Do You Think Bf Has Been Discovered But Is Hush Hush?

[Guest aypapi]

Yeah but do really trust the Government,do you think they would tell us of they had one.I mean there good at covering up things that we find out later.

[Guest LAL]

Just to clarify, theory is as high as it gets in science. Theories describe the facts.

From The National Academy of Science:

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

If I say I have a "theory" the government, aliens, the timber industry or Al Qaeda is covering up evidence of bigfoot I'm really saying I have a hunch or an idea or a wild guess. Unless I come up with facts to support my conjecture it can be safely ignored.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The case for evolution is infinitely stronger than the case for whatever is in second place. The case for evolution is made and it is backed up and supported by both currently living animals and plants as well as the fossil record. Virtually all other paradigms about the course life has taken on this planet are unsupported belief systems. When a fully modern human skull and or skeleton is found in the same rock strata lying next to a T-Rex skeleton then the anti evolutionists will have a scientific valid leg to stand on.

In the meantime science continues to unearth transitional primate forms in the fossil record that supports how science maintains we got here. Also it continues to unearth other transitional forms in the older fossil record as well. One of the most interesting is the dinosaur connection to modern birds.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Crowlogic

[TimB]

Umm, evolution is NOT a theory. It WAS a Theory when expressed by Darwin in his book , but since then evolution has been proven. (Finch evidence proven, vestigal limbs of constrictors linked to monitor lizards, DNA evidence proving that ALL creatures share some DNA. Not to mention that the one species of Chiclids that traveled from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Malawi spawned over 500 species of Chiclids only 4 million years later!!)

I respect your belief system. But it's intellectually dishonest to call evolution a Theory . The Big Bang and such.... those are still theories.

Evolution has been proven possible but not proven to be the process that species developed from.

Tim B.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Umm, evolution is NOT a theory. It WAS a Theory when expressed by Darwin in his book , but since then evolution has been proven. (Finch evidence proven, vestigal limbs of constrictors linked to monitor lizards, DNA evidence proving that ALL creatures share some DNA. Not to mention that the one species of Chiclids that traveled from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Malawi spawned over 500 species of Chiclids only 4 million years later!!)

I respect your belief system. But it's intellectually dishonest to call evolution a Theory . The Big Bang and such.... those are still theories.

This post replaces my initial response, which was removed.

You're right, Stanky. Evolution is not a theory. It is, as taught today, the consensus belief held by the scientific community. It has not been proven, only believed by scientists based on their interpretation of evidence they've found... This evidence can also be interpreted to support differing views as well.

Vestigal limbs, embrionic gills... So what? This evidence supports hypothesis. Anything else is based on opinion and conjecture resulting in a belief.

As for the chiclids, that too is conjecture. Nobody was around over the past 4 million years to observe these claims. This is not proven and is unprovable. Hypothesis? Yes. Fact? We have no way of knowing for sure.

DNA commonality? This only proves that all living organisms share some DNA and is not evidence of evolutionary truth.

I respect your belief system as well. However, it is intellectually dishonest to claim The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

The only true fact here is that both of us are free to interpret the evidence and to believe whatever we choose.

+

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

- LAL's post #18

Isn't that what I said?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Art1972
to restore post/ quote

[Guest LAL]

But it's intellectually dishonest to call evolution a Theory .

I disagree. I don't think the Theory of Evolution (ToE for short) is going to be renamed any time soon. It is one of the top 5 best supported theories in the history of science. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

Theories, if there's a hierarchy, are higher than laws. Laws describe the facts; theories explain them. Theories are as close to proven as science ever gets.

I do think it's intellectually dishonest (or misinformed) to dismiss evolution as just a theory as though it's a wild guess with nothing to support it.

.

[BobbyO]

I don't see why it would be kept a secret at all, there is no reason for it

Tim

How about Logging for example ??

[Bonehead74]

For the more conspiratorial among us, there has been a theory floating around for years that the National Park system was created to provide refuges for sasquatch.

[Bonehead74]

I don't see why it would be kept a secret at all, there is no reason for it, but i suspect there would be some lag time in reporting it ~

Tim

This is assuming that sasquatch are just big, undiscovered apes. Perhaps they're something a bit more unsettling.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I disagree. I don't think the Theory of Evolution (ToE for short) is going to be renamed any time soon. It is one of the top 5 best supported theories in the history of science. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

Theories, if there's a hierarchy, are higher than laws. Laws describe the facts; theories explain them. Theories are as close to proven as science ever gets.

I do think it's intellectually dishonest (or misinformed) to dismiss evolution as just a theory as though it's a wild guess with nothing to support it.

.

I, too, think it's unwise to dismiss ToE as a wild guess without anything to support it. This is why I gave examples as to why I see the ToE as what it is... a theory, and one that has changed and is subject to change at any time.

- I stated that there was no way to verify that chiclids traveled from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Malawi spawned over 500 species only 4 million years later, since we were unable to observe this claim.

- I stated that the presence of vestigal limbs in no way provides evidence of an evolutionary process, only evidence of vestigal limbs.

- I stated that the fact that all creatures share some DNA is proof that all creatures share some DNA and is not neccessarily proof of evolution.

Since we're supposedly dealing in facts, I'd like to point out that ToE has produced incorrect conclusions in the past without even a mere whimper of admitting that the science was "misinformed" or wrong.

- Scientists claim that the Coelacanth was, and had been, extinct since the Cretaceous Period. However, someone forgot to inform those misinformed fishermen from Madagascar that were catching and eating them. I was taught in elementary school that this fish was an example of ToE because it's lobed fins were the beginning of limbs and that it had died out some 65 million years ago. This was being taught as late as the 70's, although a specimine was discovered in 1938.

Oooopsie!

- "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

- We have yet to uncover a single example of a transitional species. These creatures should be, according to evolution, in between forms. For example, a lizard-bird. If evolution occurred, there should be millions of the critters lying around, buried and preserved in time. After all, there should be litterally millions of years worth of examples of lizards with partial wings/front limbs in various stages of development. Mouths slowly becomming beaks, bones transitioning from lizard bones to more hollow bird bones, etc.

All I was saying is that ToE is not proven fact. I never claimed to say that it wasn't based on interpreted evidence by scientists or even that it was untrue. All I did was present the opinion that the poster's examples of proof were not neccessarily true.

But it's hard to kick against the pricks because it supposedly takes millions of years for the proof to become apparent. Since this is the case none of us will really know until our existence encomasses millions of years so we can find out for certain.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

This is assuming that sasquatch are just big, undiscovered apes. Perhaps they're something a bit more unsettling.

Perhaps a few of Stalin's Ape Men are out there running around plotting an Attack

Tim

[Bonehead74]

Perhaps.

[Guest]

Everyone's attention please....

For the record... there were TWELVE posts deleted in this thread so far today.

The initial post that started it all, had no place being discussed here, and completely derailed the thread off of the OP's question.

Furthermore- the resulting back and forth discussion regarding Religion is one that is simply not allowed to take place here.

There were a few posts that unfortunately had to be removed as well, because they were part of the fray started by said initial post....

As far as anyone's individual post being removed, you are more than welcome to send me a PM, and I will discuss it as a private matter.

The rule as stated is unfortunately vague:

C. Political and religious topics are forbidden in all areas of the Forum with the following exceptions...

Discussion relating to evolution as a branch of scientific study are acceptable but not when used as a means to push a political agenda with discussions.

Religious references pertinent to the topic of discussion can be used in discussions but not in a manner that tries to demean, coerce, or recruit members in favor or disfavor of a specific belief system.

The fact that some of you may feel that your posts did deal with evolution or in your mind could be considered "pertinent" to the discussion is understandable- however they all stem from an initial post that was completely out of line, was insulting to anyone of faith, and therefore were marked for deletion by a member of staff that no one outranks....

Like I said- any of you are welcome to PM me, or any member of staff you choose- but i would ask that there is not a public discussion questioning or complaining about posts being removed.

Thank you.

Art

[Guest]

I'm just gonna be the third person in this thread to say...you don't have to go very far to find a reason why someone would want to cover up sasquatch existence....logging. Is there a cover up? Not sure, but there's at least one very big reason for one to exist.

-KW, keeping the politics and other stuff out of it since 1981

[Guest]

Bigfoot would cause a panic of unprecedented proportion. Humans would flee thier homes in terror. Seriously. Is anybody's wife going to be okay with it? Think in terms of national trends. Imagine the impact on real estate. Some land would become undesirable.

Nobody would ever go into the woods without a gun. Or near the woods. Idiots would shoot the place up.

Any sighting would need to be investigated. Roads would be closed, that sort of thing. I imagine the military would become involved. It's not like sheriffs with handguns are going to rush into the woods after them.

This sort of change might lead to a problem. They might take offense. We have no viable defence, you know. A guerrilla war would be lost. Even terrorist acts couldn't be countered. We as a species have never caught one that I have seen.

When I was a kid, the older kids had a game where they would throw a baseball to each other off an overpass over the freeway. At first they lost a lot of baseballs ( but no windshields, lol). Then, they caught a few. Then they made a few throws from the car. Finally, they could air it out to the car and make a hard throw back. Then, I think the Mom quit lending out her convertible. My point is, that a rock thrown from a known position can be made to hit a car moving at highway speed. Accurately.

I also understand a strong man can overcome a frieght train without tools. That is proven. The train wrecked.

I think it's better that they aren't a worry for people and rarely bother with us.

seriously, that's funny

Edited October 19, 2011 by Art1972
to fix the broken quote bracket !