6 votes

Human Skeletons over 18' tall - Genesis Chapter 6. Where did this come from?

Human skeletons over 18' tall? where did these come from?


Read your bible. All the answers are there

Updated: http://www.genesis6giants.com/

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


You "doubt" they are all hoaxes? So, if there are 20 pictures and 19 are fake what is your criteria to figure out the real one?

I'll save you the trouble, you can't come up with a standard of evidence because they are all fake.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

They would not

Acknowledge giants. It would go against Darwin's idiot theory's. In those days there were giants. If man came from apes. why are there still apes?

Money talks and dogs bark

Please tell me you are joking, or mentally challenged

I think you are being satyrical. But if not:

"If man came from apes. why are there still apes?"

Come on....That is a response by uneducated people in the 1950's. Evolution does not claim we "came from apes". Evolution demonstrates how we evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is many branches of a tree, not a single stem.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

why call this person mentally

why call this person mentally challenged? You better go look in the mirror. Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. To some people, it makes no difference how much evidence and FACT you give them. They will deny the truth. You are the poster child for that.

Just how he rolls, you've

Just how he rolls, you've been here long enough to know that, SIERRAHPBT. But he swallows all of Darwinism, so....


Sort of

First of all, there are dozens of theories in evolutionary science. However, I'm assuming you are talking about Darwins general theory. In that case, yes, it is best explanation of how evolution works to this point. It explains the observed fact of evolution. If you have a better one, then you need to publish it, you would be a millionaire.

I "swallow" Darwins explanation no more than you, I hope, swallow Newtons Gravitational Theory, the theories of infectious diseases, etc...

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I agree

You would think this would be on every news channel. It's obviously a hoax.

why isn't every vote of

why isn't every vote of treason in Congress on every news channel? There are those who want the people to be ignorant of the truth.

I know I know...

Because every vote is a hoax?




Good one :D

but revere1776

where are all the fossils of mid evolution animals, and where are the animals that are currently evolving? If you take one piece out of the billions of pieces that goes into the biochemistry of a cell it does not live. I think they put the odds of the biochemistry of a cell occurring for it to work at the same as that of blowing up a house and all the pieces falling back together perfectly as if the house had never been blown up.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Fossil remains

of the first politician...

LoL, what I find so funny

LoL, what I find so funny about this is that Bible-thumping types are so quick to believe an obvious hoax about giant humans but see nothing at all compelling about the thousands of fossil remains that actually DO exist of pre homo-sapien man.


the bible you have to take with a grain of salt
you can't discredit all accounts of the bible as you can't credit all accounts of the bible
when you completely shun the bible you are no better than the people that get a little info and use that to say the bible is all real
I look at it as more of a historical document with stories, fables, real accounts, separating them out is the hard part
be objective and not dismissive


its called micro and macro evolution
what you are referring to is micro evolution
what we are referring to is macro evolution
there's a difference

Nope. There is no such thing

It was Christian creationists that came up with those terms, science doesn't work that way. Evolution is not split up like that. Darwins Theory merely explains the fact of evolution and the observed results.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

You talkin 'bout monkey bones?

I'm pretty skeptical of scientists interpretation of the past. Its usually based on pre-conceived ideas.

Since we have no personal knowledge of our origin, it seems odd to me that anyone would prefer to believe that they came from a monkey rather than straight from the hand of God.

Theres a difference between interpretation and observation.

We observe that there are thousands of human like but distinctly not human skulls that exist. They are interpreted to be older than humans. But they question remains, what were these human like creatures?

Not thousands. More like dozens, but your point still


Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Hey partner, I'm in the

Hey partner, I'm in the medical field and am very well aware of the problems that pervade the scientific community, but I think you put yourself in a difficult spot when you adhere religious dogma too that flies in the face of what can be physically demonstrated in the real world.

Dogma with a crown on its head

You can never prove that humans came from monkeys. You weren't there, so you'll never know. You can believe whatever you want -- that's your right of faith. In the end, all this evolution nonsense boils down to is an attempt to justify the notion that the Queen of England descended from a superior ape than you did, so she should therefore have more rights than you and more carbon credits. Even the monkey kingdom isn't that barbaric.

That's an odd thing to

That's an odd thing to assert, especially considering the Bible is rife with examples of God choosing one race over another, even to the point of ordering women and infants be slain because it was God's chosen people doing the slaying. The Queen of England comment is just bizarre. Royalty always claimed God's anointing authority, not science.

Evolution, I agree, is not provable, at least in the sense that one species evolves into another. But the fossil record supporting the notion is FAR greater than these fake stories of giants being found are. The fact that so many "believers" are quick to jump on the "see, the Bible's right" bandwagon based on a fake photos should be far more disturbing to a believer I would think.

Even though this so-called human queen looks apelike,

Darwin's fantastic Theory of Evolution has absolutely no relevance to our lives unless it is used to justify eugenics, genocide, and monarchy. Who cares if the queen came from a monkey? My problem is when the people who believe they came from monkeys try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Or when they try to tax us to support the welfare dynasties known as royal families.


Almost every monarchy in Europe and around the globe was backed by "divine" right. They used religion to show that the imaginary man in the sky picked them to rule. You are 100% wrong. And the religious dopes/steeple fell for it. There is a reason that non-Christian/non-religious men like Smith, Paine & Jefferson were the guides to the American Enlightenment which rejected the Jesus-sanctified rule of King George.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Interesting note on Kings in the bible.

I've been reading the bible all the way through from beginning to end and I'm about half way through now but I've come to understand some things about where the god of the bible might stand on rulers and kings with "divine" rights to rule. Early on in the old testament, there were no divine rulers to speak of. God didn't want a king to rule over the sons of Jacob. They had judges to govern them already, hence the book Judges, and it seems like, from what I've read, that that was the sort of law that God believed in or at least wanted for his people.

In 1 Samuel, the author writes that the god of Jacob reluctantly annointed Saul to be king of the Israelites after they kept foolishly begging for one to rule over them. So there were kings, annointed kings, who ruled over Judah and Israel for many, many years after God heard the cry of the people and answered it. The two books of Kings in the bible detail a line of good but mostly horrible kings that progressively got worse and waxed and waned in their worship of false gods and idolatry.

These kings essentially led the people of Israel and Judah into paganism time and time again and finally after God had spent hundreds of years trying to erase the damage that had been done, he stopped protecting the people and let the Babylonians and Assyrians, who were ironically pagans themselves, take the people into captivity where they suffered for decades.

After Babylon, the people return to Jerusalem but they have no kings over them, if I'm correct. Or they don't have any annointed kings under God's standard. Again, I'm not even through Isaiah at this point.

Now, if I remember correctly, Jesus is the only other king annointed by God after the exodus from Babylon. And he stated firmly that his kingdom was not of this world. So my point is, the kings and queens of England and other countries who've claimed divine right are counting on our ignorance of the bible since Jesus Christ was the last annointed king mentioned in the bible. And I believe that he was to be the final and ultimate king so all other appeals to divine right since then are essentially lies.

Simply put, earthly monarchy was a failure, even in the bible.

The fact

that you think we came from monkeys shows that you dont really understand evolution at all. No mildly informed scientist claims we came from monkeys.

I hope you realize the

I hope you realize the incredible irony in your first statement. =/

I see what you are saying.

Why would I doubt the skeleton but believe in religious ideas?

I don't believe scientists completely because they are simply human. In religious matters I accept that much of that has been revealed by a higher intelligence.

It doesn't seem confusing to me, but I can see how it could baffle others.


to the National Enquirer for the John Edwards thing, but this is a pile of horse shit.