|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 16, 2008 9:59:11 GMT
You didn't answer my question  Everything has a creator..dinosaurs didn't create themselves...if dinosaurs exist so does god...if god dosen't exist neither do dinosaurs. I better stop arguing with the admin.. I might get banned  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 16, 2008 11:17:14 GMT
You didn't answer my question Everything has a creator..dinosaurs didn't create themselves...if dinosaurs exist so does god...if god dosen't exist neither do dinosaurs. I better stop arguing with the admin.. I might get banned I didn't answer the question because 1. It is based on a false premise (i.e. that everything needs a creator, it does not) and 2. the argument is paradoxical anyway. Can you tell what the paradox is? |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 16, 2008 11:28:42 GMT
Let's just agree to disagree This is a dead subject anyway. It just depends in faith and what you truly believe. I have no room to break your belief |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 16, 2008 14:35:14 GMT
"Gorillas were though to be a creature of cultural legend until white men found them in the jungles of Africa in 1902."
Not true, actually. The first description of gorillas was in 1847. In 1861 a DEAD specimen, was brought to England by explorer Paul du Chaillu. He is thought to be the first westerner to see a live gorilla during his travel through western equatorial Africa. I hate to break it to you but NO where in the USA is as dense or as hidden as Africa today.
Komodo Dragons were long though mythical until their discovery in 1912."
"Mythical" may be the wrong word. "Land crocodile" was more what they were expecting. 1910 they were described, and by 1912 they had specimens. Again, the "late" discovery of the large creatures is often quoted by those who believe in "cryptozoology", but really, they have little to do with bigfoot. Notice, after each and everyone one of these animals was "described", a specimen was taken, and formally described shortly afterwards. I would have no problem "believing" in bigfoot, or even "chupacabra", if a legitimate specimen of the animal can be taken, and described. And no, I am not referring to a coyote skeleton that the "youkel locals" insist is the "real thing"
"Giant squid were well known cryptids until a specimin washed up on a beach recently.".
Hardly. They have been described from remains in the bellies of sperm whales from 1925. No, we have not yet even filmed a decent film of a live one. Yes, I think it is likely that there are many more amazing things to be found in the deep sea. Is this relevant to bigfoot ? Absolutely NOT...(Unless he is down there in advanced dive gear) Because once more....we have had solid proof (specimen, and specimen parts) that the giant squid exists.
We STILL HAVE NOT EVEN A SHRED OF VIABLE EVIDENCE that ANY of those creatures dinotoyforum posted on the poll are legitimate creatures.
"Dinotoyforum, leprechauns did exist, but they are better known as "hobbits"."
That is a heck of a stretch....again, like I said about Archaeopteryx being on work visa in Germany, were they on holiday in Ireland ? And if thats the case, why doesn't it make sense that bigfoot is simply a combination of hoaxes, misidentifications, and mangy bears ? People make up stories...you know, like bigfoot, faries, thunderbirds and gods. And unfortunetly people believe in them, and then mistake myth and pretend for reality.
I am not going to be a "godless monster" who hammers this into the ground, but I agree with dinotoyforum.
To quote Carl Sagan.....
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
And for the anti-feathers crowd - we DO HAVE that extraordinary evidence - you folks just seem discount it for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 16, 2008 15:33:46 GMT
crazycrowman, the poll's mine: Just added a cryptid poll to the thread to see what everyone believes in. Just for clarification: when I say a valid new species, I mean one not known to science that fits the descriptions. ex. The Loch Ness Monster- If you believe it is a plesiosaur, check the box. If you feel it is a misidentified oarfish/eel/etc., don't check the box. Thanks! I think there is evidence for bigfoot, but people choose to overlook it (just like feathered dinos). Theres hair samples, stool samples, audio, video, 1000's of witnesses, Indian drawings and carvings, and Indian stories. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 16, 2008 16:00:04 GMT
Sorry - I did not know the poll was yours. "I think there is evidence for bigfoot, but people choose to overlook it (just like feathered dinos). Theres hair samples, stool samples, audio, video, 1000's of witnesses, Indian drawings and carvings, and Indian stories." *Shakes head*  The problem is science does not agree with what you think. There are no hair or stool samples that have proven legitimate, and there is NOT A SINGLE BIGFOOT SPECIMEN. There aren't even fossils in Americas of any giant apes. Now, if these fellows who claim to have the body pony up, well, ok, then I will, in a scientific light, need to look at this again. So far...they are just a long line of people attempting to profit of people who favor belief over fact. There are NO bigfoot specimens. Zero. Zip. Zilch. There is so much backing up feathered dinosaurs that it is bulletproof. Not just "fossils from china" either. Bird prehistory, feather development, chick development, and so very much more support it. Like I and every single scientific minded person has been saying for a very long time, SHOW ME A BODY. Heck, even present a bigfoot skeleton, and let it go through the proper scientific channels...If people who have studied apes are convinced at that point that we have a new species, Well, then I'll agree with you, bigfoots out there. Till then, IMHO he can keep riding unicorns through the bush trailed by a chupacabra riding nessy in the minds of his "believers" I see I am trying to convince just such a "believer" to look at this in a proper scientific light, and that is most likely a lost cause. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 16, 2008 16:13:41 GMT
ok once again bigfoot idea is presposterous
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 16, 2008 16:18:29 GMT
Let's just agree to disagree This is a dead subject anyway. It just depends in faith and what you truly believe. I have no room to break your belief Unfortunately I don't have a belief to break - I have a non-belief which can be countered with evidence, evidence you don't have ;D. I have no faith. I'm reminded of the axiom - "if not believing in god is a faith, then not playing chess is a hobby". ;D But I do agree with you that believing in something supernatural or unsupported by evidence is a matter of faith, so I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this matter I'm glad, I have an unhealthy compulsion to beat these sorts of debates to death - and you are right - they are nearly always dead ends resulting in frustration on either side. |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 16, 2008 17:20:43 GMT
[/quote]I see I am trying to convince just such a "believer" to look at this in a proper scientific light, and that is most likely a lost cause.[/quote]
I have looked at it in a scientific light, a until there is a body/skeleton/sample, I will remain a bit skeptical. Just so you know, though, I have lost all hope that this "Georgia Gorilla" is the sample we've been waiting for, but I do belive one day something conclusive will be found. Also, there aren't any definitive hair and stool samples, but there are those that can't be matched to any known species, even those not native to North America. But until you can pluck fur off of a bigfoot body and compare it to those samples, there is no way to know whether they are bigfoot or not. They remain inconclusive.
