Saddoboxing head to head debates

A different kind of thread away from the politics, politics and other kind of ambiguously themed politics. More of a fun thread if you will...unless someone brings politics into it....

Let's imagine that there is a TV programme with a 30 minute duration. In that programme we have 2 saddoboxing posters going at it head to head with one another on a topic or topics decided by a person who is the chairman of the debate.

So, who would you like to officiate a debate between....

I will start..I would like to see Andre and Bilbo discuss whether dinosaurs existed at the same time as man or not...

And it can be any topic with any poster. In fact, it would probably be funnier sticking a person who doesn't know what they are talking about with an expert. Be clever in your selections. We can always PM the person asking if they want to join the discussion if they have no idea it's happening in this rather different place.

Actually, I quite like the idea of a 1-1 debate or discussion about different topics, could easily help to keep the focus in one direction instead of being overwhelmed by what everybody thinks on a specific subject, very interesting concept Miles.

I would be up for a dinosaur debate.

Unfortunately I am giving my router back to my brother later and going offline again for a couple weeks.

I find the internet addiction creeping back upon me.

I will quickly say this though. The ONLY reason people think the idea of man and dinosaur coexisting is because they are indoctrinated with the evolutionary timescale and think they died out millions of years ago.

There is NOTHING at all aside from that which causes a problem with man and dinosaur coexistence, in fact ALL the other evidence supports such a relationship.

Consider the following. All ancient races and cultures recorded their encounters with dragons and monsters, sometimes describing in physical detail or even drawing them. When they provided a description they can often be matched exactly to a particular dinosaur.

They are featured in the ancient history's, for example Herodotus and carved on walls, caves, coffins, etc in unmistakable accuracy.

Now dinosaurs have been found still containing red blood cells, which has prompted scientists to declare that red blood cells have been able to survive 65 million years longer than previously thought possible! Wow, amazing, but hang on, couldn't it just be............

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

Good idea Miles! But i can see some interesting topics coming up if this takes of. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I will quickly say this though. The ONLY reason people think the idea of man and dinosaur coexisting is because they are indoctrinated with the evolutionary timescale and think they died out millions of years ago.

There is NOTHING at all aside from that which causes a problem with man and dinosaur coexistence, in fact ALL the other evidence supports such a relationship.

Consider the following. All ancient races and cultures recorded their encounters with dragons and monsters, sometimes describing in physical detail or even drawing them. When they provided a description they can often be matched exactly to a particular dinosaur.

They are featured in the ancient history's, for example Herodotus and carved on walls, caves, coffins, etc in unmistakable accuracy.

Now dinosaurs have been found still containing red blood cells, which has prompted scientists to declare that red blood cells have been able to survive 65 million years longer than previously thought possible! Wow, amazing, but hang on, couldn't it just be............

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

---

I nearly believed you then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

---

LOL straw man much?

I like this idea, remember when we had the head to head debates about boxing ? we had our own league and president ? that was fun although it went a bit down the shitter. When people claimed the judges were biased, and there was a big argument that basically ended it.

But i wouldn't mind doing something like that again, i'd like to do one with my old rival Brucelee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I will quickly say this though. The ONLY reason people think the idea of man and dinosaur coexisting is because they are indoctrinated with the evolutionary timescale and think they died out millions of years ago.

There is NOTHING at all aside from that which causes a problem with man and dinosaur coexistence, in fact ALL the other evidence supports such a relationship.

Consider the following. All ancient races and cultures recorded their encounters with dragons and monsters, sometimes describing in physical detail or even drawing them. When they provided a description they can often be matched exactly to a particular dinosaur.

They are featured in the ancient history's, for example Herodotus and carved on walls, caves, coffins, etc in unmistakable accuracy.

Now dinosaurs have been found still containing red blood cells, which has prompted scientists to declare that red blood cells have been able to survive 65 million years longer than previously thought possible! Wow, amazing, but hang on, couldn't it just be............

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

---

I agree. They wouldn't have made Jurassic Park if it wasn't true.

Interesting thread, although I forsee this being very time consuming for those very opinionated posters.

