Middle East News
Jul 12, 2009, 7:48 GMT
200,000-year-old flint tools found in Syrian desert
And Also
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (3rd Roundup)
- 2. US: Iran will face "consequences" on nuclear activity (Roundup)
- 3. US: Iran will face "package of consequences" on nuclear activity
- 4. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (2nd Roundup)
- 5. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (Roundup)
Older Talkback
page: 1
Did not the Bible mention that there were giants in the earth in those days (primeval world)? It only seems logical to my way of thinking that nearly all types of developed lifeforms in the beginning would have been superior to existing life forms. It just would not make any kind of sense if mostly all types of animals were huge in the past except for humans. Where in the world did the stories of Og King of Bashan, Goliath the Philistine, and the sons of Anak, called the remnants of the giants come from? Which were all mentioned in the Bible. It seems very interesting that when the bones of fossil man are compared with the bones of modern man,they are usually larger and more robust, and would have more grooves for massive muscle attachments. I honestly believe that one day we may be pleasantly surprise by the discovery of a ten or twelve foot size fossil man, dug from the sands of the past.
'It seems very interesting that when the bones of fossil man are compared with the bones of modern man,they are usually larger and more robust, and would have more grooves for massive muscle attachments.'
Which bones of which ancient hominid are you referencing? Ancient neanderthals average slightly shorter and slightly more robust than humans of the same time period; males averaged 164–168 cm (65–66 in) and females 152–156 cm (60–61 in) tall. The average height of an adult human is about 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 feet) tall, although this varies significantly from place to place. There's almost no difference at all.
This from the most basic of Wikipedia searches. You should try one sometime.
If the tools and bones really date between one and two thousand years ago, it is possible that they are not Homo sapiens but Homo erectus. Not modern humans, in other words. It's also just possible that they belonged to Homo neanderthalensis, who also sometimes took up residence in this area, depending on climate. As for size -- whether of Homo e./s./or n. or of camels -- some were bigger and more robust than modern ones. Some were smaller and less robust. It depends on what era and what bones one is looking at. If one only looks at what fits one's preconceptions, one remains happy. If one looks at all finds, one is occasionally surprised. These paleoarcheologists were surprised at the big camel.
Oops! Typo in the previous post. That should have been one or two HUNDRED thousand years ago. My, my, the eyes or brains are getting short changed this morning!
I find it almost funny that people believe anything someone with a 'title'
tells them. First off there have been numerous giant skeletons around the earth that have been found But the smithsonian and the like swoop in and cover up the facts or rearrange things to further their agenda.This is fact not a conspiracy theory. They tell us dinosaurs are millions of years old? Then please tell me how they could have found the skull of a T-rex a few years ago with soft cel tissue inside its craniam? They date everything millions of years old to further their 'theory' of evolution.
They will never find a homo sapien skeleton older then 14,000 years...
No im not some fundie, most churches wouldn't have me. But I do believe in God our creator.
I believe the earth is millions of years old because it is written in God's word that it is.
Every new discovery that pertains to homoerectus or neanderthal always seem to cause a little surprise in the scientific world. For example, it was once believed that neanderthals were apelike brutes. Not so now. Much to say about that but time is lmited. As for Homoerectus, once known as the ape man, is now proving to be more like modern man more and more. For example, there is evidence that he was capable of crossing large bodies of water in his migration across the continents. It is becomming more evident that he spoke language and used sophisticated tools. Homoerectus was also known to be quite robust and on average, taller than modern man. Some years ago an almost complete skeleton of a erectus was found in East Africa. It was thought to be a lad of the age of twelve years. But what was unusual was the size of the skeleton. It stood almost six feet. Ofcourse it was a surprise to the scientists because it clashed with their assumptions. But I was not at all surprised. Of course one may find large and small of the same species of animal from the past. But that is not the case today when digging up the skeletons of modern animals. Todays animals are more uniform in size. There was in the past a reduction in size of almost all sorts of living things. Whether they were animals, birds, insects, plants, fishes, I can just go on and on. The scientific journals are filled with it. The modern counterpart are just half as large as their ancestors. Just lately there were reports of a giant sea water scorpion, huge trilobite, a six foot tall penguin discovered in the Artic regions. Now it dosent take a rocket scientist to figure out more are less that the stories of human giants in the past are not so farfetched. I do not believe that no one should follow blindly any point of view, but should take it upon themselves to examine all the facts and come to their own conclusions. By the way, I fail to mention that there was a huge human jawbone called the Heidelburge Jaw that was found in Germany some many years ago. I believe to this very day scientist are not sure in what genus to place it. Some say it is a huge Erectus. They fail to find any other human bones that would correspond to the jaw. I wonder what motive some may have in trying to quickly discount the high possibility of huge giant man in our past history? Nearly all civilizations have stories of giant ancestors. Perhaps the truth is not reserved only to those of our lofty halls of learning.
That's what's so exciting. there were real people wandering about then.' -By Jamie Murphy.' excerpt from 'Story of the Great White Sands,' a 1938 pamphlet 'In the fall of 1932 Ellis Wright, a government trapper, reported that he had found human tracks of unbelievable size, imprinted in the gypsum rock on the west side of White Sands. At his suggestion a party was made up to investigate. Mr. Wrigtht served as a guide. O. Fred Arthur, supervisor of the Lincoln National Forest, Edgar Cadwallader and one of his sons from Mountain Park and the writer made up the party. As Mr. Wright had reported, there were 13 human tracks crossing a narrow swag, pretty well out between the mountains and the sands. Each track was approximately 22 inches long and from 8 to 10 inches wide. It was the consensus of opinion that the tracks were made by a human being for the print was perfect and even the instep plainly marked. However, there was not one in the group who cared to venture a guess as to when the tracks were made or how they became of their tremendous size. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of the Great White Sands.' Note to the individual, 'beliefs vs factss', everyone has their biases, even Wikipedia.
excerpt from Time Magazine Oct. 29, 1984: 'While WT 15000 (fossil of erectus) has the beetle brow, small cranium and short forehead associated with virtually all human precursors, his size surprised the scientists. From the development of his teeth, they knew that the hominid died in his youth, about age 12. but the length of his thigh bones and the size of his vertebrae indicate that he stood about 5ft. 4in. tall and may have weighed as much as 150lbs. This was the size hiterto postulated by scientists for a full-grown Homoerectus. 'He was a strapping youth,' says Leakey, 'We used to think of our ancestors as rather puny and rather fragile. This shows them to be much stronger and better built than we ever imagined,' Full grown, Leakey says, the boy might have reached 6ft. Added Walker: 'He's begger than most human populations aroun the world today.' Walker concedes that he does not know for sure if the specimen is a freak, but in a lmited sample from a larger population, odds strongly favor the selection of the most common denominator. Just as startling as the hominid's size is its anatomical similarity to modern man. Says Leakey: 'Those whowant to have a funny-looking thing as an ancestor 1 1/2million yrs. ago will be disappointed.'
I never cease to be amazed at the lack of knowledge some writers have about anthropology. It seems scientists are always 'surprised' every time they discover something. Ignorance, but not stupidity. There is a big difference. It would be funny if it were not so sad.
For me it's fascinating some people allways come up with this Bible, a collection of stories (Sumerian, Egypt, etc.) told and written thousands of years before the bible was written 'by God', or by Jehovah or whoever.
And here I see people claiming this Giant-story was told in the Bible (which is indead so), which should proof it's true, while a growing group of 'Young Earth Creationists' will tell you this whole story is a defamation, there is nothing older than about 7000 years.... It's a strange collection of writings, this Bible...
Hey Pit, just the facts, thats all, focus on the facts. Please stop bringing up the Bible as a scape goat. It's a lame excuse.
Its easy to throw around inuendos and nothing to show to back it up. Present your case, and set it on the table. We will see if it sink or float. Slip in with a snide remark and then slider back out. Stand up, lets hear your case, whatever facts are at you disposal, then let the readers consider it, if it is beleivable.
No individual poster need back up the VAST amount of proof that nearly every story in the bible is an interpretation of stories thousands of years older from Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, and other ancient civilizations. The 'Bible' is a collection of embellished and altered stories put together by men who wanted to use it to control the masses (which they did) and impose a theocracy upon people whereby only the priestly caste were able to offer salvation and indulgences blah blah blah... It's SO INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS and so very sad that people blindly follow such ancient propaganda.
First of all, if we argue the Bible, then we will be arguing theology more or less. And we will argue that until Kingdom come. Nothing fruitful will come of it. You will hold to your point of view, the way that you understand or interpret the Bible, and naturally I will hold to my point of view. Whether we like it or not, we all have our biases the way we understand and interpret information. It never has been my intention to argue the Bible, even though I believe in it strongly. Basicly, my whole point was to show how someone may look at certain evidence and logically draw certain conclusions. What I'm saying is when all the eivdence points to giganticism of almost 99.9% of all ancient forms, would it not seem peculiar if modern humans were the only ones that would not have corresponding ancient counterpart that would show a form of giganticism also? To be sure I did not invent that idea. There is great circumstantial evidence that points in that direction. Just because someone may not appreciate the Bible, it would not negate the fact that it do hold useful information. There are a lot of sources that I do not agree with, but if the information they put out is accurate and can be utilize, then why not. I am very well versed in biblical archaeology, so there are many facts that I can present to confirm its authenticity and accuracy. But I do not feel that it would serve any purpose, especially to those who opposes it.
Razna wrote:
If the tools and bones really date between one and two [hundred] thousand years ago, it is possible that they are not Homo sapiens but Homo erectus.
Perhaps, but do we need to posit another race? Are we doing so to hold fast to theoretical scenarios?
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story