Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, norseman said: Again my scientifically challenged fellow, this IS NOT how science works!!!!! [holds head] YES. IT. IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Scientists do not go making assumptions without evidence about ANYTHING, EVER. Now, narrow techies, they do. Which is why I think that way too many people get way too much credit for being 'scientists' when they clearly aren't once they get outside their narrow training. ("dark ages." When we're fifty years past confirming sasquatch ...and haven't even started looking yet. M'kay.) I'd really stop defending denial here, were I you. Or stonehead non-scientific thinking by people calling themselves scientists. Edited May 30, 2017 by DWA
norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Admin Posted May 30, 2017 BECAUSE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SASQUATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do all caps penetrate the anti science recesses of your brain??? Produce one tooth, one finger bone....and be prepared to be ran over by science. Your like the guy that cannot ever get a date, but ignores the advice of what women want in a mate. It's surreal. 1
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, norseman said: Again my scientifically challenged fellow, this IS NOT how science works!!!!! Show me your Ph.D and we'll discuss further. Otherwise, YES.IT.IS. 11 minutes ago, norseman said: You need physical evidence to prove the reports CORRECT! Someone who has seen one doesn't, CORRECT! Someone who has intelligently, in the manner of the true scientist, analyzed the threads of evidence and knows that the chances this is anything other than what it purports to be amount to nil doesn't, CORRECT! The scientific proponents don't, CORRECT! All of us KNOW the animal is real. Proof will simply be a formality to us; maybe we'll see better pictures now, and learn more than the significant amount we already know. That's it; it will only be a revelation to those who haven't been paying attention. How many times am I going to have to say this? All of our daily experience tells us that no one has to provide himself proof of his very own observations, WHICH MEANS THAT pure science does not depend on proof! ONCE AGAIN, class: proof is for the ignorant people who pay you; the ignorant people who pay them; and the rest of the ignorant. Period. 11 minutes ago, norseman said: Its simple. I'm reporting seeing a green dragon in my garage. OK. I need physical proof. Some dragon skin, a tooth, a claw, a bloody corpse, etc....... No matter if it's just me. Or a million other people. Special pleading and attributes for the beast need not apply. If you need all that to prove it TO YOURSELF I am really worried about you, personally. To the ignorant? OF COURSE.
MIB Posted May 30, 2017 Moderator Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) norseman - You are incorrect. Mike Rugg provided a tooth - as evidence - for testing. That is physical evidence whether it proves to be sasquatch or not. MIB Edited May 30, 2017 by MIB
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, norseman said: BECAUSE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SASQUATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do all caps penetrate the anti science recesses of your brain??? No more than the anti-science recesses of yours seem able to take in what I have already *told you, many times* about proof. 6 minutes ago, norseman said: Produce one tooth, one finger bone....and be prepared to be ran over by science. I can't *wait* for you to tell me how those scientists [snicker] are gonna get a hold of that evidence they claim to value so much. Sitting on their hands? Hmmmm? 6 minutes ago, norseman said: Your like the guy that cannot ever get a date, but ignores the advice of what women want in a mate. It's surreal. I'd agree that the anti-science attitudes of the scientific mainstream are just that. You'd think they were talking about the Bible and not the real world. 8 minutes ago, MIB said: norseman - You are incorrect. Mike Rugg produced a tooth as evidence for testing. That is physical evidence whether it proves to be sasquatch or not. MIB And if you'd seen one...you wouldn't need a tooth. And Meldrum and the other proponents didn't need that tooth to write their books. According to Norse, I cannot believe that the wolverine or the aye-aye are real animals, nor that Tyrannosaurus rex was. I HAVE NO PHYSICAL PROOF; just a lot of photos and articles. (And no, none of them count; generally, photographic or anecdotal evidence does not suffice to prove an animal. Although in a few cases they bent that rule.) Anyone who says "you need physical proof" means you need to be holding one in your hot little hands to believe it's real. Who thinks that? Show of hands? Till the class starts catching up, forget proving this unless somebody gets luckier-than-lottery lucky. So you really think lotteries are how science advances? m'kay.
norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Admin Posted May 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, MIB said: norseman - You are incorrect. Mike Rugg provided a tooth - as evidence - for testing. That is physical evidence whether it proves to be sasquatch or not. MIB Im not incorrect, your proving my point. It is my understanding the tooth disappeared. But I applaud him and his effort to try to test the tooth. If the test came back as unknown species of North American Primate!!?? Game over!
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 Agree to disagree; I'm right; done with this. Next topic.
norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Admin Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) There will never be a moment in time when your mountain of witness reports collapses our scientific process. And if it does? Human society will slide back to the dark ages. Back to reading chicken bones and bleeding people to cure them. Edited June 1, 2017 by salubrious remove personal attack. 1
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 ...says somebody who wants to shoot something and has no idea how he's gonna get there. [SNIGGER]
Twist Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) Something similar worked for two old cowboys some time back! To bad they had to settle for shooting it on film only. Edited May 30, 2017 by Twist 1
dmaker Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 1 hour ago, DWA said: According to Norse, I cannot believe that the wolverine or the aye-aye are real animals, nor that Tyrannosaurus rex was. This particular strawman gets very old. It's one of your favourites, I've noticed.
norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Admin Posted May 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, dmaker said: This particular strawman gets very old. It's one of your favourites, I've noticed. We have physical remains of all three? Hello? DWA is lost. 8 minutes ago, Twist said: Something similar worked for two old cowboys some time back! To bad they had to settle for shooting it on film only. Right!?
dmaker Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 He's just trying to detract from the lack of physical evidence by trying to make it appear ridiculous to need any in the first place.
Guest Starling Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 On 2017-5-30 at 8:45 PM, dmaker said: He's just trying to detract from the lack of physical evidence by trying to make it appear ridiculous to need any in the first place. Any one of the pertinent social sciences would easily be able to account for both the mountain of eye witness reports and also the lack of physical evidence. A psycho social explanation is an all size fits all solution. Does it have to be any more complicated than this?
Recommended Posts