Giants Footprint, Real Or Hoax?

[bojulay]

Whether real or a hoax or formed by
natural erosion it is very interesting.

I don't think natural erosion would form a
footprint that included toes and mud pushed
up between them, so I have to go with formed
by someone or made by a giant foot.

[zerodahero]

There were giants in the earth on those days; and it also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:verse 4

[bojulay]

This video shows some of the most amazing artifacts
you will ever see, they are not from any known culture,
and a mystery.

Probably the most amazing are skulls from no known race
of people.

[acp5762]

I wonder where the other one is. Assuming whoever made that footprint had two feet.

[JCM800]

and where are the shoes at?

[mississippifunguy]

I do believe they're real like zerodahero stated. Of course I believe in Bigfoot and go on research trips looking for them. YES, I HAVE seen one here in Mississippi. SHE was about 7 1/2 feet tall and at 50 feet, there's no denying what it was

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by zerodahero

There were giants in the earth on those days; and it also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:verse 4

The book of Genesis is a story, nothing more. all stories have to have a beginning, so they wrote one for The Bible. all that "God created the Heavens and Earth in 6 days" nonsense. Kinda like claiming that the Earth is flat today, when science has proven its not. Science has also proven the Earth is some 4 billion years old. Hardly 6 days plus known recorded history, about 10,000 years or so.

the worst thing creationists can do for their cause is contend that a "day" in biblical terms is what .. millions of years actually? please.

either its 6 days or its not.

The Bible itself is a story, and a rather controversial one at that. many things were intentionally left out of the Bible, in its many variants. because the many variants of Christianity and to a lessor degree Judaism couldn't agree on them.

The Bible was not in fact written by the actual people it is attributed to, such as Moses and the 12 apostles, it is based on stories passed down to later generations, some in writings and some verbal.

"In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes collected the current evidence to conclude outright that Moses could not have written the bulk of the Torah. Shortly afterwards the philosopher Baruch Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, arguing that the problematic passages were not isolated cases that could be explained away one by one, but pervasive throughout the five books, concluding that it was "clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses . . ."[89][90] Despite determined opposition from Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, the views of Hobbes and Spinoza gained increasing acceptance amongst scholars."

"In modern times, the view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many mainstream academics in the field of biblical criticism"

"A Christian Bible is a set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting scripture. Although the Early Church primarily used the Septuagint or the Targums among Aramaic speakers, the apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the canon of the New Testament developed over time"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible

"In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament, most of Judeao-Christianity discredit the legitimacy of the New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

oh and one last thing about the quote from Genesis you selected .. do you really think Giants could mate with human females given the so-called difference in physical size? kinda gives a new (sic) meaning to the phrase "I really tore that pussy up!" doesn't it?

[bojulay]

King David's palace found in Israel.
Right where the Bible claimed it would be.

Also found were seals bearing the names of specific
people mentioned in the bible, holding positions of
power that the Bible claimed they held.

What is the significance of the find?

Not long ago secular archaeologist and scholars claimed
that the story and actual existence of King David was
only a myth.

[LNK]

WTF do the last two posts have to do with giant footprints in granite?

I want to know how it got there.

I'm pretty sure I know, but would love to hear what others are thinking. Real or Fake?

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by LNK

WTF do the last two posts have to do with giant footprints in granite?

I want to know how it got there.

I'm pretty sure I know, but would love to hear what others are thinking. Real or Fake?

You had to go and ask.

Take your pick.

It was formed by natural process, erosion or when the outcropping
of rocks was formed.

It was formed in part or whole by someone so that it would
take on the appearance of a footprint.

Some giant stepped in some mud and left it behind.

There are problems with each of those.
How would, what looks like a giant footprint, form through natural
means, complete with toes and mud squished up between them.

If someone formed it by hand. then why and for what reason,
out in the middle of nowhere, and it appears to have been
formed all at the same time a long time ago.

If it were the actual footprint of a giant, it is in what appears
to be granite which is supposed to have been molten hot when
it was in a pliable state, but there are claims to the contrary.
The toes look a little to even across, but what exactly is a
giants foot suppose to look like.

It is unlikely that it will ever get any study from the current
mainstream scientific community, because anyone that goes
against the Darwinian Model for the explanation of our world,
is in threat of excommunication by the Darwin Fundamentalist,
that have a dogmatic stranglehold on all things scientific.

Even to study any kind of an object that would in anyway
suggest, ether directly or by proxy, that the Darwinian Model
might come under question, would put their careers and reputation
at risk.

[Guest032516]

More hoax bullshit posted by Bojulay, who is the most gullible poster on this board.

The guy started out by saying the rock was a couple of BILLION years old. That means that this alleged humanoid giant, which had a foot like ours, existed not only before all mammals, it even existed before plant life and bacterial life. Two billions years ago, the earth was still a pretty hot and hostile place.

So, obviously, the foot was carved out by humans, perhaps centuries ago. Erosion removed all evidence of chiseling marks.

And I don't agree with his characterization that the formation at the top of the big toe looks anything like mud that would ooze up between or around the toes. His mind is filling in that detail.

[wildbillybob]

It must be a print made by a giant's foot. What other part of a giant could have made it?

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

More hoax bullshit posted by Bojulay, who is the most gullible poster on this board.

The guy started out by saying the rock was a couple of BILLION years old. That means that this alleged humanoid giant, which had a foot like ours, existed not only before all mammals, it even existed before plant life and bacterial life. Two billions years ago, the earth was still a pretty hot and hostile place.

So, obviously, the foot was carved out by humans, perhaps centuries ago. Erosion removed all evidence of chiseling marks.

And I don't agree with his characterization that the formation at the top of the big toe looks anything like mud that would ooze up between or around the toes. His mind is filling in that detail.

The fossil record shows only three things.

Creatures that once existed but are now extinct.

Creatures that existed (If you can believe the dating methods
used by evolutionist) from millions of years ago, that still exist
today, in a relatively unchanged state from what the oldest
fossils show them to be.

And absolutely no transitional fossils showing creatures changing
from one kind to another.

So who is the gullible one?

Stephen Jay Gould noted evolutionary scientist said
--The fossil record with it's abrupt transitions offers
no support for gradual change.

So we are suppose to discount the fossil record as unreliable,
in favor of their supposed theory of evolution.

I'll bet you always did what teacher said.

[The_Waco_Kid]

my god bojulay! you are right! I have searched the interwebs and i have found proof of your giant! Really! here he is!

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

my god bojulay! you are right! I have searched the interwebs and i have found proof of your giant! Really! here he is!

Umm ok. But I don't have a giant boss, I don't know what the
imprint is, just think that it is an interesting anomaly.

Actually there are things more interesting in the second video
that I posted.