JDL 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. Scientists proclaim their consensus when the majority of data supports that position. You mean when the majority of them can construe their data to ensure continued funding. I'm always leary of any use of the words proclaim or proclamation. In my experience they connote the attempt to substitute perceived authority for fact. Interesting that you have chosen the term yourself. Edited January 27, 2013 by JDL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 You mean when the majority of them can construe their data to ensure continued funding. You're free to believe that delusion. Its an easy way to dismiss ideas you don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) You mean when the majority of them can construe their data to ensure continued funding. This hasn't ever happened, has it? I understand all views here, but maybe we should try to tie our positions back in to the subject matter--Ketchum's report Edited January 27, 2013 by AaronD to include topic directive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 In the case of hybridization, a population would be expanding. I admittedly have not bothered to read all this, because I prefer to wait and see. But what little I have read, leads me to believe there is a lot of confusion between evolution, and hybridization. It does not take tens of thousands of years to produce a hybrid, nor does it take tens of thousands of years to establish a population of hybrids, unique unto itself. I think its important to keep this distinction. Dr Ketchum's claims are well within the realm of possibility, now all we have to do is sit back, and see if she can prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 It is impossible to argue with some people. I think most of us learned about scientific theory in at least the 5th grade and then had it reinforced in every science class going foward. Disreguarding evolution, gravity, black holes, or any other scientific principle, based on the term "theory" is nonscence. I cannot make the case nearly as eloquently as it has just been made by several in this thread, but evidence for all these theories is everywhere. Their is not one phycisist or astronomer who does not believe in black holes because the math that binds our understanding of the universe breaks down without them. As for evolution; it is startling that of all places, a Bigfoot forum, is a place where someone would dispute this theory. I am certainly not an expert on evolution, but there are so many examples of it around, it is unconceivable that this even has to be addressed. Humans have vestigual tales from way back. Whales, dolphins, etc. have vestigual arms and legs, and we know they evolved from the ocean to the land and evolved back again to the ocean. I believe that dolphins and whales are more closely related to wolves than any sea creature. Examples of evolution happening now and quickly are too numerous to mention, but here are a few. This example I think, again, I learned in about 5th grade. This is one of the text book examples. Moths that were white, became grey because the few grey mutations were selected because the pollution from factories made the grey ones less visible and harder for predators to locate and kill, ie. birds. Modern elephants are losing their tusks because of poaching. Elephants without tusks are being selected because they are less likely to be killed for their ivory. I think something like 38 % less African elephants have tusks today than elephants just a few generations ago. As for the Ketchum report; I see that fewer and fewer are blindly hanging on in support of her work, but those few are very dogmatic. It is absolutely incredible that the proponents of her work, that I take it, have never seen it, want us skeptics to prove it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 It is impossible to argue with some people. I think most of us learned about scientific theory in at least the 5th grade and then had it reinforced in every science class going foward. Disreguarding evolution, gravity, black holes, or any other scientific principle, based on the term "theory" is nonscence. I cannot make the case nearly as eloquently as it has just been made by several in this thread, but evidence for all these theories is everywhere. Their is not one phycisist or astronomer who does not believe in black holes because the math that binds our understanding of the universe breaks down without them. Maybe the key is the bolded...It breaks down what hundreds of professionals have proclaimed! It makes them wrong, and though they will say they have no problem being wrong, their actions show otherwise. As for evolution; it is startling that of all places, a Bigfoot forum, is a place where someone would dispute this theory. I am certainly not an expert on evolution, but there are so many examples of it around, it is unconceivable that this even has to be addressed. Humans have vestigual tales from way back. Whales, dolphins, etc. have vestigual arms and legs, and we know they evolved from the ocean to the land and evolved back again to the ocean. I believe that dolphins and whales are more closely related to wolves than any sea creature. The only problem with evolution and the scientific community is it will be said that we don't know everything, then on the same breath "experts" will tell us what CAN'T be. Well if you don't know everything....how can you tell us what can't be? Can it be as simple as...we have something wrong which has us close to the final equation but not quite there? This seems to be the case to myself. Same as an algebraic problem, if you get something wrong in the very beginnings of the problem your entire answer will be close but not quite there. I believe we are missing an equation and it's throwing our entire science off slightly. Personally I believe it has to do with the spirit or as some would call the supernatural. For whatever reason we can't reproduce it so we disregard it. Science has ridiculed it. Because we can't observe and reproduce it when we want doesn't mean it ceases to exist! What's the experiment where foxes were being domesticated? Weren't the foxes different within a few short generations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 What's the experiment where foxes were being domesticated? Weren't the foxes different within a few short generations? Yep a great evolutionary experiment, ongoing for about 50 years now: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 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". May I ask where you saw it and were there any other's present? At what distance were you from the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 My only problem with skepticism is when they come to the predetermined conclusion that Dr Ketchum is wrong, or hoaxing, or incompetent, or a lunatic,and I find it absolutely incredible, that the skeptics, who have not seen her work, expect us to discount it, because it is delayed. I don't think its a question of supporters of her work,its more of a not willing to dismiss so readily based on delays, character assignation, and the insistence of self proclaimed internet skeptics. As long as there are people out there who are involved with sending samples, and part of the s study, who are still patiently waiting, then so shall I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) As for the Ketchum report; I see that fewer and fewer are blindly hanging on in support of her work, but those few are very dogmatic. It is absolutely incredible that the proponents of her work, that I take it, have never seen it, want us skeptics to prove it is wrong. To use your terminology LTBF; as a skeptic, you seem very dogmatic about the likely falsehood of Ketchum's report. It is absolutely incredible that you folks, who have never seen it, demand instantaneous results, and wouldn't likely believe them at any rate! Scientists proclaim their consensus when the majority of data supports that position. Not true. They'll push through the remotest, unproven theory's as truth in most cases. Edited January 28, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Not true. They'll push through the remotest, unproven theory's as truth in most cases. Thats quite a hubris claim. So I guess most current scientific theories can be disproven by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Thats quite a hubris claim. So I guess most current scientific theories can be disproven by you. Not necessarily by me. If they're not true in the first place, there is no need to disprove them. The onus is on the claimer to show evidence of proof, BEFORE, claiming the theory as truth. Eg. The North Star is the brightest star visible, or there is NO gravity in space. Both taught as a scientific truth, when in fact they aren't. Edited January 28, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Not necessarily by me. If they're not true in the first place, there is no need to disprove them. The onus is on the claimer to show evidence of proof, BEFORE, claiming the theory as truth. Eg. The North Star is the brightest star visible, or there is NO gravity in space. Both taught as a scientific truth, when in fact they aren't. All scientific observations are conditional..but keep in mind...they can only be supplanted by OTHER SCIENTIFIC observations. Let's get real..there are no *ABSOLUTES* in science...only models (theories if you will) that eventually get replaced by more comprehensive models. So, we have Newtonian Physics supplanted by Theory of Relativity. This doesn't mean you can use, for example, anecdotal evidence in place of SCIENTIFIC evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Eg. The North Star is the brightest star visible, or there is NO gravity in space. Both taught as a scientific truth, when in fact they aren't. The former actually is true, the latter is a popular misconception among layman. Of course astronomers know there is gravity in space . Edited January 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The former actually is true, the latter is a popular misconception among layman. Of course astronomers know there is gravity in space . UHH....wanna reconsider that? "The North Star or Pole Star – aka Polaris – is famous for holding nearly still in our sky while the entire northern sky moves around it. Polaris is not the brightest star in the nighttime sky, as is commonly believed. Polaris is only about 50th brightest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts