So according to the Square Cube Law, when the size of an object doubles, the surface area of something is increased by 4 times, and the volume (and mass) of something is increased by 8 times.
Meaning that the literal interpretation of giants in the bible obviously couldn't exist. If a 6 foot 200 lb. human were to double his size and keep the same shape, he'd have 4 times the muscle power to move 8 times the weight. So, he would be 12 feet tall and weigh 1,600 pounds, and he'd have half his original strength to do it. And that's just doubling his size. Fundies are claiming that giants were far bigger than that, and that would just be impossible. They'd collapse under their own weight. This is why Hollywood style giant ants could never exist. If a human were to successfully grow that size, their legs and feet would have to look like that of an elephant's, and their spine and neck and everything else about them would have to be completely changed. By the time all the changes were made, they wouldn't look human.
So for any of the religious who might be reading this, is it time to re-evaluate your religious beliefs yet? Mathematics has just destroyed the fundie 'Murican literal interpretation.
So instead of it being a 50 foot Paul Bunyan styled giant, could it be that because the average human back then was of a shorter height (about 5'6,) that when an occasional person did grow to 6 or maybe even 7 feet that they were considered giants? I don't know if there's ever been a human in that time period to grow to such heights, but it seems far more rational to me than just saying there were these mythological giants.
Meaning that the literal interpretation of giants in the bible obviously couldn't exist. If a 6 foot 200 lb. human were to double his size and keep the same shape, he'd have 4 times the muscle power to move 8 times the weight. So, he would be 12 feet tall and weigh 1,600 pounds, and he'd have half his original strength to do it. And that's just doubling his size. Fundies are claiming that giants were far bigger than that, and that would just be impossible. They'd collapse under their own weight. This is why Hollywood style giant ants could never exist. If a human were to successfully grow that size, their legs and feet would have to look like that of an elephant's, and their spine and neck and everything else about them would have to be completely changed. By the time all the changes were made, they wouldn't look human.
So for any of the religious who might be reading this, is it time to re-evaluate your religious beliefs yet? Mathematics has just destroyed the fundie 'Murican literal interpretation.
So instead of it being a 50 foot Paul Bunyan styled giant, could it be that because the average human back then was of a shorter height (about 5'6,) that when an occasional person did grow to 6 or maybe even 7 feet that they were considered giants? I don't know if there's ever been a human in that time period to grow to such heights, but it seems far more rational to me than just saying there were these mythological giants.
