Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 After listening to Bart's interview, I believe that a debacle could be on the horizon. For those of us who haven't heard, could you summarize? The way life came how is different then how it develops. Dodge is also a city, not a legitimate debating technique. Evolution is supposed to explain how life developed in a single, orderly process. Only that single, orderly process goes completely off the rails right at the very beginning. It is nothing but MASSIVE special pleading to state that evolution explains the development of life...except for at the beginning. Uh, no. There you go again with your Patch Adams nonsense. There no "kicking and screaming". For there to be a paradigm shift, there needs to be enough collection of data in order to be sure, especially when you are overturning a theory thats worked for so long. BS. There just needs to be ONE person who gets it right and the Scientific Collective can go hang itself. Resistance is NOT futile. We are forbidden to talk about religion, but it appears faith is coming into play here. Faith in the report because they want it to be true and faith to fit this "creature" into their belief system. Can you explain the difference in position of this: Faith in the report because they want it to be true and faith to fit this "creature" into their belief system. and this? Faith against the report because they want it to be false and faith to keep this "creature" out of their belief system. Not one Skeptic yammering against Ketchum has yet to post a shred of evidence against the report. They've hammered on Ketchum's lab's business practices, it's BBB rating, her PR people, even on her personal state of mind (not here, obviously). However, they've not produced so much as a single paragraph of actual study data that shows in any way her results are invalid. Given that, why should proponents abandon their defense while the Skeptics continue with the (unwarranted) attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Current science is all monetary driven. Everything is geared towards a political agenda (climate change) or green energy or wherever the grant money is. Even a few people with big pockets isn't going to generate interest from the scientific community when they've got billions of government dollars readily available. It's sad that science isn't driven by a desire to learn, but to just follow the green carrot. The next few studies will all end up being gun violence related due to the new grants that the CDC will be giving out. As to the evolution aspect... human hybrid or not, I don't see how it would hurt the theory. Macro evolution is when a species supposedly changes from one to the next. Micro evolution is the most excepted and if the Sasquatch were able to sustain itself without having to adapt in a major way, it would still fit the mold. If the studies claimed the Sasquatch was the missing link, then I could see a conflict, but I haven't seen any official mention of that. I think the big problems might be from the leaked info about Ketchum's "Angel DNA" info or relating them to Nephilim. Her interpretation of the information should just stick to the Sasquatch aspect and leave speculation about those aspects until afterwards. Angel DNA was never a term Ketchum used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I've held back from posting, but I can't help but say more of the same old same old. I hate to say it but there will be no report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 But, all he is is dust in the wind. Looking for that midnight train, going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 so still nothing in this thread but point... counter point to no avail as neither side has any information.... thrilling thread we've got going here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) With legitimate concern growing over the possibility of the Ketchum study collapsing into a gigantic debacle, I am worried as to the effect that it will have on the bigfoot research community. I fear that many in the community who hoped for a major scientific breakthrough will become dispirited and depressed, while the smug skeptics will use it as a cruel hammer to attack and belittle the believers. I hope that I am incorrect about Ketchum, but even if it turns into a disaster (as it seems more and more likely), it could be viewed as a wonderful opportunity. The recent popular interest in bigfoot has reached its peak and it seems that the fad has brought many snide and sophomoric trolls who appear to have no other interest in the subject than to dream up new ways to savagely ridicule believers. Sadly, as much as it is difficult to acknowledge, the bullying does have some effect and many pure minded people are being driven away by the skeptics' sheer ruthlessness. Perhaps the denouement of the Ketchum saga will cause many of those negative elements to lose interest in bigfoot and go away. I am beginning to think that the bigfoot community is better off without the mainstream recognition that has occurred in the last few years. I think that the crypto field's biggest problem is its inability, unwillingness or whatever-it-is to suss wheat from chaff, on both the skeptic and proponent sides. If Ketchum is a debacle: Many of us won't be surprised. Standard scientific protocol has taken a beating from the beginning; there is too much pre-talking, too much "I've hung out with bigfoot and they're cool;" too much publicist interference (that was, er, ah, needed); too LITTLE assessment of this they-are-human claim vis-a-vis the bulk of evidence to date which seems to indicate they're not. Just hasn't looked good, from before Day One. So what? The skeptics get entirely too much air time if you ask me; you must have a thesis to be a valid entry in a scientific debate. They don't; they just toss stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Why should the scientific proponents care about either the silly sideshows or the skeptics, who seem able only to attack the sideshows? As a scientific proponent (who isn't a scientist, just thinks like one when it comes to this), I don't care a fig about either the sideshows or any skeptic who cannot show me why I should doubt the evidence. This whole flap is just that, a flap, and apparently a flap among people who constitute a big sideshow to what should be a scientific debate. Which, I should add, the proponents have won, decisively. That the mainstream of science fails to acknowledge that is just another failure by the mainstream of science, a routine addition to its checkered history. Surprise? No. Edited January 30, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 so still nothing in this thread but point... counter point to no avail as neither side has any information.... thrilling thread we've got going here.... Better than staring at the wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 @ Mulder: it was just a sincere reiteration of events surrounding the 'steak'. He described a certain level of professionalism that was disconcerting. The show is on blog talk radio, the bigfoot tonight show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Dodge is also a city, not a legitimate debating technique. Evolution is supposed to explain how life developed in a single, orderly process. Only that single, orderly process goes completely off the rails right at the very beginning. It is nothing but MASSIVE special pleading to state that evolution explains the development of life...except for at the beginning. Sorry you don't make the rules. Evolution = the passing and changing of genes and inherited characteristics of organisms from one generation to the next. Abiogensis = how life developed from non-life. Evolution explains the diversity of living things. It does not have to explain the origin of life. No "gotcha" points are going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) BS. There just needs to be ONE person who gets it right and the Scientific Collective can go hang itself. Resistance is NOT futile. Again, replication is imporant and collabrating data is important for determing if that people got it right. I think this article was written for you. http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/bad_science_journalism_and_myth_oppressed_underdog Edited January 30, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Better than staring at the wall... There's always the idea of stepping away from the forum, from the computer, and actually getting something done. Go outside, live a little... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 There's always the idea of stepping away from the forum, from the computer, and actually getting something done. Go outside, live a little... With 1944 Posts (as of right now). You're hardly the poster child for this option! Jeepers! Just a snide remark....nothing at all serious .... GK @ Mulder: it was just a sincere reiteration of events surrounding the 'steak'. He described a certain level of professionalism that was disconcerting. The show is on blog talk radio, the bigfoot tonight show. I take that to mean that he's claiming a low level of professionalism for Ketchum? Am I right here? No time to listen to it today (or maybe anytime soon). Thanks, GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) With 1944 Posts (as of right now). You're hardly the poster child for this option! Jeepers! Just a snide remark....nothing at all serious .... LOL! I type fast, post when I am inside dodging the rain or taking a break, and then I'm gone again. And I'm also on a 12 step program trying to cut back. :-) Edited January 30, 2013 by Tontar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Sorry you don't make the rules. Abiogensis = how life developed from non-life. Again, replication is imporant and collabrating data is important for determing if that people got it right. I think this article was written for you. http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/bad_science_journalism_and_myth_oppressed_underdog Abiogensis = how life developed from non-life, JM How does replicate abiogenesis? Absurd! I have a pile of rocks that need life. Can you help? It would take multiple times more faith to believe in your life giving science than it would take to believe in one living Bigfoot creature. Edited January 30, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Abiogensis = how life developed from non-life, JM How does replicate abiogenesis? Absurd! I have a pile of rocks that need life. Can you help? It would take multiple times more faith to believe in your life giving science than it would take to believe in one living Bigfoot creature. If you're that cuious, maybe you should read up on the subject. Here's a good start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts