Giant Human Skeleton

[Code_2025]

I wonder if this is real or phtoshoped?

Recent gas exploration by ARAMCO in the southeast region of Saudi Arabia, has uncovered this skeleton

The desert region is called Rab-ul-Khalee (empty quarter).

Saudi theologians believe this body to belong to the AAAD nation.

Saudi military has taken over this entire area, and only Saudi ARAMCO personnel are allowed. This discovery is meant to be kept secret.

This picture was taken from a helicopter overhead. (Notice the tiny people working in between the skeleton)

Please note that the Bible refers to the Canaanites as giants and that was the reason the Israelites were so scared of entering the promised land. And then the story of David and Goliath.



:cool2:

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025

Please note that the Bible refers to the Canaanites as giants and that was the reason the Israelites were so scared of entering the promised land. And then the story of David and Goliath.



:cool2:

Nothing is impossible, but my guess is photoshop.

The Bible accounts of the Giant people (Canaanites), is real, but evidence suggests these giants were in the range of 8 1/2' - 9 1/2', not the 20+' this pic would suggest.

Also, the nephilim were giants, but again, evidence suggests they were in the 9-10 foot tall range. But then, there's a first time for everything.

Ben

[JavierNuvolari]

Originally posted by Benman
Also, the nephilim were giants, but again, evidence suggests they were in the 9-10 foot tall range. But then, there's a first time for everything.

Ben

Hi...and how many metres is that for us metric guys??

I'd say it's a photoshop


Javier

[AndyBG]

I am open to every posibility, but this just looks to obvious for one spy picture.

But, ...

[Benman]

Originally posted by JavierNuvolari
Hi...and how many metres is that for us metric guys??

I'd say it's a photoshop


Javier

8.5 feet = 2.6 meters
10 feet = 3.05 meters

In other words, big.

Ben

[Erik]

I say Photoshop.

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Erik
I say Photoshop.

Yeah, probably could be but then evolution has created quite unique pieces through time. Lord of the rings had the Hobbits and most people might think thats just a fictional work but in fact the evolutionary evidence proves the real existence of Hobbits. Humans are decendents of Hobibits after further evolution. Hobbits were the decendents of evolved apes. It is theorised that through time "humans" have been evolving and their body size has been varying according to natures influences. At stages, "humans" have been very short and at other times giants. Present "human" is yet again another product of evolution and with time, even the present "human" form would change.

Photoshop could be!!,, but there might be evidence out there in support of these giants . i.e. if they did exist.

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025
Yeah, probably could be but then evolution has created quite unique pieces through time. Lord of the rings had the Hobbits and most people might think thats just a fictional work but in fact the evolutionary evidence proves the real existence of Hobbits. Humans are decendents of Hobibits after further evolution. Hobbits were the decendents of evolved apes. It is theorised that through time "humans" have been evolving and their body size has been varying according to natures influences. At stages, "humans" have been very short and at other times giants. Present "human" is yet again another product of evolution and with time, even the present "human" form would change.

You may have come from monkeys, but I sure didn't!

Finding a skeletons of "hobbits" from the past (heard that same "newsworthy" story), hardly proves hobbits were a different race than humans. For example, consider this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261633/

My point, four hundred, or four thousand years later, when her skeleton is found, will the scientists think she too was a "hobbit" just because she was freakishly tiny and her body is distorted? Who knows. Me, I call that bad science (and my linked article really does a good job of bringing this point home).

Also, in London during the times of "Jack the Ripper" men were very small, averaging just 58 inches (1.47 meters) - 64 inches (1.63 meters). So now, the average height being much taller for the London man, are scientists telling me that the average Briton has "evolved"? I think not, nutrition and other factors have a lot to do with it. But there is no evidence of evolution.

Humans will continue to change or adapt to their environment, but we're not growing any extra sets of arms any time soon.

Ben

[CarbonFibre]

Looks so fake, I'd bet money this is total BS.

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by CarbonFibre
Looks so fake, I'd bet money this is total BS.

You probably might be right!! This could be a photoshopped...but the possibility of this fact is open to crticism and healthy debate and a fact finding mission....but hell who got the time...

