[On the origins of giants in the Bible]
Another, slightly more credible theory says that a closer lunar orbit with a smaller moon, had a greater pull thus enlarging animals and man.
19 comments
And an even more credible theory still has it that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider and thereby gained proportional speed, strength, agility, and precognition of danger.
The Moon orbits the Earth, meaning its pull would not be the same (nor in the same direction) at all times. If you average it out over an entire orbit, you get almost nothing ("almost" because the Moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, and because you would have to subtract the Earth's radius from the distance when you're on the near side and add it when you're on the far side). Add to that the fact that at its present distance, the force of gravity you feel due to the moon is ~360,000 times weaker than the force you feel from the Earth, and even if you posit that the moon was twice as close and the same size the effect would be almost nil.
I remember reading somewhere that, to the ancient Israelites, 'giant' simply meant someone over one and a half metres or so in height, or essentially who was unusually tall.
You moron. Lower relative gravity would not cause people to grow into big, strong hulking giants. It would make them grow into willowy, frail things that would suffer cardiovascular problems and skeletal issues when moved into Earth-normal gravity. And the moon being closer wouldn't accomplish this effect, it would simply mean the globe would get fucked over by a tide-induced inundation daily at the distance and lunar scale needed to produce a human-noticeable change.
Yeah, right.
How should this work in reality? Are men and animals somehow 'rooted' onto the ground, and the moon gravitation does pull onto their heads?
Gravitation does not pull exclusively the heads and upper parts of animals and men, but pulls the same way the feet and lower parts upwards, therefore compensating the effect. Case closed.
Now I would like to hear the less credible theory. Or, on a second thought, I rather don't like to hear it... this "people were bigger because of moon pull"-theory did cause too much pain this morning.
if that's the credible theory, I don't even want to know about the non-credible one.
Seriously gravity does not work that way!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Oh my god, the stupidity is strong with this one.
Well at least this was entertaining. But other than complete disregard for how physics work, the time scales are so off that it's nonsense. Considering that they're literalist, I'll assume young-earth creationism (YEC), it's even more off. There's no way that the moon was so different 300k years ago, even less 7k.
These are the people who talk seriously about the ‘full moon’ having a greater gravitational pull on the Earth than a crescent moon… Because the mass of a full moon is so much greater than half a moon, or less.
And humans ARE like taffy. Pull harder, get taller people.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
