a giant wouldnt be a new species it would be the same human species with slight variation in its bone structure and height.
also it is more then possible to find a 7 ft skeleton with six fingers and bad teeth.. 😛
pretty sure we have some of those laying around in cemeteries as well as in the past in ancient iraq middle east..
also i dont know how to make thumb size and it wasnt that big when i was looking at it in another site.
Originally posted by Digi
WS, thumbnails bro.K. Doesn't do anything to refute my opinion though. I'm not going to acknowledge a hypothetical fossil that could be found someday, but probably doesn't exist. Would you consider an entire species as being plausible before any evidence was found of it?
For the most part, I'm open to the possibility. But I doubt bigfoot and nessie.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
For the most part, I'm open to the possibility. But I doubt bigfoot and nessie.
"open to the possibility" doesn't really mean much to me. You'd have to clarify. I'm open to the possibility of God, for example, but I don't believe in one. Being open doesn't mean believing in something without a valid reason. Or, I should clarify, it shouldn't mean that, though it often does for people.
Originally posted by Digi
...then you should know that juries base their decisions on hard evidence and logic, and in the absence of either the person goes free. Or that quantum theorists and scientists make clear distinctions between that which we have direct evidence for, that which checks out mathematically but we haven't observed yet, that which certain aspects of have been tested/proven and others haven't, and that which is entirely theoretical. Conclusions are not based on fanciful guesses. They're based on evidence. You're mistaking an idea for a conclusion to say that your ideas require no less speculation.Skew the facts if you must to feel like your idea is on the level with them. It's of little import to me.
You're still missing my point. Kaku wouldn't publish that speech as evidence for extraterrestrial life. He's speaking in hypotheticals. A scientists first job is to formulate a theory....that's what he's doing, in a very broad sense. But it doesn't stop there. The theory must then be tested, verified or denied, and repeated. He's only dealing with step 1, as are you. But here's the difference between you: Kaku is testing his theories based on known science and math. He has several books published to this affect, and as I mentioned before he "makes clear distinctions between that which we have direct evidence for, that which checks out mathematically but we haven't observed yet, that which certain aspects of have been tested/proven and others haven't, and that which is entirely theoretical." Yes, scientists speculate, string theorists in particular. All the time. That was your point, right? Mine is that it's not all they do, but it's all you're doing.
You have a theory. That's it. An untested, unproven, theory. It's possible, but not likely. We're back at square one, in the same circle that I said you were stuck in back on page 1.
I also dislike how he speaks of "scientists" condescendingly as a general group. I'd like to see specific assumptions made by "scientists" that claim that all aliens are within a couple hundred years of us scientifically. My guess is that they don't exist, and he's merely attacking popular media conception of aliens. His actual writing is much better, because he's not forced into generalities by youtube-like soundbite explanations.
That's a very dubious source:
Michio Kaku is a string theorist so he doesn't count as a scientist any more than economists do 😛
The General Theory of Relativity isn't "beyond Einstein" it was developed by Einstein. It also only allows you violate the speed of light under two conditions a) if you get there first or b) if you are willing to violate causality/logic.
Quantum physics wasn't discovered "5 years ago".
Also keep in mind that the good thing about Kaku is that he presents himself very well. He can sell science to the masses (which is great) but in doing so he has to leave out and rephrase a huge about of reasearch as well as extrapolate beyond what we actually know. This unfortunately results in things that are effectively less true than the work they're based on.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Myth, Legend and Religion are the same thing, the sad thing is people believe them.
Really? Have you ever wandered why myths, legends and religions exist in the first place? From your point of view, they are a waste. However, they have lasted for as long as humans can remember. How many wasteful things can you think of that last?
Myths, legends and religions serve a vital importance; I would even go as far as to say they gave us humans an evolutionary advantage. To find that importance is a worthwhile endeavor. That is separate from the argument of what is true (in the simplest form of the word).
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Myth, Legend and Religion are the same thing, the sad thing is people believe them.
I know what you're saying, but its not true. "Myth" and "legend" have completely different definitions. Musicians will sometimes be called "living legends", not "living myths", and religion is in a category all its own.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Myths, legends and religions serve a vital importance; I would even go as far as to say they gave us humans an evolutionary advantage.
Dawkins thinks so. In The Greatest Show On Earth he says that strong beliefs in abstract concepts helped early human tribes survive in times of crisis because it strongly re-enforced the strength-in-numbers mentality.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
So i bn rereading some old Legends of gods, demons, angels and various mythological creatures like Demigods... i started thinking if all these creatures and beings did actually exist but were simply embellished in oral stories that would later be handed down and written about in religions perpetuating a believe of divine beings and certain religions.Could giants really have walked the land in ancient times their description and modern medical evidence suggest that certain "giant" attributes can be found in modern humans and have scientific names for their condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism
some biblical accounts of giants were that they were extremely tall, as far as i know some modern men can grow to be 7 ft tall maybe some extreme rare case perhaps could grow to be 9 ft tall.. could ancient man have simply exaggerated when describing 9ft or 12 ft giant men?
keep in mind that ancient man average height could have bn no more then in the 5'5" ft area so to them a man being between 6 to 7 or maybe 8 ft tall would be a giant..
another description of giant men were that some had 6 digit fingers, we know that modern humans do possess that mutated trait..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactylyanother is that some giants even had double row set of teeth again not an unheard of condition in modern world but to an ancient man with little understanding could attribute these characteristic as unholy or supernatural....
their have bn a burial site in Nevada where giant skeletons were found and had the average height of 7 ft and also red hair on a continent where such a trait should not have bn likely to occur.
another genetic deformity that is now known and recognized is the bone growth in some human's skulls (horns) it is very rare but it does happen and it is documented and known.. early man again would have or could have confused these traits to being supernatural and the ppl being afflicted to them as being goat men saytrs, demons, even divine beings or gods...
http://thehumanmarvels.com/?p=78
http://prosites-wonesac.homestead.com/History_Unusual_Remains.htmlalso lets not forget the wolf boys who have the condition known as hypertrichosis easily could have bn confused as a werewolves forest creatures like a satyr or ape men ,wild men.. most of these ppl would have bn shunned and would have hid away maybe others would have taken advantage and declared themselves supernatural or godly beings demigods...
http://www.mexicancircus.com/wolfboys.htm
is it possible that some of these traits could have bn found on one single person in ancient times? a Giant afflicted with more then one genetic deformity which in turn would give rise to legends and myths of nephilims and or other various mythological beings?
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Races.html
now we also have myth heroes and demigods these men could have simply have bn a product of good healthy genetics, breeding and environment upbringing in a place where ur average person would have struggled and been malnourished and short could these god men not simply have bn our version of a modern athlete?
http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/GiantBonesDiscoveries.html
discuss and argue among one another of the possibility of actual saytrs, nephilim and demigods being real but not in the supernatural sense but in a more mundane genetic freak type sense and one person possessing more then one mutation...
could the stories have bn somewhat factual or just fiction without an iota of truth in it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know what you're saying, but its not true. "Myth" and "legend" have completely different definitions. Musicians will sometimes be called "living legends", not "living myths", and religion is in a category all its own.
Originally posted by King Kandy
God forbid that words have more than one definition.
That's basically what I said: "myth" and "legend" have two different meanings, even though people will sometimes incorrectly use them interchangeably.
And why are you waiting til now before deciding to quote a post I made 8 months ago?