:s4addict:

[clam]

The mechanism of evolution is random genetic mutation. You have people that grow to be 7ft, and you've got ones that are 3ft. It's called a disease sometimes, but it is evolution. Each child has a unique genetic code (even single cell twins aren't a perfect match), and is in fact a mutant. If they manage to create offspring they can pass on this random mutation. Some mutations are beneficial, and will lead to more offspring, some are bad and will lead to less or no offspring. After a few generations, the bad mutation will be a minority, and the good one will prevail.

Selective breeding of animals has been going on for millenia, and is the practical application of the evolution theory. From a single genetic mutation, whole breeds of muscular cows, or tiny dogs, have been created. The first domesticated dog was a wolf, and from this one species, through random mutation, and selective breeding, came all the different dog breeds. Evolution has been observed, measured, and applied.

Genetic science is based on the evolution theory. Genetics = evolution. If you deny evolution, you have to deny genetics, and that has huge implications. Physical features would not be passed on. Two europeans could have african or asian offspring. Hell, two europeans could have a dog as a child, if genes didn't exsist.
It would all be the choice of the creator, who makes different kinds of animals day in day out. Some tall, some small, some retarded, some ginger, some born dead,... And that animals have their parents features is merely the choice of the creator.
The argument of creationists is that life is so complex, it has to be designed. If life is so complex, then the designer himself must be so much more complex. Especially since he managed it in 6 days. So he has to be designed too, right? Following through with the 'complex = designer' theory, the creator was created by another creator. Who is even more complex, b/c he created a creator. So he too would need a creator, to justify his complexcity. And so on, and so on. The logic of the creationists leads to an infinite number of creators.

If you want to be a creatonist, it's best not to venture into scientific/logical territory.

There have been "hobbits". People, and other animals, have multiplied in an enviornment where the smaller ones were more likely to survive. When there is little food, for instance, a big animal will die before it is able to mature, and create offspring. The smaller ones will survive, breed amongst themselves, and create a smaller variation of the original animals.

The reason why western people are growing taller, is because during childhood disease stunts the growth. With injections, hygene, and such, children are not sick as often, and when they are it is for a shorter amount of time. So they are allowed to grow to their full potential. It's not evolution, b/c it is not likely that a whole generation has the same random genetic mutation.
If taller people somehow have a greater chance on producing offspring, then generation by generation, the race will get taller. But since humans regenerate at a slow pace, it will take a long time.

And to get back to the picture, it is most likely not real. Dinosaures were able to get really big b/c they had a special bird-like lightweight build, and there was lots of O2 in the air. A human this size could not carry its own weight, and since humans are walking the planet there is not enough O2 in the air to be able to get that big.
Off course, that's just science. If I follow the creationist logic, then I have no reason to believe that it is a fake. A creator could have easliy created this specimen. Perhaps as an experiment. A one-off concept. It wouldn't need parents, b/c according to the creation theory, everything is the offspring of the creator's mind. Perhaps it never lived, and he just created a skeleton under the ground to see how we would react. Kinda like what he did with the dinosaures, right. Perhaps the huge human never learned about the bible, didn't know that he should worship the creator, so he killed it.

Creationism is fun, but I'm not a sheep, and I'm not able to lie to myself, so I'll stick with the scientific conclusion that the photo is a fake. Not as much fun though. Big things are cool.

[Benman]

Originally posted by clam

If you deny evolution, you have to deny genetics, and that has huge implications.

I respectfully disagree.

Hundreds and hundreds of dogs can come from one breed, but they are all, in the end, still dogs. True, they have adapted from their original form, but dogs they all still are.

Ben

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Benman
I respectfully disagree.

Hundreds and hundreds of dogs can come from one breed, but they are all, in the end, still dogs. True, they have adapted from their original form, but dogs they all still are.

Ben

True...but then hundreds of dogs of one breed will obviously produce dogs of the same breed...try cross breeding them and you get dogs...but not of the same breed...:eye:

I am a skeptic....its not that I dont believe in the creationist theory coz I do....and its not that I deny evolutionary theory....I am open to knowledge....and would leave the final decision to my own discretion.

Here are two points to ponder on :

1] Humans have appendix...whats the purpose....in cows it has a purpose....but why in humans...its a redundant structure of the intestine...it is considered a vestigial remnant of some previous organ having a digestive function?

2] Animals have tails extending from the base of the spine from a bone called the coccyx....why do humans have this bone....whats the purpose?


Yet again...I dont deny creationist theory and I dont expell the evolutionary theory...

Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame..religion without science is blind.

[Benman]

Originally posted by Code_2025

Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame..religion without science is blind.

And Einstein was a wise man.

As for dogs: I've bred thousands of rats over the years (had a big Boa population to feed, don't ask ), and noticed that from the very same stock, you could experiment, by breeding certain rats with unique traits with others. Because rats breed so darn fast (hence why scientists use them for experiments), you can watch them "evolve" (as some call it) to something very different than what you started with in a matter of years vs decades and centuries. Some I bred for size, build and strength, some for unique colors and appearance, some for no hair at all.

Looking back at pictures I had of the original parents, and then years later at some of my "original" lines, it was almost scarey how much some how changed. Yet this doesn't prove to me evolution, quite the opposite. It simply confirms animals ability to adapt to an incredible amount of different environments and conditions. Many looked different, but all came from same stock and this was observed by some ametuer in his garage over just a short period of time. Now consider dog breeding has been occuring for millennia and it's not far fetched that the original stock has changed dramatically. In the end though, they are all dogs just as my rats (although very different looking) were all rats.

For example, why would only some apes evolve into humans? Why didn't all of them evolve? Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes. Just a friendly debate.

Ben

[Code_2025]

Originally posted by Benman
And Einstein was a wise man.

Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes. Just a friendly debate.

Ben

Consider this fact...at times we gain few pounds and we cant notice them...coz we always see ourselves...it is only when we see a family or friend after a long time...then we realise we had put on weight coz they usually go"hey you put on weight"....this is a simple scenraio....we dont usually se changes in front of us if that thing is always around....the apes are evolving but slowly...we dont usually go deep in the forests to see these colonies of apes and their living...recently there was a documentary on national geo where they have seen apes working in groups...damn they were even using baits to catch fish...they were using sharp stones to break coconuts....this just goes to show that these species of apes are now getting smarter day by day....this is due to the fact that they are learning as to how to get the food from the sources they have and how to go about it...now the generation after these apes will knwo these techniques and they will refine....and who knows a day might come when these apes will be seen living in shelters built by them and stumbled upon these colonies in forests by researchers!! This is a wild imagination but then evolution is an undeniable fact. Some apes are now even turing to protein diet...and I mean full protein diet...this has implications as protein will start growing their brain size through time...

Humans are evolving...a reecnt study by some british scientists proved that the 23rd pair of chromosome in human males were changing. what they found was that the "Y" chromosome in the 23rd pair has been decresing in size through years....this concludes that the chances of a male offspring is decreasing day by day as 'X" chromosome of the 23rd pair has unchanged and there will come a time when there wont be a "Y" in the 23rd pair...the outcome would be only female offsprings....this would be natures way of getting rid of humans...I know this sounds quite sci fi...but then yesterdays fiction is todays fact....and todays sci fi is most probably futures fact!

See this......if you have had any recent new borns in your family.....are they female or male offspring...and if you havent had one...then just wait and see the future offspring...chances are more of females....damn I had few cousins marrying recently and they all have baby daughters....even some of my friends have daughters....

Humans have reached the evolutionary peak....and we might not notice the change now......but sit back and enjoy the show after few millenia...

This is good debate...Thanks. Very mind stimulating.

Regards

[AndyBG]

My nowledge on this theme is not big enough so i can't get involved in any serious discusion, but theory that apes will evolve mutch furder then they are so far IMO is not in place, why?

We humans are dominant enhabitans of planet Earth, so we are ''crushing'' anything that is even litle on are way, so i am afraid that apes don't have enough time to show their full potential, they will be ''terminate'' on first glimbs of some serious evolving.

Insects are present on Earth seems like forever, yet they changed very litle, allmost not at all, only few of them are disapierd over milions of years.
Few days ago i watched on National Geographic something about insects and they showed a bug fossil (roach i think) from dinosaur age and its exatcly same as today.

Andy

[Code_2025]

Embryonic Similarities.

[CarbonFibre]

Originally posted by Benman
For example, why would only some apes evolve into humans? Why didn't all of them evolve? Better yet, why aren't we observing existing apes evolving into men? Yes, their apperance can change, but although we've been watching them for millennia, they're still apes.

Some apes went in one direction (where we are today) while other apes evolved in different directions to some of the other primates we see today. It's easy to say that right now they're all "just apes" as they have been for many years, but a lot of evolution is very gradual and takes many many years depending on which type of evolutionary theory you subscribe to.