• Bigfoot - Does it Exist?
    225 replies, posted
[QUOTE=deaded38;35319779]Whether the evidence is unreliable or not, it's still evidence. Maybe not the absolute best evidence, I'm not arguing that. Again, it's still evidence regardless of how "unreliable" it is. Maybe if one or two people said that they saw a UFO, I could understand. But it's MILLIONS of people. Granted, some of those are probably just misconceptions, but we shouldn't rule out the obvious fact that not EVERY SINGLE one of those sightings were just misconceptions.[/QUOTE] So then by your definition of "evidence", some sort of deity or god must exist because billions of people believe in him? [QUOTE=deaded38;35319779]but we shouldn't rule out the obvious fact that not EVERY SINGLE one of those sightings were just misconceptions[/QUOTE]How is that obvious? If only one of those millions of sightings is truly a ufo, then that's all it takes to make it true. How would you possibly assert that as an obvious? There's a well written part regarding personal "experiences" on the subject of religion in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion you should read. Page 87 to 92, its a short read. It applies to this as well. [url]http://www.antitheists.co.uk/resources/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35320398']Firstly- I did not say that. At all. you took one word- recording- out of my list of a process, and then declared (like you did with observation) that the entire fucking thing was what you interpret it to be. Secondly, no- it's not. The scientific method is the modern instrument in science and observation. What you're saying isn't dissimilar to saying that grammar doesn't need to be used- any sort of writing made with archaic methods is on equal footing as modern grammatical languages. And it's not. The Greeks (in this analogy- don't get butthurt on me bro, I know you have a tendency to strawman and blow things out of proportion) did not have a grammatical system. They made writings that were not ordered, they didn't make any sense, and rarely could they splice together words in a coherent way. Now we do have a grammatical order of things, and we can all make actual paragraphs and books. Because of that order. But now you're proposing that grammar is irrelevant, because at one point we didn't have grammar and we still made sentences. Well, yes, we did, and most of them made no fucking sense. We had a few proper words written, sometimes even in the proper order as to make a coherent thought. But that doesn't mean that we can just write without grammar anymore. No. We need the scientific method, and ignoring it is giving up any credibility and any order.[/QUOTE] None of that detracts from the fact that the Greeks made a scientific theory that was later proven wrong. If anything, you have just helped my argument - that science is continually improving and changing, and that our previous ideas can change. Cheers. Also, calm down dear.
To be honest Bigfoot never seemed realistic to me. Even as a child. And i fucking believed in Santa until i was like 8
[QUOTE=David29;35320548]None of that detracts from the fact that the Greeks made a scientific theory that was later proven wrong. If anything, you have just helped my argument - that science is continually improving and changing, and that our previous ideas can change. Cheers. Also, calm down dear.[/QUOTE] Yes. It was proven wrong with the use of the scientific theory, which is what our standard is now and what everyone except you agrees needs to be used when dealing with scientific issues. This has not changed for almost 500 years. Scientific methodology is not changing- the results using that are. And that's where you fall short. Your inability to differentiate the process from the understandings is where you've been wrong many times in this thread. It's very frustrating to argue with someone trying to refute such a basic and important fact of anything. It's like arguing with someone who refuses to believe in oxygen. Either you need to apply the scientific method, or you are ignoring the order by which things are accepted as fact. That's it- nothing more to it. Bigfoot doe snot stand the scrutiny of the method and falls short. Can we say for certain? No. Can we say that it's highly unlikely? Yes. That's all that we're saying. The way to go about it isn't to then attack the method in one of the most stunning and drawn-out displays of general ignorance and semantics I've seen in Mass Debate, it's to then use that method to argue your point. If your car breaks down you don't try to fix imaginary problems or say that the problem isn't with your individual engine, but rather with the way engines are made.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35320850']Yes. It was proven wrong with the use of the scientific theory, which is what our standard is now and what everyone except you agrees needs to be used when dealing with scientific issues. This has not changed for almost 500 years. Scientific methodology is not changing- the results using that are. And that's where you fall short. Your inability to differentiate the process from the understandings is where you've been wrong many times in this thread. It's very frustrating to argue with someone trying to refute such a basic and important fact of anything. It's like arguing with someone who refuses to believe in oxygen. Either you need to apply the scientific method, or you are ignoring the order by which things are accepted as fact. That's it- nothing more to it. Bigfoot doe snot stand the scrutiny of the method and falls short. Can we say for certain? No. Can we say that it's highly unlikely? Yes. That's all that we're saying. The way to go about it isn't to then attack the method in one of the most stunning and drawn-out displays of general ignorance and semantics I've seen in Mass Debate, it's to then use that method to argue your point. If your car breaks down you don't try to fix imaginary problems or say that the problem isn't with your individual engine, but rather with the way engines are made.[/QUOTE] Finally, you agree with my point. Got there eventually. It would help if you hadn't gone off on a massively long tangent just to be pedantic. The Greeks may have used protoscience and Gallileo used scientific method, but at the end of the day it is all still science.
