Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/ui-ra-la.html Before the argument begins archaic peoples bred with great apes! It hasn't been established BF is a lower primate. It is equally possible it's a older divergent branch of homo sapiens and migrated from eastern europe. Since no one as of yet can definativly prove the great ape theory, not looking at it being a primitive human who didn't progress for the sake of discussion, is short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 That's why I love you Greyjay you breakdown for poor Cervelo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 You have the paper? Prove it. Ketchum has disavowed the "BF is human" claim. That comes from Paulides/Stubstrad. Furthermore, there is no "hypothesis" to be had in this study. The DNA didn't make itself up. It came from critters. The study is to document genetically what sort of critters. Nice to know. Problem is, that isn't the claim and never has been. The closest to that claim that has been suggested is that BF is some sort of possible genus homo distinct from modern man that also shares markers with chimpanzees. The wind shifting and blowing the smell coming from the Skeptic camp back in your faces Yes, I wonder why Fasano (sp?) felt the need to do this is in the first place... Which would once and for all put a stake in the heart of the argument that Science is objective. No, I won't. If he's so freaking open to the idea, why isn't he publishing the paper? The nature of the crits alleged to be received have nothing to do with results or methodology, so those must be sound. There is a lot of bloviating about "no testable hypothesis" and other such BS. That is the sort of word-smithing and lawyer-speak that people engage in when they can't fight the facts (in this case, the apparent results) so they try to blow smoke up everyone's hoo-ha-s about "testable hypothesis" as a distraction. Mulder, Plus 1 to you my friend, I adore your sense of humor, and you are one of the very best defenders of the known BF results, and arguably the same for the upcoming news/journal release. I'm frankly honored to call you my friend, and my mentor even if you did not know that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 ...one of the very best defenders of the known BF results... Susi, can you expand on this... my irony deflectors are preventing it from getting to my main core... What ~known BF results~ are there? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 To paraphrase.. "If you don't agree with one of the two options outlined herein then you defy common sense, logic, reality, and rational thought" I'm sure real scientists talk like this all the time. Good grief. it's YOUR paraphrase....LOL. YOU said it, you defend it!! what a post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Susi, can you expand on this... my irony deflectors are preventing it from getting to my main core... What ~known BF results~ are there? RayG The stuff Melba discussed on a TV show about her unusual DNA findings from a specimen Josh Gates brought her from Nepal(?) that consisted of a good sized hunk of hair and the DNA results were *very* interesting IIRC.. I think it was discovered in a tree in the mountains around Nepal where the creature's hair had gotten tangled in a fork of a tree and was yanked out with roots attached. That episode helped to start some BF researchers into having their skin, scat,hair,toe or finger nail samples being professionally analyzed to document the reality of BF through it's DNA, and that program got Melba's name out regarding BF DNA.. The DNA was discussed on the TV program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 it's YOUR paraphrase....LOL. YOU said it, you defend it!! what a post! Nice deflection. My post is about the logical fallacy of your argument technique. It is obvious you aren't interested in an actual discussion but rather presenting a small box which you can use to frame someone's argument in order to discredit them using an improper causal relation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy Sadly this is what many discussions often deteriorate into. You on the other hand seem to be well versed in the technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Susi, can you expand on this... my irony deflectors are preventing it from getting to my main core... What ~known BF results~ are there? RayG Com'on Ray you believe everything you read and see on tv too right! Now when it comes to Mulder..... well really nothing else needs to be said!! Edited December 31, 2011 by Cervelo misspelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Nice deflection. My post is about the logical fallacy of your argument technique. It is obvious you aren't interested in an actual discussion but rather presenting a small box which you can use to frame someone's argument in order to discredit them using an improper causal relation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy Sadly this is what many discussions often deteriorate into. You on the other hand seem to be well versed in the technique. Thanks for opening that door.... Logical Fallacies An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ It's something I've seen here by some of our more vocal skeptics. While they are deeply...deeply wounded I tell you that the proponents are bashing them. I will observe that by using fallacies as their method of rebuttal they are de facto showing they are not skeptics at all. Wordsmithing is a fine and admirable art, but abusing it within a friendly discussion should be looked at with a critical eye. This is my opinion and does not reflect the BFF in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I find the exact opposite to be true but you know what they say about opinions........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/fallacies.html Here is a concise list. I'll also add someone can be a very real skeptic, however using these type arguments it demonstrates faulty reasoning. I'm all for a great debate on BF but if we're going to raise the level of the debate, arguing using these techniques is getting us off on the wrong foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm familiar with logical fallacies but to state that only skeptics use them is untrue. Ignoring the proponents use of fallacy doesn't make your case. You certainly you don't believe that only certain skeptics are guilty of making fallacious arguments here do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm familiar with logical fallacies but to state that only skeptics use them is untrue. Ignoring the proponents use of fallacy doesn't make your case. You certainly you don't believe that only certain skeptics are guilty of making fallacious arguments here do you? LOL...no I don't. But when I see so many good discussions fall into that ''linguistic's'' morass over and over it's unfortunate. I will say in spending time reading posts here it's employed by more skeptics than proponents on this forum. Obviously I can't speak to the phenom nationwide. I wouldn't have brought it up for discussion if I hadn't looked into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I guess I don't understand why you are singling out on particular group over another. If you intended on opening a discussion on logical fallacy you should have considered opening a new thread and objectively discuss it but by targeting certain skeptics it seems your intention was to do just that without objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The other possibility: If it isn't modern human DNA, but some unknown primate or prehistoric human, then Henry Gee would publish it. To say otherwise defies common sense, logic, reality, and every other mode of rational thought. This is the kind of paper they live for, and would die for. If you don't believe that, you are beyond the reach of logic. Take your pick. I think we just covered the part where publication isn't automatic, even if the data is publishable. The analyses would have to cover every conceivable angle of critique one could imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts