dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 ^^ Oct. 26.1987 5 days before Halloween? Can we rule out a costume? Also, sorry but I am not impressed by anecdotal evidence that is reported 14 years after it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 If someone stole your car five days before Christmas, could you rule out Santa Clause? It was presented as material for discussion. It wasn't intended to convince you or anyone else. I find it strange you can't consider an account reported 14 years after it supposedly occurred, yet you're probably all up in evolutionary theory presented millions of years after the supposed fact. Fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) I would feel comfortable ruling out Santa Claus since he does not exist. Same goes for Bigfoot. Really? You want to discuss the theory of evolution in the general forum? I don't know what you mean when you say "all up in evolutionary theory", but I will say that yes I do believe in the theory of evolution. And, respectfully, but your analogy is extremely weak. Scientists do not rely on the fallibility of human recall in regards to the theory of evolution. They are not "remembering" things that happened millions of years ago. I am not even sure what point you are trying to make. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 ^^^^^^^ I think there is a distinct difference between anecdotal accounts and fossil evidence and radio carbon dating. If I could produce a body part with my story? I think science would sit up and take notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I would feel comfortable ruling out Santa Claus since he does not exist. Same goes for Bigfoot. Really? You want to discuss the theory of evolution in the general forum? I don't know what you mean when you say "all up in evolutionary theory", but I will say that yes I do believe in the theory of evolution. And, respectfully, but your analogy is extremely weak. Scientists do not rely on the fallibility of human recall in regards to the theory of evolution. They are not "remembering" things that happened millions of years ago. I am not even sure what point you are trying to make. No, they're forming a consensus viewpoint based on their interpretation of the evidence millions of years after the supposed fact. That's as bad, if not worse, than taking an account reported 14 years into consideration, IMO. As for discussing the Theory of Evolution, I don't believe that's inappropriate discussion for the General Forum, is it? As for the fallibility of human recall, they don't have to recall what they've witnessed, only what the consensus scientific community has taught them, which is often wrong. Just this week a skull was found that's supposedly going to "change human history." What's up with that? If they're right about this claim - and you believed the theory prior - you were a victim of believing anecdotal evidence in the form of an incorrect consensus viewpoint formed around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I thought the theory of evolution was verbotten in the general forum since it touched on religious faith. If I was wrong, then that's cool. I have always avoided it. See, they are examining actual evidence. Not the eye witness testimony of someone more than a decade after the fact. It's not even close to comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 No, they're forming a consensus viewpoint based on their interpretation of the evidence millions of years after the supposed fact. That's as bad, if not worse, than taking an account reported 14 years into consideration, IMO. As for discussing the Theory of Evolution, I don't believe that's inappropriate discussion for the General Forum, is it? As for the fallibility of human recall, they don't have to recall what they've witnessed, only what the consensus scientific community has taught them, which is often wrong. Just this week a skull was found that's supposedly going to "change human history." What's up with that? What's up with that? Science tests theories and throws the failed ones into the garbage. That's why we send rockets into outer space and perform brain surgery. We didn't "remember" how to do these things, we just build on what we know and trim the things that no longer apply. It's their interpretation of the evidence..........yes. But there IS evidence, unlike most Bigfoot stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 ^^^^^^^ I think there is a distinct difference between anecdotal accounts and fossil evidence and radio carbon dating. If I could produce a body part with my story? I think science would sit up and take notice. A theory is anecdotal to a degree. You examine evidence presented and form a consensus viewpoint based on the interpretation of that evidence. A body part was just presented that supposedly calls into question part of the prior consensus viewpoint, or theory if you prefer. I suppose the difference being that one of the accounts presented after the fact is incorrect, quite possibly the one held for many years prior. Both were interpretations. I think the emphasis is misplaced on my evolution example. Instead, I was trying to show how it's unreasonable to not at least consider a report that was reported 14 years after the fact compared to believing a consensus theory based on evidence interpreted millions of years after the fact. What's up with that? Science tests theories and throws the failed ones into the garbage. That's why we send rockets into outer space and perform brain surgery. We didn't "remember" how to do these things, we just build on what we know and trim the things that no longer apply. It's their interpretation of the evidence..........yes. But there IS evidence, unlike most Bigfoot stories. Yes, but that theory is taught as fact up to and until it's discovered to be incorrect. At that point, it's "Ooopsie!" Using your example, science can never be wrong, even after it teaches incorrect theories for decades. It simply tosses them in the trash. If someone claims to see something, isn't that an initial step to proving it's existence? Isn't that at least an initial observation? Again, I never said the account was true. It was presented as material for discussion. I thought the theory of evolution was verbotten in the general forum since it touched on religious faith. If I was wrong, then that's cool. I have always avoided it. I agree with your assessment. However, it is scientific consensus. As such, it is allowed on the Open Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) See, a skull is a physical object. A piece of evidence. A piece of evidence that can be examined and is testable. And the testing is repeatable by others. A story told 14 years after the fact is nothing of the sort. Your comparison is a total disregard of the scientific method. "If someone claims to see something, isn't that an initial step to proving it's existence? " No. No and no. That is a story. Nothing more. Scientific evidence is the first step. Eye witness reports are not scientific evidence. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Again, you're attempting to compare the two events. I was simply asking how you can consider one thing based on testimony millions of years after the fact, while rendering another one as questionable because it was reported 14 years after it supposedly happened. It's not a comparison of the two events, only the belief or consideration of each based on the time between the events. Isn't an eyewitness account an observation? Isn't observation part of science, even an initial one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) Hello All, Science is a process. So is a theory by definition. Theory is not itself fact. It is a collection of facts, that's all a theory EVER is. One can only prove a theory wrong- never right. New facts come in? the theory will or will not be in jeopardy. I don't know what anyone expexts when confronted with the "fact" that a theory is generated by Humans. A theory is not real, that's why it's called a working model. Only the collection of facts is real. Fir science to be true as an endeavor the new facts must either support it or trash it. So far the consensus is that nothing yet has trashed the evolution theory. Changed it yes. But not negated it. I apologize....That will be my last off-topic post. P.S. It is erroneous to say that a theory is taught as fact. And YES! observation is part of the scientific process typically resulting in a hypothesis- which is of course not fact. Edited October 20, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) See, an eye witness account is an alleged observation. Science must work with testable and repeatable evidence. Observations that can be tested and repeated by others are acceptable. Alleged observations do not qualify. There is absolutely nothing that is testable or repeatable about an eye witness report. Whether it is 14 years old or not actually. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Forgive my wording - Initial observation. An initial observation cannot be tested. That much we agree on. Someone must initially observe something before science can observe it. It would stand to reason that repeated observations of something over time would at least make science inquisitive enough to attempt to make similar observations themselves. So tell me - How is science doing at observing macroevolution in the present? It seems to have no problem believing something that it can't observe in that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 20, 2013 Author Share Posted October 20, 2013 I agree with your skepticism in many respects, to all those skeptical out there. I can only say that if you take all the anecdotal evidence as a whole, you find remarkable consistencies in what was seen, and that dates to the 1800s for the type of creature described. I am sure from the early accounts we could completely rebuild the same creature we suppose only appeared in the late 60s in the Patterson film. I also like how the media has reported "Bigfoot" as if it were one creature making cameo's all over the country, like "Bigfoot" may have paid them a visit. I know that this whole presentation of the subject has tainted the reality that I think is out there. I am one who would like to recover the science, so I will refrain from wearing my experiences on my shirt sleeve, so to speak. I know that some of them were mistaken, but I know others were completely real, but that being said I feel it would better represent the subject to only present you with what I deem as credible evidence, and you can be free to critique and tear it apart, or agree with it. So from here on out we will stick to the arguments. As far as the BFRO report, I am convinced they do this type of thing from time to time, and if people really reviewed the security camera data it would show up. I know that it sounds incredible, but these creatures feel safe at night, and do at times move into human areas without much fear. But as I have found in my case, I think that is an exception rather than a rule to get them out in the open. I wonder if the dogs chased him out into the open, or did he have to cross the road at that point to get to a different area with cover. I have begun to consider this type of account and how they could use creeks and move through some pretty urban areas. I noticed just such a creek that sits really low, and is all surrounded by trees, easily could hide a creature moving in the night on the creek bottom, would take some guts, but I think they might pull it off from time to time. This creek connects some of the outlying greenway to an interior forest preserve, but no activity has ever been reported in the more urbanish zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) @See, Yes. And if after thousands of initial observations never produce results, then I think science can be forgiven for taking a pass. LCB, the consistencies mean nothing insofar as somehow bolstering the body of anecdotal evidence. A consistent body of mistakes and lies does not somehow make it more valuable. There is remarkable consistency in alien abduction reports, alien space craft sightings, fairies, loch ness monster, etc. Consistency is not terribly hard to achieve. I could easily call up the BFRO tomorrow and lodge a fake sighting report that has all the high points for any investigator or reader. It would not be very difficult. To think that everyone who lodges a sighting report has never been exposed to the cultural image of Bigfoot is ludicrous. Added to which, it is really not as consistent as you think. Some Bigfeets have 3 toes, 4 toes, 5 toes. Some have long snouts. Some have fangs. Some have claws. Some can even hop dimensions. The consistency is not what you think it is. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts