[QUOTE=Bletotum;35514878]This is not an argument. It relies on the assumption that it does not exist, and circular logic.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to relying on the assumption that he does exist?
I was not suggesting that any kind of bigfoot creature exists, only that your logic against the idea was broken.
I think everyone here needs to experience more before they start getting angry at someone else for not sharing the same viewpoint. I skipped pages 3 and 4 since 1 and 2 were all flaming anyway.
I am not sure of Bigfoot's existence. After all this time with basically zero evidence, and the coming out of the original eyewitness, it seems very unlikely.
But then again, with my experiences with ghosts and some creature, which I had no camera or recording device to create evidence with, there could be something bigfoot-esque that no one had gotten a recording of. Something intelligent possibly, that can cover it's tracks.
Seems to be an ape and people overreacting due to the whole "i've seen big foot!" stuff being shown in the media. People are claiming they've seen it in tons of different places around the world and there are tons of reports coming in, but if there really were that many "big foots", wouldn't a body have been found or an actual confirmation of its existence?
The real big foot close up
[IMG]http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2011/05/16/7d8420f3fd5e35f132c289391587ce67_resized.jpg[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
People that rely on science too much can't make decisions/thoughts for themselves. What you have instead is a regurgitation party. Scientism is the modern religion. And aliens exist. So does bigfoot.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - Read the rules sticky." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35732049]People that rely on science too much can't make decisions/thoughts for themselves. What you have instead is a regurgitation party. Scientism is the modern religion. And aliens exist. So does bigfoot.[/QUOTE]
Science is a way of exploring and looking at something.
It is the best methodology for acquiring knowledge. If you don't find fucking reliable evidence, scientists can call you out on your bullshit.
[QUOTE=7331;35502601]Could have been a bear mutation but most likely bigfoot already died like years ago.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Archaeological evidence has found cave bears, mammoths,that date to around 10,000 years ago, and even humans fossils that date to around 16,000 years ago in north America. And yet, there's no fossil evidence to prove the existence of a supposed creature called "Bigfoot"?
That more then suggests that creature never even existed.
It is nothing more then something constructed from the human mind.
[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;35513670]Q: Notice that Bigfoot hunters are usually lower-class. If he did exist, why wouldn't millionaires be jumping at trying to find him?
A: No millionaire will ever finance a hunt for Bigfoot because there is a huge probability that it will never be found.
Using an oblique reference to Schrodinger's Cat here, [it does not exist until it is observed]. It will not be observed until it is found. It will not be found until financial backing is acquired. And financial backing will not be acquired until it exists.
End of discussion. It doesn't exist not because it doesn't, but because it can't, due to a four-part Catch 22 that cannot be broken.[/QUOTE]
The whole Schrondingers Cat problem only really applies to Quanta since you know, quanta can actually do multiple weird things at once until they are observed, and the last time I checked Bigfoot didn't exist at the quantume scale.
Either way it's fucking retarded, if there was a giant ass species of gorilla type sasquatch mofos kicking around America then they would have been properly observed by now.
[editline]25th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37390407]Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Archaeological evidence has found cave bears, mammoths,that date to around 10,000 years ago, and even humans fossils that date to around 16,000 years ago in north America. And yet, there's no fossil evidence to prove the existence of a supposed creature called "Bigfoot"?
That more then suggests that creature never even existed.
It is nothing more then something constructed from the human mind.[/QUOTE]
So lack of evidence is evidence that Bigfoot has never existed? Dinosaurs didn't suddenly begin existing in the past when we discovered their skeletons dude.
why do bigfoot(plural?) have big feet
why don't they just have normal feet or is it that they are just giant, but if they're giant then why are they called big foot and not just giant men
I don't think he exists but I'd like to believe, it's less boring that way than to say "there's nothing out there"
While, I firmly believe that nothing is impossible. Its very unlikely bigfoot exists. No solid evidence has been brought about except for footprints, and they are easily fakeable. Until I see bigfoot fossils or remains. I think its extremely unlikely bigfoot exists. Not impossible, just highly unlikely.