[QUOTE=David29;35320920]Finally, you agree with my point. Got there eventually. It would help if you hadn't gone off on a massively long tangent just to be pedantic. The Greeks may have used protoscience and Gallileo used scientific method, but at the end of the day it is all still science.[/QUOTE] No no no no no no. Greek Science =/= Modern Science. THEY USED A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY THAT IS NOT SUITABLE. MODERN SCIENCE USES A PROPER METHOD FOR THE ACQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
[QUOTE=David29;35320920]Finally, you agree with my point. Got there eventually. It would help if you hadn't gone off on a massively long tangent just to be pedantic. The Greeks may have used protoscience and Gallileo used scientific method, but at the end of the day it is all still science.[/QUOTE] holy shit you just got the opposite of the point I was making out of there. how do you do it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35321019]No no no no no no. Greek Science =/= Modern Science. THEY USED A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY THAT IS NOT SUITABLE. MODERN SCIENCE USES A PROPER METHOD FOR THE ACQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.[/QUOTE] How does this actually go against my original point?
[QUOTE=David29;35320548]None of that detracts from the fact that the Greeks made a scientific theory that was later proven wrong. If anything, you have just helped my argument - that science is continually improving and changing, and that our previous ideas can change. Cheers. Also, calm down dear.[/QUOTE] Lmao, you're simplifying your side to the point where it's "science changes" No shit, hypotheses become theories if they have the evidence to become such. You can't pull examples out of your ass, say they were theories by the standards of men whose standards of inclusion in a hypothesis were "This fits with my belief system", then conclude that such "scientists" were the pinnacle of the scientific process over all ages.
[QUOTE=Greenen73;35321077]Lmao, you're simplifying your side to the point where it's "science changes" No shit, hypotheses become theories if they have the evidence to become such. You can't pull examples out of your ass, say they were theories by the standards of men whose standards of inclusion in a hypothesis were "This fits with my belief system", then conclude that such "scientists" were the pinnacle of the scientific process over all ages.[/QUOTE] What? I have never once brought beliefs into this? If you are going to get involved, at least get clued up first.
Fuck it, this is stupid. Start arguing about bigfoot, dammit. If you want to continue the discussion on the scientific method, start a thread.
[QUOTE=David29;35321120]What? I have never once brought beliefs into this? If you are going to get involved, at least get clued up first.[/QUOTE] By way of mentioning greek astrologers as proof that the scientific method is shit, you have brought their flawed scientific method i.e. religious lenses into the argument Now get back to bigfoot, you're just getting semantic
The silly thing is that to prove bigfoot exists with currently existing evidence and information, is to go against logic and reason entirely. The evidence is more or less heavily biased, falsified, inconclusive or the such. What would end the debate would be a captured living specimen/fossils/corpse. Or you know, if all bigfoot proponents came to their senses and started to chase after girls instead of a mythical creature in the woods.
[QUOTE=Greenen73;35321205]By way of mentioning greek astrologers as proof that the scientific method is shit, you have brought their flawed scientific method i.e. religious lenses into the argument Now get back to bigfoot, you're just getting semantic[/QUOTE] This is the last post on the subject I will make but, really, go read up on Greek astronomers (actually it was the other two who brought astrology into it, so get your facts right) and I showed already how they influenced science... Sorry, [b]proto[/b]science.
I don't rule Bigfoots, Bigfeet, Bigfoot, whatever out. Oddest thing I've seen personally is a dead deer with it's neck snapped so I don't have any personal bigfoot experience.
Being interested in supernatural things and myths somewhat, I want to believe. I feel there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind about things we don't understand or trying to figure out. Maybe I am a fool for chasing lies and hoaxes, but it fascinates me anyway.
