PDA

View Full Version : Giants in 'our' land!



Fsbirdhouse
Apr 14th 2009, 09:25 PM
If this is confirmed as true, and such outside confirmation should come down this very summer, these could have been among the most magnificent living things that ever were upon the earth.
Don't know if this has been posted somewhere else here, but here goes.
http://www.beholdgiants.com/
An ancient forest with trees that once stood a mile to a mile and one half tall when alive in what is now South Dakota.
If this is so, I cannot help but wonder what once grew in 'The Garden of Eden'?
I do not doubt that God could have planted such marvelous trees when the earth was new, but can you imagine what a sight it must have been? A whole forest as tall as modern mountain ranges.
What sights are reserved for us in the world to come?

Kahtar
Apr 14th 2009, 10:24 PM
Pretty impressive trees!

teddyv
Apr 14th 2009, 10:44 PM
If this is confirmed as true, and such outside confirmation should come down this very summer, these could have been among the most magnificent living things that ever were upon the earth.
Don't know if this has been posted somewhere else here, but here goes.
http://www.beholdgiants.com/
An ancient forest with trees that once stood a mile to a mile and one half tall when alive in what is now South Dakota.
If this is so, I cannot help but wonder what once grew in 'The Garden of Eden'?
I do not doubt that God could have planted such marvelous trees when the earth was new, but can you imagine what a sight it must have been? A whole forest as tall as modern mountain ranges.
What sights are reserved for us in the world to come?
Flashy website, but random photos of the hills and then suggesting they are remnants of trees seems a little strange.

Colour me skeptical but I see no detailed pictures of the fossilized remnants. Fossilized trees can show the original cell structure in many cases.

E.T.A.
I found there is a petrified forest in the Black Hills area, but no indication of the size of the trees as promoted in the OP link.
http://www.allblackhills.com/attractions/petrified_forest_of_the_black_hills.php

Kahtar
Apr 14th 2009, 11:00 PM
Teddy, did you look at the closeups of the treerings on page one? Seems pretty obvious to me.

teddyv
Apr 14th 2009, 11:56 PM
Teddy, did you look at the closeups of the treerings on page one? Seems pretty obvious to me.

I did miss those pictures, but upon viewing them now some look like they may be petrified wood, but as I linked, there is petrified forest in the area and could easily be photos of legitimate smaller trees. Some of the photos looked like banded gneissic rock Some others look like a reddish sandstone. There are few to no good pictures with some sort of scale either. The only good picture of a fossilized tree trunk is nowhere near the size being described but closer to that of the petrified forest park description.

Kahtar
Apr 15th 2009, 01:11 AM
I gave the link to my son who is a geologist. He tends to agree with you.

teddyv
Apr 15th 2009, 02:49 AM
I gave the link to my son who is a geologist. He tends to agree with you.
Cool, another geologist. What is his main area of interest?

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 15th 2009, 03:43 AM
Page three, the center image.
Click on image of Boulder Hill.
The bald crown in center of image is a tree stump (claimed).
That is one of the smaller ones I'd suppose.
He did have at least one other giant tree stump much larger, but removed it to his 'gallery' I guess.
I feel he's sincere, but he could be sincerely wrong as well.
I don't think anybody, geologist or not, can make a claim to debunk this until they've put boots on the ground there, and like I said, his claims will probably be looked at very closely over the next few months.
We'll see then.

teddyv
Apr 15th 2009, 04:19 AM
Page three, the center image.
Click on image of Boulder Hill.
The bald crown in center of image is a tree stump (claimed).
That is one of the smaller ones I'd suppose.
He did have at least one other giant tree stump much larger, but removed it to his 'gallery' I guess.
I feel he's sincere, but he could be sincerely wrong as well.
I don't think anybody, geologist or not, can make a claim to debunk this until they've put boots on the ground there, and like I said, his claims will probably be looked at very closely over the next few months.
We'll see then.
You are right that he is most likely sincere. I do not doubt that. If he does allow himself to come under scrutiny of geologists and paleontologists the truth will likely be revealed.

I do question though why someone designs a whole public website devoted to something that amounts as one man's speculation and showcases poor field skills rather than seek out people who have the relevant expertise to verify, or at least somewhat validate his claims. A saying about scientists is that they will refuse to speculate about the colour of their socks without pulling up their pants and looking.

Also some of the language in the website read like typical pseudoscience lingo. That may not be completely fair, but it was what initially got my antannae twitching.

Kahtar
Apr 15th 2009, 04:38 AM
Cool, another geologist. What is his main area of interest?You're asking someone dumb as the dirt here about geology. So I couldn't tell you really. He currently does slope design for road projects and other things. And, I know he likes climbing. Probably doesn't answer the question though.:confused

teddyv
Apr 15th 2009, 04:34 PM
You're asking someone dumb as the dirt here about geology. So I couldn't tell you really. He currently does slope design for road projects and other things. And, I know he likes climbing. Probably doesn't answer the question though.:confused
Sounds more like geological engineering, but anyway, enough derailment.

Cheers.:)

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77