Will a short attention span suffice for this? While I enjoy debate and different opinion I do like random thoughts and discussi... wait. What

I've seen this kicked around on different message boards, to me it's gay. It never works and people get waaaay to wordy with their responses in an effort to get brownie points with whoever the judge is. Let everyone participate in the discussion, that's what I think. Of course I'm an idiot so who knows. I say we just keep winding Miles up about Israel.

True, you do need to sit a couple of people behind he keyboard to hash it out which is easier said than done. It doesn't have to be about serious things though. It could even be silly stuff such as bruce lee and HTH debating whether it's better to kiss boys or girls, that kind of thing. Could be funny.

Start with this debate...

Which one existed first, the chicken dinosaur or the egg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

---

LOL straw man much?

---

I don't even read your posts any more. I can't. Seeing Kid Thunder's brother on the skateboard in your sig is to much of a fucking distraction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I will quickly say this though. The ONLY reason people think the idea of man and dinosaur coexisting is because they are indoctrinated with the evolutionary timescale and think they died out millions of years ago.

There is NOTHING at all aside from that which causes a problem with man and dinosaur coexistence, in fact ALL the other evidence supports such a relationship.

Consider the following. All ancient races and cultures recorded their encounters with dragons and monsters, sometimes describing in physical detail or even drawing them. When they provided a description they can often be matched exactly to a particular dinosaur.

They are featured in the ancient history's, for example Herodotus and carved on walls, caves, coffins, etc in unmistakable accuracy.

Now dinosaurs have been found still containing red blood cells, which has prompted scientists to declare that red blood cells have been able to survive 65 million years longer than previously thought possible! Wow, amazing, but hang on, couldn't it just be............

Basically anyone who scoffs at me for my ridiculous belief is just confirming that they are a sheep, blindly following the scientific maxims of the day. But we KNOW they died out millions of years ago, men in white coats with no agendas of their own tell us.

---

This never fails to make me laugh :D

Well that's Bilbo's post in. Now time for Andre to weigh in with his own take on whether or not man truly walked with the dinoaurs.

And then we will have to set up another debate. Maybe a debate between HTH and Amat about whether it's better to put a finger up another girls nose or another girls bum. There could be some serious pearls of wisdom with that one.

But alas, we must await on Andre and his counter to Bilbo's insights.

Picture of a part of a Cambodian temple built 800 years ago, when Western science only began assembling dinosaurs skeletons in the past two centuries..
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...ndstone2sm.jpg

Egypt, 3300 B.C.

http://www.s8int.com/images3/meso-dino-large.jpghttp://www.s8int.com/images5/meso-diplod.jpg



It's possible!!

Looks like a Rhino and some Giraffes to me, how about you Bilbo? ;)

Actually, I fail how could it be gay or a bad idea to see two peoples confronting their arguments without anybody to hamper the debate, throwing it in unwilling directions, we have all the other threads to do that, one thread for a one-one test is quite inspiring Imo.

Where is Andre when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Where is Andre when you need him?

---

Reading up on his Darwin? I haven't the foggiest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Where is Andre when you need him?

---

Reading up on his Darwin? I haven't the foggiest!

---

You know Darwin was actually a practicing Christian and never once did it cross his mind that Evolution and Creation were mutually exclusive.

So all you Evolutionists out there can suck it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Where is Andre when you need him?

---

Reading up on his Darwin? I haven't the foggiest!

---

You know Darwin was actually a practicing Christian and never once did it cross his mind that Evolution and Creation were mutually exclusive.

So all you Evolutionists out there can suck it!

---

Don't tell me you are another creationist wacko? How many extreme views can one man have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Where is Andre when you need him?

---

Reading up on his Darwin? I haven't the foggiest!

---

You know Darwin was actually a practicing Christian and never once did it cross his mind that Evolution and Creation were mutually exclusive.

So all you Evolutionists out there can suck it!

---

I've heard many evolutionist express the belief that believing in God and believing in evolution are far from mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Don't tell me you are another creationist wacko? How many extreme views can one man have?

---

No unlike most people I don't know what happened that brought humans here and unlike the groups of people on either side of this debate I don't force my view on anyone else. I'm open minded, but I have questions like

1. If we did evolve what did we first evolve from and what circumstance put whatever organism we evolved from here on Earth

2. If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Don't tell me you are another creationist wacko? How many extreme views can one man have?

