I’ve asked it before: Why do Christian “researchers” embrace highly suspect newspaper reports from the 19th and early 20th centuries so readily? The answer, of course, is to prop up a certain view of creationism with the flawed notion that finding a modern giant skeleton would do that. It wouldn’t. You’d need a village or mass grave or something from remote antiquity (at least 3000 years ago) that indicated a population (however small) of such people. The absence of such a find does not, of course, overturn that there were such groups in biblical times (and the biblical text doesn’t require great numbers, either). Basically, the skeletal remains of most every person who lived prior to the Israelite monarchy are gone — turned to fragments or dust. Why? It’s very simple. Canaanites didn’t embalm. It’s an event to find skeletal remains from the NEW Testament era, much less something another millennium or so older. The whole idea of finding a biblical giant to prove the Bible is as misguided as the assumption that finding an unusually tall skeleton from modern times would prove the Bible is true on this count.
This post also shows why researchers such as Carl Baugh or Kent Hovind cannot be trusted for sound thinking and verified data. It illustrates gullibility and academic laziness on their part to put forth a photograph that isn’t a photograph (from 1807 to boot – photography in 1807?) to defend the Bible. They obviously never looked into it.