God enthusiasm

[carlitos]

That's great Chris. Thanks.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Could have been one of these.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Avia...=GoogleProductAds&WT.z_mc_id1=03565866&rid=20

Like most of your arguments, this one is a fail as well.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Like most of your arguments, this one is a fail as well.
Chris B.

Well, given the fact you're as likely as not to make a bigfoot out of a shadow, I at least gave you the benefit of a doubt this time.

And the point clearly sailed over you head.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Shadows tend to not be present in direct sunlight. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Shadows tend to not be present in direct sunlight. Chris B.

Except for when there happen to be things that cast shadows, like trees for example. You know, those woody upright things you run into in the forest. The things you claim footie rides to the ground as some form of locomotion.

 

[skeptichaggis]

The royal society just tested(I think they got sick of the whole pseudoscientific crap that is bigfoot) 125 different sent in "bigfoot" hair samples. Surprise, surprise no bigfoot. Plenty of bear,dog,orang otang and even polar bear,but no bigfoot.
The report is on the society's website.
I love paleoanthropology, I have a heap of books and keep up with the latest research. I hate it when the utterly amazing story of hominid evolution is cheapened by bigfoot/yeti tripe.
Any bigfoot like creature would have had to come over the Bering straits,other is no evidence for that,none. Gigantopithicus,the only bigfoot like creature to exist died out in china at least 100,000yrs ago.
We are not talking about a unidentified species of frog,we are talking about a huge hominid. Its not realistic to suggest it can't be found,dead or alive. By now if bigfoot was real we would have proof. A corpse,fur,fecal matter or a fossil record. We don't,bigfoot ain't real.
To say bigfoot is real is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking,gullibility and good old fashioned basic human idiocy.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The royal society just tested(I think they got sick of the whole pseudoscientific crap that is bigfoot) 125 different sent in "bigfoot" hair samples. Surprise, surprise no bigfoot. Plenty of bear,dog,orang otang and even polar bear,but no bigfoot.
The report is on the society's website.
I love paleoanthropology, I have a heap of books and keep up with the latest research. I hate it when the utterly amazing story of hominid evolution is cheapened by bigfoot/yeti tripe.
Any bigfoot like creature would have had to come over the Bering straits,other is no evidence for that,none. Gigantopithicus,the only bigfoot like creature to exist died out in china at least 100,000yrs ago.
We are not talking about a unidentified species of frog,we are talking about a huge hominid. Its not realistic to suggest it can't be found,dead or alive. By now if bigfoot was real we would have proof. A corpse,fur,fecal matter or a fossil record. We don't,bigfoot ain't real.
To say bigfoot is real is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking,gullibility and good old fashioned basic human idiocy.

Well then I'm sure it would not surprise you that we did not have any fossil record for the common Chimpanzee on record prior to 2005.

Why is that I wonder? Could it be that fossilization only happens under very special circumstances and events? The types of environment being of a particular interest in contributing to fossilization?

If Bigfoot does exist, that means it would had to have been living along side our ancestors, to survive our species would they not tend to go into the more remote regions? The places we don't like to live? After all, we would have likely killed them if we were competing for resources in the same areas right? Humans are fairly ruthless that way.

If you look at the areas we don't like to live, most are not good prospective fossil makers. Check out a World map, look at reported potential Bigfoot/similar creatures habitation areas Worldwide, see what I mean?
Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Well then I'm sure it would not surprise you that we did not have any fossil record for the common Chimpanzee on record prior to 2005.

That would be an interesting point except for the fact that we have live chimps in both species.

If Bigfoot does exist, that means it would had to have been living along side our ancestors, to survive our species would they not tend to go into the more remote regions? The places we don't like to live? After all, we would have likely killed them if we were competing for resources in the same areas right? Humans are fairly ruthless that way.

And that too might be an interesting point except for live black bear.

see what I mean?

I assume the point you are trying to make is that a lack of evidence doesn't do anything to prevent an irrational belief. In other words, someone can invent an object that they feel some kind of personal connection with out of thin air. And this person will strive to maintain this imaginary connection against all evidence to the contrary. Yes, that is a good point.

