[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I read this (a couple of times), and I understand what you're saying.

I find it quite intriguing -- I don't think I have ever heard the argument of "gullibility" used by the believers rather than the skeptics. Ordinarily, I'd expect someone to be arguing against the existence of [insert supposedly unexplained phenomenon here] to be pointing toward human weakness in believing stories without airtight or even compelling evidence. Instead, I see you criticizing me (and others) for being too willing to believe the "alternative explanations" that offer a more ordinary source for the phenomenon.

I'm at a loss.

I disagree with your conclusion that his statement hinted at gullibility at all. It sounds like he's simply saying that a species has adapted a pattern that relies on a trait of it's enemy ( so to speak ) for it's safety.

The human mind is generally set up to look for the simplest, most logical answer to a situation and can go quite to extremes to do it.

I was in Pasadena when I first experienced an earthquake. I was at home and I heard a low rumbling noise and a few seconds later the building started shaking.

My first thought was "a truck is hitting my apartment building."

Now, this would be a trick considering the complex layout but it's all I could think of that would explain what I was experiencing and I knew through reading that earthquakes existed. I'd never experienced one.

When I had my first experience my mind raced through the things it knew and had experienced ( it's reality so to speak ) and came up with the most logical answer it could come up with, impossible though it was as an explanation.

Interestingly enough it was the clattering of dishes that finally clued me in seconds later. I remembered hearing that in the movie Earthquake and boom, my mind thought earthquake and I could deal with the reality.

Well, relatively deal. It was at this point I panicked btw and I remember saying to the cat "don't look at me, you're from here. You tell me what to do."

Now, if I'm a hiker and I see a shape moving in the distance, at a pretty good clip and quickly getting to cover, I'm not thinking bigfoot. I'm thinking bear and my mind goes about it's business as does the bigfoot. No matter my opinion on the existence of bigfeet, if they do exist, I have no problem seeing this as an explanation on how they use human nature instinctively to remain safe.

Now, some people might see the bigfoot and think bigfoot before bear but frankly I wouldn't rely on those peoples observations too much because we can just as easily turn a bear into bigfoot in our minds as vice versa. That again, would work in the creatures favor as the person would be hesitant to share his experiences or be disbelieved if he did, either way further protecting the creature from human intervention.

That is, if the species exists of course and I voted C in the poll ( for reference ).