Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bigfoot
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 262 (401089)
05-18-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


Is there anyone here at EVC who is particularly ANTI-Bigfoot who'll try to raise at least a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist.
If there's a sustainable population of Bigfoots in the Pacific NW, it would be large enough that we should see Bigfoot carcasses by the side of the road.
A population small enough to hide from Homo sapiens is way too small to be sustainable.
There's no fossil record of primates that far north. If there's a sustainable population of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) what did they evolve from?
Why do all the supposed pictures look like guys in gorilla suits?
Why don't we find primitive tools or shelters?
Other arguments were great for proving why no member of the primate family could survive in the Pac NW, which, if you told this to the Native Americans of the area, I would expect a lot of head scratching.
The Native Americans used tools - a lot of them - to survive in those climes; as I recall they were predominantly fisher cultures. As a result the area is littered with bone fishhooks and the like. Where are all the Bigfoot tools? You're talking about a large population of enormous primates - with enormous calorie requirements - living in a biome that can't supply those calories just by grazing, but somehow manages to escape thousands of people trying to find just one without leaving any tools or constructions behind.
There's an astounding lack of evidence for Bigfoot, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I wouldn't say that I'm particularly "anti-Bigfoot", but I'm anti-nonsense, and this pretty much seems like nonsense.
And you should know better than to start a thread by asking your opponents to disprove something. If you have evidence of Bigfoot, let's see what it is. We can immediately discount "oral traditions" and "sightings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 12:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 262 (401091)
05-18-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


I'm curious why you think this rebuttal can be simply dismissed:
Bigfoot couldn't survive the winters in the Pac NW because there isn't enough food out there to sustain the needs of a big brained primate.
The biggest arboreal mammals can only survive the winters by hibernating; is this what you're suggesting the Bigfoots do?
Or are you referring again to the fishing peoples of the Pacific NW, who were able to survive the winters by preserving salmon in their smokehouses? If Bigfoot is running a chain of redwood-forest smokehouses (yum), that would seem to make him easier to detect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 12:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 262 (401141)
05-18-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 12:27 PM


Re: Crash's points
Well, firstly, how big is a "sustainable population"?
Among sexual species? Typically 2-3 thousand individuals.
Rare animals, particularly ones who are scared of humans, aren't exactly likely to be playing on the roads.
What evidence do you have that they're scared of humans?
Well, obviously the population isn't that small, since they aren't effectively hiding, hence we are having this conversation. People are seeing it.
Says you. The population is small enough that it's impossible for anybody but drunk backpackers to even get a glimpse of the guy; small enough that all the footage and photography appears to be either of bears, nothing at all, or guys in gorilla suits.
Small enough that it's impossible for serious researchers with documentary equipment to find. Small enough that there's absolutely no known fossils or remains.
Presumably we accepted the existance of chimps in the past prior to discovering these few teeth (the only chimp fossils we have).
I can go down to the zoo and see some chimps. The evidence for Bigfoot is as revelatory as God, and by many Bigfooters, spoken of in the same terms: if Bigfoot doesn't want you to see him, you won't.
It's a little ridiculous. Look, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, but a few hair fibers and a whole lot of hoaxes don't even begin to meet the burden of evidence.
Secondly, there is LOTS of evidence of primates that far North.
Not primitive ones - just tool-using Homo sapiens. Are you contending that Bigfoot uses tools to live in biomes where primates don't typically survive? Why don't we find any of these tools, then?
As for what did they evolve from, the most likely candidate is Gigantopithecus, an extremely large species of ape who's teeth have been turning up in China, India and Vietnam.
The problem with this idea is that Gigantopithecus was quadrepedal, which wouldn't match your eyewitness reports of large bipedal hominids in the Pacific northwest. Plus there are zero fossils of any Gigantopithicus species in North America.
Does this means that we don't believe in bears because bears don't make fish hooks?
Bears have fishhooks at the end of each arm. Does your footprint evidence substantiate big bear claws on Bigfoot?
No?
Maybe the most damning aspect of putative "Bigfoot" is that his proponents can make up literally any quality whatsoever to explain how he survives undetected in a place where no known primates but tool-using humans have been known to live. (And even the Native Americans lived coastally.)
When you're just making up whatever it takes to explain the current objection, that's a sign to reasonable people that you're engaged in nonsense. I wonder why you're having a hard time seeing that.
As for calories, clearly there is enough food in the Pacific Northwest to support large animals since there are large animals in the Pacific Northwest.
You must know that this is specious. Now you're claiming that Bigfoot is a ruminant? What's next? He's an alien, too?
When I say "bigfoot" you know exactly what I am talking about.
Right. Because we've both seen Harry and the Hendersons. Bigfoot is a myth in our culture. Of course we're both familiar with the myth.
But to try to equate the commonality of the myth with some kind of independent corroboration is just nonsense.
After all, there's no pandas or mountain gorillas either, since they were first described in only oral tradition and sightings.
As species, they weren't described at all until we had physical proof. So where's yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 12:27 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 262 (401195)
05-18-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 4:42 PM