 

[barehl]

You will find some Christian faith churches that have certain bylaws of what they find acceptable and what they don't. In those type churches you will find disapproval of certain individuals and their lifestyles.

So, how would this relate to footer organizations? Would some only accept footers who proclaimed complete faith in the existence of bigfoot? Or would some require a claimed sighting? How devout would someone have to be? For example, would there be a minimum number of ritual outings and tree knocks? Would you be required to obtain a copy of the PG video for example like getting a copy of the Bible? Are there people whose teachings about bigfoot you would have to follow like people do with religious leaders?

But, Christian churches can also be found that do not practice these judgmental bylaws and these churches typically go only by the teachings of the Bible, from Jesus in particular. Especially those about not judging others. So all are welcome as all are sinners in this church's view.

So, are there footer groups that do not require a professed belief in bigfoot? Could you use science and logic and still be a member or would you have to renounce science in favor of bigfoot faith?

If you have not experienced the differences, either you have not attended any or many different churches. The differences are there if you look.

Yes, but do these differences show up in footer groups?

 

[barehl]

Yes of course, one cannot base an opinion of something hiding in a bush. You must see it directly out in the open to be sure of what you've seen so there can be no mistake. Absolutely. There must be no alternate explanation/possibility available.

There is always the possibility of lying or fraud. However, there have been people who claimed religious visions while others could see that nothing was occurring. Are you suggesting that footers might be devout enough to experience these same types of delusions or are you saying that fraud is more likely?

 

[barehl]

Generally, someone should only accept something based on undeniable proof. Anything else is faith based.

So you are saying that belief in bigfoot is faith.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Well Chris,a chimpanzee-bigfoot comparison. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest(classic .....of the gaps argument there)lack of fossils regardless that chimpanzees are real. If you doubt my word ,pop down to the zoo or watch a wildlife show. I guarantee you they will not be men in chimp suits,but actual real live chimpanzees.
As for the rest of your argument, it seems to be-there is no proof bigfoot is not in that cloud or behind that child's scooter,therefore bigfoots real. You also did not address the royal society's report. Is that because you didn't read it or you don't care.
By the way the suggestion that a large, stealthy,impossible to find hominid that pics up all its fur and poop at the back of it while winding up the odd logar IS silly.
If you have a actual peer reviewed-from a reputable authority-paper published in a proper academic journal that specifically says" here's proof of bigfoot"then please tell us. Please don't cry conspiracy or closed mindedness, science has a whole category for animals thought to be extinct when they were not. There are scores of animals on this list-some thought to be extinct for scores of millions of years.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Well Chris,a chimpanzee-bigfoot comparison. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest(classic .....of the gaps argument there)lack of fossils regardless that chimpanzees are real. If you doubt my word ,pop down to the zoo or watch a wildlife show. I guarantee you they will not be men in chimp suits,but actual real live chimpanzees.
As for the rest of your argument, it seems to be-there is no proof bigfoot is not in that cloud or behind that child's scooter,therefore bigfoots real. You also did not address the royal society's report. Is that because you didn't read it or you don't care.
By the way the suggestion that a large, stealthy,impossible to find hominid that pics up all its fur and poop at the back of it while winding up the odd logar IS silly.
If you have a actual peer reviewed-from a reputable authority-paper published in a proper academic journal that specifically says" here's proof of bigfoot"then please tell us. Please don't cry conspiracy or closed mindedness, science has a whole category for animals thought to be extinct when they were not. There are scores of animals on this list-some thought to be extinct for scores of millions of years.

LOL yes I agree Chimpanzees are real and well known. But the fossil evidence for Chimps is surprisingly small. Given the amount of time we've known them to exist.
The reasons for a poor fossil record for Chimps is similar to that of Bigfoot in my opinion. That's the gist of my previous post.

I've read enough to know most results were of common animals. Even the extant polar bear finding seems to have turned out as nothing outside the norm. All this really tells me is they were not given valid samples to test. Possible samples are not good enough. The samples presented should have been taken in such a way as to eliminate all other potential animals except Bigfoot/Yeti.

Another epic fail. Does that mean there is no Bigfoot? No, it means there was no Bigfoot DNA tested and those who submitted the samples were in error. Either by poor collection method design or more likely simple incompetence.

