The post that I made on the first page basically points out the common issues with arguments that are made in support of the claim that cryptids don't exist. It's interesting to read some of the responses here. I already knew beforehand that the examples are correct, but I was curious to see what the people here think of it. If anything, this thread further shows that the posts made by some of these so-called skeptics on the subject of Bigfoot are made up of nothing but denial and personal attacks. It's not real skepticism at all. Whatever it is, it's messed up.
Interesting bit of assuming your consequent.
Let's look again:
It has been explained to you how you are wrong about your inside-out-construction of the "Appeal to Ignorance".
Beyond the fact that you construct your argument incorrectly, you characterize it incorrectly, also.
Here is reality: Large animals leave copious evidence of their existence (middens, orts, dens, tracks, corpses, young, hair...). A 9-foot tall undiscovered primate is a large animal. Since there has yet to be presented actual physical evidence of the existence of 'Squatch (no middens, no ort, no bone, no hair, no corpses, no dens, no young...) there is no reason to accept unsupported claims that "Squatch exists.
#1 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.
While it may, in fact, be true that a majority of scientists and other iterested parties have no reason to accept unsupported claims that "Squatch exists, that consensus is an effect, not a cause. I for one (to give a minor example) am not persuaded by the consensus that 'Squatch does not exist. I am persuaded by the utter lack of actual evidence (se above); and, because of that, I can be counted in the consensus.
#2 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.
It has been pointed out to you , multiple times that you are trying to shift the onus, in #3. "Bigfoot exists" is a
positive claim; it must be supported with evidence. "Bigfoot exists, and you can't prove it doesn't" is a schoolyard taunt, not logic.
#3 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.
There is an entire thread devoted to the problems with taking the PF as evidence. More than that, you are again confusing cause with effect. The PF does not in any way address the fact that there is none of the kind of physical evidence left by large animals presented to demonstrate the existence of 'Squatch. The PF is a red herring.
#4 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.
There is an entire thread devoted to the problems with taking the PF as evidence. More than that, you are again confusing cause with effect. The fact that a demonstrated fraud had been equivocal about many points of the provenance and genesis of the PGF is not the reason is is unconvincing, especially in light of the fact that none of the kind of physical evidence left by large animals has ever been presented in support of the existence of 'Squatch.
#5 is not correct, no matter what you thought you knew beforehand.