Also Sobotnik can you tone down on your IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG attitude? While I agree with your points acting like that is childish.
I think people might like this
[video=youtube;Qo10o2GPV6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo10o2GPV6Q[/video]
Very related and actually disproved some of the BIGFOOT claims.
There' really no way to be certain that Big Foot exists or not. There's no proof to support any theory. If Big Foot isn't real, then it cannot be found, can it? While the passage of time will strengthen naysayers of the myth, because it hasn't been found, it leaves the open question still. Is it real?
Personally, I think Big Foot is real, but unless we find it, there is no evidence that it exists or that it doesn't.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37399902]There' really no way to be certain that Big Foot exists or not. There's no proof to support any theory. If Big Foot isn't real, then it cannot be found, can it? While the passage of time will strengthen naysayers of the myth, because it hasn't been found, it leaves the open question still. Is it real?
Personally, I think Big Foot is real, but unless we find it, there is no evidence that it exists or that it doesn't.[/QUOTE]
If something has no evidence to suggest it exists, why would you think it does? A lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. I'm sure there is just as much evidence for unicorns existing as bigfoot (pretty much no conclusive proof or reliable evidence), but i don't think you'd say those exist as well.
There are things which have evidence and are therefore more likely to exist, and things which have no evidence and therefore don't exist until there is some sort of proof. Obviously we can't be 100% sure that it doesn't exist, like with supposedly extinct species which were then rediscovered, but until there is something to support it existing then you have to assume it doesn't exist.
I think this is relevant: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E[/media]
[QUOTE=nightlord;37401447]If something has no evidence to suggest it exists, why would you think it does? A lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. I'm sure there is just as much evidence for unicorns existing as bigfoot (pretty much no conclusive proof or reliable evidence), but i don't think you'd say those exist as well.
There are things which have evidence and are therefore more likely to exist, and things which have no evidence and therefore don't exist until there is some sort of proof. Obviously we can't be 100% sure that it doesn't exist, like with supposedly extinct species which were then rediscovered, but until there is something to support it existing then you have to assume it doesn't exist.
I think this is relevant: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E[/media][/QUOTE]
And can you explain your reasons for believing it isn't real despite no evidence that it doesn't?
To me, Bigfoot exists somewhere....I know he does
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37399902]There' really no way to be certain that Big Foot exists or not. There's no proof to support any theory. If Big Foot isn't real, then it cannot be found, can it? While the passage of time will strengthen naysayers of the myth, because it hasn't been found, it leaves the open question still. Is it real?
Personally, I think Big Foot is real, but unless we find it, there is no evidence that it exists or that it doesn't.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty damned obvious to any scientist that bigfoot is wholly invention.
Even the first people to report on it, RENOUNCED their claims and said it was invention.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37409448]And can you explain your reasons for believing it isn't real despite no evidence that it doesn't?[/QUOTE]
Probably because there is no evidence to show it actually exists, just a ton of conspiracy theorists who are positive any sound they hear in a forest is Bigfoot shouting out where he is like the worlds dumbest game of Marco Polo.
[QUOTE=EpicRandomnes;37409448]And can you explain your reasons for believing it isn't real despite no evidence that it doesn't?[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you.
It's not just Bigfoot; there are many strange, elusive animals that I have PERSONALLY ENCOUNTERED that many people do not believe in.
In fact, I own a gold-shitting cat. Of course, my gold-shitting cat is an outdoors cat, and it only shits on my command. I'm never able to find my gold-shitting cat when it is outdoors, for it looks like any other cat and wanders around quite a lot.
Unfortunately, whenever a DIRTY UNBELIEVING SKEPTIC comes to my house to find my cat, it is away.
People would argue that my cat doesn't exist, but they're [b]wrong[/b].
WHY are they wrong about my gold-shitting cat?
[b]Because they can't disprove it.[/b]
Pierre with a hat said:
"So a lack of evidence is evidence that Bigfoot has never existed?"