Re: A pattern emerges...
What boggles my mind is how an "expert" can make claims about why this animal can't exist based on some massive assumptions about pretty much every aspect of the creatures' life.
"Bigfoot" - the word - isn't a cypher, Nug. It has a definition. It's defined as a large, hairy hominid that's purported to live in the Pacific northwest.
That definition comes with some baggage, since you're proposing a creature that lives on Planet Earth. Since it lives on Earth, it has to be related to other creatures. Since it's held to be a hominid, we can reasonably conclude that it shares hominid features.
If Bigfoot exists, it evolved. And it didn't evolve from lizards. It evolved from other primates.
They're not "massive assumptions." They're reasonable expectations intelligent people can develop from what you're asking us to consider. They're certainly no greater assumptions than the big one you're making - "Bigfoot exists." And if those assumptions reasonably lead to conclusions that are inconsistent with observation - like the observation that it would be essentially impossible to hide a population of thousands of large mammals in the United States. If we can determine the exact population status of animals like the California condor we can certainly be expected to find representative examples of a hypothetical large North American primate with a population of thousands, your ridiculous nonsense about airplanes notwithstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 4:42 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 262 (401230)
05-18-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Crash's points
There are plenty of species out there who's numbers don't count in the thousands. There are many who's numbers are in the hundreds or even less.
Right. And they're all going extinct due to encroaching human expansion.
Your Bigfeet? They all live in the wilderness. The fact that you continue to talk about these organisms like we're just talking about one single animal further indicates that you're approaching this with your religious mind, not with your rational mind.
What evidence do you have that they are not?
Try not to forget how this works again, please. You make assertions, you're required to defend them with evidence. I'm not required to defend skepticism of assertions for which no evidence is given.
If you wanna play the evidence game, please show that all accounts were reported by drunk backpackers.
Show me how many of your "observations" were made and recorded by research field biologists.
If they had gone completely undetected we couldn't be discussing them now.
But that's clearly nonsense - that argument can justify the existence of any mythical creature said to live "out there." You can assert the existence of fire-breathing dragons with that clearly fallacious reasoning.
We're discussing something that has gone completely undetected, because what we're discussing has been made-up. Make-believe. That's how we can discuss something undetected - we're discussing made-up stories.
Chimps today are proof of chimps today. They are not proof of chimps in the past.
I see. So, you're asserting that chimpanzees were created ex nihilo by God? Or by Bigfoot? I had no idea I was discussing with a creationist, which means it's basically fruitless to try to reason with you.
I love it when people make statements like this. Crash, please demonstrate exactly how biologists figured out it was a quadreped from a handful of molars.
The size. They're too big, especially around the jaw region, to stand on two legs.
I agree, many of the kooks they talk to about Bigfoot are just that - kooks.
Ah, right. Those guys are kooks, but you're being completely reasonable. Sure.
Alright Crash, now you are starting to piss me off.
Maybe that should tell you something. If you can't respond to reasonable rebuttals - after you asked for them - without getting all pissy, then maybe you're not operating with the emotional detachment of a rational mind.
Did you consider that, ever? That your belief in Bigfoot, an organism considered by the vast consensus of scientists to be imaginary, isn't based on the evidence - which you even admit to not providing - but based on an emotional attachment to the idea?
I point out bears catch plenty of fish and you jump to some sort of accusation that I'm making things up.
Bears catch fish during the salmon spawning season, and they use the fats to fuel them during the long slumber of hibernation. It's how they survive the winter.
Primates don't hibernate; they don't have the "plumbing" to do it and their diets aren't appropriate for it. Humans survived in that region by not living in the mountains but on the temperate coast, and they developed food preservation methods using all our uniquely human adaptations (communication, tool use, building.)
I don't see how either of those could apply to Bigfeet. So you still have the problem of how the descendants of Eurasian apes survive brutal mountain winters - a problem that you just basically laughed off. Do you see yet why I don't think you're engaged in a rational process, here? That you're simply spoiling for an opportunity to vent against people who don't agree with you?
Kind of the way Christians go out looking to be persecuted. It's a way of validating your belief. Certainly it's obvious there's no line of argumentation that could convince you that there's no such thing as Bigfeet.
I further notice that you COMPLETELY overlooked my point that there are people (humans) who catch fish with their bare hands on a regular basis.
There's certainly no human civilization that has supplied itself by hand-fishing. And just think how ridiculous you're being. Based on no evidence whatsoever, you've proposed a large population of hibernating hominid ruminants who survive by tickling the fish right out of the stream.
Uh-huh.
OF COURSE they were described. They were described by witnesses.
I think you don't know what it means to "describe a species." I imagine that, on your planet, new species come with a little tag on their ear that tells us their taxonomy and their scientific name.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a Bigfoot believer is completely ignorant of how biology is done. As I said, no species is described from eyewitness remarks - because eyewitnesses, especially laypeople, are extraordinarily unreliable. Particularly in areas with well-known legends about extraordinary beasts. My dad is completely convinced he's seen Nessie - all because of some ducks at Loch Ness. Of course, he at least saw something with his own eyes. What's your excuse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 2:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 262 (401232)
05-18-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 5:35 PM


