That picture is from the Patterson film, which everyone now knows to be a hoax.Science can neither, at this time, prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot. This is the "fairy" argument- science cannot prove that fairies don't exist. They can look and say they're not there but that does not preclude existence.There have been countless hair samples taken from sites where the DNA is primate but unknown. This means, expressly, that there is an undiscovered species of primate. Billy Redneck and Tom Hoaxer can't whip up a batch of fake DNA using a whiskey still.Second, the dermal ridges and anatomical specificity of the casts have convinced renowned experts in various scientific fields.My belief is Bigfoot is more substantiated than your non-belief in him. I have evidence to support my claims, whereas you only have a lack of evidence.
Explain this.
Quote from: judic on July 28, 2005, 09:57:22 AMQuote from: I hear America singing on July 28, 2005, 09:43:21 AMJulie, the debate hinges on this: who is more qualified to comment on the existence of Bigfoot, you or Jane Goodall. I don't care if Jane Goodall spent the last five years doodling or perfecting stir fried rice, she's still more qualified than you are.This is the problem with always using an argument by appeal to authority. You can read here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html - where a biophysicist (Levengood) attempts to create hypotheses to explain crop circle phenomenon. He was certainly qualified and still he is dabbling in pseudoscience despite the fact of CSICOP refuting his claims and having Doug Bowers and Dave Chorley explain that they were the hoaxers on some of the crop circles that he stuided.There is a great disparity between a biophysicist discussing crop circles (that are known hoaxes) and arguably the world's greatest primatologist commenting on the existence of an undiscovered hominid.All science, at one point or another, was "psuedo-science", until it could be proven.
Quote from: I hear America singing on July 28, 2005, 09:43:21 AMJulie, the debate hinges on this: who is more qualified to comment on the existence of Bigfoot, you or Jane Goodall. I don't care if Jane Goodall spent the last five years doodling or perfecting stir fried rice, she's still more qualified than you are.This is the problem with always using an argument by appeal to authority. You can read here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html - where a biophysicist (Levengood) attempts to create hypotheses to explain crop circle phenomenon. He was certainly qualified and still he is dabbling in pseudoscience despite the fact of CSICOP refuting his claims and having Doug Bowers and Dave Chorley explain that they were the hoaxers on some of the crop circles that he stuided.
Julie, the debate hinges on this: who is more qualified to comment on the existence of Bigfoot, you or Jane Goodall. I don't care if Jane Goodall spent the last five years doodling or perfecting stir fried rice, she's still more qualified than you are.
You're referencing a website called the "Skeptical Inquirer". Do you think they might have a bias. Aren't biases generally disastrous when it comes to scientific research? Aren't safeguards put in place to discourage bias.Do you think perhaps that your little website might make money by being skeptical of anything and everything?
Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
Quote from: judic on July 28, 2005, 10:11:56 AMExtraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.not for him.
Discussion
Resources
