- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:33 pm to cincyykid
No, no and no/no.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:35 pm to Howyouluhdat
quote:
Disproving something means that it's already proven which it isn't.
Just how dumb are you? If something is PROVEN, then by definition it cannot be disproven. You don't have to prove something before it can be disproven, and actually that doesn't make any fricking sense. Disproving something means to prove a statement to be false, which cannot be done here. It is impossible to prove that bigfoot does not exist.Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:36 pm to Korkstand
Burden of proof lies with those claiming the existence of something. Not the other way around.
ETA: See Russell's teapot.
ETA: See Russell's teapot.
This post was edited on 8/3/16 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:37 pm to dabigfella
quote:
you gotta be pretty dense to think there's all this stuff millions of light years away and all these galaxies and planets and believe we're the only thing out there.
That doesn't mean you have to believe that aliens piloting spcacraft are visiting us. I believe in life on other planets, but I don't believe they are visiting us in a clandestine fashion reeming out buttholes.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:39 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:My point is that it would be a very rare occasion for a bigfoot to go anywhere near a road, even a dirt one. If there is a dirt road, that means people go there occasionally, and a bigfoot likely would avoid it.
BS. If it stepped in the mud after a rain, along a dirt road, a hunter would notice.
quote:It is very likely that they actually do not exist. But we do still have to accept it as a possibility, if we're being honest and intelligent.
shite aint real baw.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:43 pm to Korkstand
quote:
if we're being honest and intelligent.
Really? There is not a single shred of evidence other than heresay. Its a myth. Thats honest and intelligent. What you are describing is fairy tales.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:44 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:No, the burden of proof lies with those making a claim, period. In this thread, the claim being made is bigfoot does not exist. Your beef is with them, not me.
Burden of proof lies with those claiming the existence of something. Not the other way around.
quote:That might apply if I were asking for someone to disprove it, but I'm not. I'm only asking skeptics to accept the fact that there is a much higher probability that bigfoot exists than Russell's teapot.
See Russell's teapot.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:47 pm to Korkstand
quote:
No, the burden of proof lies with those making a claim, period.
So the burden of proof lies with everybody. Example: I say that I believe that there are 6 legged dog creatures that have voices like saxophones and live in the tailpipes of 4 wheel drive trucks. I made the claim, burden of proof lies with me. You will obviously refute that and say that's bullshite and that these creatures do not exist. Well, according to you, you now bear the burden of proof, as well.
ETA: That's not how it works. BOP lies with those claiming existence.
This post was edited on 8/3/16 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:47 pm to Korkstand
quote:
If something is PROVEN, then by definition it cannot be disproven
Yes it can. To prove something is just to argue the truth or existence of something. So why in the hell would somebody disprove it when there is no argument or solid evidence to say otherwise.
quote:
It is impossible to prove that bigfoot does not exist.
There is no such thing as a bigfoot. It's a made up name. So yes it is possible to prove something doesn't exist because it's a fricking made up name
This post was edited on 8/3/16 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:There was one lounging about my pool and drinking my beer when I got home yesterday from work. Left hair in the pool. Im gonna have it DNA tested. You watch, they gonna tell me its a bear or spicy stacy.
It is very likely that they actually do not exist. But we do still have to accept it as a possibility, if we're being honest and intelligent
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:50 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:You just perfectly described religion, and a substantial percentage of the world would fight you to the death over that.
Really? There is not a single shred of evidence other than heresay. Its a myth. Thats honest and intelligent. What you are describing is fairy tales.
But we're not talking about gods or dragons, we're talking about a possible creature that is very similar to many creatures that we know to exist, ourselves included.
So let's be honest and intelligent here, which of the following is MOST LIKELY TO EXIST: God, dragons, or bigfoot?
Posted on 8/3/16 at 2:59 pm to tigersownall
quote:
Concerning the squatch. Just far too many stories of the same behavior.
The biggest problem I have with the Bigfoot thing is that people always find one lone footprint. With the amount of pressure it would take to leave an inch deep impression, you should be able to follow him wherever the hell he goes.
Unless of course he just likes to jump out of a tree and land on one leg every now and then just to freak everybody out.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:02 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:Everyone making a claim, yeah.
quote:That's correct, just as the burden of proof lies with bigfoot believers.
Example: I say that I believe that there are 6 legged dog creatures that have voices like saxophones and live in the tailpipes of 4 wheel drive trucks. I made the claim, burden of proof lies with me.
quote:I would say it's bullshite, yes, but knowing the futility of arguing the nonexistence of something, I would leave it at that and move on. However, if pressured for proof, I could point out the facts that NO mammal has 6 legs, nor has any mammal evolved to survive the environment inside the tailpipe of 4 wheel drive trucks. I think most would accept those statements as valid. I can't think of any reason why a bigfoot shouldn't exist, though. Can you?
You will obviously refute that and say that's bullshite and that these creatures do not exist. Well, according to you, you now bear the burden of proof, as well.
quote:I'm a whole lot more right than you are. It's silly to make a claim to the nonexistence of something, yet you and others here continue to do it. Why place that burden on yourself?
You've got it wrong.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:03 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I'm only asking skeptics to accept the fact that there is a much higher probability that bigfoot exists than Russell's teapot.
What you are proposing is not a fact. Its an opinion.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
So let's be honest and intelligent here, which of the following is MOST LIKELY TO EXIST: God, dragons, or bigfoot?
They all share an equal probability which is None. Zero. The same evidence of all 3, could be used to describe each of them. Heresay is not facts. No pictures, no bones, no shite, nothing. Footprints were already found to be men walking with plaster casts for the hoax just like the suits.
This post was edited on 8/3/16 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:06 pm to Howyouluhdat
quote:
Yes it can. To prove something is just to argue the truth or existence of something.
No, it takes a lot more than an argument to prove something. It takes, you know, proof. quote:Uh, you've got it backwards here. It should read why (or how) in the hell would somebody disprove something for which there IS solid evidence.
So why in the hell would somebody disprove it when there is no argument or solid evidence to say otherwise.
quote:
There is no such thing as a bigfoot. It's a made up name. So yes it is possible to prove something doesn't exist because it's a fricking made up name
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:08 pm to DaBama
quote:
The biggest problem I have with the Bigfoot thing is that people always find one lone footprint. With the amount of pressure it would take to leave an inch deep impression, you should be able to follow him wherever the hell he goes.
There are many many reasons pointing to the non-existence of Bigfoot and not one reason pointing to the existence. How can one justify that?? What is a skunk ape? Seems like it would be very easy to track their scent right?? What is a yeti? A white Bigfoot that just exist in the cold climates?? A rugaroo?? Just exist in the swampy regions? Do you get it these are all made up for different portions of the world. How could they all co-exist and nothing has been documented?
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:11 pm to Korkstand
Under your theory of BOP, every side has the BOP.
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
Posted on 8/3/16 at 3:12 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:Wrong. One of those is much more, I would say infinitely more, likely to exist, as only one is possible given what we know of the natural world (assuming we all know I was talking about fairy tale fire-breathing flying dragons and not dinosaur type "dragons"). And that would be bigfoot, considering the fact that there are multiple species in existence today that strongly resemble the classic bigfoot description.quote:They all share an equal probability which is None.
So let's be honest and intelligent here, which of the following is MOST LIKELY TO EXIST: God, dragons, or bigfoot?
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News