Why yes, 'a lack of evidence is clearly evidence that Bigfoot has never existed.'
Are you saying that you can show said creature to exist without evidence?
I'd like to see you pull that rabbit out of your hat.
And weren't you saying that in your response to "J$ Psychotic? "
"Either way it's fucking retarded, if there was a giant ass species of gorilla type Sasquatch mofos kicking around America then they would have been properly observed by now."
Whoops! Your mistake I guess.
So, until any kind of concrete evidence comes about to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that this supposed creature to even exist, then yes, I'll continue, just as you would, to dismiss it out-of-hsnd.
Then you continue with:
"Dinosaurs didn't suddenly begin existing in the past when we discovered their skeletons dude."
That's a poor example on your part 'dude'.
Haven't 'dinosaur skeletons' been acquired, put into museums, for all eyes to see?
Do you see a Bigfoot in a museum?
Cerberus
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37412258]Pierre with a hat said:
"So a lack of evidence is evidence that Bigfoot has never existed?"
Why yes, 'a lack of evidence is clearly evidence that Bigfoot has never existed.'
Are you saying that you can show said creature to exist without evidence?
I'd like to see you pull that rabbit out of your hat.
And weren't you saying that in your response to "J$ Psychotic? "
"Either way it's fucking retarded, if there was a giant ass species of gorilla type Sasquatch mofos kicking around America then they would have been properly observed by now."
Whoops! Your mistake I guess.
So, until any kind of concrete evidence comes about to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that this supposed creature to even exist, then yes, I'll continue, just as you would, to dismiss it out-of-hsnd.
Then you continue with:
"Dinosaurs didn't suddenly begin existing in the past when we discovered their skeletons dude."
That's a poor example on your part 'dude'.
Haven't 'dinosaur skeletons' been acquired, put into museums, for all eyes to see?
Do you see a Bigfoot in a museum?
Cerberus[/QUOTE]
Learn how to use quotes dude cause being sleep deprived made that near impossible to read.
Also I don't believe in big foot, it's absolute horse shit as are most if not all cryptids, I was pointing out logical fallacies. The lack of evidence for big foot being real is not evidence that he is not real.
Feel free to get off your high horse at any time buddy.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37412459]Learn how to use quotes dude cause being sleep deprived made that near impossible to read.
Also I don't believe in big foot, it's absolute horse shit as are most if not all cryptids, I was pointing out logical fallacies. The lack of evidence for big foot being real is not evidence that he is not real.
Feel free to get off your high horse at any time buddy.[/QUOTE]
However, it is logical to use the fact that we have no evidence FOR bigfoot's existance as a base for our denying the claims the bigfoot DOES exist.
[QUOTE=geel9;37412974]However, it is logical to use the fact that we have no evidence FOR bigfoot's existance as a base for our denying the claims the bigfoot DOES exist.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's fine, but don't use the lack of evidence for his existence as evidence he doesn't exist, people use the same argument to try and prove there isn't a God and it's dumb in both arguments.
Pierrewithahat said:
"Learn how to quote dude cause being sleep deprived made that near impossible to read."
Thanks, that's why I'm doing it again 'dude.'
In fact, it's quite obvious you've had no trouble reading it because you've clearly responded, didn't you?
"Also I don't believe in big foot, it's absolute horse shit as are most if not all cryptids I was pointing out logical fallacies. The lack of evidence for big foot being real is not evidence that he is not real."
It's good to hear you have no belief in such a creature, but science isn't a logical fallacy, and like any court it requires proof to all claims. Haven't you figured that out yet?
Say if I were to accused you of robbery and sworn it was you that had committed the crime, and yet, the states findings completely contradicted my story, what would I be then?
So if you're to have any credibility, at all, then you tell the truth, the hole truth, and nothing but the truth. You know, science.
I mean, I could say that unicorns created the universe, does that make my statement true?
This isn't about 'logical fallacies' as you've been accusing me of, no, this is about evidence, 100% solid evidence, and if you no one has any then through science the negative is implied.
Are you implicating that science is a logical fallacy?
"Feel free to get off your high horse at any time buddy."
No. Up here it's much easier to see your logical fallacies 'buddy'.
Cerberus
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37413079]Pierrewithahat said:
"Learn how to quote dude cause being sleep deprived made that near impossible to read."
Thanks, that's why I'm doing it again 'dude.'
In fact, it's quite obvious you've had no trouble reading it because you've clearly responded, didn't you?[/QUOTE]
First, on the lower right of each post is a reply button, that makes text easier to separate between your own and the other guy's.
Second, you don't need to sign each of your posts, we friggen know who you are by looking at the top right of each post. It makes you look like you're one of those old folks that think posting on the internet is the same as writing a formal letter.
You can post however you like, and I'll do the same. So, call me what you will, okay? I don't mind.
Have a good one,
Cerberus
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37413079]Pierrewithahat said:
"Learn how to quote dude cause being sleep deprived made that near impossible to read."
Thanks, that's why I'm doing it again 'dude.'
In fact, it's quite obvious you've had no trouble reading it because you've clearly responded, didn't you?
"Also I don't believe in big foot, it's absolute horse shit as are most if not all cryptids I was pointing out logical fallacies. The lack of evidence for big foot being real is not evidence that he is not real."
It's good to hear you have no belief in such a creature, but science isn't a logical fallacy, and like any court it requires proof to all claims. Haven't you figured that out yet?
Say if I were to accused you of robbery and sworn it was you that had committed the crime, and yet, the states findings completely contradicted my story, what would I be then?
So if you're to have any credibility, at all, then you tell the truth, the hole truth, and nothing but the truth. You know, science.
I mean, I could say that unicorns created the universe, does that make my statement true?
This isn't about 'logical fallacies' as you've been accusing me of, no, this is about evidence, 100% solid evidence, and if you no one has any then through science the negative is implied.
Are you implicating that science is a logical fallacy?
"Feel free to get off your high horse at any time buddy."
No. Up here it's much easier to see your logical fallacies 'buddy'.
Cerberus[/QUOTE]
Post correctly, it makes it easier to glean the information from a post instead of needing to trudge through a terribly formatted post.
Yet again you seem to have not understood what I'm saying so I'll break it down for you:
1. I don't believe in big foot, it's horse shit but:
2. Just because there is no evidence for the existence of Yeti's or Sasquatch, that is not evidence of their abscene whether or not you believe in them.
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37413190]You can post however you like, and I'll do the same. So, call me what you will, okay? I don't mind.
Have a good one,
Cerberus[/QUOTE]
Dear Cerberus,
All it comes down to is: Lurk Moar.
Wishing for the best,
Levithan
Okay then, let me say that having the quotes, and then trying to post is very frustrating since I'm using a phone.
Second, I know you don't believe in bigfoot, so you have no need to keep explaining that one to me okay? I get it.
And third, if someone cannot prove the existence of said creatures then science implies the negative.
As I do.
Tell me, how did you come to the conclusion of, "zero facts + zero evidence equals one?
Care to elaborate?
Cerberus
[QUOTE=CerberusBlack;37414012]Okay then, let me say that having the quotes, and then trying to post is very frustrating since I'm using a phone.
Second, I know you don't believe in bigfoot, so you have no need to keep explaining that one to me okay? I get it.
And third, if someone cannot prove the existence of said creatures then science implies the negative.
As I do.
Tell me, how did you come to the conclusion of, "zero facts + zero evidence equals one?
Care to elaborate?
Cerberus[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence[/url]
Also science doesn't prove or disprove anything, it gathers evidence for certain hypotheses, build them into corresponding theories and whichever explains a subject most accurately under most circumstances is kept, to say science disproves anything would be incorrect because nothing can be 100% proven or disproven.
And it really isn't that hard to post from a phone, I do it on a regular basis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.