on an off topic note, I just realized you can make text [glow=green,2,300]glow[/glow]!
|
|
Red Scorpion
New Member
Hubert Cumberdale, you taste like soot and poo!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Red Scorpion on Aug 16, 2008 18:07:38 GMT
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.
Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably.
Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities.
Debunkers, answer these.
Where is the costume?
If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard?
Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?
Top that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 16, 2008 18:28:24 GMT
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume. Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities. Debunkers, answer these. Where is the costume? If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard? Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide? Top that. Don't need to - I'll just show you how wrong you are with a couple of pictures. Far more superior than the Patterson suit.   There are a hundred ways to dispose of a suit. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 16, 2008 19:34:05 GMT
We need to resurrect a Allosaurus, send him out in northwestern America...hope he kills Bigfoot and be done with this argument!!!!!! Those who believe aren't going to convince those who don't and those who don't are sure not gonna convince those that do. This (like I said) is a dead subject. There won't be a winner...of course until the proper evidence is/isn't found. However, Expect the unexpected |
|
Red Scorpion
New Member
Hubert Cumberdale, you taste like soot and poo!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Red Scorpion on Aug 16, 2008 23:26:42 GMT
why can't they make an identical costume Don't need to - I'll just show you how wrong you are with a couple of pictures. Far more superior than the Patterson suit. There are a hundred ways to dispose of a suit. Uhh I believe those arn't replicants of the Patterson "costume" |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 16, 2008 23:55:25 GMT
RS and I agree on this topic as far as I can tell
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 17, 2008 6:46:34 GMT
"There won't be a winner...of course until the proper evidence is/isn't found." But see, I am not looking for a "winner", I am simply stating truths and facts, which as I and others here have said, simply do not support the existence of bigfoot. The proving of a negative ? OY, the fallback to that absurdity is always a last resort of the desperate and faithful. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof"Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?"  *Sigh* once again, when you are attempting to prove something like bigfoot as legit, you need to supply the same exact thing that is needed to prove any other species on the planet legit. You don't start with the conclusion and look for evidence to support it. You follow the evidence to the conclusion. There are billions of crazy things that could be dreamed up that can "never be disproved", (you know, winged flying pigs, mothmen, god) nor can they be proven. That does not validate them as anything more then crazy things that you can not "disprove".  Instead of rambling on about this for pages, and about Occam's razor, the enemy of religion and cryptozooly alike, ....I will give you this to read. It says things much more clearly then I could. www.andybrain.com/archive/bigfoot-video-stabilized.htm The obligation to scientific proscess here is for those who believe in bogfoot, and that he is a real animal to prove he is very much real. There is no obligation needed to disprove the Patterson video by a rightfully skeptical scientific community. An example - Microraptor. They exist. Asserting that they exist is easy to PROVE by providing a specimen of said creature. Asserting that they do not exist is easy to DISPROVE by provding that specimen as well. Now, lets say if you have no concrete evidence, (in the case of zoology, that means a specimen of said organism) to prove it exists...the default position is non-existance until there is proof that said thing does exist. It really is that simple. "Top that." Easy to "top" that, with one little question - "Where is the Specimen ?" - Every other legitimate creature, even the "near mythical status" ones like the giant squid have yielded them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 17, 2008 12:09:38 GMT
*Is glad Crazycrowman is here*
You have more patience than me when it comes to Cryptozoology - you're blowing these guys out the water ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 17, 2008 14:42:31 GMT
That first pic is the Gigantopithecus at the San Diego Museum of Man, right? Here is all the proof you need for Sasquatch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXEEZE0rqMI figure there will be no convincing the other side of bigfoot's existence/nonexistence, so why not start on a new cryptid? Adam's in Ireland, so what do you think of the Dobhar Chu? |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 17, 2008 15:56:55 GMT
The same I said back a post goes for any of these absurd "cryptids...and while I'm at it, god as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 17, 2008 16:08:45 GMT
Let's not bring God into a cryptozoological discussion, that is something much deeper for people that shouldn't be discussed here. And if your the same about all cryptids, what about discovered cryptids like okapis and megamouth sharks?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 17, 2008 17:20:35 GMT
Let's not bring God into a cryptozoological discussion, that is something much deeper for people that shouldn't be discussed here. And if your the same about all cryptids, what about discovered cryptids like okapis and megamouth sharks? What about them? If there was no evidence for them I wouldn't believe in them either. The study of discovered cryptids is called biology ;D |
|
The problem is science does not agree with what you think. There are no hair or stool samples that have proven legitimate, and there is NOT A SINGLE BIGFOOT SPECIMEN. There aren't even fossils in Americas of any giant apes. Now, if these fellows who claim to have the body pony up, well, ok, then I will, in a scientific light, need to look at this again. So far...they are just a long line of people attempting to profit of people who favor belief over fact.
