• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deceptions of "Professional Skeptics"

I quite agree to their assessment of them " Professional Skeptics". Seem to be really nasty characters. Luckily, I never met any ;).

Their examples, father down, on bigfoot is nonsense, however. It is quite common to mention a species in singular (like The Great Panda), this does not in any way imply that there is only a single specimen. Likewise, the name "Bigfoot" neither implies that there is only one specimen, nor that it is one-legged. It is simply a name.

Hans
 
I wonder if anyone will accept the challenge at the end. "Eat crow" indeed.
 
The challenge to name an authority for them to appeal to? Well, they might try James Randi, but to really convince me, they would have to convince ... me.

Hans
 
What would I need to convince me that bigfoot exists?

How about a live bigfoot?
 
Take this challenge seriously, and try to be intellectually honest, and try to show some ethical fiber. Be willing to eat some crow, for the sake of science, and the sake of the environment.
Click to expand...

and "the children". Let's not forget "the children".
 
vbloke said:
What would I need to convince me that bigfoot exists?

How about a live bigfoot?
Click to expand...

Heck, I'd take a dead bigfoot. I'd even take a bigfoot foot. Anything that could not be explained by fakery, delusions, suggestibility, myth, and humans wandering around with or without ape suits.

In fact, I'd take seriously anything that could not be better explained by fakery, delusions, suggestibility, myth, and humans wandering around with or without ape suits!
 
How many times have we such reasoning?

We believe in bigfoot, skeptics do not share our belief and ask for evidence, therefore skeptics are nasty people.
 
Not to mention the "NOTHING could convince some sceptics"! argument.

In reality, most sceptics could be very easily convinced of the existence of Bigfoot, or ghosts , UFOs, yogic levitation or decent airline food*.
Just one, single, concrete example in the public domain.

* Well, maybe that's pushing it.
 
That's it.

I personally treat the (non)existence of bigfoot/nessie/etc. with indifference. I don't believe in them but if any quality evidence comes to light then it won't be the most difficult task I've ever faced to accept it.

If they are so convinced that bigfoot (I can't help picturing a 3'6" creature with enormous feet :D) exists then why don't they simply provide some evidence instead of putting their ad-hominem arguments forward?
 
I for one would love Flying saucers to be real, but on current evidence I see no reason to believe.
 
There are hair samples with DNA from Asia that have been analyzed by one of the top DNA labs in the world (in England). That DNA does not match any known species. The skeptics don't like to mention that annoying fact.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know the provenance of "that annoying fact."
 
Ladewig said:
Does anyone know the provenance of "that annoying fact."
Click to expand...
The way I understand it, It costs money to do good DNA tests. If I took a hair sample from a rare South American monkey an claim I found it in Asia, the DNA lab could check it against all apes of the world and any local animal they could think of and still come up empty-handed. But that would probably be very expensive. What they usually do is try to match it against a few local animals with the same fur-color and they usually find a match. If not, it's an "annoying fact"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom