Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: DNA test for bigfoot...  (Read 3131 times)

texas1

  • Guest
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2005, 10:44:07 AM »
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

While the top half of the website is biased, the bottom half concerning the interview with Meldrum is very objective and scientific. He very calmly and quietly gives reason after reason why he thinks Bigfoot exists.

julie saw it earlier.  that really best you got:  newsletter (that you admit contains "biased" material) of some bigfoot organization?  not even single peer-reviewed article?  my, my.

well, you at least provided evidence that meldrum thinks bigfoot may exist.  where he stand on unicorns?

It's kinda difficult to find peer-reviewed material when the majority of scientists won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole.  Try finding a peer-reviewed article on fairies- the presence or absence of which changes nothing about the fact of whether they exist or not.

Before this I was still willing to read your arguments, but now you bring up the fairies again with another horrible argument and destroyed the last sliver of credibility you had.  You let me know in 20 years if we have DEFINITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE evidence that bigfoot exists with scientists who say they ABSOLUTELY believe that bigfoot does exist opposed to saying "it's a possibility."

Actually PW's argument at this point is sound - Julie wants peer reviewed articles - but because of the nature of the issues there simply won't be one - that doesn't prove that BF exists, but it does explain the lack of the specific material that Julie has demanded...

I hear America singing

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • How do you do?
    • View Profile
    • Visit my Weblog!
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2005, 10:47:48 AM »
Julie likes to frame debate in such a way that it's both illogical and conducive to her victory.  I think the two are connected, but I'm not sure...
"I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night."

Visit my weblog!  www.sweetblessedfreedom.blogs pot.com

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2005, 10:57:30 AM »
yes, it now julie's fault that you not able to provide any proof--such as proof of j.g.'s alleged research.

trust julie:  if there no serious research at all, you got nothing.

ready to discuss elvis now?

Paperback Writer

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7840
    • View Profile
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2005, 10:58:46 AM »
yes, it now julie's fault that you not able to provide any proof--such as proof of j.g.'s alleged research.

trust julie:  if there no serious research at all, you got nothing.

ready to discuss elvis now?

I believe that Elvis is in Akron, OH.

LaneSwerver

  • Guest
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2005, 10:58:57 AM »
yes, it now julie's fault that you not able to provide any proof--such as proof of j.g.'s alleged research.

trust julie:  if there no serious research at all, you got nothing.

ready to discuss elvis now?

YES!!!

judic

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
  • Excuse the popped collar. I was drunk.
    • AOL Instant Messenger - a3n1gm4
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2005, 10:59:45 AM »

Actually PW's argument at this point is sound - Julie wants peer reviewed articles - but because of the nature of the issues there simply won't be one - that doesn't prove that BF exists, but it does explain the lack of the specific material that Julie has demanded...

Ok...


It's kinda difficult to find peer-reviewed material when the majority of scientists won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole.  Try finding a peer-reviewed article on fairies- the presence or absence of which changes nothing about the fact of whether they exist or not.

Straw-man. Considering there are more people who believe in bigfoot and more "evidence" for bigfoot than faires you are merely creating a straw-man argument to strengthen your weak attempt at one.

for example, let's have link to document that, in your opinion, provides single most impressive evidence of bigfoot's existence.  by way, what about similar source that disputes bigfoot's existence?

Julie asks for substantial evidence and you reply with this:

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.

The same can be said to you so why should one believe or disbelieve if none of us except Jane Goodall is qualified to say anything on the matter.


Actually Jane Goodall, a leading primatologist, disagrees with you.  She has seen varied evidence (including the famed Skookum patch) and declared that science owes itself the real opportunity to search for Bigfoot.


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.

I take it is = in. Does anyone else notice a distinguishable difference here? In the first quote Jane does not profess believe but rather tactfully says "that science owes itself to search for bigfoot." Whereas you credulously say "I believe."

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.

What's your argument here? Are you implying that you would first choose to believe in fairies because there is no evidence against their existence?

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?

This doesn't even deserve another response.


texas1, if this is "sound" argumentation I ought to reject my goal of becoming a lawyer because I could obviously never handle the logic and reasoning skills that they possess.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2005, 11:00:01 AM »
yes, it now julie's fault that you not able to provide any proof--such as proof of j.g.'s alleged research.

trust julie:  if there no serious research at all, you got nothing.

ready to discuss elvis now?

I believe that Elvis is in Akron, OH.

you would.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2005, 11:01:23 AM »
yes, it now julie's fault that you not able to provide any proof--such as proof of j.g.'s alleged research.

trust julie:  if there no serious research at all, you got nothing.

ready to discuss elvis now?

YES!!!

you first, you hunka-hunka burnin' love.

texas1

  • Guest
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2005, 11:04:52 AM »

Actually PW's argument at this point is sound - Julie wants peer reviewed articles - but because of the nature of the issues there simply won't be one - that doesn't prove that BF exists, but it does explain the lack of the specific material that Julie has demanded...

Ok...


It's kinda difficult to find peer-reviewed material when the majority of scientists won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole.  Try finding a peer-reviewed article on fairies- the presence or absence of which changes nothing about the fact of whether they exist or not.

Straw-man. Considering there are more people who believe in bigfoot and more "evidence" for bigfoot than faires you are merely creating a straw-man argument to strengthen your weak attempt at one.

for example, let's have link to document that, in your opinion, provides single most impressive evidence of bigfoot's existence.  by way, what about similar source that disputes bigfoot's existence?

Julie asks for substantial evidence and you reply with this:

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.

The same can be said to you so why should one believe or disbelieve if none of us except Jane Goodall is qualified to say anything on the matter.


Actually Jane Goodall, a leading primatologist, disagrees with you.  She has seen varied evidence (including the famed Skookum patch) and declared that science owes itself the real opportunity to search for Bigfoot.


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.

I take it is = in. Does anyone else notice a distinguishable difference here? In the first quote Jane does not profess believe but rather tactfully says "that science owes itself to search for bigfoot." Whereas you credulously say "I believe."

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.

What's your argument here? Are you implying that you would first choose to believe in fairies because there is no evidence against their existence?

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?

This doesn't even deserve another response.


texas1, if this is "sound" argumentation I ought to reject my goal of becoming a lawyer because I could obviously never handle the logic and reasoning skills that they possess.

You might consider a career change if you are unable to stay "on-point" better than this - Look at my post that you quoted - I said "at this point" pw's argument was sound - I did not offer support for the entire argument, just for his explaining of the lack of peer reviewed articles....

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2005, 11:27:14 AM »
blah blah blah.

hey, you found single tree!  whoopee!  those hundreds of other trees there, those are forest.