Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

" Science Says Bf Does Not Exist..." So What?

Recommended Posts

Guest

Agreed. Of course nothing happens in their lives. A lot of these skeptic, scoftic experts need to pry themselves out from behind their computers and go for a little nature hike. Anyone can sit in their chair and make claims about what does and doesn't exist, or how to this and that. It's like.......whatever!

Point well taken...but that doesn't change the fact we haven't *found* one or any remains of one. Also, that argument doesn't negate or diminish a skeptic's argument regardless of whether they have or have not done field work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

True on the first part, so far. We'll see what the Ketchum report has to say? Skeptics have no argument, just opinions based on negative based values. Once these values become positive.......its like.............."where art thou oh wise skeptic"?

It's hilarious to listen to skeptics proclaim how BF witnesses are everything negative (dillusional, mistaken id, fabricators, etc.), and how the PGF is just a costume. Yet, they cannot prove or produce a single shred of evidence to back their assumptions. Witnesses saw what they saw, and the PGF has never been proven not to be authentic. So, as much as skeptics want evidence from BF proponents, the onus is equally the same for them to prove that there was a costume in the PGF, and that the witnesses are what the skeptics claim they are.

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think they just don't have what they need to systematically study bigfoot. Give them a body and scientists will tell us a wealth of information about them.

sci·ence [sahy-uhns] Show IPA

noun

1.

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.

any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.

systematized knowledge in general.

5.

knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Edited by Pam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thank you, Pam.

Too often I see science being bashed, and usually with a strawman type argument. No excuse for a strawman now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Only one man's opinion:

The universe/multiverse is a crazy, complex place, far stranger than anyone can even imagine. Science is on the way to explaining more and more everyday. What we call the paranormal is only what science has yet to explain. All things, however weird, have an explanation including bigfoot. If part of this lies in the paranormal, again science will eventually figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Science in and of itself doesn't say anything! Scientists however most likely will say that BF doesn't exist. I lean far more towards the BF does not exist than I do BF does exist. When I was much younger it was far easier to accept the idea of an unknown rare primate. However once I began to understand the burden of existence every living thing bears my ideas changed.

The demands of habitat, reproduction, young, rearing, food gathering etc dictate that a large animal staying perfectly hidden and never found alive or dying or deceased makes belief something almost requiring supernatural modalities of faith. Right not IMO it's Science 99.99 and BF 00.01.

No, actually, it's bigfoot like 2,000,000 and science 0. Were a murder rule applied to science we'd just consider bigfoot real.

To think that it isn't because science says it isn't is using - well, actually, read Mulder's signature, and those quotes from Crichton. That's what you're getting - a consensus of dunces. I have never heard a scientist make a solid negative point in this discussion. And all that stuff in your second paragraph is just assumptions backed by nothing. This animal is not going undetected. If you think it is, you are blanket-tossing the experiences of thousands of witnesses you know nothing about, accusing them of deficiencies you know nothing about. That's a huge scientific zero, right there.

In this the age of instant information - in which all of us have better info at our immediate disposal than most scientists did 50 years ago - it may indeed be the mainstream who will be the last in the society to acknowledge what many already know, and more are finding out, it seems, every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A consensus of "dunces" works for me. Bigfoot as of right now is not real. If proof comes that BF is real, then BF will be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David NC

I do not understand why mathematics suggests there is no sasquatch. You look at this graph made by the scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo-Stammbaum,_Version_Stringer.jpg. Why is it mathematically possible to have what looks like FIVE different homonids sharing this planet at what looks like 200,000 years ago but it is mathematically impossible that TWO can inhabit this planet know . Have humans became that full of themselves and the belief in their abilities that we think nothing else can possible be so grand as to walk upright like we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

no

I think most peope would be okay saying that it's completely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

absolutism is not scientific....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Some necroposting, today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JoelS

This is a curious conversation.  My take on it is a little different.  For the sake of my post, please use the assumption that BF is real, whether or not you're in that camp or not.

 

Now, assuming they are real...  I don't think science is relevant to BF.  They'll go about their lives with no concern or not as to whether Homo Sapiens as a whole accepts them as a species or not.  They'll do whatever it is that they do in the wild, and will continue to do so.  As far as I'm concerned, the species of BF (however we choose to classify them) is better off with things as they stand now.

 

The only ones that care about what "science" has to say are us. Whether they are real or not (and I lean toward real based on experiences that didn't involve an actual sighting, along with the preponderance or reports, footprints, etc.), is only relevant to those of us that want the species accepted by society at large.

 

If society at large decides, based on some evidence that hasn't been collected yet, that BF is real, then our forests will swarm with teams of scientists eager to study them.  Governments may well close off logging or mineral rights in order to provide them with space, and there may be many other inknown consequences.  It would certainly be interesting.

 

So in the end, do we really want society as a whole to "discover" that this critter exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest zenmonkey

The science community as a whole has never agreed that Bigfoot does not exist! Good scientists don't make baseless conclusions.

Made me smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

I do not understand why mathematics suggests there is no sasquatch. You look at this graph made by the scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo-Stammbaum,_Version_Stringer.jpg. Why is it mathematically possible to have what looks like FIVE different homonids sharing this planet at what looks like 200,000 years ago but it is mathematically impossible that TWO can inhabit this planet know . Have humans became that full of themselves and the belief in their abilities that we think nothing else can possible be so grand as to walk upright like we do.

That looks very similar to a graphic I made a few years ago.  This is the first time I saw a major hominid expert basically stating that floresiensis diverged that early.  Just to illustrate our ignorance about Asian hominids I have made the point that we still don't have any fossil record for floresiensis.  Finding them in Asia pretty much destroys the conventional wisdom that erectus was the first to leave Africa and much of what we supposedly knew about them.  Logically there was an entire lineage of hominids with an unknown number of branches that lived in Asia that were more distantly related than erectus.  One of them lived until at least about 13,000 years ago and if you believe the native stories of ebu gogo then they probably lived until at least the last century.  Much of what we thought we knew  like erectus being first out Africa just makes a good story and there is little to back it up.  It has been conventional wisdom for so long I expect it is still being taught as a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_gogo

hominidradiation3.jpg

Edited by BobZenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...