Re: A pattern emerges...
How can you make a prediction about the amount of food an animal needs to eat if you don't first determine WHAT it is that that animal eats.
Well, it can't eat things that don't live in the Pacific northwest mountains, where it's held to live. So that narrows it down considerably.
And it can't eat leaves and grasses, because primates can't digest all that cellulose. Gorillas don't eat plants, they eat fruits and shoots - high energy plant products that take a lot of water to grow. Not a lot of fruits growing near the treelines.
These animals are regularly seen.
Yet, you have no verifiable observations. Funny, that.
If someone has a point you can't address
Oh, I can address it. I just assumed it was so obviously stupid that neither of us would have to mention it. Guess I was wrong.
You're talking about one airplane, but I'm talking about a population of thousands (otherwise, it would be extinct by now.)
I mean, I think you're talking about one airplane - I mean you just asserted that airplanes go missing in Oregon all the time, without providing an example of a single one. I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to refute. Is it possible for one airplane to go missing? Yes. Is it possible to have a population of thousands of completely unique apex mammals living undiscovered within the United States? No, it's clearly not.
Crash, believe it or not, there are things out there which you have not seen and yet they still exist.
Sure. I'm just waiting - in vain, I suspect - for you to provide a single reason why I should believe that a population of Bigfeets is one of those things. But if you have nothing to bring to the table but the classic Argument from Ignorance ("hey! You don't know I'm wrong, so I must be right!"), I suspect I'm going to be waiting a long time.
There are more things dream'd of in your philosophy, Hamlet, than are in Heaven and Earth.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 2:54 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 262 (401288)
05-19-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 2:54 AM


Re: Yawn
Evidence. Still waiting for it.
But I guess that's kind of the point, isn't it? Was it even evidence that convinced you in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 2:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 262 (401369)
05-19-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Quetzal
05-19-2007 11:38 AM


Re: What a field biologist does.
I do disagree with a few of crashfrog's rebuttals to nuggin, however.
I appreciate your reply. I think even 50 individuals are too many to hide, though. Also I thought this:
I don't care what time of year it is, or whether you're an obligate or facultative folivore much of the time, you're going to have to be living in a group. ALL known primates do. You're simply NOT going to see singletons wandering around no matter what they eat.
was very on-point and interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 05-19-2007 11:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 262 (401425)
05-19-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 5:14 PM


Re: Yawn
Go ahead and post your evidence, Frog.
So I see you've forgotten a third time that the burden of evidence is on those making the assertions of existence?
I'm not under any obligation to provide evidence against something you can't seem to provide evidence for. Your complete impotence essentially settles the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 5:14 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 262 (401426)
05-19-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 6:19 PM


Re: What a field biologist does.
But you're just engaged in a ridiculous double standard. You expect serious people to accept, on no evidence, the possibility of a population of Bigfeet, as one of those unknowns we should speculate about; but as soon as the serious people do speculate about what it would be like if a population of Bigfeet were living in the PacNW, you call foul.
What the hell do you want, Nug? You've got no problem speculating with absolutely no evidence, and you reserve the right to mutate your putative Bigfoot to answer whatever objection is currently before you; but as soon as the rest of us suggest that your repeated mutations begin to add up to a chimera, you pitch a fit.
Do you think that what you're engaged in represents anything close to reason? If so, you're deluding yourself.
Those sort of statements would require information that the "expert" could not possibly have.
The experts aren't the ones proposing Bigfeet in the PacNW. We can only go from what Bigfoot proponents say, and if all that adds up to a creature that can't exist, then the fault certainly isn't ours. You need to be a lot more careful about how you make up your bullshit, is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 6:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 262 (401430)
05-19-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 10:26 PM


