A Laughable Theory I've Chewed On For A While...but...it May Be Close...naaa...something Funny About Skeptics.

[sheri]

I Agree. It is something I need to do. I will certainly share it with you ( and other's).

[Guest Llawgoch]

I mean more specifically that the SSq are a consequence (whether intended or unintended) of a deliberate mixing of types many thousands of years ago... and that this is known and has been known for nearly as long. Since this information flies in the face of the modern evolutionary model then there in lies the dilemma of what to do about SSq and also speaks to the whys and how comes to the rather blatant unscientific evasion of the subject matter by the community that calls itself scientific.

 

 

What about this do you believe "flies in the face of the modern evolutionary model"?

[ThePhaige]

^^The key word here is believe. This would consist of a combination of things that I have observed, things I have experienced, things I have learned and rejected, things I have learned and accepted, things I have read and many, many discussion with people on the inside and the outside of the genre for which we speak.

[Guest Llawgoch]

What I meant was, what bearing does your perception of Bigfoot being 'a deliberate mixing of types many thousands of years ago' have on the evolutionary model?  I can't see how it has any bearing on evolution, true or not.

[ThePhaige]

Well I would like to answer your question in the way that I feel would quantify my position, but to do so in full would violate the rule set. To answer the question in a way that does stay within the rule set would be to say there are a great many who still believe that evolution has not been effectively proven. I am one of those many left that don't feel evolution has been sufficiently proven to such a degree as it has been so readily accepted. I do see evidence of variation of species and adaptation of a type, but that is not evolution.

 

Certainly it is believed to be correct by a admittedly larger group than the other beliefs(theories)  I would also say that it is a fact that although the scientific community claim to be ..shall we say rigorously scientific...that it is a well established fact that liberties are taken in order to either maintain a particular theory or change the rules in order for such a theory to remain viable, which is not very scientific at all by anyone's measure. So my point is that I feel science has a much larger sense of protection to preserve their previously held positions and that until the SSq can be shoehorned into that particular construct with proof then we will continue to see science stonewall or put forth theories that only fit their evolutionary model. I also maintain that I feel they already know that it does not fit and that this is the reasoning behind the disavowing and smokescreens. For you and I perhaps truth is the word of the day but this is not the driving force for many and if that is not clear to you or anyone else then we can certainly agree to disagree.

[Guest]

FWIW if you dig in the dark recesses of the internet you'll find stuff about them having been bred by ancient aliens as mine workers or something.

[ThePhaige]

^^ I think some of these theories are offshoots that relate to Zecharia Sitchin's work and his rather dubious interpretations of the Sumerian literature.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well I would like to answer your question in the way that I feel would quantify my position, but to do so in full would violate the rule set. To answer the question in a way that does stay within the rule set would be to say there are a great many who still believe that evolution has not been effectively proven. I am one of those many left that don't feel evolution has been sufficiently proven to such a degree as it has been so readily accepted. I do see evidence of variation of species and adaptation of a type, but that is not evolution.

 

Certainly it is believed to be correct by a admittedly larger group than the other beliefs(theories)  I would also say that it is a fact that although the scientific community claim to be ..shall we say rigorously scientific...that it is a well established fact that liberties are taken in order to either maintain a particular theory or change the rules in order for such a theory to remain viable, which is not very scientific at all by anyone's measure. So my point is that I feel science has a much larger sense of protection to preserve their previously held positions and that until the SSq can be shoehorned into that particular construct with proof then we will continue to see science stonewall or put forth theories that only fit their evolutionary model. I also maintain that I feel they already know that it does not fit and that this is the reasoning behind the disavowing and smokescreens. For you and I perhaps truth is the word of the day but this is not the driving force for many and if that is not clear to you or anyone else then we can certainly agree to disagree.

 

 

So why does Sasquatch not fit the evolutionary model?  And how does this have any bearing on the evolutionary model, which currently doesn't even contain Sasquatch?

FWIW if you dig in the dark recesses of the internet you'll find stuff about them having been bred by ancient aliens as mine workers or something.

 

Even if this were so, how does that affect the evolutionary model? It simply doesn't.  

[ThePhaige]

OK if you say so

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well, how does it?  If everything on earth evolved but one type of animal was found to have been engineered by aliens, how does that invalidate evolution?

[ThePhaige]

^^ My point is not to validate or invalidate evolution per say... I used to believe in it and although I don't believe in it anymore, that is another story.  My point is that the behavior associated with science as it relates to SSq is indicative of their inherent insecurity with anything that challenges that premise and that (in my opinion) is in large part the explanation for their actions and reactions in this regard. Those who share my viewpoint and know me understand where I am coming from here. That is probably not you and thats OK we can agree to disagree. I go where I believe logic, truth and experience take the research.

 

As for the ancient alien astronaut theories...that was another posters thoughts, but I also do not support that theory either for the record...I was simply stating the information for where much of that theory originated from Zecharia Sitchin's works and others like Erich Von Daniken which I am very familiar with and have read thoroughly.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^^ My point is not to validate or invalidate evolution per say... I used to believe in it and although I don't believe in it anymore, that is another story.  My point is that the behavior associated with science as it relates to SSq is indicative of their inherent insecurity with anything that challenges that premise and that (in my opinion) is in large part the explanation for their actions and reactions in this regard. Those who share my viewpoint and know me understand where I am coming from here. That is probably not you and thats OK we can agree to disagree. I go where I believe logic, truth and experience take the research.

 

As for the ancient alien astronaut theories...that was another posters thoughts, but I also do not support that theory either for the record...I was simply stating the information for where much of that theory originated from Zecharia Sitchin's works and others like Erich Von Daniken which I am very familiar with and have read thoroughly.

 

You're really not saying what par of evolutionary theory would be challenged by the existence of sasquatch, nor exactly what you believe  a sasquatch is, for it to do so.  Unless you tell me that I can't possibly agree or disagree with you you.  You're just saying "something I can't tell you means something else is challenged in a vague way".  I'm not sure how anyone can share this viewpoint unless you have told them something off the record you are not divulging here, as it is impossible to tell from your posts what your viewpoint is.

[Oonjerah]

You're just saying "something I can't tell you means something else is challenged in a vague way".  I'm not sure how anyone

can share this viewpoint unless you have told them something off the record you are not divulging here, as it is impossible

to tell from your posts what your viewpoint is.

 

This may require an interpreter. 

Edited October 16, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Branco]

IMO I don't think the government thought they were hybrid's from experimentation. I think the government has always known about them. Have you ever thought about why they started national forest's, state forest's, county forest's and local forest preserves. In fact when it comes to forested area's we are almost where we were before the massive deforestation took place. This has been going on for decades, way before they started  worrying about climate change. Even today they are buying up land and creating more and more forested area's, wet lands, and prairies. I don't think there is a plot to hide it from people, I just think they don't know how to handle it, what problem's it's going to cause.

You hit it out of the park! Good swing.

[ThePhaige]

You're really not saying what par of evolutionary theory would be challenged by the existence of sasquatch......

 

I have explained my position and points to the extent that I feel comfortable with respect to the forum rules. I feel satisfied that I have given your requests due diligence to a point of conclusion here. If you would like for me to personal message you further information that would not be subject to the rule set that could be more direct in this regard I would be happy to do so. I have been very open with others with regard to my research when the rules here prevent me from laying it all out. You will let me know....