---

No unlike most people I don't know what happened that brought humans here and unlike the groups of people on either side of this debate I don't force my view on anyone else. I'm open minded, but I have questions like

1. If we did evolve what did we first evolve from and what circumstance put whatever organism we evolved from here on Earth

2. If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

---

They are fair questions to ask. I think it always important to question, after all evolution is only a theory with a set amount of evidence to support it. I am most inclined to go with evolution as I think it makes the most sense. It has nothing to do with indoctrination as Bilbo suggests. I am someone that really does question everything, whence my cynicism. I seldom accept anything at face value, but in this case I think science has the more coherent suggestions as to how life has come about as it has. I struggle to take creationism seriously as in any way a reasonable explanation for existance.

I'm cynical about a lot of things and religion itself is something I struggle to take seriously too, but that's another topic entirely. I do respect people who have their particular faiths though. They have a certainty that I just don't have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

They are fair questions to ask. I think it always important to question, after all evolution is only a theory with a set amount of evidence to support it. I am most inclined to go with evolution as I think it makes the most sense. It has nothing to do with indoctrination as Bilbo suggests. I am someone that really does question everything, whence my cynicism. I seldom accept anything at face value, but in this case I think science has the more coherent suggestions as to how life has come about as it has. I struggle to take creationism seriously as in any way a reasonable explanation for existance.

I'm cynical about a lot of things and religion itself is something I struggle to take seriously too, but that's another topic entirely. I do respect people who have their particular faiths though. They have a certainty that I just don't have.

---

Well miles finally something we can actually agree on. I'm no Bible beater myself (although I relate more to that sacred text than any other more than likely because I grew up with it) but I kind of take a Joseph Campbell approach to religion. I think the morals and values that can be taken from these sacred texts and used by the average person are lost because the leaders of organized religion politicize or skew the truth of the stories from those texts.

Lots of people see the story of Adam & Eve and see a story of temptation or deception or whatever. I look at it and see an OMNIPOTENT (all seeing, all knowing, all powerful) God giving humans the opportunity to have free will. If God is omnipotent, then of course #1 Why put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden? #2 Why point it out to Adam and Eve and say "Make sure you don't eat the fruit from that tree"?....it's because God knew they would eat from it and it could be said that God WANTED them to eat from that tree, but that's an angle on the story not many people take the time to see.

Jesus is just a rip off Mithra and Horus life, who did exist a couple thousand years before he was ever born: died at 33, had 12 disciples, walked the desert, resurrected after 3 days, it is the copy/paste of the exact same life, really. I am always astonished to discover that most "Christians" do not even know that when dozen evidence have been collected and found for the past couple thousand years, from inscriptions in Luxor to Thebes and in many ancient Indian palaces.
As for Darwin, the only reason why he said he did "believe" was simply to not get the same fate as Lavoisier, Copernicus or Galileo, the guy strongly believed in evolution, gave countless excellent examples (especially his larks).
Now the Dinosaurs thing: It's one of the funniest argument ever advances, all the radiometry and stratigraphy tests conclude unanimously that earth is far far older than 50 000 and so were the dinosaurs. Such arguments as Bilbo stated about "being carved in a palace's wall" are extremely funny, it's like if people in 2000 years would get their hands over a tape of Jurassic Park and conclude that we did live with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs skeletons have been found for a long long time now and it would be naive to imagine that people at the time didn't have a fascination for these bones just like we, modern, do today.
As for the argument of the "hidden agenda", except if you take for granted that all the modern scientists working on archeology and evolution are member of the same plot (for which reason, by the way?? I don't see any reasons why they would secretly and unanimously against a creative factors), that argument just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

Picture of a part of a Cambodian temple built 800 years ago, when Western science only began assembling dinosaurs skeletons in the past two centuries..
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...ndstone2sm.jpg

Egypt, 3300 B.C.

http://www.s8int.com/images3/meso-dino-large.jpghttp://www.s8int.com/images5/meso-diplod.jpg



It's possible!!

---

Your skull Diz could merely be a cow's skull, seriously. Also, even accepting that it might be a dinosaur skull, how hard would it be to imagine that people at the time did find skulls like it and were fascinated as they didn't know what it was? What kind of proof is that they really lived with Dinos? The conclusion are far to fast with a substantial lack of proofs.

Google Image Result for http://www.fallingpixel.com/products/5678/mains/cow-skull_00.jpg

There are a few things that I would like to point out. A scientific theory and a everyday ho hum theory are 2 entirely different things. A scientific theory is backed up by copious amounts of data and are verified by the experts in their field and can be modified in the future with new discoveries and information. Like the theory of relativity, theory of thermodynamics, theory of computation, and yes the theory of evolution. Like I've said, entirely different than the everyday layman's theory that isn't really backed up by anything.

And another thing, we didn't evolve from monkeys. No scientific journal states this. It's been misrepresented by dolts who don't know what they're talking about. We and the apes today shared a common ancestor and both groups branched off far different than evolving from monkeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Jesus is just a rip off Mithra and Horus life, who did exist a couple thousand years before he was ever born: died at 33, had 12 disciples, walked the desert, resurrected after 3 days, it is the copy/paste of the exact same life, really. I am always astonished to discover that most "Christians" do not even know that when dozen evidence have been collected and found for the past couple thousand years, from inscriptions in Luxor to Thebes and in many ancient Indian palaces.
As for Darwin, the only reason why he said he did "believe" was simply to not get the same fate as Lavoisier, Copernicus or Galileo, the guy strongly believed in evolution, gave countless excellent examples (especially his larks).
Now the Dinosaurs thing: It's one of the funniest argument ever advances, all the radiometry and stratigraphy tests conclude unanimously that earth is far far older than 50 000 and so were the dinosaurs. Such arguments as Bilbo stated about "being carved in a palace's wall" are extremely funny, it's like if people in 2000 years would get their hands over a tape of Jurassic Park and conclude that we did live with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs skeletons have been found for a long long time now and it would be naive to imagine that people at the time didn't have a fascination for these bones just like we, modern, do today.
As for the argument of the "hidden agenda", except if you take for granted that all the modern scientists working on archeology and evolution are member of the same plot (for which reason, by the way?? I don't see any reasons why they would secretly and unanimously against a creative factors), that argument just doesn't make sense.

---

Well imo what makes these sacred texts and stories so fascinating is that the stories are virtually the same but in some instances the peoples that believed and taught these similar stories never had ANY contact. Look at creation stories, stories of great floods etc. Its the same in India as it was in North America, odd isn't it unless psychologically man just by chance explained things in a similar manner across different cultures (will post a vid proving this point later)

As for your "hidden agenda" deal...what about Global Warming? The scientists seem pretty keen on feigning that man caused that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Jesus is just a rip off Mithra and Horus life, who did exist a couple thousand years before he was ever born: died at 33, had 12 disciples, walked the desert, resurrected after 3 days, it is the copy/paste of the exact same life, really. I am always astonished to discover that most "Christians" do not even know that when dozen evidence have been collected and found for the past couple thousand years, from inscriptions in Luxor to Thebes and in many ancient Indian palaces.
As for Darwin, the only reason why he said he did "believe" was simply to not get the same fate as Lavoisier, Copernicus or Galileo, the guy strongly believed in evolution, gave countless excellent examples (especially his larks).
Now the Dinosaurs thing: It's one of the funniest argument ever advances, all the radiometry and stratigraphy tests conclude unanimously that earth is far far older than 50 000 and so were the dinosaurs. Such arguments as Bilbo stated about "being carved in a palace's wall" are extremely funny, it's like if people in 2000 years would get their hands over a tape of Jurassic Park and conclude that we did live with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs skeletons have been found for a long long time now and it would be naive to imagine that people at the time didn't have a fascination for these bones just like we, modern, do today.
As for the argument of the "hidden agenda", except if you take for granted that all the modern scientists working on archeology and evolution are member of the same plot (for which reason, by the way?? I don't see any reasons why they would secretly and unanimously against a creative factors), that argument just doesn't make sense.

