View Full Version : Land of Giants
Light Travelling
10-05-07, 08:13 AM
Nephilim / Nifelheim
In the Bible's old testament there is reference to Nephilim; described as a race of giants who were offspring of human mothers and angelic / demonic fathers.
In Norse mythology one of the nine worlds is called Nifelheim; described as a dark, cold place inhabited by giants.
The similarity of these two words is obvious, but what is the connection.
Is it merely a linguistic connection, the origin maybe meaning giant or land of giants?
Could there be some shared mythological inheritance between the Hebrew and Norse people i.e. a shared common ancestral people or migration from one to the other?
Or is there some shred of truth at the origin of these stories; that at one time there was a land of abnormally large people living somewhere between Scandinavia and the middle east?
cosmictraveler
10-05-07, 08:19 AM
Mythology is fun, isn't it. To seek out things which are only figments of someones imagination is a lifelong task if you're willing to be that gullible.
Light Travelling
10-05-07, 08:48 AM
Mythology is fun, isn't it. .
Yes, thoroughly absorbing.
To seek out things which are only figments of someones imagination is a lifelong task if you're willing to be that gullible.
Mythology is a key part of anthropology
Human brain is hardwired to exaggerated things so they stimulate it more. Just look at any artwork from 20,000BC to today
So giants appear in our mythologies due to our natural dendency to exaggerate in order to make the image or metaphor more effective in capturing attention.
The name could just be a coincidance. I forgot where I read it, but there was done a study on such words where one and the same sounding word means similar things. The conclusion was that ..it's just a coincidance.
they have even found skeletons of giants, but it's been covered up. recently they found those little humans (florenci sapiens), but they didn't need to cover it up because they were little, and everybody thinks that bigger is better.
1. Who is they?
2. Covered up by who and why?
recently they found those little humans (florenci sapiens), but they didn't need to cover it up
3. Your last statement is against you.
Beware, I will not allow your pseudosci hogwash here. Either give evidence or be deleted.
Light Travelling
10-05-07, 10:26 AM
they have even found skeletons of giants, but it's been covered up.
Define Giant?
How tall does one have to be? Is 7ft tall a giant?
When I say abnormally large, how large am I talking about? If the average height of humans was much lower 10000 years ago, 7 ft tall may well have seemed a giant.
As Avatr said differences are quickly exagerated in myth
checkout this page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape2.htm#a2), it mentions giant human skeletons up to 15ft.
"Modern ‘experts’ firmly reject the idea that there have ever been entire races of giants, and are adamant that our distant ancestors were primitive apelike creatures much smaller than ourselves. Worldwide legends and traditions, on the other hand, assert that there were races of giants in days of old."
fun thing to know: the giants had 6 fingers in each hand, that's why we have clocks (zodiac) with 12 hours and 60 minutes.
How tall does one have to be? Is 7ft tall a giant?
there is no edge where a human suddenly becomes a giant, but i think 8 feet is kinda big.
here's the definitions:
7 sorta big
8 kinda big
9 big
10 very big
12 giant
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 11:37 AM
Well when you find in mound burial (mass)grave skeletons of normal humans and several giants( 7 1/2 feet to 9 feet), and then dismiss the giant skeletons as gigantisim, you are a discipline and science in denial. I don't know if I would call it a total cover up(the smithsonian losing all kinds of remains passed to them IS a cover up), so much as a total ignore.
Spud Emperor
10-05-07, 11:40 AM
Fark nietzschefan, there are about 20 spelling/punctuation mistakes in that post and you want us to take your conspiracy theory seriously! Seriously,...give yourself an uppercut!
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 11:43 AM
Just shooting from the hip. I give up trying to convince people, frankly.
He is one of my more serious posts on the subject. It might also hurt your eyes from a lack of effort, for grammar and punctuation. Feel free to print it off, circle all the fuckups in red and send it to someone who actually gives a shit.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65077
Orleander
10-05-07, 11:47 AM
Just shooting from the hip. I give up trying to convince people, frankly.
was there a whole culture of giants or just a few per town, like dwarves?
MacGyver1968
10-05-07, 11:48 AM
offspring of human mothers and angelic / demonic fathers.
So if a demon is your "baby's daddy"....do they have to pay child support? Or are they just considered "dead-beat demons" ? :)
Light Travelling
10-05-07, 11:54 AM
checkout this page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape2.htm#a2), it mentions giant human skeletons up to 15ft.
Very Interesting webpage.
"Modern ‘experts’ firmly reject the idea that there have ever been entire races of giants, and are adamant that our distant ancestors were primitive apelike creatures much smaller than ourselves. Worldwide legends and traditions, on the other hand, assert that there were races of giants in days of old."
But we can see in recent times that tribes such as the Masai in Africa are much taller than average and much taller than other african tribes, there are also tribes in africa prone to being much shorter than average.
It is quite reasoanble to assume that tribes (or races) such as this could have existed in the past as well. maybe with greater height variances.
they have even found skeletons of giants, but it's been covered up. recently they found those little humans (florenci sapiens), but they didn't need to cover it up because they were little, and everybody thinks that bigger is better.
They once found a skull of a cyclops (I believe it was somewhere in the Mediterranean ?). But it turned out to be a skull of an extinct species of dwarf elephant. This is probably the giant you are talking about.
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 11:59 AM
was there a whole culture of giants or just a few per town, like dwarves?
Yes and no. From what I have read, in North and South America it seems they stayed seperate and perhaps would occasionally exact tribute from smaller races.
I think the ancient Sumerian gods were Giants, the depictions of them NOT being just figurative. They were overloards in ancient Mesopotamia.
Frankly I think the Bible's take on them is B.S. I could not even guess at the origins(it could be as simple as a few hundred/thousand years of really abundant food somewhere). As simple example, look at how fast the average height in North America has shot up in the last hundred years.
Orleander
10-05-07, 12:00 PM
I could see it. There are entire cultures of pygmies, so why not those that are very tall? But the pygmies are still here. Where are the giants?
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 12:03 PM
There are traditions handed down the Hopi indians of a great battle in the past where the Hopi(ancestors) wiped them out, buried all dead in mass graves. The mound builders.
In Mesopotamia, the only thing to look at is the flood myth and some "evidence" of halfbreed survivors.
Orleander
10-05-07, 12:07 PM
There are traditions handed down the Hopi indians of a great battle in the past where the Hopi(ancestors) wiped them out, buried all dead in mass graves. The mound builders. ....
so where are the bones that were buried in these mass graves? I can't believe the Smithsonian got ALL of them and covered it up.
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 12:09 PM
Ok don't believe it.
Orleander
10-05-07, 12:14 PM
Ok don't believe it.
OMG!!! You think that!?
Nobody found any of the bones before the Smitsonian was created? What, were they like the Men in Black, going around and collecting all the ones in private hands, all over the world? For what purpose? It seems like finding gaint bones all over the world would only strengthen the Bible's stand.
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 12:21 PM
Well I think they admit there was remains in some of the mounds(though no "giants") and a couple of known ones are untouched. I imagine the indians have rights over them enough, that no one is allowed to dig. Yes "giant" bones have been turned over to the Smithsonian and lost. Several different finds, all over the U.S.
So what were these giants ? Another species or just large humans ?
Orleander
10-05-07, 12:24 PM
... Yes "giant" bones have been turned over to the Smithsonian and lost. Several different finds, all over the U.S.
and what happened to the ones that weren't in the US? None of the Bible takes place in North America. What happened to all those?
nietzschefan
10-05-07, 12:29 PM
and what happened to the ones that weren't in the US? None of the Bible takes place in North America. What happened to all those?
Like I said, I think the Bible's take is a hand-me down breaking of the truth of their origins, which were probably quite natural.
So what were these giants ? Another species or just large humans ?
they were another race of humans who were much more intelligent than us. bible says in gen6:4 that they (sons of god*) had children with that other primitive human race, and from that mix our human race was born.
the children sometimes inherited the giant size of their father, and sometimes the primitive mind of the mother. for this reason there has been a misunderstanding and people thought the giants were evil/stupid.