It (Bigfoot DNA) will be submitted some day and until then of course Bigfoot remains a myth. I accept this as that is how it has always been. Without the evidence of discovery the discovery cannot go on record.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So, how would this relate to footer organizations? Would some only accept footers who proclaimed complete faith in the existence of bigfoot? Or would some require a claimed sighting? How devout would someone have to be? For example, would there be a minimum number of ritual outings and tree knocks? Would you be required to obtain a copy of the PG video for example like getting a copy of the Bible? Are there people whose teachings about bigfoot you would have to follow like people do with religious leaders?


So, are there footer groups that do not require a professed belief in bigfoot? Could you use science and logic and still be a member or would you have to renounce science in favor of bigfoot faith?


Yes, but do these differences show up in footer groups?

There is always the possibility of lying or fraud. However, there have been people who claimed religious visions while others could see that nothing was occurring. Are you suggesting that footers might be devout enough to experience these same types of delusions or are you saying that fraud is more likely?

So you are saying that belief in bigfoot is faith.

Hoaxers could be preachers or priests trying to promote something they themselves do not believe in. For those who have not seen a Bigfoot, I suppose they can only operate on faith, like in a church.
Chris B.

 

[Jodie]

There are bigfoot enthusiasts, alien enthusiasts, and ghost enthusiasts, so how are god enthusiasts any different?

If you can be a bigfoot skeptic, alien skeptic, and ghost skeptic then why not god skeptic?

These all seem to be beliefs or lack of belief in imaginary things. Why do people insist on classifying them differently? For example, if you are afraid of ghosts, you are childish; but if you are afraid of God, you are righteous? Why is it that if you think zombies might burrow out of the ground you've probably been watching too many zombie movies but a similar belief about Jesus only makes you a Christian? Believing that if you write to Santa he'll bring you presents makes you naiive but believing that if you pray to God he'll reward you makes you devout?

God seems to be the childhood fantasy that adults feel comfortable holding onto. But I am baffled about the malice. If one child told another that he hoped the other child would get stomped to death by reindeer or strangled by elves for not believing in Santa, you would probably feel that therapy was in order and it would not be defended if an adult said it. Yet, if a religious person suggests that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for a gay pride parade or suggests that God will destroy an entire nation that is often defended. Is God the delusion that adults feel comfortable defending?

You are confusing the psuedo-religious with those who genuinely try to live in congruence with their faith, be that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc....

Those that bend a religion to fit their own justifications are not spiritual at all, they are just ********. The world is full of them.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Well Chris, you just took a report from one of the most respected scientific body's on the planet and declared it a "total fail" and that there are vague problems with it. You did not provide a single bit of proof for that.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the same paper,by the same scientists, by the same scientific body concluded that numerous of the samples would be from a previously unknown hominid you would not be quite as dismissive.
Also you did not answer my question,you know the one about reputable peer reviewed papers saying here's proof for bigfoot. Also I know your belief in bigfoot is probably based on many reasons ,but what's your best one,just wondering.
You don't strike me as a idiot,so I'm really curious.

 

[William Parcher]

I will not believe anything without proof.

Then you will not believe that Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct until the proof is presented?

 

[barehl]

You are confusing the psuedo-religious with those who genuinely try to live in congruence with their faith

I wasn't commenting about lifestyle. You can live an ethical life whether you are religious or not. What I'm not understanding is how the particular belief in something supernatural is required for this.

 

[Jodie]

Because some ******** need motivation to act ethically during their lifetime and a belief that you will be burning in hell in the afterlife if you don't is a good one.

 

[carlitos]

Well Chris, you just took a report from one of the most respected scientific body's on the planet and declared it a "total fail" and that there are vague problems with it. You did not provide a single bit of proof for that.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the same paper,by the same scientists, by the same scientific body concluded that numerous of the samples would be from a previously unknown hominid you would not be quite as dismissive.
Also you did not answer my question,you know the one about reputable peer reviewed papers saying here's proof for bigfoot. Also I know your belief in bigfoot is probably based on many reasons ,but what's your best one,just wondering.
You don't strike me as a idiot,so I'm really curious.

You might wish to take this discussion to one of the 3 or 4 active bigfoot topics. Or open Netscape 6.0 and click here.