Lacking Proof of Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods is Just a Lack of Research?

To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.

I am an Axiological (Theoretical and Normative VALUE Theorist philosopher) Atheist

Formal Axiology: Another Victim in Religion’s War on Science by Dr. Kelleher

Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher

Axiological Atheism not Nihilist Atheism

Axiological Atheism is Intellectualism

Axiology and Value Theory?

“Value theory is a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” i.e. Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure

As an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist, Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing.

Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non-fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of Gods

There is no evidence for Gods.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

1. No evidence, To move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.

2. No intelligence, Taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.

3. No goodness, Assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1]

Critical Thinking, What Does it Mean to Be Open to Learn?

“It is simple to ignore facts and accept only what you desire and to provide your lack of research as a qualifier to dismiss that which you do not uphold. Proof is there but is ignored for the basic reason that to accept the proposed facts will go against your own personal beliefs and what you believe to be science.” – Challenger

My response, Please explain fully what is a god? You made several truth claims so I eagerly await you supporting each and every one of them as your burden of proof would entail. You stated, “It is simple to ignore facts”, so please provide your claimed facts now.

My response, If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god?

My response, And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

“Damien Marie Athope you ask an excellent question. In my opinion, God isn’t a miracle working egotistical being that makes demands and punishes and threatens if he/ she doesn’t get their way. God isn’t a being. People play god. They like to weild their power or assumed superiority over other people. I think we are not of this planet for the simple fact that we are the least adapted to earth of all the creatures on it. This planet has enough food to feed everyone on it. This is a fact. Because we, as sentient beings are greedy and because there is no profit in the poor, we choose profit over humanity. God’s fault? Nope. What I choose to believe is God, is simply energy that you can tap into. It has the power to, no, it gives you the power to perceive things in a different light and what you choose to do with this perception is totally up to you.” – Challenger

“Bigfoot. There is proof that it does exist but again man for some perverse reason will try to manipulate it and will create false proof so no one can really know what is truth. There are photos, casts of footprints and eyewitness testimony but again, who do you believe? Who can you believe? Scientists have the maddening habit that unless a Bigfoot shows up in Time Square and slaps them in the face they will adamantly swear they do not exist.” – Challenger

“Unicorns. Most people agree that there was a great cataclysm or flood, and most people, including scientists agree that most legend has it’s base in truth. So did they exist? No one can say for sure unless we find some remains buried under a quarter mile of silt.” – Challenger

“This exchange is really enjoyable. It is good to have someone ask serious questions without jumping on a bandwagon. Thank you.” – Challenger

My response, Addressing your response on “what is a god?”

“In my opinion,”
(Therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

“God isn’t a miracle working egotistical being that makes demands and punishes and threatens if he/ she doesn’t get their way.”
(A claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this?)

“God isn’t a being.”
(Again, a truth claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this? And still not an explanation of what a god is?)

“People play god. They like to weild their power or assumed superiority over other people.”
(Again, a truth claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this? And still not an explanation of what a god is?)

“I think,”
(Therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

“we are not of this planet for the simple fact that we are the least adapted to earth of all the creatures on it. This planet has enough food to feed everyone on it. This is a fact.”
(Saying people play god is not an explanation of what a god is nor is this statement relevant to what you said you had facts in relation to my post thus this is a red hearing fallacy or at best not relevant to my post nor my challenge of your critique of my post and my challenge of your response.)

“Because we, as sentient beings are greedy and because there is no profit in the poor, we choose profit over humanity. God’s fault? Nope.”
(Again, this statement relevant to what you said you had facts in relation to my post thus this is a red hearing fallacy or at best not relevant to my post as well as a truth claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this? And still not an explanation of what a god is?)

“What I choose to believe”
(Therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

“God is simply energy that you can tap into. It has the power to, no, it gives you the power to perceive things in a different light and what you choose to do with this perception is totally up to you.”
(A claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this? And how is it you believe you offered evidence or facts as you said where simple to do?)

“What do you mean by this, “simply energy that you can tap into and it gives you the power to perceive things in a different light.”
(Please fully explain this as well as how you can claim to know this?)