*there were no daughters of god because they would have become impure
they were another race of humans who were much more intelligent than us. bible says in gen6:4 that they (sons of god*) had children with that other primitive human race, and from that mix our human race was born.
the children sometimes inherited the giant size of their father, and sometimes the primitive mind of the mother. for this reason there has been a misunderstanding and people thought the giants were evil/stupid.
*there were no daughters of god because they would have become impure
So they were just large people.
So they were just large people.
yeah, but they also had a large head. what do you think they were if not "just large humans"? demons and angels?
yeah, but they also had a large head. what do you think they were if not "just large humans"? demons and angels?
No, I think that if they existed they we just a large people.
they were a different race because they were different. once there was even giants who were 20 feet tall. they were not just large people... they were totally different from us... they had much larger brain too... that's why they could fly and communicate telepathically and so on.
they had much larger brain too..
I moved this thread to Pseudoscience, but it should have been Sci-Fi/Fantasy.
Any way, it appears you known nothing of human neurology.
If there were indeed such giants and they had, as you so boldly know, much larger brains, then they would have had to be quite dumb, slow reacting, unintelligent.
Orleander
10-05-07, 02:57 PM
...they would have had to be quite dumb, slow reacting, unintelligent.
OMG!!! I've heard of them! Around here we call them "ex-husbands".
If there were indeed such giants and they had, as you so boldly know, much larger brains, then they would have had to be quite dumb, slow reacting, unintelligent.
why so?
it sounds like you don't know much about giant neurology...
Because, little one, the various regions of the brain would be further away from each other and the speed of communication between them slower. It has been scientifically tested that the human brain can not become considerably larger than it is now and not to lose efficiency, speed of communication - intelligence.
the more we use our brain the more it grows. later we will once again have a beautiful large brain like the giants had... not the apebrain we have now. i think their brain/head looked something like this: nefertiti (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3572/amarnatq7.jpg)
that's the reason why egyptians had to make so big hats (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7786/negv7.jpg)
Stryder
10-05-07, 03:42 PM
fun thing to know: the giants had 6 fingers in each hand, that's why we have clocks (zodiac) with 12 hours and 60 minutes.
Glad you posted that in Pseudoscience, as other peoples 'Theories' are based on a few more facts:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=594
Orleander
10-05-07, 03:42 PM
....that's the reason why egyptians had to make so big hats (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7786/negv7.jpg)
The Pope must be freaking brilliant!!!
seriously...big hats = big brains??
Stryder
10-05-07, 03:47 PM
the more we use our brain the more it grows. later we will once again have a beautiful large brain like the giants had... not the apebrain we have now. i think their brain/head looked something like this: nefertiti (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3572/amarnatq7.jpg)
that's the reason why egyptians had to make so big hats (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7786/negv7.jpg)
Next you'll be posting the images and information on the skull shapes of people in South America from the digs done there.
http://paranormal.about.com/od/humanenigmas/ig/Gallery-of-Human-Mysteries/Elongated-Skull.htm
As stated in the page, the theory in regards to the skull is how the head was 'Bound' which restricted how the skull would develop, this could of been done as a religious custom perhaps for those that were to be priests or even sacrifices. (after all you'd hardly escape being a sacrifice with a head that stands out ;)
Light Travelling
10-05-07, 06:11 PM
it has been scientifically tested that the human brain can not become considerably larger than it is now and not to lose efficiency, speed of communication - intelligence.
What........ How???
Did they make bigger brains to test them?? :(
MetaKron
10-06-07, 12:43 AM
Just another example of a so-called moderator starting a slap-fight.
What........ How???
Did they make bigger brains to test them?? :(
I refer to the research done by Michel A Hofman at the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research. I suggest you read his very short paper "Limits to Human Brain Evolution" (google it).
Or try Hofman, M.A. (2000). Brain evolution in hominids: are we at the end of the road? In Evolutionary Anatomy of the Primate Cerebral Cortex (eds. Falk, D. & Gibson, K.) Cambridge Univ. Press, in press.
http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/falk/Hof.jpg
Stryder
10-06-07, 10:42 AM
Just another example of a so-called moderator starting a slap-fight.
