Lurk more?
Thanks for trying to express that I'm an idiot.
Back at you dear, Levithan.
And I'm only wishing you the best as well.
Cerberus
I'm so glad you've helped me out here.
Please.
Source Wikipedia
Absence of evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method.
Evidence of absence is the successful variation; that rides on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something.
An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for change and finding nothing, but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then?
Thanks for the debate.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Carl Sagan
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37413047]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.[/QUOTE]
Tell me why you should believe something exists if there is nothing at all to suggest it does. A lack of evidence for existence [B]is [/B] something to support it doesn't exist. You can't justify there being nothing to show it doesn't exist as evidence it does exist. If you are making a claim, you are the one who should back it up.
I'm not saying bigfoot can't exist or that it doesn't exist for 100% certainty, but there is absolutely no reason to think something exists without something to support it existing. Tell me, what would prove it doesn't exist anyway? How could you disprove something that has nothing to suggest it exists in the first place? Again, a lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it.
This is relevant:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY[/media]
What about Santa, or God? And Bigfoot .. They all have something in common.
[QUOTE=nightlord;37417964]Tell me why you should believe something exists if there is nothing at all to suggest it does. A lack of evidence for existence [B]is [/B] something to support it doesn't exist. You can't justify there being nothing to show it doesn't exist as evidence it does exist. If you are making a claim, you are the one who should back it up.
I'm not saying bigfoot can't exist or that it doesn't exist for 100% certainty, but there is absolutely no reason to think something exists without something to support it existing. Tell me, what would prove it doesn't exist anyway? How could you disprove something that has nothing to suggest it exists in the first place? Again, a lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it.
This is relevant:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY[/media][/QUOTE]
This is also relevant:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/url]
Bigfoot has only been seen rarely and has been sighted around the world, how is it even possible to exist when there's so few of them, Do they travel by country to country to meet each other?
Why are there no remains of the dead Ones?
Why has all caught footages of bigfoot been proved fake?
It's just another monster myth from tales.
I agree with many that the existence of Bigfoot can only be proven with insurmountable physical evidence, not including eyewitnesses and sketchy reports.
Just a couple of well documented hoaxes that have driven the human imagination.
Like the Loch Ness monster, it started with a few grainy photographs or fake foot prints, then moved on to bad reels like the Patterson-Gimlin film.
I would like to think a sizable creature like Big Foot would have better documentation in 2012, if it did exist.
actually there is evidence bigfoot doesnt exist ie early in the thread
There are a lot of big and strange species on Earth, and have been, so I don't see why people so deliberately believe in Big Foot.. or argue about such things pointlessly.
Brian Blessed believes that Yeti exist in North Asia.
If a sensible person like BB thinks it's true, then that's good enough for me!
[img]http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs6/2654277_o.gif[/img]
I'd be prepared to believe that something could live hidden in a vast, mostly uninhabited place like Mongolia; but Bigfoot in North America? With the population there and the amount of people that enjoy hunting and camping (plus people who go out into the wilderness, actively looking for Bigfoot), somebody would have found some evidence by now.
Well, anecdotal evidence is generally not reliable, therefore it would be plausible to say that Bigfoot does not exist, however this does not disprove the existance of Bigfoot.
[QUOTE=shackleford;37479497]Well, anecdotal evidence is generally not reliable, therefore it would be plausible to say that Bigfoot does not exist, however this does not disprove the existance of Bigfoot.[/QUOTE]
The first reports of bigfoot confessed to having made the whole thing up.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37479980]The first reports of bigfoot confessed to having made the whole thing up.[/QUOTE]
Yes, people make shit up.
Basically, /thread
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not discussion" - verynicelady))[/highlight]
No, I am going to say no, no, no, NOOOO! lol
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not discussion" - verynicelady))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.