Remember, you claimed to have, “you knew of facts I am simply ignoring”
(So please provide these facts, for the term “god” you profess? What is a god?)

My response, Addressing your response on Bigfoot?

Here are facts from the “ Bigfoot Hoaxes – The Museum of Hoaxes”

As early as the 1830s European settlers reported seeing a large, hairy biped roaming the Pacific northwest. Even before that Native-American legends told of a “Sasquatch” (meaning a “hairy giant”) that lived in the region. However, no concrete evidence exists to suggest such an animal exists — “concrete” here meaning tangible physical proof such as a body, or body part. If a Bigfoot species did exist, it would seem likely that at some point one of them would die and leave a skeleton, or get run over by a car. But that apparently has never happened. What we have instead is a mountain of anecdotal evidence: eyewitness accounts, blurry photos, recordings of strange noises, and footprints. The problem with this anecdotal evidence is that much of it could have been faked. Even the most ardent Bigfoot believers admit that some of it was. Whatever wasn’t deliberately faked might be chalked up to wishful thinking.

Hoaxes (and suspected hoaxes) associated with Bigfoot

The Battle of Ape Canyon (1924)

“A group of miners claimed that gorilla-like creatures (which they called “mountain devils”) attacked them in the woods near Mt. St. Helens. The miners retreated into a log cabin, but their attackers threw rocks down onto them throughout the night. The story was reported widely. However, a local game warden declared the story was “bunk.” A search party found no evidence of any gorillas or devils. The rocks may have been the work of teenagers at a nearby YMCA summer camp who had a tradition of throwing stones down the hill. Decades later, one of the miners, Fred Beck, wrote an account of the incident titled I Fought the Apemen of Mt. St. Helens. [wikipedia]” ref

Abducted by Sasquatch (1957)

“In 1957, with interest in Sasquatches growing on account of the Yeti crazi, a former logger, Albert Ostman, came forward with a strange story about how he had been abducted by a Sasquatch back in 1924. Ostman claimed that he had been on a prospecting holiday in Toba Inlet (British Columbia) when a Sasquatch carried him off and forced him to live with its family. Apparently the Sasquatch wanted to use Ostman for breeding purposes. After six days Ostman escaped. Ostman’s story stretches credibility, and the fact that he supposedly waited 33 years before telling it makes it even harder to believe. Even some prominent Bigfoot adherents dismiss his story as a tall tale.” ref

The Birth of Bigfoot (1958)

“While working on a rural road construction project near Bluff Creek, California, tractor-operator Jerry Crew found a series of massive footprints in the mud. Due to the size of the prints, the media began referring to the creature that created them as “Bigfoot.” The name stuck and soon became the most widely used term for North America’s legendary ape-man. However, it was suspected that Crew’s prank-loving boss, Ray Wallace, created the prints by strapping carved wooden feet to his boots and stomping around in the mud. Wallace’s family confirmed this after his death in 2002. More…” ref

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967)

“Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin emerged from California’s Six Rivers National Forest in Oct. 1967 with footage of what appeared to be a female Bigfoot. To this day, their short film remains the most famous evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. But skeptics immediately suspected a hoax. Scientists noted the creature’s anatomy was oddly mismatched (top half ape, bottom half human), as if it were a man in a suit. Other critics pointed out the remarkable coincidence that Patterson had been planning to make a film about Bigfoot, and then right away found a Bigfoot. There’s also evidence he had bought and modified a Bigfoot suit before shooting this footage. More…” ref

The Minnesota Iceman (1968)

“Showman Frank Hansen claimed to have a bigfoot-like creature frozen in a block of ice and was exhibiting it at carnivals throughout the Midwest. In 1968 the creature came to the attention of the cryptozoologists Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans, who became convinced the creature was real. Sanderson tried to get scientists interested in the “iceman,” and for a brief time the Smithsonian Institution expressed interest in acquiring it. But as pressure mounted on Hansen to let scientists examine the creature, he claimed that the original creature was gone and what was now in the ice was just a replica. It has since become clear the creature was a fake all along.” ref

Bride of Bigfoot (1976)

“When 23-year-old Cherie Darvell went missing while searching for Bigfoot in the forests of Humboldt County, police launched a massive search for her, at a cost of $11,613. A few days later, Darvell showed up screaming outside a Bluff Creek resort, claiming she had been abducted by a Bigfoot. She said the creature had scooped her up and carried her off, but that it had abandoned her unharmed during the night, after which she had wandered through the woods for several days. Sheriff Gene Cox dismissed her claim as a hoax, noting that she didn’t appear to have spent any time in the wilderness. Her clothes were clean and she smelled of perfume. More…” ref

Bigfoot Crosses Highway (1977)

“On the morning of May 15, 1977, a busload of people watched a Bigfoot cross Highway 7 east of Vancouver. But a few days later a trio of young men confessed that the Bigfoot was their work. It had taken them weeks to prepare, since they had fashioned resin-cast Sasquatch feet to make convincing footprints. They also planted a phony witness on the bus to see the Bigfoot first and get the other passengers excited. Strangely, the people on the bus described seeing a 7-foot Bigfoot with a strong smell. But 24-year-old Ken Ticehurst, who wore the gorilla suit, was only 5-foot-11 and weighed 165 pounds.” ref

Bigfoot captured in Pennsylvania (1985)

“Residents of Enola, Pa. reported seeing a “hairy creature” in the woods of nearby East Pennsboro Township. One man described the creature as being hairy, 6 ½-feet tall and with arms that extended below the knees. The report created an air of panic in the town. Residents locked their windows and many took up weapons. But the panic settled after police identified 24-year-old Craig A. Brashear as the creature. He had bought an ape-suit and mask with fangs then stood in an area where his furry body would be illuminated by headlights. He did so, the police chief said, in order to “stir up more activity, to make it seem like there was a creature out there.” ref

Bigfoot in a Freezer (2008)

“Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton claimed they had stumbled upon the dead body of a Bigfoot while hiking in the Georgia woods. The creature was large, measuring 7 feet 7 inches tall and weighing over 500 pounds. Nevertheless, they managed to haul it out of the woods and store it in a freezer. Their claim was met with widespread skepticism, even from Bigfoot believers, but during a press conference in Palo Alto they indignantly stood by their story. However, when the body in the freezer was finally examined, it turned out to be a halloween costume with roadkill remains dumped on top of it. [Bigfoot Encounters]” ref

Bigfoot Run Over (Aug 2012)

“On the night of Sunday, August 26, 2012, 44-year-old Randy Lee Tenley stepped out onto U.S. Highway 93, just south of Kalispell, Montana, wearing a “Ghillie” suit (the kind used by snipers for camouflage). He was promptly hit by a car in the southbound lane, and then was hit again by a second car. Tenley died from his injuries. His friends told the Highway Patrol that he was wearing the suit in order to “incite a sighting of Bigfoot, to make people think they had seen a Sasquatch.” It’s not known if this was Tenley’s first attempt at a Bigfoot hoax. However, dispatchers said they had received no recent reports of Bigfoot sightings. [nbcmontana.com]” ref

Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch DNA Project (Nov 2012)

“Melba Ketchum, owner of a Texas veterinary laboratory, announced on Nov 24, 2012 that, after a 5-year study of purported Sasquatch tissue samples, she had determined that Sasquatch was a human hybrid species that arose approximately 15,000 years ago. But when the article with her data appeared 3 months later, it was underwhelming. Her article appeared in the Denovo Journal of Science which, it turned out, was owned by Ketchum. In fact, her article was the one and only paper ever published by the journal. Skeptics noted that it appeared Ketchum had simply analyzed contaminated samples of human DNA. [Skeptical Briefs]” ref

Hank (2014)

“Rick Dyer (the same Rick Dyer responsible for the 2008 Bigfoot in a Freezer Hoax) announced he had killed an 8-foot Bigfoot in Texas. He called it Hank. After declaring that a university had DNA-tested the creature and found it to be an unknown species, Dyer took the body of the creature on tour in early 2014, charging people to see it. But after a few months his tour encountered problems, and he posted a rambling confession on Facebook, revealing that Hank’s body was a prop made of latex, foam, and camel hair.” ref

Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured (2015)

“Bigfoot Captured breaks History: Channel continues to fake out viewers. WOW! History Channel pulled a “Mermaids” gimmick. Why would they sabotage their credibility? Oh wait, ever since it became the “Hitler” Channel a while ago, it’s been heading downhill. According to this review of their latest special program, Bigfoot Captured, a “shameful fake documentary” about Bigfoot, it’s hit rock bottom. Reviewer Jim Vorel of Paste Magazine takes the show and the network to task for a reprehensible production. He notes that most people will consider this entertainment (what about HISTORY?), but, don’t assume too much. “The problem is that no, not everyone knows it’s entertainment. And if you’re intelligent enough to know that, then you should also realize that it’s the impressionable people watching who most need a source they can actually trust in order to provide real information. These people don’t need entertainment. They need a network that’s actually serving their best interest—and for the record, their best interest is “Not having pseudoscientific beliefs that they’ll pass on to anyone in earshot.” Still don’t believe that anyone takes a program like Bigfoot Captured seriously? Okay, let me just go check Twitter for 30 seconds, hold on… And then he follows with quotes of presumably real people who just want to believe. Badly. So badly, that they will not suffer any modicum of thinking (let alone critical thinking) and really buy into this premise. I might guess the positive comments were fake but, I’ve seen too much to underestimate people’s gullibility.” ref

Origins: On 10 November 2015, the History Channel aired a special entitled Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured, a program that purportedly documented a successful hunt and capture of the legendary creature: “Bigfoot is America’s most legendary creature, and has always inspired more questions than answers. Could something resembling a massive man-ape really be roaming forests and hiding in the shadows undetected? Whether you believe in Bigfoot or not, there’s something provocative about the idea that we could be living with an unseen monster. But what if one day we did more than catch a glimpse of one? What if we captured the creature? This two-hour special, compiled by a director who traveled the world looking for proof Bigfoot actually exists, takes an unexpected turn when a Sasquatch capture is caught on camera. What happens when what most of us think is fiction becomes fact? And what does it mean for us all if the creature really is out there.” While the program started with a brief disclaimer stating that Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured featured “some dramatization” and ended with credits listing various actors who pretended to be Bigfoot hunters, the episode was presented in documentary form and therefore fooled a number of viewers into believing that a Bigfoot creature had actually been captured during the process of filming. This is not the case. The actors on “Bigfoot Captured” didn’t actually catch a Sasquatch or uncover a Bigfoot skeleton. According to the Idaho State Journal, the History Channel contracted Idaho State University’s Robotics and Communication Systems Engineering Technology program to create a skeleton of the mythical beast to be used in the show: “Because no actual Bigfoot skeletons have been unearthed, [ISU anthropology and anatomy professor Jeff] Meldrum had to reconstruct it based on what Bigfoot researchers believe the creature is related to.
Meldrum borrowed from the physical looks of extinct animals such as the Gigantopithecus blacki — an ancient ape that was twice the size of apes today — and the Neanderthal — a species of human that is said to have became extinct 40,000 years ago.” ref

“The show Bigfoot Captured sparked a lot of controversy and Dr. Jeff Meldrum had this to say about his involvement: Don Jeffrey Meldrum ”To head off the flood of emails and phone calls, let me reiterate that as a guest interviewee, I had nothing to do with the overall plot or creative content of this production. I do my best assess the intentions of a production company when I am approached, an encourage them to build upon credible information, but occasionally their enthusiasm is feigned and assurances are worthless. Its always a bit of a crap shoot in this business. Do you try to put the best effort forward and at least make a meaningful contribution in some way, or do you refuse to appear and have the entire production be without merit. I haven’t seen the program (I don’t have cable) so I can’t comment on particulars. From the teaser I got an inkling that there was some dramatic liberty taken creating a what-if scenario. I have no knowledge of a “capture” — no indication of samples being tested, etc. Even in the drone sequence I am told they gave the impression we had a hit on a biped that we investigated looking for sign. A biped yes — one of the production assistants. It was an exercise to demonstrate what the drone could and could not do. A useful exercise by my account. Anyway — take what you can from it, and have a chuckle over the remainder.” -Don Jeffrey Meldrum” ref