Re: Yawn
Yeah, Zhim, the thing is this: I will not be held to a higher standard than Crashfrog.
I guess you forgot for the fourth time that the burden of evidence is on you. You are held to a greater evidentiary standard, because you're the one making the assertions. You're the one asking us to believe in Bigfeet absent any evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there's two redundant conversations going on here. My various remarks were simply an attempt to gauge how extraordinary your claim truly was, but it's largely a moot point - zero evidence doesn't support any claim, no matter how prosaic.
I notice that his "you've proposed a large population of hibernating hominid ruminants who survive by tickling the fish right out of the stream." escapes any critisism.
Did you, or did you not, make reference to hand-fishing (also known as "fish-tickling") as an explanation for how your population of Bigfeet might fish without spears or hooks? Or do you just have a bad memory?
Look, it's hardly my problem that when I repeat your own claims back to you, you see them as completely ridiculous. If you're so concerned about being made to look the fool by plain statements of your claims, maybe you should be making different claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:26 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 262 (401432)
05-19-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Once again, Crashfrog is lost in the wilderness
You are the one asserting these things, Crash.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting consequences of your proposals to show you how your claims are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence to substantiate.
Go ahead, provide the evidence.
The evidence is your assertions. At every turn I've simply extended your ad hoc imaginings to their logical conclusions. That they lead to the conclusion that Bigfoot is a myth is hardly something that disproves my position; rather, they buttress it.
If that's not what you wanted to do, then I question the wisdom of opening a thread where you asked people do do just that. Your totally schitzophrenic behavior on this issue is just further evidence that nothing even close to a reasonable thought process has brought you to your deep abiding faith in your forest friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:39 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 262 (401433)
05-19-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 10:44 PM


Re: Sigh...
I AM asserting that these "experts" (of which YOU are apparently one) can not possibly prove their claims of disproof.
They don't have to. All they have to do is give reasonable reasons why the assertion of Bigfoot is such an extraordinary claim; thus, the complete lack of evidence to support that claim leads to the reasonable conclusion that there's no Bigfeet in the PacNW.
They're under no obligation to prove that what they're saying is true about Bigfeet, only that it's a reasonable conclusion from the assertions of Bigfoot proponents like you - which it is.
Case closed. For apparently the fifth time you've failed to understand that it's not a fair fight between someone saying Bigfoots exist and someone saying they don't; they don't have to follow the same "rules."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those who assert Bigfoot, not those who are skeptical.
You continue to make the claims, despite the fact that they constantly depend on facts which you can not possibly have at your disposal.
The only facts I need are your assertions - they're sufficient to substantiate that your claims are extraordinary but your evidence is nonexistent. At this point it's puzzling why you're so completely wrong about what conversation we're having - when you're the one who insisted we have it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:44 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 262 (401436)
05-19-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 10:54 PM


Re: Wow, just wow.
Crash, what don't you get here?
What don't you get? Apparently every salient feature of my arguments has escaped your reading.
I'm not saying that what I'm saying about Bigfoot is true, and neither are your experts. How could I hold both the position that Bigfoot fishes in the PacNW at the same time I hold the position that Bigfoot doesn't even exist? It's impossible.
What I've been saying all along is that if what you say about Bigfeet is true, then certain other things must be true.
I don't need any evidence about Bigfoot to make those arguments - a feature about this conversation that you've fundamentally overlooked.
you've just REPEATED the piss poor arguments I quoted from the "experts".
I don't recall where you explained how they were piss-poor - except to erroneously state that they relied on impossible knowledge about Bigfoot, which they don't.
They rely on knowlege about claims about Bigfoot, the claims people like you are making - which is very easy knowledge to have, it's sufficient to listen to the fever-mad ravings of Bigfoot proponents like yourself.
I know - I'm basically asking you to prove a negative - this isn't meant to be a "Debate" as much as a discussion about why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply.
Then we've addressed your OP, very directly. The problem is that you've fundamentally misunderstood the arguments of the skeptics. They're not arguments based on the qualities of Bigfoots. They're arguments based on claims of Bigfoots that Bigfoot supporters are making.
That's why "some reasoning" (yours) doesn't apply - you've fundamentally misunderstood the reasoning. Not surprising, since throughout you've refused to approach this in a reasonable state of mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:54 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 262 (401437)
05-19-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Nuggin
05-19-2007 10:57 PM


Muggin fails logic, I guess
Do you not understand how proof by contradiction works? You're asking me to prove your premise before I disprove it.
That's nonsense. I don't have to accept your premises to show that they lead to contradictions. All I have to do is show that if they're true, they would lead to contradictions. Thus, their falsity is established.
Your reasoning - if we can even call it that - is that I have to prove your premises true before I can prove them false. How does that make any sense?
It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old.
Even a three year old knows that what you're doing is nonsense. Your entire post is nothing more than a quote mine that evades every substantial point I've made. In the end, though, evasion is all the true believe really has, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 10:57 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 11:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024