READ GENESIS 6 BEFORE YOU POST- ITS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OR THROW AWAY. genesis 6 talks about mighty men or the men of renown. big people- 6 fingers 6 toes- fallen angels mated with earth women and gave birth to giants
Debating on the sole ground of biblical texts means confiding in the tellings of people of that time.
Considering that people imagined yetis when they saw Gigantopithecus teeth, imagined devil's horns when they saw ammonites, imagined cyclops when they saw skull parts of big animals with only one orbit left, etc. etc. ... after considering this I would say it is a bad idea to confide in every word people wrote back then.
READ GENESIS 6 BEFORE YOU POST- ITS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OR THROW AWAY. genesis 6 talks about mighty men or the men of renown. big people- 6 fingers 6 toes- fallen angels mated with earth women and gave birth to giants
So read bull**** about bull****? There were not any giants, they would need more nutritious food that is available than even today. They would need stronger bones, which would leave fossil's, which have not been found. And at last the logical one, why don't any less biased people around the same aria have any similar mention of giants?
Yeah, except that Gigantopithecus is not evidenciary of anything in the bible, as they were extinct before Homo Sapiens Sapiens had language, or writing, let alone the Bible. Sorry...
What? Those arn't giant humans, they are just a similar primate. They probably weren't even bipedal, see here...
Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favor bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully-erect spine like modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, like the other great apes.
The majority view is that the weight of such a large, heavy animal would put enormous strain on the creature's legs, ankles and feet if it walked bipedally; while if it walked on all four limbs, like gorillas, its weight would be better distributed over each limb.
And since only teeth have been found, it could easily be smaller, for example your text states:
Due to wide interspecies differences in the relationship between tooth and body size, some argue[citation needed][weasel words] that it is more likely that Gigantopithecus was much smaller, at roughly 1.8 m (5.9 ft).[6
Then there is the fact that they lived a millionyears ago. Far before the Israelite. These are no were near the 13 cubit human giants shown in the bible, as well as the fact they couldn't have been armed or even armored... And there skulls would have been far to thick for a stone to fracture, which happens in a particular famous story. And the middle eastern desert is a horrible place to be that large, they would have to live in the forests, not in the "romised land" or the desert.
The height of the vast majority of persons 10,000 years ago was around 1.50 m, 1.60 maximum, hence the very few persons who were 1.80 m or 1.90 m (for whatever reason) tall in comparison to them looked like "giants".
The height of the vast majority of persons 10,000 years ago was around 1.50 m, 1.60 maximum, hence the very few persons who were 1.80 m or 1.90 m (for whatever reason) tall in comparison to them looked like "giants".
That is quite possible that the size of these giant people is like a fish story. First time you tell it, it's a one foot fish, then it's a 3 foot fish, before you know it your going one on one with the biggest fish in the sea.
A good example are the Native American Indians. They were in the late 1800s the tallest people in the world, the average adult was 172.6 cm. Some particular tribes were even -way- taller than that, they averaged around 180.0 cm. Whereas the Europeans average wasn't even 170.0 cm. Many -educated- Europeans referred to them (metaphorically) as giants, so we can easily imagine how impressive and memorable was seeing a tall persons for a rather primitive human. They would seem to them almost supernatural, they could unquestionably consider them gods or monsters (see titans, cyclops etc.).
He says it's the only way to explain the Egyptian Pyramids since there's no other way except by ageId=28716">Giants who used hand-axes to carve the stones, and there hand-axes were like 5 times the size of normal so they were 5 times the size as humans!!!