---

Well imo what makes these sacred texts and stories so fascinating is that the stories are virtually the same but in some instances the peoples that believed and taught these similar stories never had ANY contact. Look at creation stories, stories of great floods etc. Its the same in India as it was in North America, odd isn't it unless psychologically man just by chance explained things in a similar manner across different cultures (will post a vid proving this point later)

As for your "hidden agenda" deal...what about Global Warming? The scientists seem pretty keen on feigning that man caused that.

---

I suppose dramatic events have always been the same through history. Every so often you get great tsunami's, floods or great plagues. Natural disasters are one common theme which I am sure humans can relate to from way back. I would argue that this has no particular religious significance, though early man may have tried to justify it to himself as such. Whence religious scripture where we are told of such events. I don't really see what role god had to play in the tsunami of 2005. The same as I don't think he was involved in shocking events of yesteryear.

As for the hidden agenda with global warming. That was a small circulation of emails in the great scheme of credible scientific research. Global warming is for real and if you want to ignore the valid opinion of scientists in perhaps one of the most researched areas of recent years, then fair enough. But you've most likely been taken for a ride by corporations whose very future relies upon the continued destruction of the earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Jesus is just a rip off Mithra and Horus life, who did exist a couple thousand years before he was ever born: died at 33, had 12 disciples, walked the desert, resurrected after 3 days, it is the copy/paste of the exact same life, really. I am always astonished to discover that most "Christians" do not even know that when dozen evidence have been collected and found for the past couple thousand years, from inscriptions in Luxor to Thebes and in many ancient Indian palaces.
As for Darwin, the only reason why he said he did "believe" was simply to not get the same fate as Lavoisier, Copernicus or Galileo, the guy strongly believed in evolution, gave countless excellent examples (especially his larks).
Now the Dinosaurs thing: It's one of the funniest argument ever advances, all the radiometry and stratigraphy tests conclude unanimously that earth is far far older than 50 000 and so were the dinosaurs. Such arguments as Bilbo stated about "being carved in a palace's wall" are extremely funny, it's like if people in 2000 years would get their hands over a tape of Jurassic Park and conclude that we did live with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs skeletons have been found for a long long time now and it would be naive to imagine that people at the time didn't have a fascination for these bones just like we, modern, do today.
As for the argument of the "hidden agenda", except if you take for granted that all the modern scientists working on archeology and evolution are member of the same plot (for which reason, by the way?? I don't see any reasons why they would secretly and unanimously against a creative factors), that argument just doesn't make sense.

---

Well imo what makes these sacred texts and stories so fascinating is that the stories are virtually the same but in some instances the peoples that believed and taught these similar stories never had ANY contact. Look at creation stories, stories of great floods etc. Its the same in India as it was in North America, odd isn't it unless psychologically man just by chance explained things in a similar manner across different cultures (will post a vid proving this point later)

As for your "hidden agenda" deal...what about Global Warming? The scientists seem pretty keen on feigning that man caused that.

---

The thing is: It is very possible that such thing as a huge flooding happened, matter of fact, I recall some scientists stating that it happened in some part of the desert based on some sediments they did find. Incorporating things that really happened with some fiction and some myth is more or less what the bible is: they took the fiction of Jesus in the modern testament, clogged some facts to it and asked people to shove it down their throat as if it was the truth. MAtter of fact, Jesus probably never existed, neither all the non-sense creation gosspell around it, they just incorporated some facts to the whole and told people "this is how it went, period", which is what the Church did for hundred of years. Still, according to the christian religion, you have to adopt the dogma that Jesus exists, that it happened the way they said it, that the "devil" under a snake appearance forced Eve to eat the evil apple etc, these dogmas are quite necessary to believe in the "real christianism", now some movements are playing the "interpretation" card because the non-sense of all it is getting way too obvious but at the core, that, the holy trinity and the child of God came here to save us (From what??) are necessary to the christian faith/gospell.
Now as for the global warming, there is not much doubts that is true. The thing, however, is that you have some "wise" ones in the whole who thought: "hey, we have to do something for it but we could make it look even scarier faster to make some dimes out of it". So in the whole, you have problems who have one common factor: global warming is real BUT you have those who wants to reverse the thing to save as much human and species as possible, some who just want to make some bucks out of it and the prophet of doom for which we'll all die tomorrow.. or after tomorrow if finally tomorrow happens. It is a very complex situation with many actors having different interests linked to the same problem.