Hardly, I'm merely trying to place some 'evidence' about certain subjects that seems to be missing in regards to their theories. I know it's terrible to have a personal theory cut down by someone but it really isn't about that, it's really about how a person is perceived if they can't see beyond their theory and how others might taunt and jeer at their lack of education on the subject matter.
I guess you can say it's my attempt at saving them from themselves.
Glad you posted that in Pseudoscience, as other peoples 'Theories' are based on a few more facts:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=594
here's the real reason why there is 12 hours in a clock:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3323/realreasondy9.png
p.s. if you're not a giant, it might be hard to understand
Stryder
10-06-07, 01:36 PM
It would of been simpler to say that the way the earth rotates and the way the sun appears across the sky at the times of day generates an Arch in regards to shadows. If the daylight was Half the day then obviously there must have been an inverse Arch for the night, this makes the cycle of the day being Circular (well Elliptical).
If you are to divide a circle equally into segments, you'd hardly use 10 base. There is also the possibility that either an Hourglass filled with sand or a water chronometer was used to segment the day further, this would mean that there was a set volume and would require people to maintain it regularly. (Of course there was little mention about other Chronometer devices)
As for your Diagram and Mathematical inserts.... well it's a load of nonsense, it only means something to you and people 'like-minded' it has little reason to the measurement of the passage of time.
Light Travelling
10-06-07, 07:32 PM
:DI refer to the research done by Michel A Hofman at the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research. I suggest you read his very short paper "Limits to Human Brain Evolution" (google it).
Or try Hofman, M.A. (2000). Brain evolution in hominids: are we at the end of the road? In Evolutionary Anatomy of the Primate Cerebral Cortex (eds. Falk, D. & Gibson, K.) Cambridge Univ. Press, in press.
http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/falk/Hof.jpg
I googled it but I dont find the specific conclusion stated that you mention.
also you said they had "scientifically tested" that the brain could not be larger, I do not find the method of scientific testing described in your article either. (and does not your diagram show that the brain could be about 32.5% bigger and still function the same?)
Anyway even if you are correct.................. so what if a larger brain were less efficient, that hardly disproves the existence of giants does it...........so giants are stupid.....thats probably why they died out, no?:D
Define Giant?
How tall does one have to be? Is 7ft tall a giant?
When I say abnormally large, how large am I talking about? If the average height of humans was much lower 10000 years ago, 7 ft tall may well have seemed a giant.
As Avatr said differences are quickly exagerated in myth
OK, define giant--try the ferla mohr (big gray man) of Scotland (supposedly up in the Grampian Mountains) also supposed to be 25 feet tall. There are reputedly various other species of enormous people, about the same height, on other continents. Check the cryptomundo site or just google the name 'ferla mohr' and see what you get.
Nephilim / Nifelheim
In the Bible's old testament there is reference to Nephilim; described as a race of giants who were offspring of human mothers and angelic / demonic fathers.
In Norse mythology one of the nine worlds is called Nifelheim; described as a dark, cold place inhabited by giants.
The similarity of these two words is obvious, but what is the connection.
If someone wrote about it it must be true.
http://www.theoi.com/image/pictures-sciapods.jpg
THE SKIAPODES (or Sciapods) were a tribe of one-legged Ethiopian or Indian men who had a single giant foot which they raised in the air to shade themselves against the hot southern sun.
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6. 45 - 47 (trans. Conybeare) (Greek biography C1st to C2nd A.D.) :
"[The C1st A.D. prophet Apollonios of Tyana asked the Indian sage Iarkhos] about the Men who live Underground (Anthropoi Hypogen) and the Pygmaioi (Pygmies) also and the Skiapodes (Shadow-footed men); and larkhas answered his questions thus: ‘ . . . As to men that are Skiapodes (Shadow-footed) or Makrokephaloi (Long-headed), and as to the other poetical fancies which the treatise of Skylax recounts about them, he said that they didn't live anywhere on the earth, and least of all in India."
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6. 23 - 25 :
"The Nasamones and the Androphagoi (Man-Eaters) and the Pygmaioi (Pygmies) and Skiapodes (Shadow-Foots) people are also tribes of Aithiopia, and they extend as far as the Okeanos Aithiopos (Ethiopian Ocean), which no mariners ever enter except as castaways who do so against their will."
Eusebius, Treatise Against Hierocles 21 (trans. Jones) (Greek rhetorician C4th A.D.) :
"He [Apollonios of Tyana] also asked them [the Brahmans of India] about Anthropoi Hypergen (Men who live underground), and about others called Pygmaioi (Pygmies), and Skiapodes (Shadow-footed men), and ... the Martikhora ... Such then were the questions which Apollonios put to the sages, and Iarkhas instructed him about the Pygmaioi ... but as to the other things which he asked about, Iarkhas said that they never had existed at all."
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7. 23 (trans. Rackham) (Roman encyclopedia C1st A.D.) :
"He [Ctesias, Greek historian C5th B.C.] also describes a tribe of men [in India or Aithiopia] called Monocoli who have only one leg, and who move in jumps with surprising speed; the same are called Sciapodes (Shadow-Foots) tribe, because in the hotter weather they lie on their backs on the ground and protect themselves with the shadow of their feet."
[Text from http://www.theoi.com/Phylos/Skiapodes.html
Orleander
10-06-07, 10:56 PM
don't forget the Amazon women!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/It_time_snu-snu%21.jpg/180px-It_time_snu-snu%21.jpg
nietzschefan
10-06-07, 11:53 PM
http://www.crystalinks.com/sumeranu.jpg
Anu The oldest Sumerian "God".
http://www.crystalinks.com/gilgameshrelief2.jpg
Gilgamesh ("hero")
http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerian2.gif
Enki(i think)
nietzschefan
10-06-07, 11:59 PM
North American finds:
* In his book, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, author John Haywood describes "very large" bones in stone graves found in Williamson County, Tennessee, in 1821. In White County, Tennessee, an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length.
* Giant skeletons were found in the mid-1800s near Rutland and Rodman, New York. J.N. DeHart, M.D. found vertebrae "larger than those of the present type" in Wisconsin mounds in 1876. W.H.R. Lykins uncovered skull bones "of great size and thickness" in mounds of Kansas City area in 1877.
* George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. In 1879, a nine-foot, eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana(Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975)
* A six foot, six inch skeleton was found in a Utah mound. This was at least a foot taller than the average Indian height in the area, and these natives- what few there were of them -were not mound builders.
* "A skeleton which is reported to have been of enormous dimensions" was found in a clay coffin, with a sandstone slab containing hieroglyphics, during mound explorations by a Dr everhart near Zanesville, Ohio.(American Antiquarian, v3, 1880, pg61)
* Ten skeletons "of both sexes and of gigantic size" were taken from a mound at Warren, Minnesota, 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 23, 1883)
* A skeleton 7 feet 6 inches long was found in a massive stone structure that was likened to a temple chamber within a mound in Kanawha County, West Virginia, in 1884. (American Antiquarian, v6, 1884 133f. Cyrus Thomas, Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12th Annual Report, Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91)
* A large mound near Gasterville, Pennsylvania, contained a vault in which was found a skeleton measuring 7 feet 2 inches. Inscriptions were carved on the vault. (American Antiquarian, v7, 1885, 52f) click here for full article (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/1345/Pennsylvania.html)
* In 1885, miners discovered the mummified remains of woman measuring 6 feet 8 inches tall holding an infant. The mummies were found in a cave behind a wall of rock in the Yosemite Valley.
* In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888)
* A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," and besides each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, Oct. 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978)
* The skeleton of a huge man was uncovered at the Beckley farm, Lake Koronis, Minnesota; while at Moose Island and Pine City, bones of other giants came to light. (St. Paul Globe, Aug. 12, 1896)
* In 1911, several red-haired mummies ranging from 6 and a half feet to 8 feet tall were discovered in a cave in Lovelock, Nevada. click here for the full article (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/1345/Lovelock.html)
* In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. The first of these two skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similiar to the Egyptian manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long.(Review - Miner, June 19, 1931)
* A 7 foot 7 inch skeleton was reported to have been found on the Friedman ranch, near Lovelock, Nevada, in 1939.(Review - Miner, Sept. 29, 1939)
* In 1965, a skeleton measuring 8 feet 9 inches was found buried under a rock ledge along the Holly Creek in east-central Kentucky. click here for the full article (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/1345/kentucky.html)
MetaKron
10-07-07, 11:51 PM
There's really no reason that a giant human race cannot exist. We can talk about giant humans who died young, but the examples that I know of lived long enough to reproduce. They were somewhat abnormal for their own bloodlines and it takes time for a new bloodline to sort itself out. When sorting has been done and greater size is more normal for the bloodline, giants may be just as normal as the rest of us.
The term "giant" used to refer to races like the Nordic and the Watusi who ran six feet six inches to seven feet in height, which is more understandable when this label is applied by races who run five feet nothing in height. The advantages and disadvantages are a mixed bag.
nietzschefan
10-08-07, 02:17 AM
There's really no reason that a giant human race cannot exist. We can talk about giant humans who died young, but the examples that I know of lived long enough to reproduce. They were somewhat abnormal for their own bloodlines and it takes time for a new bloodline to sort itself out. When sorting has been done and greater size is more normal for the bloodline, giants may be just as normal as the rest of us.
The term "giant" used to refer to races like the Nordic and the Watusi who ran six feet six inches to seven feet in height, which is more understandable when this label is applied by races who run five feet nothing in height. The advantages and disadvantages are a mixed bag.
Exactly. Cro-Magnon man was a race that existed for 10s of thousands of years. 6'6" + in height. Even more far out proportions are possible, particularly in prehistoric isolation.
MetaKron
10-08-07, 06:51 AM
Maybe the real answer to the mystery of the disappearance of the Cro-Magnons is that they got shorter when they blended with the rest of humanity. Then their bone structures changed also. Tall people have visibly different bone structures from short people.
Stryder
10-08-07, 08:36 AM
I never said 'Giants' as in tall people couldn't exist, merely ones that were 15ft+ high would pretty much be a load of rubbish though IMHO. The point with folk lore over bones and fossilised remains however is that it can be exaggerated, for instance the indigenous people of Japan are not known to be giants (The main reason for this is that most things grow in regards to the size of their environment and the availability of food. You could suggest people on small islands didn't necessarily grow as tall as those on continents, of course this is only a theory based on the size that fish grow to if placed within larger ponds)
On chance meeting between continent dwellers and Island dwellers and well you get tails of tall monster's... 'Giants'. Even if they are only 6 inches taller.
spuriousmonkey
10-08-07, 09:08 AM
Does anyone know of any documented cases of giants.
I followed Nietzsche's link, but they were all anecdotes.
Stryder
10-08-07, 09:28 AM
I know nothing of 'Tribes' or Civilisations, other than those anecdotes placed within religious texts. There are documented cases of Giant people, however they are usually abnormalities within the society of the time (A church not so many miles from here has a grave for someone about 8ft or so tall)
spuriousmonkey
10-08-07, 09:29 AM
On a biological note:
It's not impossible for a strain of people to grow larger.
The difference between a Danish dog and a little dograt (take your pick) is mostly in just one gene. They carry different alleles.
This is accomplished by selecting artificially for size.
This could be possible in a 'royal' line (as has been suggested in this thread), if the founder was tall, and mated with an equally tall female. Subsequent matings were always between the tallest offspring of the male version and either an outside female that was selected for tallness, or another offspring that was tallest.
After a few dozen generations you could easily end up with an extremely tall human line.
That said, this explanation is rather unlikely, and at the same time, the likeliest one.
A ruling class is governed by power. Power corrupts. There will be no selection for a physical trait. There will be selfish behaviour aimed at gaining power.
