Bigfoot DNA

[River]

The people who do not believe Bigfoot exists have no responsibility whatsoever to accommodate the failure of those who do believe it exists. They have no responsibility to achieve proof of their position, conclusive or otherwise. It is dishonest to expect them to.

But consider this: There is one single pragmatic solution to the dilemma which you seem to have, a single answer that would easily and fully explain why no objective evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that Bigfoot exists. It's a solution that can be expressed as a single sentence of 4 or 5 words and requires no rationalizations or excuses. Skeptics and critical thinkers understand what that solution is. Perhaps if you apply a bit of critical thinking on your own, you, too, can arrive there.

Try it: No objective evidence has ever been provided to support the claim that Bigfoot exists because _________.

Excellent GeeMack. Here is where true believers start the special pleading.

 

[Cbengalensis]

Those who take the position that Bigfoot does not exist, based on an absolute lack of objective evidence for its existence, are applying critical thinking skills, not lacking them. Those who insist that Bigfoot believers take responsibility for their own claims and knock off the dishonest tactic of deflecting the burden of proof are applying critical thinking skills, not lacking them. You're trying the same old stale and dishonest argument that pretty much all believers in nonsense try at one time or another. You want to start the "Bigfoot exists" discussion as if it's a 50/50 proposition. You want half the points right out of the gate, and you didn't earn them. No attempt to mis-characterize skeptics with admonitions of cultish behavior and allegiance to dogma is going to get you that. You'll get no traction dragging skeptics down to the level of the believers. That's not how science works and it's not how reality works.

If you want "Bigfoot exists", you start where rational intelligent people start, and that is at "there is no objective evidence supporting the claim that Bigfoot exists". The argument has to be built up from there. Do notice that when it comes to objective evidence for its existence, the Bigfoot believers' case is still at zero.

So, saying “ I don’t know” is a dishonest argument?

Saying “ I don’t see a solution achieved by either side yet” is a dishonest argument?

Seems like anything you don’t want to hear is a “dishonest argument”. Setting the bar pretty low, aren’t we?

But it’s fascinating to see how you respond to my remarks. Thank you for your response.

CB

 

[DennyT]

A frequently-used rhetorical ploy by anti-sciencers of all ilks: "It's really science that is the religion... it's faith-based... a cult." See the anti-evolution threads. Bo-ring.

Certainly CB has a position. He is just ashamed of it. Cmon CB give us a number: 60/40? 99/1? 99.999999/0.000001? And what would it take to convince you there is no bigfoot? nothing would convince you, right? Whereas all we want is the monkey. That's all. You can't even show us DNA or a pile of poop or a hair.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

So, saying “ I don’t know” is a dishonest argument?

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence and not having a decisive opinion one way or another. Are you actively pursuing information about Bigfoot? This is a thread about Bigfoot DNA. Do you have any questions or comments regarding Bigfoot DNA?

 

[Robrob]

So, saying “ I don’t know” is a dishonest argument?

Yes it is, unless you also say "I don't know" about the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Saying “ I don’t see a solution achieved by either side yet” is a dishonest argument?

See above.

Seems like anything you don’t want to hear is a “dishonest argument”. Setting the bar pretty low, aren’t we?

Strawman argument.

But it’s fascinating to see how you respond to my remarks. Thank you for your response.

CB

Begging the question.

Please, try again but without the fallacies.

 

[RioBravo]

Correct: Bigfoot most likely does not exist.

Incorrect: Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[River]

Correct: Bigfoot most likely does not exist.

Incorrect: Bigfoot does not exist.

I'll make the bold statement and be 100% sure of it. Bigfoot does not exist. It is a myth, just as mermaids. I suppose there is a bigfooter someplace waiting to make me eat crow. Later.

 

[Drewbot]

Correct: Bigfoot most likely does not exist.

Incorrect: Bigfoot does not exist.

The Unicorn? Nain Rouge? Half-orcs? Same thing Applies

 

[William Parcher]

Correct: Tyrannosaurus rex most likely is extinct.

Incorrect: Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct.


Imagine the enormous searches necessary to try to prove that it is extinct. It just can't be done. You can forget about getting any proof that T. rex is extinct.

 

[Óðinn]

Correct: Tyrannosaurus rex most likely is extinct.

Incorrect: Tyrannosaurus rex is extinct.


Imagine the enormous searches necessary to try to prove that it is extinct. It just can't be done. You can forget about getting any proof that T. rex is extinct.

Such is the burden of the skeptic, proving the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Why do you think bigfoot still exists? Because you damn skeptics can't prove he doesn't!

 

[Drewbot]

The difference is, trex has a fossil record. Bigfoot, unicorns? Not so much

 

[Cbengalensis]

There's nothing wrong with being on the fence and not having a decisive opinion one way or another. Are you actively pursuing information about Bigfoot? This is a thread about Bigfoot DNA. Do you have any questions or comments regarding Bigfoot DNA?

The posts immediately before my first one here apparently were about cultish behavior and the like, so I commented on remarks immediately proceding mine. I didn't see any DNA mention in the 6 posts before me.

I am actively pursuing information to help me understand why there's apparently no solution to the bigfoot controversy by either those saying it does exist or those saying it doesn't. I am curious about how the described DNA studies will pan out. A lot of what I've heard hasn't been encouraging that a conclusion will bring this controversy to a solution, but I'll continue to follow the discussion.

Rather amazing amount of hostility to my presence and position about there not being a solution on either side that I find compelling. Makes for an interesting study of human nature.

But I do agree with you this thread should stay on the DNA topic, so I won't post further here (this thread), unless it is about DNA.

Other questions or ideas, I'll take to other threads as appropriate.

CB

 

[Óðinn]

The difference is, trex has a fossil record. Bigfoot, unicorns? Not so much

Fossil, shmossil. How many fossils of "Flores Man" have we found in hundreds of years looking? Ans: 1. How many haven't we found? A lack of fossils is not a good argument for bigfoot not existing, sorry.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Wait, there are grown ups who believe in bigfoot?

 

[Drewbot]

How bout using north America and check how complete the fossil record is.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Rather amazing amount of hostility to my presence and position about there not being a solution on either side that I find compelling. Makes for an interesting study of human nature.

If you want to study human nature, you picked a good subject. There are plenty of.... let's say "interesting" characters on both sides of the Bigfoot fence.

If Bigfoot DNA does turn out to be human, think of the implications:

Bigfoot are people.
Corporations are people too.

Does that mean.... Bigfoot = corporations?

 

[Resume]

A lack of fossils is not a good argument for bigfoot not existing, sorry.

Well, combined with the lack of every other kind of frikken physical evidence it sure is.

 

[GeeMack]

I am actively pursuing information to help me understand why there's apparently no solution to the bigfoot controversy by either those saying it does exist or those saying it doesn't.

You're still wrong. The solution was handed to you in a very short explanatory paragraph. It is a mistake for you to equate your choice to ignore the solution with a controversy.

I am curious about how the described DNA studies will pan out. A lot of what I've heard hasn't been encouraging that a conclusion will bring this controversy to a solution, but I'll continue to follow the discussion.

Where on the scale of "failure <-----> success" do the Bigfoot "researchers" currently stand when it comes to objectively supporting the claim that Bigfoot exists?

Rather amazing amount of hostility to my presence and position about there not being a solution on either side that I find compelling. Makes for an interesting study of human nature.

Again, the fact that you've ignored the truth of the situation in favor of your made up version belies your claim to skepticism. The issue does not start half way between "Bigfoot exists" and "Bigfoot does not exist". There is no objective evidence to support the claim that Bigfoot does exist, so the issue starts with "it does not exist". When you understand that, you may understand why your accusing skeptics of "cultish behavior", "allegiance to dogmatic ideas", "lack of critical thinking skills", and "not facing up to that" is offensive to those who do apply critical thinking to the issue.

 

[RioBravo]

Such is the burden of the skeptic, proving the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Why do you think bigfoot still exists? Because you damn skeptics can't prove he doesn't!

I don't expect anyone to prove bigfoot doesn't exist, that's an absurd task.

I do expect rational skeptics to concede that they cannot know for certain whether bigfoot exists or not.

One may place the odds of bigfoot existing at ten billion to one, and that's perfectly reasonable.

As soon as somebody claims they are "100% certain" bigfoot doesn't exist, they are being neither skeptical nor rational.

 

[clayflingythingy]

I don't expect anyone to prove bigfoot doesn't exist, that's an absurd task.

I do expect rational skeptics to concede that they cannot know for certain whether bigfoot exists or not.

One may place the odds of bigfoot existing at ten billion to one, and that's perfectly reasonable.

As soon as somebody claims they are "100% certain" bigfoot doesn't exist, they are being neither skeptical nor rational.

Sorry, but by now it can be stated with certainty BF does not exist. No dead monkey in the last 60 years = no BF. At some point one must engage the brain and draw a conclusion. Don't be so open minded your brains fall out.