The vid I was talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RL08j1T8Rc

All religions that had 0 (or very little) personal or written contact and they all come up with the EXACT SAME stories/legends/sacred texts...quite odd don't you think?

Most of these dogmas come from one source: It's probably an astronomic interpretation; the 12 disciples are the 12 signs of the Zodiac, the 3 days for the resurrection are the 3 days where the sun is at its lower before it raises again, based on the rotation of earth and the astral themselves, the famous 3 kings present in all the egyptian/indian/christian religion are nothing more than the 3 bright stars that are lined up with earth and the sun around the 25 of december


http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/ca...136412r9FtfQ4X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Well that's Bilbo's post in. Now time for Andre to weigh in with his own take on whether or not man truly walked with the dinoaurs.

And then we will have to set up another debate. Maybe a debate between HTH and Amat about whether it's better to put a finger up another girls nose or another girls bum. There could be some serious pearls of wisdom with that one.

But alas, we must await on Andre and his counter to Bilbo's insights.

---

Sorry I dont read all the threads Im slack. Must have missed this.

I agree with Bilbo completely.

Although if they did coexist it sort of smashes his other theory that Adam and eve were the very first humans here, because you'd think they'd mention in the good book after Adam and eve and cain and able etc with all their familys and all their history that just once one of those Giants would get a mention (not in a past tense of times gone). But in a real time tense like " and Cain begat JAcob who begat Horab who begat Fiddla who was squashed flat by a giant foot behind a bush one morning.

Prior to Adam and Eve yeah for sure but that makes other men and women being here prior to the first white skinned people 4 wreal mon.
(They were black by the way :cool:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Well that's Bilbo's post in. Now time for Andre to weigh in with his own take on whether or not man truly walked with the dinoaurs.

And then we will have to set up another debate. Maybe a debate between HTH and Amat about whether it's better to put a finger up another girls nose or another girls bum. There could be some serious pearls of wisdom with that one.

But alas, we must await on Andre and his counter to Bilbo's insights.

---

Sorry I dont read all the threads Im slack. Must have missed this.

I agree with Bilbo completely.

Although if they did coexist it sort of smashes his other theory that Adam and eve were the very first humans here, because you'd think they'd mention in the good book after Adam and eve and cain and able etc with all their familys and all their history that just once one of those Giants would get a mention (not in a past tense of times gone). But in a real time tense like " and Cain begat JAcob who begat Horab who begat Fiddla who was squashed flat by a giant foot behind a bush one morning.

Prior to Adam and Eve yeah for sure but that makes other men and women being here prior to the first white skinned people 4 wreal mon.
(They were black by the way :cool:).

---

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

There you go, right after Cain and Able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Well that's Bilbo's post in. Now time for Andre to weigh in with his own take on whether or not man truly walked with the dinoaurs.

And then we will have to set up another debate. Maybe a debate between HTH and Amat about whether it's better to put a finger up another girls nose or another girls bum. There could be some serious pearls of wisdom with that one.

But alas, we must await on Andre and his counter to Bilbo's insights.

---

Sorry I dont read all the threads Im slack. Must have missed this.

I agree with Bilbo completely.

Although if they did coexist it sort of smashes his other theory that Adam and eve were the very first humans here, because you'd think they'd mention in the good book after Adam and eve and cain and able etc with all their familys and all their history that just once one of those Giants would get a mention (not in a past tense of times gone). But in a real time tense like " and Cain begat JAcob who begat Horab who begat Fiddla who was squashed flat by a giant foot behind a bush one morning.

Prior to Adam and Eve yeah for sure but that makes other men and women being here prior to the first white skinned people 4 wreal mon.
(They were black by the way :cool:).

---

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

There you go, right after Cain and Able.

---

How would you respond to something like this Bilbo:

Answers.com - What does genesis chapter 6 verse 4 mean

It seems to my admittedly untrained eye that the term 'giants' (and all of Genesis 6 really) is very open to interpretation...