Bigfoot DNA

[Drewbot]

Personally, I would use find a spot where they jump into this dimension, offer the beasts Zagnuts and combs-with-handles(they don't have comb handles on their planet), they would name me Ambassador, and transport me into the fifth dimension, to the core of Mars. This is where the the galaxy's governors meet. I would be called on to speak and tell them how we mean the Bigfoot people no harm, and we would have a party and I would come home. I would grab some trinket of Martian technology as evidence before I returned.

 

[RedRatSnake]

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.[/QUOTE


If BF etc. are in fact real living creatures we should be finding bones, since they would still be leaving them, and leaving them in almost every country in the world, but to this day nothing yet.
Also! if the creatures are so abundant as thought to be, there would be fossils spread around the world in thousands of different conditions to preserve them, but still nothing yet.

Tim

 

[gigantor]

All world governments want to suppress knowledge of Sasquatch? Why would they do that if they think it exists? Does that really make sense?

Well Jodie, if flying amaeba and glowing orbs exist, and you've seen these, then BF is also a possibility. At least BF doesn't require a violation of the laws of physics or evolution.

 

[gigantor]

Would you say you are 100% certain mermaids don't exist? If not, why not?

Apples and Oranges, the sad part is, You know it! so it's an intellectually dishonest position you are taking, with a "straight face".

Not good for your credibility River...

 

[RedRatSnake]

Gigantor you could learn a lot from ~OntarioSquatch~ His/her posts address the questions and answers and have a tone that will not get the thread off subject, We had the little slapping around fling with the BFF thread it got closed, let's keep this one going for some decent debate and have some fun.

After all! You can't take this subject to seriously no matter where you place yourself in it.

Tim

 

[GT/CS]

Apples and Oranges, the sad part is, You know it! so it's an intellectually dishonest position you are taking, with a "straight face".

Not good for your credibility River...

Why is it apples and oranges?

 

[River]

Apples and Oranges, the sad part is, You know it! so it's an intellectually dishonest position you are taking, with a "straight face".

Not good for your credibility River...

My credibility is just fine. All it would take to put egg on my face is a bigfoot. Put up or shut up? lol. In all seriousness and with a "straight face" you will fail (and everyone else will too) to produce a bigfoot. Do most bigfooters believe a body will ever be presented? Do you personally think one will?

I'm very curious about your response to that. What would it take for you to concede bigfoot does not exist?

 

[GT/CS]

My credibility is just fine. All it would take to put egg on my face is a bigfoot. Put up or shut up? lol. In all seriousness and with a "straight face" you will fail (and everyone else will too) to produce a bigfoot. Do most bigfooters believe a body will ever be presented? Do you personally think one will?

I'm very curious about your response to that. What would it take for you to concede bigfoot does not exist?

Most 'footers are far too close-minded to admit that bigfoot does not exist.
That's why so many of them are hoping for the bigfoot-is-human conclusion from the DNA results, but they don't realize that they are so close-minded that human DNA does not mean bigfoot is human.

 

[gigantor]

Do most bigfooters believe a body will ever be presented? Do you personally think one will?

I'm actually a skeptic, I'm not convinced BF exists. But I'm not a closed minded cynic either... it is a possibility.

Claiming that BF does not exist is an unscientific position.

 

[Resume]

I'm actually a skeptic, I'm not convinced BF exists. But I'm not a closed minded cynic either... it is a possibility.

Claiming that BF does not exist is an unscientific position.

Conclusions are provisional in science.

 

[gigantor]

True, so?

It's like me claiming there was never any life on Mars.

 

[Resume]

True, so?

It's like me claiming there was never any life on Mars.

No, it isn't.

 

[RioBravo]

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.

You cannot state with certainty that bigfoot does not exist. The lack of evidence just brings the possibility closer to zero. I, for one, live my life as if it does not exist, but I concede that it might.

Try it this way: I do expect rational skeptics to concede that they cannot know for certain whether the Tooth Fairy exists or not.

You good with that?

Yep.

Of all the things seen in the woods which were at first believed to be Bigfoot, but which were later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things were objectively identified as Bigfoot? Now plug that number into your statement of chance above and you get... what?

It's known that bigfoot-like creatures have existed at points in the past. It's possible they still exist today. Not likely, but possible.

 

[River]

I'm actually a skeptic, I'm not convinced BF exists. But I'm not a closed minded cynic either... it is a possibility.

Claiming that BF does not exist is an unscientific position.

Actually, it's a fact. Look up bigfoot in taxonomy and tell me what you see. A scientific position.

 

[gigantor]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

 

[gigantor]

Actually, it's a fact. Look up bigfoot in the taxonomy and tell me what you see. A scientific position.

Was the monkey discovered last week in the taxonomy?

No.

Your fallacious assumption River, is that we have already discovered all that is to be discovered. You presume we know all that is to be known.

 

[GeeMack]

Of all the things seen in the woods which were at first believed to be Bigfoot, but which were later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things were objectively identified as Bigfoot? Now plug that number into your statement of chance above and you get... what?

It's known that bigfoot-like creatures have existed at points in the past. It's possible they still exist today. Not likely, but possible.

Since simple science, quantitative and objective, seems to be so radically difficult for Bigfoot believers, let me help you out with that...

Of all the things seen in the woods which were at first believed to be Bigfoot, but which were later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things were objectively identified as Bigfoot?​

The answer will be a number.

Oh, and your claim that it is known that Bigfoot-like creatures have existed at points in the past is laughably inane. Since neither you nor anyone else on Earth knows the characteristics of Bigfoot, nothing but a crazy wild guess can lead you to the conclusion that such a thing is true. You can't possibly know that in any sense other than something like religious faith. Here's a suggestion: Learn a bit about the scientific method and critical thinking. It will get you a lot closer to objectively explaining reality than your current method of guessing and fantasizing.

 

[River]

Was the monkey discovered last week in the taxonomy?

No.

Your fallacious assumption River, is that we have already discovered all that is to be discovered. You presume we know all that is to be known.

No. You are mistaken, and trying to pass judgement. Bigfoot does not exist. That is a very accurate statement. Feel free to prove otherwise. There is no animal "bigfoot". It's up to you to support the claim there is. The books already support my claim that there isn't. It's not there in taxonomy. It "doesnt exist".

As I said, you or one of your bigfoot buddies feel free to prove otherwise. I'm calling you out. If you want to claim it exists, support that claim. You can say "i don't know" and that is fine too. If you want to prove my statement wrong, I'm open to anything you present proving it. As far as "science" is concerned, bigfoot does not exist.

 

[gigantor]

Of all the things seen in the woods which were at first believed to be Bigfoot, but which were later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things were objectively identified as Bigfoot?​

The answer will be a number.

That's such an asinine question it's almost not worth responding to. Yet, just so that you can learn something, let me ask you an equally dumb question:

Of all BF reports, how many have you determined to be other than BF?

 

[gigantor]

No. You are mistaken, and trying to pass judgement. Bigfoot does not exist. That is a very accurate statement...

Hahahaha....

River, You are the one passing judgement. I'm open minded and hold the scientific position.

It is possible for BF to exist.