How about you proving your claim that is "a typicall reasoning of a believer".
Sure.
Read threads started by the following people here at JREF:
Lifegazer, Navigator, Killik, woodwater, Franko, Rodney, Interesting Ian, [add believer of your prefference and/or debating skill level here]. Check the debates, the tactics and the reasonings.
Now, if you do lack some basic text interpretation skills, this excercise will be pretty useless.
Again, who were you quoting?
Your lack of an answer is ample "evidence".
You seem to be consitently missing the parts where I tell you its an interpretation of a believer's behavior and reasoning. Again I (as a display of my magnificient sportsmanship and goodwill) kindly remind you that insisting on these obfuscation and diversion attemps, may cause people to start thinking you have some issues when it comes to text interpretation skills. Or they might think you just run out of arguments a long time ago and have to rely on semantic games.
Not yet calling me a liar? But you are looking for a reason, aren't you? Be carefull. If you ever dare to do so, you'd better be able to back it. Or you will be caught with your pants down.
I'm on firm footing here.
Who are you quoting?
Your standarts for qualifying footing as firm are quite low. Just like those you use to qualify evidence... Again I (as a display of my magnificient sportsmanship and goodwill) will warn you about the big slippery footing you are (pun intended).
Still trying to use diversion, eh?
BTW, mind answering another question?
Why you got so jumpy with my rendering of what I consider to be typicall believer reasoning?
Here it is again, in case you have forgotten:
"If science can't find bigfoot, its must be science's own fault, because *I* can't possibly be wrong."
What's in the above sentence that annoys you so much?
Oh, sure, I can be PC and say some believers do not behave like that. But many (probably most) do. I would be delighted to be shown I am wrong. Would you able to do that?
Then that is what you will likely believe.
That is not what I have found.
So, once again, why should we consider your "analysis" better than ours?
Please answer and avoid semantic games.
Then that is what you will likely believe.
Oh, a semantic game again... Why I amnot surprised?
Since today I am feeling quite magnificient and with elevated sportsmanship and goodwill levels, I will write a couple of lines on the issue, that has already been explained to you by other posters. When someone uses scientific methodology to analyse a subject, and say something like "we belive that", it actually means "after carefull evaluation of the avaliable data we concluded that". No leap of faith is required. Its very different from the meaning you are ascribing, where little or no evidence is required. Feel free to quote a dictionary to counter. But be carefull not to look silly for relying on a mere semantic game or to have problems with interpretation of texts.
Oh, will you ask who I am quoting?
"Hairy", "bipedal", and "vaguely humanoid" are all consistencies.
So is "huge".
And what else would be needed in your opinion to labell the descriptions as "consisten"?
Or you consider this as being enough to labell the descriptions from sightings as consistent?
That is
not what I wrote.
My words:
the mathematical possibility that they could all be wrong
Mathematical possibility, oh tough-man-from-the-North, implies the possibility can be mathematically evaluated and/or demonstrated. In the case, using statistic probability chalculations. So, please provide us the math. If not, admit you or someone else just made a claim without any real solid backing.
. A nice corpse would do too. Baring that further discussion is useless. it is doubtfull that sasq bleevr at that point have any good argument left.