Skeletons of giants found. What is your explanation?

Question

I have heard about skeletons of giant "people" being found. Some creationists claim that these are the fossils of giants that are mentioned in the Bible.

My interpretation of it is that if the fossils are legitimate, then they are the fossils of prehistoric apes that were perhaps related to gorillas, only a bit larger.

Does anyone have any information on this from a legitmate scientific website?

Have you heard of this?

The reason why I brought this up is because I saw a video of a creationist trying to use the supposed discovery of giants as evidence of creationism.

He also showed a photo of a demon skull.

The funny thing was he appeared to be serious.

Answer 1

It is difficult to know for sure what you are talking about, because there are several such stories. Some true, some mistaken, and some intentionally false.

"Dr" Kent Hovind, of the Discovery Institute and founder of Dinosaur Adventure Land, along with his creatuionist fraudulent cohort, Carl Baugh, claim to have a photo of a skeleton that is the "giant" mentioned in the bible.

"Unfortunately, Baugh, in his book, does not say where the picture came from, or give any further details concerning it, except for the caption which appears beneath it in his book: "A miner fell through a hole in a mine in Italy and found this 11' 6" skeleton." Kent Hovind, during his presentations, even adds a date ("1856," if I recall correctly) for this "discovery," though there is no mention of a specific date in Baugh's book."

The photo is of a relatively complete and intact skeleton. This is unheard of in antropology digs. What you have is not a skeleton with the bones attached to each other as if the flesh instantly melted off. The real skeletons found by paleontologists and anthropologists are laid flat on a table, because the connective tissues have wasted away. Further, these skeletons are rarely as complete as the one in the photo.

More...
"Having struck my curiosity with his indistinct "photo" (originally published in God-knows-what newspaper or book), I phoned Carl Baugh, the author of the book in which the picture appeared. He said that he obtained the picture from another creationist, Clifford Burdick. Baugh was visiting Burdick's home one day and Burdick told Baugh, "You want this?" (meaning, the picture in question) and added the little story that it was of a skeleton found in a mine in Italy in the "19th century," i.e., in the 1800s. No more verification was apparently asked for or added by Burdick, who died soon after turning over the picture to Baugh. So, the story begins and ends with Burdick and with what Baugh says Burdick said, which is precious little in the way of corroboration.

Clifford Burdick, of course, once argued for "The Discovery of Human Skeletons in Cretaceous Formation" (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 10, Sept. 1973) or, as the skeletons were nicknamed, "Moab Man." Human skeletons found in rock from the Cretaceous era? According to the geologic time scale, not even humanity's earliest human-like ancestors appeared until well after the Cretaceous. However, this case turned into yet another instance in which creationists had to recant due to the evidence pointed out by mainstream scientists. For instance, a professor of anthropology examined the "Moab Man" skeletons as soon as they were first uncovered (when some ground was being bulldozed). The professor agreed that these were indeed human skeletons, but that they were just Indian skeletons that had been buried in a rock crevice, the surrounding rocks dating back to the Cretaceous, but not the buried skeletons, which were merely slid in between the rocks, and which were later covered by sand, etc."
(from the first link in "sources")
See the link to view further information about the lies of Baugh and Hovind.

From the second link in "sources."
"Creationists often claim that the Peking Man fossils were the remains of giant apes or monkeys. As fate would have it, there was a giant ape which lived in China at the same time as Homo erectus. Gigantopithecus blacki, named after Davidson Black, is known only from four lower jaws and about a thousand teeth. Judging from their enormous size, Gigantopithecus was the largest primate that ever lived, with males standing at 10 ft tall, and weighing up to 1200 lbs (Ciochon et al., 1990). (Extrapolating from such scanty remains is obviously risky; other people have made smaller estimates.)
Although it is a giant ape, Gigantopithecus is of no comfort to creationists trying to show the Peking Man was an ape. Its jaw is far too large to be mistaken for that of Peking Man."
http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Creationists may point out that Gigantopithecus is only known from a jawbone, but evolutionists have never tried to hide that, and make it clear even from the beginning of the discovery.

"Moab Man" was accepted by creationists only on the basis of a photo. The actual skeleton has never been produced, studied, or found. Somehow, this is OK for creationists, but not for evolutionists. A jawbone with teeth counts for far more than a photo which can't be verified and could easily be faked.
Go figure.

There is the "Burdick Print," which is another creationist fraud (See the third link in "Sources"), which claims "that fossilized human footprints (or "giant man tracks") occurred alongside dinosaur tracks in Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas, allegedly providing dramatic evidence against the theory of evolution and the standard geologic timetable. However, in recent years a number of critical studies have shown that the "man tracks" are due to a variety of misidentified phenomena, incuding elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional markings, vague depressions of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored or carved specimens--most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of stone (Cole and Godfrey 1985; Kuban 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1989; Hastings 1987, 1988; Strahler, 1989). In the wake of mounting evidence against the "man track" claims, most creationists have largely abandoned the "man track" claims, although a few persistent individuals, including Carl Baugh and Don Patton continue to promote such claims."

The only remotely true "giant" of all of these is the Gigantopithicus, which was an ape that lived during the same time as Homo erectus. The estimates of Gigantopithicus' size is based on the greater size of his lower jawbone and teeth. Because that is all there is to go on for this species of ape, the estimate of his size is quite guarded. It assumes that Gigantopithicus is proportioned similar to other apes of that time period. This is likely and reasonable, but not certain.

Most likely, the story you heard of is the one of the "Giant of the Bible," or "Moab Man," which is likely a hoax, and even if it isn't, is totally unreliable. Photos can be manipulated in a number of ways to create illusions. If you take a photo of me with the skeleton of a mouse in the foreground, the mouse will appear to be a giant, due to its presence and location in the photo. The photo, I'm certain, was not intended to "fool" evolutionists, but it is certainly fooling the YEC's, who require little more to believe any factoid other than that it agree with their narrow views.

The other links that I posted are further information about these same things discussed in the first three links in "Sources."

Hope this helps.

El Chistoso

Answer 2

Skeletons Of Giants

Answer 3

I haven't heard about this, but from reading the bible and knowing that it is often a reliable historical account supported by archeology, I'm open to the suggestion that human beings have changed over time, perhaps not necessarily by the principles of "evolution", but the possibility of genetic mutation isn't necessarily contradictory to the bible. I'm skeptical of any claims of bone findings. Last week they claimed to have found the bones of Jesus, while even the Jews who would like to believe this are saying that it is an unfounded claim, as there were many people of that time with those names found in the tombs. Don't believe everything you hear. Be an honest skeptic, seeking the truth.

Answer 4

You are probably referring to "Gigantopithecus," which was a gigantic ape. There have been no "giant" humans found. There have been some pretty TALL humans (Nariokotome Boy was almost 6" tall, and wasn't done growing yet), but no giants.

Answer 5

Just goes to show you how little we think we know. I have heard the same, also heard of hobbit peoples on some island. Einstein was correct, God does have a sense of humor.
¥☺¥

Answer 6

No. I heard they once found skeleton's of tuna fish.

Answer 7

is this the same place they found jesus's bones?

Answer 8

big ppl