Moreover, this kind of prolonged inbreeding, and inbreeding it will be, because after a few generations there is no point in seeking a mate outside the lineage because they will all be shorter, will inevitably lead to many health problems.
u know we evolved from spirits... that's why they were so large before... because spirits don't weigh much so they can be large....
but there were also physical giants who were 20 feet... and dinosaurs
If you are to divide a circle equally into segments, you'd hardly use 10 base.
i wud use 8 or 16. it's hard to divide to 12 because it's hard to make triangles
nietzschefan
10-08-07, 01:24 PM
Maybe the real answer to the mystery of the disappearance of the Cro-Magnons is that they got shorter when they blended with the rest of humanity. Then their bone structures changed also. Tall people have visibly different bone structures from short people.
I think so too. Or they just got wiped out by the typical human "He's different let's kill 'em". If there were real giant races(8-9 foot or more in height) it seems they just couldn't compete. Imagine how much food they would need to accumulate. In many Indian legends, these guys had to resort to eating(cannibalism) the smaller tribes.
Pandaemoni
10-08-07, 04:07 PM
Nephilim / Nifelheim
In the Bible's old testament there is reference to Nephilim; described as a race of giants who were offspring of human mothers and angelic / demonic fathers.
In Norse mythology one of the nine worlds is called Nifelheim; described as a dark, cold place inhabited by giants.
The similarity of these two words is obvious, but what is the connection.
Is it merely a linguistic connection, the origin maybe meaning giant or land of giants?
Could there be some shared mythological inheritance between the Hebrew and Norse people i.e. a shared common ancestral people or migration from one to the other?
Or is there some shred of truth at the origin of these stories; that at one time there was a land of abnormally large people living somewhere between Scandinavia and the middle east?
To answer this question, so far as the internet reveals, the two words appear to be unrelated, Nephilim seems to have its root in a Hebrew word meaning "to fall." Niflheim seems to mean "land of mists" with "Nifle" having a shared root with the Latin nebula (cloud) and Sanscrit nabhas (sky).
During the Dinosaur periods, there were a lot of creatures that were giants compared to our time. Why that is so? What condition creates these giant creatures. And if it was good for the animals why not human animal? Dinosaur, Mastadon, King Kong...
Light Travelling
10-09-07, 08:37 AM
To answer this question, so far as the internet reveals, the two words appear to be unrelated, Nephilim seems to have its root in a Hebrew word meaning "to fall." Niflheim seems to mean "land of mists" with "Nifle" having a shared root with the Latin nebula (cloud) and Sanscrit nabhas (sky).
Thankyou
OilIsMastery
10-06-08, 12:05 AM
I think it's funny that because it says something in the Bible it must be pseudoscience. These Atheist fundamentalists probably think posts about Pharaohs and Egypt belong in pseudoscience.
OilIsMastery
10-06-08, 12:07 AM
During the Dinosaur periods, there were a lot of creatures that were giants compared to our time. Why that is so? What condition creates these giant creatures. And if it was good for the animals why not human animal? Dinosaur, Mastadon, King Kong...
The Earth has doubled in size in the last 200 million years.
SkinWalker
10-11-08, 06:45 PM
The Earth has doubled in size in the last 200 million years.
The evidence for which is?
OilIsMastery
10-13-08, 06:22 AM
The evidence for which is?
Overwhelming.
Check out the zircon dating showing temporal spreading and oceanic growth away from all rifts in every direction and circling Antarctica.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg
SkinWalker
10-13-08, 12:18 PM
How does crustal spreading imply that the Earth is growing in size?
OilIsMastery
10-14-08, 04:30 AM
How does crustal spreading imply that the Earth is growing in size?
Because there is no subduction. The zircon dating clearly shows this. If there is no subduction, then the Earth must grow as the crust spreads. It's called logic.
Is that also because of the expansion of the Universe?
OilIsMastery
10-14-08, 08:22 AM
Is that also because of the expansion of the Universe?
Not sure if it's because of but everything in the universe is growing. No?
The universe grows, the stars grow, our sun grows, all biological organisms grow, every extraterrestrial planet in the solar system grows because there is no such thing as subduction, and yes, contrary to 20th century plate tectonics mythology, even the Earth grows.
SkinWalker
10-14-08, 08:45 AM
Because there is no subduction.
Ah. Yet another pseudoscientific crackpot tells it like it is. At least you had the good sense to post in the correct forum this time.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.