Why Bigfoot Is Fake: Bigfoot Debunked! – By cryptid

“This article is intended to debunk the Bigfoot myth and show proof that Bigfoot is fake. There is a lot of debate over whether this creature is real or not, and here you’ll read about compelling evidence that shows we’ve all been duped. Of course, those who consider themselves to have a highly rational mind don’t need to be told any of this. Without solid proof and evidence that shows the existence of Sasquatch no scientifically minded person would admit to a belief in the Big Guy. But deep inside I think we all like to believe there are still mysteries in this world, hidden from our view and awaiting discovery. Perhaps this is where myths like this take root, not in logic but in hope.” ref

The North American Great Ape?

“The most common theory about Bigfoot is that he is some kind of undiscovered species of primate, ape-like but more intelligent and more evolved than any we currently know of. Some researchers refer to it as the North American Great Ape, though the species is, of course, theoretical. But there is a problem with this idea. There are no other apes in the Americas, and no evidence that apes ever existed in the Americas. There are monkeys in South America, but they are very different from old-world monkeys, and have about 40-million years of evolution separating them. There is no evidence that indigenous apes or monkeys ever existed in North America. However, there is a concept called Bigfoot-Giganto Theory that explains how the creature evolved from an ancient ancestor in Asia and migrated to America. But even if this is true, where is the evidence?” ref

“No fossils or bones have ever been found. Logic and the lack of available evidence suggest this is not a North American Ape. It’s equally illogical to assume it is some kind of human species. Neanderthal was the last human species on Earth, besides us of course, and the description does not match what we know about Neanderthal. The main issue with linking Bigfoot to any human species is one of intelligence. Even a very primitive human species would be using tools and weapons, building fires, constructing shelters, and leaving other evidence behind for us to find. In short, if something like Neanderthal was still out there, or any other species of primitive human, we would know it.” ref

I am OK with people doing scientific studies on items claimed as Bigfoot. Test it all!

Even if the search for Sasquatch doesn’t result in finding a literal Bigfoot, studying cryptids has been shown to lead to discoveries of previously unidentified species.

“In 2013, a documentary film company enlisted the help of Charlotte Lindqvist, a geneticist at the University at Buffalo in New York, to help determine whether the bone and fur samples they collected in the Himalayas were that of Bigfoot or Yeti. Though Lindqvist found that the samples were not from cryptids but were actually from multiple known species of bears, the samples allowed for scientific breakthrough of another kind: Lindqvist and her colleagues were able to, for the first time in history, fully sequence the mitochondrial genomes of a Himalayan brown bear and black bear. Not only that, but they were also able to deduce that over 650,000 years ago, glaciers forced a single population of bears apart, creating two isolated populations that, over time, became two distinct subspecies—the Himalayan brown bears and Tibetan brown bears that exist today.” ref

In 2013, scientists from Oxford University and zoological museums in France and Germany put out a call asking people to send them evidence of “anomalous primates” like Sasquatch. When it was all said and done, they had 57 hair and fur samples, and almost all of them were from previously discovered mammals like black bears, dogs, cows, porcupines, and horses. However, two different samples from Bhutan and India matched a 40,000-year-old fossil of a polar bear found in Norway, though neither sample matched genetic markers in modern polar bears. Meaning that the search for cryptids led scientists to discover a species of bear that was previously unknown to science—a species that may have been in existence even before polar and brown bears diverged into different species.” ref

Norman MacLeod, curator of paleontology at London’s Natural History Museum, said the results of this research prove that scientists and cryptozoologists need to cooperate.

“Cryptozoologists must now either accept the findings … or show where they are in error,” MacLeod writes in his review of the Oxford University study. “Mainstream zoologists must also now recognize that, in the case of hair samples, the claims of the cryptozoological community are now amenable to scientific testing and potential verification. In this area, these two communities can and should speak the same language, the language of hard scientific data and hypothesis testing. Will this ultimately lead to the recognition of new large mammalian species in out-of-the way corners of the world? No one—certainly no scientist—can say for sure. What we do know is that scientific discoveries just as strange and unexpected as those advocated by cryptozoologists in these cases have happened before.” ref

My response, Addressing your response on Unicorns?

“Most people agree that there was a great cataclysm or flood,”
(A claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this?) (And not facts as you stated you had)

“great cataclysm or flood”
(What do you mean by this a great cataclysm or flood? Do you mean a claimed global flood like stated in the bible?)

If you mean the bible flood: “A problem with the Ark story arises because there is no evidence for a global flood. Creation stories from many different religions and cultures include flood stories, and Feder notes that if a worldwide flood had occurred, “The archaeological record of 5,000 years ago would be replete with Pompeii-style ruins — the remains of thousands of towns, villages and cities, all wiped out by flood waters, simultaneously. … It would appear that the near annihilation of the human race, if it happened, left no imprint on the archaeological record anywhere.” The lack of physical evidence of the great flood hasn’t stopped modern believers from searching for Noah’s Ark itself.” ref

“And most people, including scientists agree that most legend has it’s base in truth.”
(A nothing statement in regards to facts for some claim and therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

“So, did Unicorns exist? No one can say for sure”
(Therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

Yes, we can logically dismiss types of unicorn animals. If you mean did a horse with a horn I address in my post exist like in “European folklore, the unicorn is often depicted as a white horse-like” then no it is not possible seen in horse evolution from hyracotherium until the modern horse they had no horns. ref

“No one can say for sure if Unicorns existed, unless we find some remains buried under a quarter mile of silt.”
(Therefore, not the facts you stated you had)

“a quarter mile of silt”
(A claim that holds a burden of proof: How do you know all this?)
(What do you mean by a quarter mile of silt? Are you again referencing the debunked bible claimed global flood?)

Soil Layers:

O Horizon – (about 2 inches) The top, organic layer of soil, made up mostly of leaf litter and humus (decomposed organic matter).
A Horizon – (between 5 to 10 inches) The layer called topsoil; it is found below the O horizon and above the E horizon. Seeds germinate and plant roots grow in this dark-colored layer. It is made up of humus (decomposed organic matter) mixed with mineral particles.
E Horizon – (around 30 inches or more) This eluviation (leaching) layer is light in color; this layer is beneath the A Horizon and above the B Horizon. It is made up mostly of sand and silt, having lost most of its minerals and clay as water drips through the soil (in the process of eluviation).
B Horizon – (around 48″) Also called the subsoil – this layer is beneath the E Horizon and above the C Horizon. It contains clay and mineral deposits (like iron, aluminum oxides, and calcium carbonate) that it receives from layers above it when mineralized water drips from the soil above.
C Horizon – Also called regolith: the layer beneath the B Horizon and above the R Horizon. It consists of slightly broken-up bedrock. Plant roots do not penetrate into this layer; very little organic material is found in this layer.
R Horizon – The unweathered rock (bedrock) layer that is beneath all the other layers. ref, ref

“The depth of the bedrock changes from place to place on Earth. In some regions, the bedrock is right at the surface, exposed to air. In other places, it might be hundreds of meters deep, beneath loose sediments and broken rock. A large chunk of rock at the surface, detached from the bedrock is known as float. Sometimes it’s difficult for geologists to know if they’re actually looking at the bedrock or a piece of float.” ref

The closest thing to the mythical unicorn is an instinct “Siberian unicorn” a woolly mammoth-sized fuzzy rhinoceros with one long, slender horn protruding from its face instead of a short, stubby one like today’s rhinos. The skull of one was found in the Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan date it to around 29,000 years ago. ref

“Damien Marie AtHope, I see I was in error. I can find just as much proof claiming that bigfoot exists as you found claiming it doesn’t. As for the flood theory being debunked, redo your research. Proof has been found all over the world that there was a flood. It is claimed in all histories in Europe, a sea and north America. As for God, well you are still looking for someone to blame for man’s mistakes, for natural disasters or a screwed up love life. You don’t believe in God because you didn’t get what you prayed for. You don’t want the truth, you want validation. So, as I stated you will focus on what fits your beliefs and ignore the rest. Anybody can do that. It doesn’t make you right. Do real research and study both sides of your debate and weigh the for and against.” – Challenger

So provide the proof stop making unsupported claims. All you are doing is avoiding your burden of proof. You are good at making claims now provide facts. If anyone can do it why can’t you do it. Be intellectually honest. It is you who needs to do real research and it is you that seems to ignore facts and only focuses on what fits your beliefs ignoring the rest. So please provide your claimed facts or admit honestly you don’t have them.

“I won’t do it for you for the simple fact that I did it for myself. I have taken the time to do the research and I have lived. You present only assumptions and ” facts ” written by fellow atheists. You also revert to insulting people who don’t have your point of view. ie your remarks on intelligence. If you are too lazy to look at alternative science and study both sides of the question, why should I spoon feed you. As for making unsupported claims, you are perfect at gleaning what I wrote and not answering intelligently. Having a high education doesn’t automatically make you wise. You just quote what others have found based on their research whether this is true or not. You have no proof, just the philosophical rebuttal of others. I believe this conversation is over.” – Challenger

My response, So it seems you need to do research and read up on intellectual honesty as you are failing at it. “We have a moral duty to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression.” ref

“Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs. Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including: Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.” ref

“Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. And intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” ref

My response, You seem to need more research on burden of proof. “The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.” ref

My response, This conversation was intellectually honest on my part but less than honest on yours and that is unfortunate as I was looking forward to a thoughtful interaction yet you choose to not show up and do it with less than intellectual integrity. You need to think deeply about your intellectual honor and not shame it in the way you have chosen here. I hope you choose a higher intellectual behavior in your future endeavors with others if not just for yourself. We are our best in open honest thinking but reach toward our lowest evoiding intellectual honesty.

My response, You stated “I won’t do it for you” ie. I don’t have to provide my burden of proof a Burden of Proof Fallacy. “You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.” ref

“I read your profile and see that you make your living at this type of charade. I thought you were open minded but obviously you are biased in your reports. As I stated earlier you take what you want from public information and leave out that does not meet your cause. This is logical as you make your livelihood at duping others with your university vocabulary. You sound intelligent but the truly intelligent choose to ignore you. As I stated earlier, this conversation is over. Go peddle your half truths elsewhere.” – Challenger

My response, You are not an honest thinker, yet again, in your offered response. It seems you should do research on an “ad hominem” fallacy a well. Here is some info for you:

“You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.” ref

My response, I was and am open to you offering your valid and reliable reason and evidence which you have avoided time and again while claiming you have such facts. Please feel free to provide facts or a sound justification and stop making unjustified claims. As you keep assuring truth claims even say I don’t have but half-truths, what do you mean by truth and what method are you using to establish this? According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. There were a number of views of truth under discussion at that time, the most significant for the contemporary literature being the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatist theories of truth.” ref

My response, Here is some info for you on the Correspondence theory of truth: “the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” ref

My response, Here is some info for you on the Coherence theory of truth: “the coherence theory of truth regards truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. The model is contrasted with the correspondence theory of truth. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole.” ref

My response, Here is some info for you on the Pragmatic theory of truth: “a pragmatic theory of truth is a theory of truth within the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism. The common features of these theories are a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry.” ref

My response, Here is some info for you on Logic and Inquiry in relation to truth, “in one classical formulation, truth is defined as the good of logic, where logic is a normative science, that is, an inquiry into a good or a value that seeks knowledge of it and the means to achieve it. In this view, truth cannot be discussed to much effect outside the context of inquiry, knowledge, and logic, all very broadly considered. Most inquiries into the character of truth begin with a notion of an informative, meaningful, or significant element, the truth of whose information, meaning, or significance may be put into question and needs to be evaluated.” ref

Lacking Proof of Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods is Just a Lack of Research?

Why Bigfoot Is Fake: Bigfoot Debunked! – By cryptid

The North American Great Ape?

Belief-Etiquette

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest