Jump to content

The mountains and rock faces are what I believe to be the remnants of the Giants


Recommended Posts

The mountains and rock faces are what I believe to be the remnants of the Giants from the great flood of Noah, we see faces, animals, mushrooms etc....

 

Here is a great video that gives proof of this;

 

 

Although iron is the most abundant metal in our body, traces of gold can be found in human body in several different places. These include brain, heart, blood, and our joints. If all the pure gold found in a human body whose weight is 70kg is collected, it can amount to 0.229 milligrams of gold but in these giants it would be a lot more.

 

Does this explain the American gold rush in the Colorado Rockies ?

 

1963027981_agold.jpg.573aa0d5ae6c37a9793d7171fce75ef4.jpg

 

Here are some images of Giant mushrooms.

 

1130456651_agiantmush.jpg.97d9b21071777f33cc64d0fa404040fc.jpg

 

 

1586681402_agiantmush0.jpg.f10409d1aa151a6c6bb4da47cd5d41da.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

There's no 'proof', but it is an interesting theory nonetheless.

 

Those 'mushrooms' look to me more like evidence of erosion due to fast-moving water.

 

 

 

Strange they've all formed distinctive features tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

Having abandoned Astronomy as a product of Freemasons it seems now Geology is to be abandoned too!

 

Who's on about abandoning anything ?:classic_unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

curiously interesting but not true. with the exceptions of fossils or petrified wood, rocks are rocks are rocks.

 

source: 30 years of amateur geology and hiking

 

also, Noah's flood did no cover the entire planet. there's no way that could have happened as it was described in the Bible. Not only is the amount of rain required to cover the entire planet a feat of impossibility for the duration mentioned in the Bible but so is the notion of all the animals being crammed in the ark. The story never made sense to me as a child and even less sense to me as an adult. What I firmly believed happened is that it rained in that area of the world, which was the known "world" to the children of Israel. Gathering two of every animal would be impossible. This would include two penguins which are only found in Antarctica, two western diamondback rattlesnakes from the southwest US, two portugese man-o-wars from the Atlantic, two kangaroos from Australia, two pythons from the Amazon, two humpback whales from the Pacific, and so on and so forth. And then there are the seven of all the clean animals too. And you would have to have all the fish in separate containers in order to maintain their survival...fresh water fish can't live in salt water and vice versa. The Louisiana Black Bear would have to be found and captured and then brought to where Noah was, and then brought back to where it's found now in Louisiana, US. I can keep going but I think anyone reading gets the point: It makes much more sense for the biblical flood to have occurred right there in that part of the world. And did I mention the ungodly amount of rain that would have to fall in order to submerge the planet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 12:33 PM, theanonymousbear said:

curiously interesting but not true. with the exceptions of fossils or petrified wood, rocks are rocks are rocks.

 

source: 30 years of amateur geology and hiking

 

also, Noah's flood did no cover the entire planet. there's no way that could have happened as it was described in the Bible. Not only is the amount of rain required to cover the entire planet a feat of impossibility for the duration mentioned in the Bible but so is the notion of all the animals being crammed in the ark. The story never made sense to me as a child and even less sense to me as an adult. What I firmly believed happened is that it rained in that area of the world, which was the known "world" to the children of Israel. Gathering two of every animal would be impossible. This would include two penguins which are only found in Antarctica, two western diamondback rattlesnakes from the southwest US, two portugese man-o-wars from the Atlantic, two kangaroos from Australia, two pythons from the Amazon, two humpback whales from the Pacific, and so on and so forth. And then there are the seven of all the clean animals too. And you would have to have all the fish in separate containers in order to maintain their survival...fresh water fish can't live in salt water and vice versa. The Louisiana Black Bear would have to be found and captured and then brought to where Noah was, and then brought back to where it's found now in Louisiana, US. I can keep going but I think anyone reading gets the point: It makes much more sense for the biblical flood to have occurred right there in that part of the world. And did I mention the ungodly amount of rain that would have to fall in order to submerge the planet?

 

Maybe they were more advanced than we gave them credit for and what Noah took on the ark was the DNA from each of the animals, after all he had 125 years to do it in, and in the scriptures it does say, in the end times it will be as in the days of Noah.

I reckon we are at that stage now.

 

PS

Ever heard of Ringwoodite ? look it up!

Edited by alexa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 2:24 AM, alexa said:

 

Maybe they were more advanced than we gave them credit for and what Noah took on the ark was the DNA from each of the animals, after all he had 125 years to do it in, and in the scriptures it does say, in the end times it will be as in the days of Noah.

I reckon we are at that stage now.

 

PS

Ever heard of Ringwoodite ? look it up!

I agree with you there on being as it was in the days of Noah. Extracting DNA from every species of animals would be just as difficult to do as it would be to capture them all. What about all the new species that have been discovered just within the 20th century (let alone the past several thousand years since the time of Noah)? Noah and his people would have to find these critters wherever they were and then have a syringe handy to extract blood, then someway to keep the blood safe, and then some other way to recreate the species from the DNA that they still would have to extract from the blood. This makes less sense than finding the animals and storing all of them on a boat.

 

I've heard of ringwoodite in the past and just looked it up again. I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion though.

https://www.mindat.org/min-3421.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringwoodite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 12:33 PM, theanonymousbear said:

Noah's flood did no cover the entire planet. there's no way that could have happened as it was described in the Bible. Not only is the amount of rain required to cover the entire planet a feat of impossibility

 

2 hours ago, theanonymousbear said:

I've heard of ringwoodite in the past and just looked it up again. I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion though.

 

 

The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground

Ringwoodite contains, the total amount of water in the deep Earth is nearly the same as the mass of all the world’s ocean water.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/#ixzz79fXXoPOc

 

The huge size of the reservoir throws new light on the origin of Earth's water.

 

1666657654_aring.png.9fe8e5a79241f3dc439df8291ea1b059.png

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theanonymousbear said:

I agree with you there on being as it was in the days of Noah. Extracting DNA from every species of animals would be just as difficult to do as it would be to capture them all. What about all the new species that have been discovered just within the 20th century (let alone the past several thousand years since the time of Noah)? Noah and his people would have to find these critters wherever they were and then have a syringe handy to extract blood, then someway to keep the blood safe, and then some other way to recreate the species from the DNA that they still would have to extract from the blood. This makes less sense than finding the animals and storing all of them on a boat.

 

I have to agree with you here, it was just a 'maybe'.:classic_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...