Jump to content

Possibility Of Large Bones Being Found In North America


Guest JiggyPotamus

Recommended Posts

^^^OK, it's guess time! 

 

I'm suspecting another case of the "skeptical" (IT'S NOT!) inability to distinguish evidence and proof.

 

Do I win?

 

I know.  Some parlor games do get old, even as the money piles up...(btw, this was for Inc1's post)

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites

dxm2:

 

Most things in astronomy, particularly outside our solar system.  We are now way into the thousands, never mind 10.  Little of what astronomers accept would be considered proven by the standards applied in biology.  You got a specimen of a black hole?  A quasar?  An earth-like planet?  How do you know those speculations we're being fed are spot on?

 

Most of the fossil species we have are identified by bare fragments.  Speculation compared to which Meldrum and Krantz's conclusions would be considered extremely conservative has given us most of what we "know" about fossil species.  (Which is changing pretty much daily.  Serious workers in the field have indicated that much of that speculation may be very, very wrong.)

 

A number of species are accepted based on a single photo.  Shoot, we have a movie of a sasquatch.   The only people who have done thorough analysis of that movie think it's authentic.  You will not show me an exception.  (No.  You will not.)

 

Murder rule.  I'll stop now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Do you ever read your own posts and have you found large bones in north america?

 

Honestly man there comes a point when you must realize you're posting with neither filter or logic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Post he does, though. Vociferously. I think I've got his next one down, verbatim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

The Anti-science side has what? Old stories, not unlike that to which the forum is devoted. Both (Anti-science and bigfoot believers) have about the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof.

 

One side welcomes competing views, just provide the evidence or logic to supplement one's claim. The other side? Not so much.

I'm not anti-science at all....it's the science conducted my humans with a mindset that gets me. You know, discard or discredit whatever doesn't agree with the status quo....I'll bring up another topic real quick just to make my point--I've seen cancer go away by non-traditional (and shockingly non-approved) treatments that "science" says there's no cure for. SO, I've seen the painful limits of your so-called "science"

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have far more evidence for bigfoot than we do for many things scientists accept."

 

Name 10 things that science has less evidence for and accepts as existing.  I couldn't do it, can you?

 

Technically, anything labeled as a hypothesis or as a theory remains unproven.  So if you select ten widely accepted theories, you meet this criteria.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

 

Most of the fossil species we have are identified by bare fragments.  Speculation compared to which Meldrum and Krantz's conclusions would be considered extremely conservative has given us most of what we "know" about fossil species.  (Which is changing pretty much daily.  Serious workers in the field have indicated that much of that speculation may be very, very wrong.)

 

 

-In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

Likewise, a 1994 article in Time Magazine admitted that: "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."-

 

I'm not gonna post the link (forbidden content).  My bolding.

 

In 30 years did we get enough to fill up that coffin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

Likewise, a 1994 article in Time Magazine admitted that: "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."-

 

I'm not gonna post the link (forbidden content).  My bolding.

 

In 30 years did we get enough to fill up that coffin?

 

If you took that from where I think you did, then more then likely it was quote-minded.

I've seen cancer go away by non-traditional (and shockingly non-approved) treatments that "science" says there's no cure for. SO, I've seen the painful limits of your so-called "science"

"You've seen". Science-based medicine relies on large-scale clinical studies not anecdotes or case studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dxm2:

 Little of what astronomers accept would be considered proven by the standards applied in biology.  You got a specimen of a black hole?  A quasar?  An earth-like planet? 

 

Completely different entities, Mr. Scientist. Also the evidence for those is consistent published in scientific journals.

 

 

Most of the fossil species we have are identified by bare fragments.  Speculation compared to which Meldrum and Krantz's conclusions would be considered extremely conservative has given us most of what we "know" about fossil species.  (Which is changing pretty much daily.  Serious workers in the field have indicated that much of that speculation may be very, very wrong.)

 

Bone fragments are still better evidence then what you've got, and again journals.

 

 

A number of species are accepted based on a single photo

A number? Name five. The reason why the Kipunji was accepted based on a photo was because the researchers couldn't bring a specimen as it would hurt  the already endangered population. They did  go back and get DNA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you took that from where I think you did, then more then likely it was quote-minded.

 

Huh?

"You've seen". Science-based medicine relies on large-scale clinical studies not anecdotes or case studies.

 

But this topic is an Archeological/Paleoanthropological one rather than a medical one, and Aaron's valid concern is directly related to the state of those sciences, rather than the practices common to medical sciences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...