Leaderboard

I think this thread highlights why we may need to segregate the forums abit. I think this circular argument is doing more harm than good. While I sympathize with skeptics demand for proof, this is a forum to discuss bigfoot, and you cannot have a meaningful discussion if someone's position is that the topic is pure fiction and there is no sense in discussing it. Surely even the skeptics must see this yes? I think as adults it's about time we sat down and discussed this.

Oregon is always claiming Washington events. I remember Mt St Helens eruption reported as being in Oregon LOL check this out very interesting http://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain.html

The reason we don't know how "human" something is just because it is genetically compatible is because what we consider human could have involved relatively few genes changing very quickly. The "human" traits may not have any bearing on genetic compatibility. We don't know how human we were even half a million years ago. Some viable hybrids have happened even when the parent populations are separated by millions of years. That is why adding "human" to the equation isn't valid. Our ancestors were logically less "human" but they weren't any more or less ape. Ape is defined but human is not. It is subjective and imprecise but if human is used by paleoanthropolgists it should be used like an adjective describing how close something is to us. The problem is we don't really know how well they spoke or how their minds worked. It is speculation to assume that 1.5 million year old Turkana boy was a human as in someone that a normal person would describe as a human if he met him on the street. The logic where human was defined as tool user isn't valid if it exists in chimps and even lower animals. That was used by anthropologists for decades to define human. We don't how well ancient hominids spoke or used language. If the ancestor of chimps were upright walkers then being upright walkers is hardly something that defines humans. That is part of the "out of Africa" that erectus were first to run and walk like us so they spread first. It isn't valid but it is still used. It probably comes down to some logic and language skill that we developed who knows when. Logically that happened over time and we became more like we are now. It depends who is defining what it is to be human. The latest fad seems to be the use of symbolic artifacts to define how modern humans are different. The problem there is recognizing some artifact as symbolic. That evidence only includes modern humans and possibly some neanderthal artifacts. It could be some physical change in our brains but I suspect that was a combination of culture and general cognitive abilities related to actually using language. It's the chicken and egg question which came first. Many anthropologists seem to want something to define "human" but none of them work for anything approaching a million years old or older. Logically they were less human to some unknown degree. Thinking in terms of human and ape is assuming too much knowledge about ancient hominids. They were ape by definition but the human part is unknown and not very well defined.

Well, I'm a "true skeptic", and I realize BF might exist. BUT, it has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about FACTS. Again, you focus on beliefs, which are subjective and a "true skeptic" does not deal in perceived truths, we evaluate FACTS and reach an educated conclusion from them. So, I would say your analysis of "skeptics" is a hasty generalization of our intellectual stand, which omits many valid points. I'm sure many of us would be willing to engage in a detailed discussion of your perceived points of truth. p.s. I'm gonna have the guys over and we'll be watching football all day Sunday, so I wont respond 'til monday....