That was awesome man, thanks for sharing. I had no idea there was any sort of evidence that showed that giants were real. No surprise at all that the Smithsonian wants to cover it up.
San Francisco has won the World Series three times in the past five years.
There were reports in the US in the 1800s and early 1900s of scientists finding evidence of giant people. This was seen by some as evidence of the truth of the Bible. The Cardiff Giant became a widely known hoax which debunked the idea of giants in many people's minds. Not much evidence of giants was found in the 1900s when technology was better and researchers' attitudes more rigorous.
suppressed. they've been found all over the planet. if we were around when the dinosaurs were, or not long after, we too would likely have been much larger than we are now.
Well there's a few reasons evolution is not pseudoscience, the least of which being that we have actual evidence for it. But to clarify this issue, let's look at the definiton of pseudosceince.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
So as you can see, evolution does not encounter this issue, as it follows the scientific method, can easily be reliably tested, and so on. However, Ken Hamm falls under pseduoscience for his claims which do many of the things claimed in the definition. Pseudoarchaeology is similar in definition, but not quite.
That's not really the best response. And like I said, thanks to experiments like Miller-Urey, we can actually see the early development of life on earth (note: this has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution and the origin of life are two separate topics)
The video addresses everything we've discussed about evolution, including Miller-Urey (which is laughable at best). It's a long video, but it covers a huge amount of material. If you want to continue to be intellectually dishonest you are free to do so.
It really doesn't. It makes a ton of vague claims and doesn't back anything up. For example, we've re-tested Miller-Urey and found the same results-the creation of amino acids from basic organic chemicals. And how am I the intellectually dishonest one? You've outright ignored things I pointed out that don't agree with you, and you seem convinced that science is entirely wrong, yet give no evidence of this when asked. So no, I think you have it backwards.
Not even close. Your debunkings are terrible (again, no offence). Like I said, you have yet to respond to my point about where the water went, while also accounting for the fact that the original verse clearly indicates the mountains having stayed constant, and the water level reaching that high, among other issues. You also post a lot of youtube video's, and if you wouldn't mind trying to post more documents than videos, I would be appreciative, just because I can usually read them faster than I can watch a video.
I believe they exist, but you have to make up your own mind. Search up "Proof of Giants" or something like that on youtube, watch some videos, and decide for yourself.
even today we have giants, so i don't think it's so far fetched. did they get 9 foot or more, idk, but i wouldn't be surprised, as life is anything but predictable. Pladapus o.o
28 comments
7 DontTreadOnMe16 2015-01-21
Great question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mAuVOqTSw
This is a fantastic "banned" TED talk all about the giants of New England. There's a ton of interesting information about them.
3 G_Wash1776 2015-01-21
That was awesome man, thanks for sharing. I had no idea there was any sort of evidence that showed that giants were real. No surprise at all that the Smithsonian wants to cover it up.
3 redditeditard 2015-01-21
holy shit, shelburne is a half hour from my home.
2 redditeditard 2015-01-21
A longer presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJIRkF8ow8
2 redditeditard 2015-01-21
https://tedxshelburnefalls.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/jim-vieiras-talk-removed-from-internet/
http://www.history.com/shows/search-for-the-lost-giants
(interesting symbols on this blog) http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/jim-vieira-claims-my-analysis-of-giants-is-wrong-because-i-use-big-words
http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/167e65/remember_that_cool_ted_talk_about_stone_builders/
5 Aurvandel 2015-01-21
Eli Manning is not as good as his brother.
San Francisco has won the World Series three times in the past five years.
There were reports in the US in the 1800s and early 1900s of scientists finding evidence of giant people. This was seen by some as evidence of the truth of the Bible. The Cardiff Giant became a widely known hoax which debunked the idea of giants in many people's minds. Not much evidence of giants was found in the 1900s when technology was better and researchers' attitudes more rigorous.
1 materhern 2015-01-21
The Giants suck. Fuck Madison Bumgarner.
1 andrewmccarthyism 2015-01-21
Fellow Royals fan.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-21
bwaahahahahahahahahahaha
3 xxxDragonSlayer 2015-01-21
Andre the Giant is the OBEY guy. That's all I got.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-21
http://designsbydisobey.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/4/8/21485520/9910037_orig.jpg
0 panemetkirkinses 2015-01-21
suppressed. they've been found all over the planet. if we were around when the dinosaurs were, or not long after, we too would likely have been much larger than we are now.
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
All those supposed finds later turned out to be hoaxes. It was not covered up in the slightest.
0 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
Are you paid to shill like you do?
If you're not, you should be.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
Despite what you may think, I'm not a shill. I just dislike pseudoarchaeology.
-1 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
Like evolution? I can't stand such pseudoscience.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
Well there's a few reasons evolution is not pseudoscience, the least of which being that we have actual evidence for it. But to clarify this issue, let's look at the definiton of pseudosceince.
So as you can see, evolution does not encounter this issue, as it follows the scientific method, can easily be reliably tested, and so on. However, Ken Hamm falls under pseduoscience for his claims which do many of the things claimed in the definition. Pseudoarchaeology is similar in definition, but not quite.
0 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
Universal common descent certainly does. It's a religion presented as science.
Life cannot happen by accident. That's a cruel joke.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
Pretty sure we've been over why it's not. Repeatedly.
Well that's the thing, it seems like it apparently can. Just look at the Miller-Urey experiment.
0 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
I'm just going to leave this here.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
That's not really the best response. And like I said, thanks to experiments like Miller-Urey, we can actually see the early development of life on earth (note: this has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution and the origin of life are two separate topics)
0 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
The video addresses everything we've discussed about evolution, including Miller-Urey (which is laughable at best). It's a long video, but it covers a huge amount of material. If you want to continue to be intellectually dishonest you are free to do so.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
It really doesn't. It makes a ton of vague claims and doesn't back anything up. For example, we've re-tested Miller-Urey and found the same results-the creation of amino acids from basic organic chemicals. And how am I the intellectually dishonest one? You've outright ignored things I pointed out that don't agree with you, and you seem convinced that science is entirely wrong, yet give no evidence of this when asked. So no, I think you have it backwards.
1 SquareHimself 2015-01-21
I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've debunked it every single time. Give it up already.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-21
Not even close. Your debunkings are terrible (again, no offence). Like I said, you have yet to respond to my point about where the water went, while also accounting for the fact that the original verse clearly indicates the mountains having stayed constant, and the water level reaching that high, among other issues. You also post a lot of youtube video's, and if you wouldn't mind trying to post more documents than videos, I would be appreciative, just because I can usually read them faster than I can watch a video.
-1 Elijah6053 2015-01-21
I believe they exist, but you have to make up your own mind. Search up "Proof of Giants" or something like that on youtube, watch some videos, and decide for yourself.
-1 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-21
even today we have giants, so i don't think it's so far fetched. did they get 9 foot or more, idk, but i wouldn't be surprised, as life is anything but predictable. Pladapus o.o
-2 Rockran 2015-01-21
Huh?
1 panemetkirkinses 2015-01-21
shut it down!