[QUOTE=David29;35319384]I haven't stated anywhere that Bigfoot is fact. My original point is that science can't be used to completely rule out the unexplained, since our understanding of things is constantly changing.[/QUOTE] It is true that science does not rule out the unexplained. If you can't find evidence to prove that it does not exist, then it can never be certain if it does exist. Therefor, yes, according to science bigfoot can't be ruled out. [sp]Neither can pink invisible flying unicorns.[/sp]
[QUOTE=deaded38;35319779]Whether the evidence is unreliable or not, it's still evidence. Maybe not the absolute best evidence, I'm not arguing that. Again, it's still evidence regardless of how "unreliable" it is. Maybe if one or two people said that they saw a UFO, I could understand. But it's MILLIONS of people. Granted, some of those are probably just misconceptions, but we shouldn't rule out the obvious fact that not EVERY SINGLE one of those sightings were just misconceptions.[/QUOTE] Just because millions believe in something, doesn't MAKE IT TRUE. Long ago everyone thought the whole world was flat, well why isn't it????
I think that there exists the possibility of a bigfoot-like ape creature that lives in the pine forests of Canada and the United States. However it's rather unlikely as there has been very little empirical evidence to support that claim, and only eyewitnesses. So, taking that all into account, bigfoot is a possibility, albeit an unlikely, implausible one.
All the 'evidence' ever gathered supporting bigfoots existence could all be easily faked. Eye-witnesses are the most flimsy kind of evidence if they can even be considered evidence. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] There's a reason we've never found a body, droppings, hair, anything, that should be easy to gather if bigfoot did exist.
Whilst it cannot be entirely proven false (Which I would very much like, given that the first set of footprints and the film were both faked.) the many flaws in logic one has to consider with this makes it more or less insanely improbable that Bigfoot exists out there.
[QUOTE=Levithan;35324260]Just because millions believe in something, doesn't MAKE IT TRUE. Long ago everyone thought the whole world was flat, well why isn't it????[/QUOTE] There was no evidence to support that theory. There actually is evidence to support UFOs. It's not just a belief. It's a belief backed up with witness accounts which contrary to your belief, is evidence. Sure, the evidence isn't majorly supported by science, but does that make it completely false? The answer is simple: No. [editline]31st March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319833]You also have to consider the fact that UFO sightings only began in the last century, and that there is a disturbing correlation with how aliens are seen in the media, and how eyewitness reports differ. The first UFOs were more or less newfangled Jet planes being tested. This built up on itself over and over. People see UFOs not because there was one there, but because they WANT TO SEE IT.[/QUOTE] Actually, UFO sightings have been around forever. It just so happens that UFOs gained more publicity in that time, which I assume is due to new technology that could capture something so unbelievable. People see them because they DO see them. I'm sure there are a lot of people that have mistaken a UFO for something that wasn't one. But just because a bunch of people are mistaken, that means the rest are too, right?
[QUOTE=deaded38;35376031]There was no evidence to support that theory. There actually is evidence to support UFOs. It's not just a belief. It's a belief backed up with witness accounts which contrary to your belief, is evidence. Sure, the evidence isn't majorly supported by science, but does that make it completely false? The answer is simple: No.[/QUOTE] There are still people who think the earth is flat. [url]http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/[/url] They argue that the main reason for the Earth being flat, is because they can see it themselves. Does this mean the earth is flat? Fuck no, it isn't. Lots of people have seen "UFOS" but it means "Unidentified flying object". If you identify it as an alien, then it isn't unidentified anymore. If you also think about it logically, why the hell would random aliens fly 200 light years here to be only seen by people who coincidentally do not use the scientific method in their methods? Why would they just fly about randomly to scare people and never make contact? How come many of them do not give out any noteworthy electromagnetic radiation? Why has SETI failed to find anything conclusive yet? There are real scientists who ARE looking for life out there using the scientific method to search every blasted pinprick of space. If they have found pretty much nothing yet, then why would so many random people see them?
[QUOTE=deaded38;35376031]There was no evidence to support that theory. There actually is evidence to support UFOs. It's not just a belief. It's a belief backed up with witness accounts which contrary to your belief, is evidence. Sure, the evidence isn't majorly supported by science, but does that make it completely false? The answer is simple: No. [editline]31st March 2012[/editline] Actually, UFO sightings have been around forever. It just so happens that UFOs gained more publicity in that time, which I assume is due to new technology that could capture something so unbelievable. People see them because they DO see them. I'm sure there are a lot of people that have mistaken a UFO for something that wasn't one. But just because a bunch of people are mistaken, that means the rest are too, right?[/QUOTE] No, there is no evidence to support ufos. [video=youtube;nAUCr9OorXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAUCr9OorXU[/video]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35376620]There are still people who think the earth is flat. [url]http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/[/url] They argue that the main reason for the Earth being flat, is because they can see it themselves. Does this mean the earth is flat? Fuck no, it isn't. Lots of people have seen "UFOS" but it means "Unidentified flying object". If you identify it as an alien, then it isn't unidentified anymore. If you also think about it logically, why the hell would random aliens fly 200 light years here to be only seen by people who coincidentally do not use the scientific method in their methods? Why would they just fly about randomly to scare people and never make contact? How come many of them do not give out any noteworthy electromagnetic radiation? Why has SETI failed to find anything conclusive yet? There are real scientists who ARE looking for life out there using the scientific method to search every blasted pinprick of space. If they have found pretty much nothing yet, then why would so many random people see them?[/QUOTE] FES is mostly not serious. I'm not saying they are UFOs and are alien ships, but you're assuming that being far more advanced than us are going to use the same tech. I don't mean to sound ignorant of the laws of physics, but there's nothing to say that there couldn't be some tech in the future, or that we just don't know about, that would allow for those sorts of abilities. And assuming that we could detect them, with, like, SETI, is a long shot. SETI itself is a long shot of finding legitimate life, not only because of the amount of space they need to go through, but because they're searching for communications on only one specific type of electromagnetic...whatever. If it [I]is[/I] aliens, and I'm not saying it is- but if it is, to assume that we would even be able to understand their existence is a long shot. For instance, do you expect chimps to be able to understand the workings of men? How is a chimp supposed to intercept radio waves? They may be listening for humans by ear, but we're communicating with radio, zipping around in mechanical birds while they're working on sticks. Now, there are some cases that provide some interesting physical evidence, combined with some credible witnesses, but that doesn't mean that UFOs are real or alien. I'm simply saying that if they did exist, and didn't want us to know, then we probably wouldn't.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;35376688]No, there is no evidence to support ufos. [video=youtube;nAUCr9OorXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAUCr9OorXU[/video][/QUOTE] As a person who has seen a UFO, I can assure you that not all UFOs look like random stars and asteroids. And because you're going to say "You just imagined that, silly!", I didn't. My whole family saw it as well. I know this isn't the best proof, but you're not convincing me otherwise with your videos.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35387079]As a person who has seen a UFO, I can assure you that not all UFOs look like random stars and asteroids. And because you're going to say "You just imagined that, silly!", I didn't. My whole family saw it as well. I know this isn't the best proof, but you're not convincing me otherwise with your videos.[/QUOTE] Did you and/or family take any notes or recordings of it? Can you draw or describe it?
[QUOTE=deaded38;35387079]As a person who has seen a UFO, I can assure you that not all UFOs look like random stars and asteroids. And because you're going to say "You just imagined that, silly!", I didn't. My whole family saw it as well. I know this isn't the best proof, but you're not convincing me otherwise with your videos.[/QUOTE] In 1917 70,000 people in Portugal reported that they saw the sun "tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude" and while it seems improbable that 70,000 people shared the same hallucination at the same time, or maybe that the reports weren't correctly documented by historians, or that they all lied, all these are much more probable than the counter argument in which the sun comes crashing down into the earth and destorys everything. "'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish." - David Hume
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35387985]Did you and/or family take any notes or recordings of it? Can you draw or describe it?[/QUOTE] It was a lot like a flare from a flare gun. There were three things that made it different, though: 1. It floated VERY slowly rather than going at a considerable speed for a flare. 2. It was floating horizontal. When people shoot flares, they generally shoot them vertically, not to mention the area my family and I witnessed the UFO was literally surrounded by a bunch of trees. Also, even if a flare was to be shot horizontally, it would drop slowly to the ground. This did not happen. 3. When a flare goes off, generally it takes a few seconds for the light to die off. That didn't happen either. This one is a little sketchy in my mind, honestly. The first two are the ones I can definitely remember. Edit: To help you understand, here's a video of someone shooting a flare at night: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpS9ZXZPq8[/url]
[QUOTE=deaded38;35390282]It was a lot like a flare from a flare gun. There were three things that made it different, though: 1. It floated VERY slowly rather than going at a considerable speed for a flare. 2. It was floating horizontal. When people shoot flares, they generally shoot them vertically, not to mention the area my family and I witnessed the UFO was literally surrounded by a bunch of trees. Also, even if a flare was to be shot horizontally, it would drop slowly to the ground. This did not happen. 3. When a flare goes off, generally it takes a few seconds for the light to die off. That didn't happen either. This one is a little sketchy in my mind, honestly. The first two are the ones I can definitely remember. Edit: To help you understand, here's a video of someone shooting a flare at night: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpS9ZXZPq8[/url][/QUOTE] So most likely it may have been an aircraft? Possibly a helicopter or a plane coming in for landing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.