• 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.

God enthusiasm

skeptichaggis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't clarify properly. The "Epic fail" part was directed at the Bigfoot DNA presenters, not the DNA work done by the scientists that determined the exact matches for the samples. I have nothing but respect for these labs and these professionals. The guys gathering the samples need some training on how to obtain a valid sample to present to these professionals, IMO.

Of course I would have been far more interested in viewing the detailed results of an unknown primate if one had been typed. But, as we had only common results, I'm not very interested in the DNA results from common animals.

As to my opinion that creatures matching the description of Bigfoot exactly do exist, it's because I've seen them myself on several occasions in 2010.
Chris B.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
As to my opinion that creatures matching the description of Bigfoot exactly do exist, it's because I've seen them myself on several occasions in 2010.
Click to expand...

I can look out in the morning or evening most days and see Venus. It's remarkable to think that we know more about a planet that is millions of miles from Earth and covered with clouds than we know about an animal that is (according to the BFF) leaping over backyard fences on a daily basis and which is further claimed to live in every single habitat in North America from the Arctic tundra to the desert southwest.

It is indeed irrational to claim that it is easier to collect rocks from 1/4 million miles away than to find bigfoot DNA. In fact, samples from Mars will be returned to Earth and there still won't be any bigfoot DNA. We will have even captured an asteroid without managing to capture a bigfoot. This type of belief is on par with religious zealotry. How exactly does one manage to keep reality at bay with this type of belief?
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
I can look out in the morning or evening most days and see Venus. It's remarkable to think that we know more about a planet that is millions of miles from Earth and covered with clouds than we know about an animal that is (according to the BFF) leaping over backyard fences on a daily basis and which is further claimed to live in every single habitat in North America from the Arctic tundra to the desert southwest.

It is indeed irrational to claim that it is easier to collect rocks from 1/4 million miles away than to find bigfoot DNA. In fact, samples from Mars will be returned to Earth and there still won't be any bigfoot DNA. We will have even captured an asteroid without managing to capture a bigfoot. This type of belief is on par with religious zealotry. How exactly does one manage to keep reality at bay with this type of belief?
Click to expand...

It's equally hard to believe we have better maps of Mars and the surface of our Moon than we do of the bottoms of the Oceans of the World we live on. I guess what we know can be largely attributed to where we look.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It's equally hard to believe we have better maps of Mars and the surface of our Moon than we do of the bottoms of the Oceans of the World we live on. I guess what we know can be largely attributed to where we look.
Click to expand...

This would be a good point if it wasn't completely in error. Venus was mapped with radar on bare ground. We mapped 81% at some resolution and 61% at 20 meter resolution or about 0.68 arc seconds.

Mapping the Earth is the same as mapping Venus when the ground is bare such as over desert, plains or tundra. However, trees which happen to be taller than 20 meters get in the way and this degrades the resolution. Water cannot be mapped as easily as bare ground since the radar resolution through water is only around 60 arc seconds. Contrary to the claim that this is attributed to "where we look" it is actually attributed to physics. Unlike Venus where 19% of the planet is not mapped because we didn't look there, all of the oceans have been mapped. This is far more difficult than collecting data from a radar. Typical data is around 30 arc seconds. However, along the coast the common maps are 3 and 1 arc second. A map of 1 arc second on Earth has a resolution of about 30 meters.

The reason this attempt at a point is false is because if these same oceans were on Venus then the bathymetric data there would be about 1 arc minute or 2.5 kilometer resolution. To relate this to bigfoot I guess it is being claimed that some kind of fluid surrounds bigfoot preventing precise images from being taken and that we will have to resort to sonar imagery to find out what they look like.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually the thread specifically mentioned a comparison between belief in god and belief in bigfoot. Secondly plenty of folk have been posting about bigfoot,including the thread starter with no complaints.
Lastly if it gets you so upset why not post a message to everyone instead of picking one poster out.

