Are there giants?… or evidence that they roamed the Earth in the past? There certainly seems to be evidence at the Giant Causeway in Ireland. Look at the straight edges and hexagon geometry of the stones here. Isn’t this the remains of a bridge to Europe from Ireland? It certainly looks that way and the logic looks good.
What follows is a draft answer that I am working on. Forgive the following increasingly erratic flow of the article. I did try and wrap this up well. Maybe you will comment to help me bring the ideas together more. Every day evidence and our modern intuition could make this a devastating argument. Why should we believe otherwise? It is questions like this that can spark an interest in science. Certainly scientists are inspired by these kind of questions although the evidence often leads them to even more fantastical ideas.
Galileo pondered this question and decided that the limits of gravity prevent the “Honey I shrunk the kids.” type effects. Gravity affect smallyfing as well as enlarging.
People often grab on to these ideas and wonder if science got it wrong. It is just a theory right? Creationist’s note that the genealogy of the Bible indicates the Earth to be somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. But it isn’t just the one thing in the observable universe that makes for scientific theories. Science has huge bodies of facts and knowledge built around the theories.
For example it would seem the Causeway is an archeological remnant of the bridge just like Roman and Egyptian archeology sites. We have to unite our facts to others in our investigations. The 60 million year old dating of the rock formations. Where are the other suggestions for example the campsites for the giants or cave art? Do we have fossil bones?
What about the leviathans in the Bible are they the dinosaurs before the flood?
What about genealogical and astronomical time. The time of the cosmos to populate the periodic table of elements from the fusion processes of suns.
How did the giraffe get it’s neck? We don’t know.
We have to ask ourselves is that enough to over through the body of scientific theory? I’m reminded of trial lawyers and the standard of truth for guilty verdicts. The suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It is about reasonable doubt. journalistically there is the standard of balance and reporting both sides.
So here is the point. Scientists don’t put a lot of effort into the Giant Causeway digging around for more evidence of the giant’s occupation of Ireland. We could make a well reasoned argument that more study is necessary. Maybe the flood covered the evidence as it does today. Perhaps deep sea archeology could reveal the truth of their existence. What are archeologists hiding about giants? Is it a conspiracy? It seems to me scientists would say is a dead end. The question is solved. No giants.
Isn’t the case of the giants similar to the case of the giraffes? Are scientists hiding something? Shouldn’t they modify evolution based on the giraffe? The answer comes back to the overwhelming body of scientific theory supports evolution and that giraffes are a miniscule hiccup worthy or bypassing for more profitable inquiry.
Does that satisfy you? Does it satisfy scientists? Does it overturn science? What do your think?
- Myths about Evolution from Skeptical Science