• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
clayflingythingy said:
Jodie,

Even tho you left bigfootin' behind you can't put the woo behind you can you?

There is zero chance that BF exists. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.

To say that there is even a slight chance that BF may exist undiscovered in NA means you've never left the woo train.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there is a chance that bigfoot exists, but that doesn't make me right, it makes it probable that I am right. Based on your above statements, it means you have confused the concept of belief versus true skepticism.
 
Joe- if the vast majority of these footer folks can't recognize the difference between non belief, belief, psuedo science, and true skepticism then I think we are just SOL, dont you?
 
Maybe "true skepticism" is worthless because it is much less related to the real world as opposed to skepticism the way we do it here.
 
If "true skepticism" forces me to say that mermaids and unicorns have a very high probability of not existing then I want nothing to do with true skepticism.
 
William Parcher said:
If "true skepticism" forces me to say that mermaids and unicorns have a very high probability of not existing then I want nothing to do with true skepticism.
Click to expand...

So all of you can quit worrying about what someone thinks of you that you hold in low regard anyway, and wave that scofftic denialist flag with pride.
 
Jodie said:
http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

A comparison by Asara's team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens.

This finding supports the idea that chickens and T. rex share an evolutionary link and bolsters previous research showing that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are living dinosaurs.

A species is extinct when the last existing member dies. I believe, based on what I've read of the research, that chickens are related, if not descended from TRex. At any rate, the genetic connection lives on in birds, which is a speciation event several times over since TRex walked the earth.TRex in it's prehistoric form no longer exists, so that form is extinct, but his genetic legacy lives on in chickens. We could get into a long drawn out debate on where one species begins and ends in relation to the application of an artificial classification system that is also constantly changing.
Click to expand...


My grandfather Joe and I share a genetic connection. Does that mean that when I visit him at Fairlawn Cemetery, he's not really dead?
 
Bigfooter forums are pretty much the only place that you see the terms "scoftic" and "true skeptic" being used consistently to describe others and how they should change their thinking.
 
Just remember, everyone, that it is only merely probable that leprechauns, pegasi, centaurs, satanic broom-riding witches, SlenderMan, Mothman, dinosaurs, dragons, demons, devils, werewolves, unicorns, medusae, Santa Clauses, elves, hobgoblins, tooth fairies, Easter bunnies and bigfoots don't exist.

You must qualify every statement expressing an opinion on the non-existence of such creatures with a "probably", or else you are a meanie-head scofftic denialist.

And Jodie will come after you in the night.
 
I have a couple thoughts to add, and I'm about to come off sounding like that Bush Pilot dude, but..


1.) Words have meanings. Meanings that most of us agree upon and understand. A great way to tell if a person is being shifty or evasive is to look for examples of changing definitions of words to fit a particular argument. I think we all know what the word "extinct" means.


2.) Skeptical/Scientific thinking, necessarily (in my understanding) precludes proclamation of definitive, final truths...always leaving room for the possibility that new information could change understanding. That some people choose to exploit this (what amounts to a loophole in certain extremes like bigfoot) highlights an imperfection of the scientific method particularly when matched against emotional attachments of people or to arguments not offered in good faith. Science is good (the best method we have) at proving things, but not necessarily at convincing people.

I'm sure you all already know all of that, but I just had to get it off my chest.
 
Last edited:
Right on, Pterodactyl.

But did you know that Pterodactyls are lobe-finned fish? Did you know that lobe-finned fish are simple multi-celled organisms? Did you know that simple-multicelled organisms are single-celled organisms? Did you know that single-celled organisms are elemental particles? Did you know that elemental particles are energy?
 
Jodie said:
Joe- if the vast majority of these footer folks can't recognize the difference between non belief, belief, psuedo science, and true skepticism then I think we are just SOL, dont you?
Click to expand...

It's parently obvious that you don't understand the difference.

This sad silly "But you can't know for sure!" game that Woo Slinger and Woo Apologist play is an intellectual dead end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom