[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Only the body will suffice. But we have the example of Homo Floresienses, and a myriad of others too, to show why this standard doesn’t put one in the best position to say what exists and what doesn’t.

In recent months, I have seen at least two articles about animals thought extinct in an area being found in that area again.

Extreme scarcity does not equal absence.

See, this quote says a whole lot. It shows that you don't seem to get the whole idea of burden of proof. Are you saying that because some animals thought to have been extinct were found, all animals rumored to exist do exist? Are you coming from a position of they exist until proven otherwise?

This quote seems to suggest that you think:

1) An animal thought to not exist was found to exist
2) Bigfoot is thought to not exist
3) Therefore, Bigfoot exist.

Each case is 100% seperate. It does not matter how many animals thought to not exist are shown to exist. That is irrelevant to whether or not bigfoot exists.

The best position to say what exists and what doesn't is if you had god-like abilities and can see everything in the universe at once. Short of that, "until we have at least some bones contemporarily dated" is the best we've got. I don't suppose something exists and then try to prove it, I add up the evidence that's there and then form an idea. Right now, the evidence says "something", but it's far from conclusive that it's bigfoot. It could any number of things.

Now try debunking BF

Are you seriously suggesting that someone prove a negative?

To explain them all, you have to postulate that there is a significant population of hoaxers, all in communication with each other, willing to do the most physically demanding, even dangerous things, such as put on monkey costumes and run around risking a bullet or two; such as walk up to several miles with fake feet strapped to your feet, something heavy on your back, with an incredibly exaggerated stride, all these things in places people might not even *find* what you hoaxed.. This is a brand new form of human behavior postulated by skeptics! They ask you to believe this on no other authority than their word, rather than entertain the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor has indeed cut against the skeptic in this case!

Heard the same thing about crop circles (long winded explainations about how it would be nearly impossible to hoax). Look what happened there.

Bigfoot -- a creature that may exist, but no specimen has ever been collected. Many credible people have reported seeing it, including scientists, doctors, policemen, etc., but the fact that no body has ever been collected makes its existence hard to prove. Some physical signs have been collected, including footprints, scat, hair samples, and body prints, but these alone do not prove the existence of a creature since all of these categories of evidence are susceptible to hoaxing. Statistical analyses of some of the evidence are suggestive of a real population of creatures, however, so further study is warranted.

And how is this so different from what we've been saying the entire thread?