Guest thermalman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) @ slowstepper..........So now we have to go back further in time? If evolution is persistent and happening all the time, why wouldn't 10,000 years be enough time? Ketchum's report will show a lot more than a layman like you can ever explain. Fess up, you have nothing! If her report shows human DNA interbreeding with BF, then that's what happened. Edited January 27, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Extinct Consensuses: That's the beauty of evolution (of thought). But there are also unassailable physical truths. For example, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Not allowed to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) @ slowstepper..........So now we have to go back further in time? If evolution is persistent and happening all the time, why wouldn't 10,000 years be enough time? Ketchum's report will show a lot more than a layman like you can ever explain. Fess up, you have nothing! If her report shows human DNA interbreeding with BF, then that's what happened. First off, I think Ketchum postulated that Humans interbred with an UNKNOWN hominid 15000 years ago which THEN resulted in a *BF*. I maintain that there there were no other hominids other than man at that time who were available..inspite of the *isolated* Floreneisis species (Indonesia) that may have co-existed with man and the controversial RED DEER CAVE people..who some contend are variations of humans. In any event..these often sited hominids most certainly had nothing to do with any *BF* evolution. 15000 years is NOTHING in terms of evolution. Keep in mind..humans have been around for over 100K years...Neanders existed for over 250000 years before vanishing 30000 years ago. No way BF came on the scene 15000 years ago. If this creature exists (It does not in my opinion)...it had to around be at least as long as man..and probably would pre-date us. Edited January 27, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Just a thought, we are talking the result of hybridization right? So there is a tribe of modern Human, and they run into a tribe of an unknown hominid, maybe crossing the last of the land bridges or something at about the same time, and some how the two tribes end up all stirred in, perhaps the modern Human tribe is literally absorbed. The other unknown primates remains the predominant life style. They bury their dead where basically where they die, with no markers,and live a totally symbiotic life style with their environment, rather than manipulate it. I did not know that the time constraints of evolution necessarily applied to the scenario. If you bury your dead all willie nillie, and mark no graves, build no houses, or manufacture any tools, it is conceivable that any remains could have been missed, or is the fossil record complete now? What is the percentage? I guess its unreasonable they could completely hide from us, all these years. Didn't the indigenous people of North America tell us about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ishcabibble Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Not sure what this is, but it showed up on the BFRO forum a little while ago. I don't speak German, so I have no idea what the image is about. Posted: January 26th, 2013 11:36 PM Joining in from euro - American forum. Apologia for bringin in topic from other forums. But we cannot interpret this alleged "leaked" DNA analysis: http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/18/07/...90/phoht_12.jpg This came to us from "ilounes". We have attempted work and asked for references- but nothing yet. Report appears German but clearly genetic information. Anyone substantiates ? Any geneticists member in this forum who can interpret? Here is the post this document stemmed from: http://hominidaepanpongid.american-...artyler-results Homonidae Euro-Americana Forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 ^Those links don't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ishcabibble Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Not sure why they don't work. I just copied the post from the BFRO site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Still ducking and dodging the point: truth does not become truth based on "acceptance" or "consensus". Nor can rejection render fact into fiction. If I were to (purely for example) put a functioning, loaded gun up to someone's head, take the safety off, and pull the trigger, all the chanting of "I don't believe/accept that the target will be hurt" in the universe will change the fact I'm about to turn the target's skull into a proverbial canoe. Clinging to semantics may work in debate class, here it only shows how silly your argument is. A scientific consensus does not mean something is necessarily "true", however it does represent the current best understanding (collectively). There is no absolute "truth" in scientific terms, thus "theory". Also, argumentum absurdum. Good article. Now, show me a black hole and evolution. I can't show you a black hole -I can show you how celestial bodies are acted upon by a great gravitational field, so strong even light does not escape it. Black holes were predicted by general relativity and has since been confirmed. That doesn't mean everything there is to know about black holes is known, far from it! However the evidence showing black holes exist is numerous, far more so than bigfoot for example. There is more evidence in the theory evolution than there is for black holes or the theory of gravity. Without an understanding of evolution much of modern medicine would not be possible. Darwin predicted a mechanism through which traits were transferred. Much later DNA was discovered and DNA has confirmed the theory and added even more evidence to it. How can you cling to a DNA study 'proving' BF exists while at the same time you scoff at everything modern science has to show? Without modern science there would be no DNA study, cherry picking from the scientific realm in order to support your argument/belief is disingenuous at best. Really? There is no absolute proof of evolution.............all theory. My lack of "whatever" does not illuminate any bias or prejudice that comes even close to the lack of proof the evolutionists persist on pushing through as fact or truth. Show me an unbroken chain of evolutional life of any life form over the past 10,000 years, and I'll show you life on another world, next to a blackhole. 10,000 years is a very short amount of time on the evolutionary clock, read a book like: http://goo.gl/KJstH to learn more. @ slowstepper..........So now we have to go back further in time? If evolution is persistent and happening all the time, why wouldn't 10,000 years be enough time? Ketchum's report will show a lot more than a layman like you can ever explain. Fess up, you have nothing! If her report shows human DNA interbreeding with BF, then that's what happened. Evolutionary 10,000 years is less than a blink of an eye. You must remember that populations evolve, not individuals (individuals mutate). Thus it takes many generations for a specific mutation to become prevalent. You really ought to read the book in the link above. IFF the Ketchum report shows human 'dna interbreeding with BF', AND IFF the data and analysis of said data by qualified experts confirm those findings then yes, that is what happened. However current understanding in related fields make this hypothesis very unlikely. If/when the report and associated data are released we will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I clearly explained to you the difference between scientific consensus and popular consensus but you keep acting like their the same thing. So... *image removed* Nope, just a fact that you can't overcome, so you invoke a special pleading because it's "scientists" engaging in the consensus. Back upthread there was a rather good list of "scientific consensuses" that proved out wrong. "Science" is not infallible. Scientists (being human) certainly are not. So if 10,000 people claim they've seen a bigfoot but have no proof or even evidence to substantiate their claims we should disregard? 1) Not the same argument at all. 10,000 people can be either right OR wrong. In and of itself, numbers of people subscribing either in agreement OR disagreement does not affect the validity of the issue in dispute. That's the point. 2) In the case of BF, it is NOT 10,000 people with "no proof or even evidence to substantiate their claims". There is abundant evidence to support their claims, as has been demonstrated many times in this forum. Mulder, I have a question for you.. Is it *possible* that BF does NOT exist? Just give me a simple yes or no. Thanks... Seeing as how I've seen one in good light at close range and seeing as how I am neither crazy, stupid, or under the influence of mind-altering "pharmaceuticals" that answer would be a resounding "NO". I maintain that there there were no other hominids other than man at that time who were available..in spite of the *isolated* Floreneisis species (Indonesia) that may have co-existed with man and the controversial RED DEER CAVE people..who some contend are variations of humans. So you maintain your unsupported theory in spite of good evidence that it might be wrong. Got it. Clinging to semantics may work in debate class, here it only shows how silly your argument is. It's only "semantics" to you because you can't refute the argument. A scientific consensus does not mean something is necessarily "true", Then perhaps Skeptics should stop implying that it does by citing it as "evidence that BF does not exist". Also, argumentum absurdum. A simple, real life demonstation of the principle that Reality is not "belief based" is absurd? Edited January 27, 2013 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Nope, just a fact that you can't overcome, so you invoke a special pleading because it's "scientists" engaging in the consensus. I guess the concept of replication and collabrating data means nothing to you. Back upthread there was a rather good list of "scientific consensuses" that proved out wrong. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. "Science" is not infallible. Scientists (being human) certainly are not. And that includes the scientists that you worship. Edited January 27, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I guess the concept of collabrating data means nothing to you. Keeping this to the case for BF: lets see your "collaborating data" that is evidence for the absence of BF. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Translation: I got you. Perhaps so-called "scientists" should stop ignoring history and start learning from it when they proclaim that their "consensuses" have any bearing on reality in the face of evidence that those "consensuses" are wrong. And that includes the scientists that you worship. They have evidence on their side. The "consensus" scientists claiming BF does not exist have nothing but their "consensus" on their side. Seems to me you put those all the facts on a scale of truth and it leans decidedly in favor of the proponents, not the Skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I'm not even really talking about bigfoot. I was responding to your claim that scientific consensus is useless and based on a popularity contest. Translation: I got you. Perhaps so-called "scientists" should stop ignoring history and start learning from it when they proclaim that their "consensuses" have any bearing on reality in the face of evidence that those "consensuses" are wrong. Scientists proclaim their consensus when the majority of data supports that position. Edited January 27, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 It's only "semantics" to you because you can't refute the argument. A simple, real life demonstation of the principle that Reality is not "belief based" is absurd? In context of this discussion, yes the example is absurd, as is your entire argument. Go back and re-read the entire paragraph I wrote instead of taking pieces of it out of context to make an absurd semantic argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Bottom line: truth is not a matter of how many people accept it. Nor does rejection (even unanimous) of a truth render it false. So then, is it possible that "peer reviewed" research could still be false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts