genesis 6:4 KJV There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I dont see it as a win to mathclub or a win to me, only confirmation the accuracy of the bible.

 

[WayonDown]

You should change your user name to "The Oracle" because you suggest you seem to know everything.
Yes its in granite suggesting IT WAS TAKEN FROM A PREEXISTING FOOTPRINT a (MOLD).
Its a foot print not a weathering pattern, if it was a weathering pattern why is it unique, why are there not millions of footprint weathering patterns just like it?
Its not in the clouds, its on a ROCK
There are a number of other weathering patterns true, but they dont look like footprints or hand prints or IPhones do they....again it is unique.

WOW one footprint not a series, thinking its a one footed kangaroo man giant now, or maybe there was only one print saved.
Australopithecus is based on a few bones found scattered over kilometers and science bases evolution of humanity on these few bones.

One footprint you said, one footprint. Thats the only logical statement in your whole post. You recognise it as a footprint. Well done

Genesis 6:4 KJV There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I dont see it as a win to mathclub or a win to me, only confirmation the accuracy of the bible.

Your points are so far off track, there's no point in even arguing this further.

You don't even realise the consequences of what you're babbling about:

"why are there not millions of footprint weathering patterns just like it?"

- IF there were millions of weathering patterns that looked like footprints, what do you think that would mean? It would most probably mean they WERE footprints, perhaps that's the only time your train of thought would be right. The very fact that there isn't millions of footprints means it's most probably not one and quite possibly a weathering pattern.

Why aren't you asking the other most obvious question instead of ranting and raving and claiming it's a giant foot print, have you considered someone could have faked it?

Scientific conclusions are drawn after repeated tests, observations and excluding any possibilities. Claiming one footprint is the work of some ancient giant is not even remotely scientific, so go ahead and believe it if you want to, but don't come dancing in here expecting people to accept these things as some kind of "evidence" - empirical evidence is a scientific process, not a faith-based one.

What is God doing, playing hide-and-seek with footprints? Just because the Bible said there were giants in those days, doesn't mean THIS is from one of them.

 

[Born to Watch]

Your points are so far off track, there's no point in even arguing this further.

You don't even realise the consequences of what you're babbling about:

"why are there not millions of footprint weathering patterns just like it?"

- IF there were millions of weathering patterns that looked like footprints, what do you think that would mean? It would most probably mean they WERE footprints, perhaps that's the only time your train of thought would be right. The very fact that there isn't millions of footprints means it's most probably not one and quite possibly a weathering pattern.

Why aren't you asking the other most obvious question instead of ranting and raving and claiming it's a giant foot print, have you considered someone could have faked it?

Scientific conclusions are drawn after repeated tests, observations and excluding any possibilities. Claiming one footprint is the work of some ancient giant is not even remotely scientific, so go ahead and believe it if you want to, but don't come dancing in here expecting people to accept these things as some kind of "evidence" - empirical evidence is a scientific process, not a faith-based one.

What is God doing, playing hide-and-seek with footprints? Just because the Bible said there were giants in those days, doesn't mean THIS is from one of them.

What?
I am not making and havnt made assumptions.
I am just pointing out the error in the post I quoted. It is possible it was faked and I wasnt denying that.
The question or statement of it being faked was not raised, now toddle off and play with your friends, I havnt the time for your silly arguments.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What?
I am not making and havnt made assumptions.
I am just pointing out the error in the post I quoted. It is possible it was faked and I wasnt denying that.
The question or statement of it being faked was not raised, now toddle off and play with your friends, I havnt the time for your silly arguments.

Actually the possibility of it being faked was first raised in post #2, then repeated in several subsequent posts.

So why don't you toddle off and play with your friends instead?

 

[Born to Watch]

As I stated in those posts way back when, or didnt.
There is the video watch if you want and believe whatever.
It is for mine a giant footprint in a rock, is it real or fake I didnt comment.
But yes I recon its real, you dont have to, I dont care. Could it be faked, highly possible.
So what, get over it. I have an opinion and you dont like it. Get over it, dont believe.
I wont toddle off or be swayed by people who bully me. I dont need or want any affirmations from your type of people.
In fact having my own opinion makes me a very happy person and your contempt and anger gives me a smug happy feeling of warmth and joy.

It is what it is a footprint in a supposedly 2 million year old rock. Giants are described in the bible. That I believe. The earth is not 2 million years old. So its an old footprint.

I dont care if its a weathering and erosion pattern to you.
Get over your insecurities.
It is what it is.
Dont tell me what you want me to believe, I dont believe you.

 

[tBCfC]

If you like I will pray for you to become a more informed person.

 

[WayonDown]

If you like I will pray for you to become a more informed person.