Giant human skeletons are real.
Debate Rounds (3)
Fon du Loc
They probably evolved from chimps or hooved hyenas or possible a taka taka lizard. These are obviously from the common anscestor of squid or possibly even the prehistoric opposum tribe.
It's a worldwide conspiracy....
In fact, the African elephant is the largest land based animal alive today . Yet, notice how the body of the African elephant and skull shape are much different.
The largest human ancient complete skeleton is 6 feet 8 inches tall.  Instead, the skeletons were altered digitally.  
Finally, this is not a coverup. 
Impact, I've hope I had proven that not only is such a giant race impossible, they wouldn't live to adult hood to reproduce simply because the body wouldn't be able to support the weight of the skull. Not only that, but the largest ancient skeleton is only 6 feet 8 inches tall. The pictures were digitally altered and the destruction of the fossiles was not a cover-up because it never happened. Thanks for the debate.
"this seems impossible."
So does a duckbill platipus.
So does a walking whale that came from hooved hyenas, but that's what Darwinism says.
"the skeletons were altered digitally."
Prove it. Some of the pictures have been around since the 1800's and were in newspapers from that time as well.
"I've hope I had proven that not only is such a giant race impossible."
There are dinosaurs found with similar body types that Con accepts just fine.
You can say something is not true or possible, but strange things exist and are real. Such as? Cockroaches can live and run around for weeks without a head.
Or that blind people see black. They actually see nothing. Black is an absence of light. They cannot see the light nor the dark. They see absolutely nothing.
Or that dead bodies get goosebumps.
Point? Just because it's hard to believe or understand, that doesn't mean it is false.
Con used snopes.com as a source, but we all know that snopes got snoped long ago. They are a liberal couple who look like they could use some baking soda on that tooth brush.
I investigated more into snopes when they said that Obama's ring was not a shahada ring when I have met him in person and seen it. Having been raised as a Muslim, it's a Shahada ring. Snopes is a liberal agenda machine.
Warrant: "How does the square-cube law pertain to size? Well, where it comes into play is that with an increase in size of an animal, there has to be a relatively greater in crease in size of its supporting structures. If we look at the leg bones of a mouse, a human, and an elephant and scale them so the lengths are the same, they might look something like this. Note that the elephant leg bone is considerably thicker than the humans and the humans is thicker than the mouse. What this means is that a Liliputian could not exist. A human shrunk down to the size of a mouse would have limbs that the human could not move. They would be too heavy. Giants like Paul Bunyan that stand 20 ft. high would also be impossible because their form would have to be so drastically changed in order to accommodate the increase in size that the person would no longer look human." 
Impact: These giants would not look human. These skeletons are impossible.
As for the newer images they are digitally altered. See the shovel, there's no end. They took a mastodon's remains and put a human body on it, digitally. The older findings have a lack of pictures. There's any number of ways a person could fake such remains. Making the skeleton out of wood, clay, or elephant bones.
There is a lot of incredible occurrences in the world, like red giants, black holes, neutron stars, yet not everything is real nor credible.
As for Snopes.com I find your attack on the website's credibility lacking. You use your personal anecdotal evidence about a ring against Snopes.com. Even if you are correct, everyone makes mistakes. You didn't say the nationalgeographic was wrong, are they now a liberal propaganda outlet too? How about this website, hoax slayer? 
In conclusion I have shown from several sources that the photos are hoax. I have shown that due to the square-cube law these giants are impossible. Finally, I have stated several way the older photos could have been a hoax. Thanks for debate.
"You didn't say the nationalgeographic was wrong, are they now a liberal propaganda outlet too? How about this website, hoax slayer?"
"In conclusion I have shown from several sources that the photos are hoax. I have shown that due to the square-cube law these giants are impossible."
Even if this were true, most of the pictures do not fit into Con's "debunking method".
And apparently this square cube law does not apply to ants who are huge compared to their legs.
Square Cube Law-
Simple math to show it's incorrect.
The typical square cube law states that when you double the size, you get 8 times the mass, but only on 4 times the footprint.
So a 6' tall 240 pound man, scaled up to 12 feet tall would be 1920 pounds.
So 8x the weight but only 4 times the footprint, makingt he relative weight twice as much PSI.
Let's see what happens if you do this math:
6' tall, 240 pund man, shrunken to half scale, becomes 3 feet tall, and 30 pounds.
Now, grow him in scale to 12 feet tall (4 times scale). He's now 64 times the weight (1920 pounds) just like he should be if he were just doubled in scale from normal.
But now he's 64 times the weight he was, at 3 feet, and 16 times the footprint. So 4 times the relative PSI.
The two maths don't add up. therefore the premise of the square cube law must be flawed.
Besides, what's the difference between a giant T-Rex and a giant human? Con cannot deflect this point. The same Square cube law is used to say birds can't get huge, yet pteradactyles supposedly existed and were as big as giraffes.
Now look on this link of Ambulocetus, the "walking whale", and notice the noggin on this badboy. Does he fall over and become victim to the square cube law? Apparently not...
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.