ChrisB I don't think you are a fool, you seem smart,probably smarter than me. Which is why I find your confidence in your own anecdote so bizzare. You also still have not presented any reputable peer reviewed sources affirming the existence of bigfoot. You have however been upfront and polite as you have stated your views. I still think that you are being gullible so we well have to agree to disagree.
A poster(who has not contributed anything of substance to the disscusion) has the hump about us talking about bigfoot. I'm new and they are a veteran poster so in respect(not much)I'm going to humor him/her but if you like you can private message me if you want to continue a respect full talk on the bigfoot matter.
Nice talking with you anyway.
From the land of the wild mountain haggis-the only real animal from myth(joke).
 
Last edited:
OT Bigfoot stuff. Please report to Lord Xenu for your reprogramming. Thank you for your billion year service contract.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Actually the thread specifically mentioned a comparison between belief in god and belief in bigfoot. Secondly plenty of folk have been posting about bigfoot,including the thread starter with no complaints.
Lastly if it gets you so upset why not post a message to everyone instead of picking one poster out.

ChrisB I don't think you are a fool, you seem smart,probably smarter than me. Which is why I find your confidence in your own anecdote so bizzare. You also still have not presented any reputable peer reviewed sources affirming the existence of bigfoot. You have however been upfront and polite as you have stated your views. I still think that you are being gullible so we well have to agree to disagree.
A poster(who has not contributed anything of substance to the disscusion) has the hump about us talking about bigfoot. I'm new and they are a veteran poster so in respect(not much)I'm going to humor him/her but if you like you can private message me if you want to continue a respect full talk on the bigfoot matter.
Nice talking with you anyway.
From the land of the wild mountain haggis-the only real animal from myth(joke).
Click to expand...

IMO Chris doesn't believe a word of what he writes, except maybe 'a' and 'the'.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Actually the thread specifically mentioned a comparison between belief in god and belief in bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Right, it isn't about belief in bigfoot specifically but how belief in God is no different from belief in other irrational things like bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, psychics, etc. All of these seem to maintain belief at the expense of both science and common sense.
 
GT/CS said:
IMO Chris doesn't believe a word of what he writes, except maybe 'a' and 'the'.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly new to the site so I don't know a lot about other posters. I take onboard what you say,not in regards to anyone person,but as a generalization. I have a small collection of ww2 militaria and there is in that hobby a fair few Holocaust deniers. Most know little about history and care less. The third Reich stuff they buy is a status thing.
Sometimes you come(rarely)across one with a good grasp of history. I always think they MUST know,they must know the Holocaust happened but deny it for there bigoted ideology.
Its the same with my interest in the military and weapons etc from the bronze age and I meet someone else with a good knowledge of the bronze age near east but who maintains the exodus was real. I think they know so much about that time in place in history,that again they MUST know the exodus did not happen.
I guess a crazy belief can often make folk deny what they obviously know to be true.
 
As a general comparison, I find the motive for these types of beliefs to be interesting. Typically, you have:
Mystical - embracing something not fully understood or fully knowable.
Exclusivity - being part of a small, distinctly separate group.
Illuminated - having restricted or special knowledge.
Science - having genuine scientific information or advancing scientific theories.

Psychic - mystical, exclusive
Ghosts - mystical, exclusive
Aliens - mystical, exclusive
Religion - mystical, illuminated
Bigfoot - mystical, exclusive

All of these categories claim Science at some point but they always reject science if it interferes with stronger attractions such as Mystical. It's clear that bigfoot enthusiasts would lose all interest in bigfoot if it were an actual animal.
 
barehl said:
Right, it isn't about belief in bigfoot specifically but how belief in God is no different from belief in other irrational things like bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, psychics, etc. All of these seem to maintain belief at the expense of both science and common sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks. And I think your right ,belief in psychics or auras is like belief in god. When you point that out to religious folk they,weirdly considering the rubbish they believe, get all upset with the comparison. Especially when you point out that as insane as belief in ,oh say,alien anal probing is,it is at least a natural claim unlike god.
They also,again weirdly,deny out of hand the silly claims of other religions,often with words like"childish" or "illogical" while harping on about their own religions equally silly rubbish.
Quick edit to say your right,if any beleiver of woo can find a way to twist or quote mine a science paper they do so shamellesly while at the same time denigrateing the scientific method.
Just a few hours ago I got a Joe nickel book through the post on yeti,bigfoot etc. He's a skeptic so hopefully he will cut through the woo woo.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot culture fits into the cult category rather than religion, unless you want to count Patty as a bigfoot messiah.
 
Bigfoot belief is something to be laughed at. Then again, religious beliefs are also laughable.
 
barehl said:
This would be a good point if it wasn't completely in error. Venus was mapped with radar on bare ground. We mapped 81% at some resolution and 61% at 20 meter resolution or about 0.68 arc seconds.

Mapping the Earth is the same as mapping Venus when the ground is bare such as over desert, plains or tundra. However, trees which happen to be taller than 20 meters get in the way and this degrades the resolution. Water cannot be mapped as easily as bare ground since the radar resolution through water is only around 60 arc seconds. Contrary to the claim that this is attributed to "where we look" it is actually attributed to physics. Unlike Venus where 19% of the planet is not mapped because we didn't look there, all of the oceans have been mapped. This is far more difficult than collecting data from a radar. Typical data is around 30 arc seconds. However, along the coast the common maps are 3 and 1 arc second. A map of 1 arc second on Earth has a resolution of about 30 meters.

The reason this attempt at a point is false is because if these same oceans were on Venus then the bathymetric data there would be about 1 arc minute or 2.5 kilometer resolution. To relate this to bigfoot I guess it is being claimed that some kind of fluid surrounds bigfoot preventing precise images from being taken and that we will have to resort to sonar imagery to find out what they look like.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about Venus. However I still maintain we have better maps of the surface of Mars and the surface of our Moon than we have of the Ocean floor here on Earth. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I didn't say anything about Venus. However I still maintain we have better maps of the surface of Mars and the surface of our Moon than we have of the Ocean floor here on Earth. Chris B.
Click to expand...


Bigfoot inhabits the ocean floor?
 
skeptichaggis said:
Actually the thread specifically mentioned a comparison between belief in god and belief in bigfoot. Secondly plenty of folk have been posting about bigfoot,including the thread starter with no complaints.
Lastly if it gets you so upset why not post a message to everyone instead of picking one poster out.

ChrisB I don't think you are a fool, you seem smart,probably smarter than me. Which is why I find your confidence in your own anecdote so bizzare. You also still have not presented any reputable peer reviewed sources affirming the existence of bigfoot. You have however been upfront and polite as you have stated your views. I still think that you are being gullible so we well have to agree to disagree.
A poster(who has not contributed anything of substance to the disscusion) has the hump about us talking about bigfoot. I'm new and they are a veteran poster so in respect(not much)I'm going to humor him/her but if you like you can private message me if you want to continue a respect full talk on the bigfoot matter.
Nice talking with you anyway.
From the land of the wild mountain haggis-the only real animal from myth(joke).
Click to expand...
It's actually refreshing to have a civil conversation. Thank you. I believe people can disagree and still remain civil. That seems to be a minority opinion here, but I'm glad to see there are others that feel the same.
Chris B.
 
GT/CS said:
Do you have support for that claim?
Click to expand...


I can try, it's been discussed on here before, though, and I agreed with what was said at the time.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-cult-and-religion/

Summary:
1. Cults and religions are ways in which people can belong to a group and receive a way to interact with God bigfoot and the world.
2. Cults are generally considered to be secretive and illegitimate ( bigfoot culture fits this profile) whereas religion is open and legitimate.
3. Cults are joined through coercive persuasion whereas religion is generally inherited. ( I see bigfoot culture as being more manipulative than coercive. I think that depends on the person involved)

Read more: Difference Between Cult and Religion | Difference Between | Cult vs Religion http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-cult-and-religion/#ixzz3YuQUtlYi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom