Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You wrote: "Have they found the "missing link" yet? If they haven't does that mean it did not exist? LOL"
Whether or not you like it, words have meanings. You spoke of a single missing link ... See the above article. LOL, indeed.
OK, I used missing link as an example. Have scientists found and documented every species that has ever existed? Have they found all of the links between all known animals?
noun 1. a hypothetical form of animal assumed to have constituted a connecting link between the anthropoid apes and humans, identified by some authorities as constituting the genus Australopithecus.
2. something lacking for the completion of a series or sequence.
I want you to clarify this. You are saying that a human has never been killed by a currently unknown species of animal?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
It's not that it's completely impossible for Bigfoot to exist. After all, pretty much anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is possible ........ it's just that the evidence against it is probably something like 99.99999999999999999+ to 1, considering all that the skeptics on this thread have pointed out.
It's not that it's completely impossible for Bigfoot to exist. After all, pretty much anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is possible ........ it's just that the evidence against it is probably something like 99.99999999999999999+ to 1, considering all that the skeptics on this thread have pointed out.
I think it is highly unlikely that they exist but I do not think we can know that something like this never killed a human being. I am not even certain we could not classify Neanderthal's as Big Foot if we wanted to bad enough.
When you see a BF swaying back and forth. The BF is just trying to keep[ your attention while another one creeps up from behind you.
Commonly known among field researchers.
It was swaying back and forth about half way down the hill. After watching it for a few seconds I realized that it was swaying back and forth because it was walking up the hill toward us
When you see a BF swaying back and forth. The BF is just trying to keep[ your attention while another one creeps up from behind you.
Commonly known among field researchers.
It was swaying back and forth about half way down the hill. After watching it for a few seconds I realized that it was swaying back and forth because it was walking up the hill toward us
And there you go again! 'David', on that web site, states that there is no evidence when he/they returned. So you have one more unsubstantiated report posted on a web site that has a vested interest in keeping the myth alive. Then you come along and repeat this as if it is gospel. At least that web site did not use colors and flashing light!
And there you go again! 'David', on that web site, states that there is no evidence when he/they returned. So you have one more unsubstantiated report posted on a web site that has a vested interest in keeping the myth alive. Then you come along and repeat this as if it is gospel. At least that web site did not use colors and flashing light!
"David" also said the thing made no sound as it walked across a gravel road, and that the next day, he saw that there was a fence between where the thing was standing when he first saw it, and where it was when he and his son fled the scene, though they never saw any movements akin to climbing or jumping a fence, or squeezing between barbed wire lines.
The incident also has no relation to the comment about BF's swaying deliberately to distract humans from noticing a BF behind them. There was no second BF in the "David" incident, plus the narrator himself said the swaying appeared to reflect the motion of the creature walking toward them. It was walking, not standing and swaying. So the incident is irrelevant to the point the poster was trying to make.
"David" also said the thing made no sound as it walked across a gravel road, and that the next day, he saw that there was a fence between where the thing was standing when he first saw it, and where it was when he and his son fled the scene, though they never saw any movements akin to climbing or jumping a fence, or squeezing between barbed wire lines.
The incident also has no relation to the comment about BF's swaying deliberately to distract humans from noticing a BF behind them. There was no second BF in the "David" incident, plus the narrator himself said the swaying appeared to reflect the motion of the creature walking toward them. It was walking, not standing and swaying. So the incident is irrelevant to the point the poster was trying to make.
Thanks! I was probably nodding off as I was reading.
I don't think you understand Protestantism all that well. My guess is that it's derived mainly from televangelism and, like you admit, fringe bible-thumper tracts... You then conveniently use this to pigeon hole anyone who questions the current science of evolution.
Anyway, in regards to the bold part - that's far from the case. Scientists are notorious for avoiding or disparaging ideas or evidence that doesn't fit properly into their elaborate concept of "the scientific truth". In so doing they violate the supposed purpose of scientific inquiry. Why? because they fear ridicule and ostracism, loss of status, loss of funding, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily
I know my Bible, I know theology in its Orthodox, Roman and Protestant variations, and I know (and have read) creationist literature in its various manifestations from the naive arguments of the Gish young earth crowd to the more sophistcated arguments of so-called intellgent design types like Behe.
Regarding "serious problems" - I know of none that haven't been addressed by biologists. That includes the supposed puzzlers posed by the intelligent design crowd. But that's not what this thread is about.
What I suspect this is really about is your feelings or beliefs about me based on what I've written in other threads - curious that you'd question the truth of something (my Orthodoxy) I said about myself in some other thread. How is it you know so much about me?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
