Bigfoot

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by seesaw
What does this have to do with what I said. But I have no idea off the top of my head.

People are complaining that I am off the topic, so I started another thread. But is not cause and effect, action and reaction, are they not "laws" of science?

 

[lithium.]

Ahh...ok

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by DocBrown
I think we got off topic here.

Ok back to the topic. Why would a common un-scientific evolution believer feel that they would need to resort to fraud? I mean they had to of believed science when they were taught about it so why wouldn't they simply use science?

Or am I way off base?  

You sir, are way off base.  Bigfoot is up there with fairies, the Nessie, UFOs, images of the virgin Mary on tortias, conspiracy theories, and dinosaurs living in South America or Africa.  Unsupported by any evidence and for the most part is just tabloid drivel sold to gulible people. 

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by MSBS
You sir, are way off base.  Bigfoot is up there with fairies, the Nessie, UFOs, images of the virgin Mary on tortias, conspiracy theories, and dinosaurs living in South America or Africa.  Unsupported by any evidence and for the most part is just tabloid drivel sold to gulible people. 

No you didn't just say that UFO's are up there with conspiracy theories I can't believe you said that. Aliens are real and they are here doing stuff to people and one day they will be an invasion and we will all be friends after the invasion.

 

[FordPrefect]

Originally posted by DocBrown
I think we got off topic here.

Ok back to the topic. Why would a common un-scientific evolution believer feel that they would need to resort to fraud? I mean they had to of believed science when they were taught about it so why wouldn't they simply use science?

Or am I way off base?

 

 

I am not even sure how this fits in with the OP...
But for the moment lets imagine that a creature like bigfoot exists... but is rare, lives exceedingly long, and devours dead members of its species which hides most of the evidence... and it is found one day. Well, then we have added another species to the list of known species. There will be new questions to ask, new problems to solve, but nothing that will shatter the world.

I would recommend "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. It is a great book that discusses the reasons why some people want to accept "demons" like ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, UFOs, etc.

 

[FordPrefect]

oops..

 

[DocBrown]

Ok, we've pretty much agreed that this is a fairy tale. I guess the reason I started this thread was because if you look at the (so called) photos and read about it they discribe this creature as being a cross between ape and man or in other words a "missing link" of sorts. I understand the people who started this myth beleived in evolution and it would seem this myth was designed as some sort of proof.  My biggest question is why? There were many other frauds and myths using this same idea as I'm sure everyone here is aware of (if not I can provide some) but why not just use science? Don't they feel science has proven evolution?

Thanks

 

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DocBrown
I understand the people who started this myth beleived in evolution and it would seem this myth was designed as some sort of proof

Support this assertion please.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by DocBrown
Ok, we've pretty much agreed that this is a fairy tale. I guess the reason I started this thread was because if you look at the (so called) photos and read about it they discribe this creature as being a cross between ape and man or in other words a "missing link" of sorts. I understand the people who started this myth beleived in evolution and it would seem this myth was designed as some sort of proof.  My biggest question is why? There were many other frauds and myths using this same idea as I'm sure everyone here is aware of (if not I can provide some) but why not just use science? Don't they feel science has proven evolution?

Thanks

 

 

I don't see where you are comming from. The people that created these myths were not evolutionists-- they for the most part come out of native american legends and predate contact with Europeans. In other words, the myths are far older than any codified theory of evolution. Many people believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, etc, but I know of no quick and dirty test to determine their religous affiliations or lack thereof.

from http://www.pibburns.com/cryptozo.htm

Encounters with hairy hominids or "wild men" like the Yeti, Sasquatch, and Nguoi Rung go back to antiquity and appear in legends throughout the world. One of the earliest literary compositions in the world, the Epic of Gilgamesh, contains a hairy wildman named Enkidu. North America's representative is usually called the Sasquatch, one of its Native American names, or Bigfoot.

What I'm trying to say is that your supposition that this is somehow based on evolution is incorrect. It's a myth that is right up there with any of the others we've discussed, and likely to believed by the tabloid crowd reguardless of their religious beliefs or their feelings about evolution.

 

[DocBrown]

Originally posted by MSBS
I don't see where you are comming from. The people that created these myths were not evolutionists-- they for the most part come out of native american legends and predate contact with Europeans. In other words, the myths are far older than any codified theory of evolution. Many people believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, etc, but I know of no quick and dirty test to determine their religous affiliations or lack thereof. 

Ok I see. I thought the people who came up with this idea was someone trying to prove evolution using this. I see now I was in error. I withdraw my questions.

Thanks for the responses though.

 

 

 

 

[DocBrown]

Admin,

Please remove this thread. I see I was wrong in my assumptions.

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[FordPrefect]

Actually admin, keep this thread up, as a sticky
It is a good example of how to respond when presented with facts and proofs that contradict the original assumption and cause it to be rejected.

Good on you Doc.