DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?
View Single Post
12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Originally Posted by
No Fun Shogun
He presented it as a plausible theory by his very willingness to use it as a word.
"Theory" has a specific scientific definition, which his little story does not even come close to fulfilling. And, again, the "hybrid theory" is not a theory. At most, it's a hypothesis as, for the hundredth time, it doesn't have credible backing behind it to warrant that label. By using that, he's either recognizing something as a theory when it's not or he doesn't understand what that term means scientifically, neither of which point very well to his understanding of/objectivity on the subject matter.
And if anything, you're the one with the closed mind.
I'm expecting something to follow the basic scientific model that every field follows, especially biology, and have mainstream, peer-reviewed research in order to take it credibly. You're ignoring all the reasons why a hidden, massive primate species managing to exist in relative close proximity to major metropolitan areas and visited/researched wilderness without producing more than inconclusive prints and grainy footage is extremely unlikely while accepting random blurbs, sketchy eyewitness testimony, and other people's word that they have something huge but are keeping it close to their chest right now as being truth that overrides all the logical loopholes that exist in all the ideas that you have thrown out there.
Open or closed mindedness has nothing to do with it. It's about critical thinking and willingness to take leaps of faith. So if I'm close-minded because I'm not willing to take a massive leap in faith over the concept that a large, mammalian land species has managed to evade modern scientific study for a good two centuries despite the obvious resources and range that said species would need, all over well inhabited or traversed grounds, and take other people's word at face value just because they say they have something, then guilty as charged.
********. You're really starting to piss me off, in the ten years I have debated the existence of Bigfoot and you're by far the most condescending and dismissive person when it comes to understanding how science met I have ever dealt with, its a shame this thread as taken this ugly turn but it has, I was asked by many to present evidence and facts and I did and instead of good faith discussion on what I present I get in return FROM YOU nothing but derisiveness and contempt and mostly laughter. It's sadly the ONLY thing you have brought to this table.
This is NOT what this forum should be about, people should be open to others ideas without anyone have to deal with ideas and opinions being mocked on. Ugh.
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-05-2012 at
View Public Profile
Ronnie Bass's albums
Find More Posts by Ronnie Bass