Aardwolf wrote:Are you able to accept EE theory now we've established it has nothing to do with giant humans?
Its difficult to maintain this abstract argument, because I'm not actually trying to disprove EE theory. I really like the theory because it seems to work so well as a model to include and attempt to explain so many examples of anomalous evidence to the contrary of the standard model.
But being a proponent of EE, my motivation is to address some of the easier armchair rebuttals of EE to undermine anyone's confidence that its an easy thing to 'debunk'. So its a devil's advocate approach that directs my lines of questions.
I volunteer that the validity of the claim that the absence of giant human remains undermines the EE, is weak, and as weak as the attempt to debunk the existence of ancient advanced civilizations by citing the lack of physical evidence of 'tools', 'metals', etc. And when I say giant human remains is the 'linchpin' of substantiation of the EE theory, I mean that's the conclusion from the biased perspective of someone who is coming at this from a perspective of limited ability to be open to anything deviating from the mainstream.
So when you dive deep into the minutia of the argument, if I'm channeling the typical armchair 'debunker', it seems like a cart before the horse approach, because it asks for a serious evaluation to respond from, which will be absent from the actual audience I'm imagining will be the real representative of this particular debate as I'm attempting to frame it.
So at this point, if I keep this as simple as possible, then what I feel comfortable concluding is the following:
1) EE theory implies the earths gravity has slowly increased with the increase in size of the earth
2) If earths gravity was lower in the past, then it allows for larger animals to have existed in the past
3) If larger animals existed in the past, then larger humans also existed in the past as well
4) We do have evidence of larger animals from the ancient past
5) It therefor demands that there is evidence of larger humans from the past
6) Therefore, evidence of larger humans has been hidden or destroyed, or protected
In other words, to counter the argument of the armchair debunker when he asks "where are the giant human remains", you have only one response available to you which unfortunately puts you squarely in the "Conspiracy" camp, which is that there have been giant remains found, but they are being kept from the public eye.
And that's where you lose the value of the argument, from the perspective of the 'armchair debunker'. So I guess my point is this EE model is terminally incapable of gaining necessary support sufficient to overturn the paradigm, because for that to happen, you need more than the support of expert scientists, the subset of which are bravely open to publicly supporting the model that best and most inclusively incorporates all the available information.
And I guess I have been struggling with that and was hoping to explore what is necessary to get over that hump that could bring EE onto the table in competition with mainstream theories. And from my perspective, it boils down to actual giant human remains, which in and of itself, as a revelation, is substantiated by the fact that others too have concluded this fact, which is why perhaps all these old stories of giant bones findings have been so thoroughly kept in secret.
Can you imagine the focused limelight the EE theory would receive if merely one giant human bone was brought out to the public? I mean really giant, like implying 12-15 ft tall, well past anything that could be considered a one off circus freak show size. That's where I'm getting 'linchpin' from. Not in its value to prove or disprove, but in its effect in opening up the world to the validity of the beginning of the examination. It languishes in obscurity until that reveal in my opinion. Attempts to push it into the public eye without that evidence, I might argue would only hurt the cause rather than help it.
If there's any value in what I'm saying in your opinion, then what do you assume is the main reason for 'protecting' the world from this reality? That's the bigger question. Are there some paradigm shifts so big that they have the potential to destroy the cooperative calm necessary for society to function? The idea of starting religious wars seems conflicting with the fact that giants are mentioned in most ancient religious texts. So what is it?
Sorry if this all seems like a stupid digression. It was actually where I was going though.