Mom's Basement

[Speaker to Animals]

Where are the bones?

Did you read the part where I doubted they still exist?

No. You just skipped over it. You have no argument.

Mammoths no longer exist but we have the bones.

There are several unknown hominid species present in our DNA for which we have no bones.

[Speaker to Animals]

For that matter, we didn't even have a fossil record for chimpanzees until 2005.

The lack of bones doesn't support a damned thing. It's very rare for things like that to survive, and we have mammoth remains because of their propensity to get stuck in tar pits and their habitat including bogs.

We probably don't have a fossil record for most of the species that ever lived.

"There are no bones so it didn't exist" is the pinnacle of shitty arguments.

If that argument were valid then you would literally have to conclude prior to 2007 that homo floresiensis never existed, but then after 2007 they did exist. It's not very logical or coherent. It reminds me of the verfiicaitonist fallacy so often employed by the so-called "skeptic" community. It's self-contradictory on the face of it. Something doesn't suddenly come into existence once you discover physical evidence of it. It existed prior to your finding physical evidence, hence why you found the physical evidence. If you have other evidence that leads you to opine that such a thing exists, saying it doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence (because you have not found it) does not make any logical sense whatsoever. It's fallacious.

[SuburbanFarmer]

For that matter, we didn't even have a fossil record for chimpanzees until 2005.

The lack of bones doesn't support a damned thing. It's very rare for things like that to survive, and we have mammoth remains because of their propensity to get stuck in tar pits and their habitat including bogs.

We probably don't have a fossil record for most of the species that ever lived.

"There are no bones so it didn't exist" is the pinnacle of shitty arguments.

If that argument were valid then you would literally have to conclude prior to 2007 that homo floresiensis never existed, but then after 2007 they did exist. It's not very logical or coherent. It reminds me of the verfiicaitonist fallacy so often employed by the so-called "skeptic" community. It's self-contradictory on the face of it. Something doesn't suddenly come into existence once you discover physical evidence of it. It existed prior to your finding physical evidence, hence why you found the physical evidence. If you have other evidence that leads you to opine that such a thing exists, saying it doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence (because you have not found it) does not make any logical sense whatsoever. It's fallacious.

Stupid scientific method... what do they know anyway.

[Zero]

[Speaker to Animals]

For that matter, we didn't even have a fossil record for chimpanzees until 2005.

The lack of bones doesn't support a damned thing. It's very rare for things like that to survive, and we have mammoth remains because of their propensity to get stuck in tar pits and their habitat including bogs.

We probably don't have a fossil record for most of the species that ever lived.

"There are no bones so it didn't exist" is the pinnacle of shitty arguments.

If that argument were valid then you would literally have to conclude prior to 2007 that homo floresiensis never existed, but then after 2007 they did exist. It's not very logical or coherent. It reminds me of the verfiicaitonist fallacy so often employed by the so-called "skeptic" community. It's self-contradictory on the face of it. Something doesn't suddenly come into existence once you discover physical evidence of it. It existed prior to your finding physical evidence, hence why you found the physical evidence. If you have other evidence that leads you to opine that such a thing exists, saying it doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence (because you have not found it) does not make any logical sense whatsoever. It's fallacious.

Stupid scientific method... what do they know anyway.

Apparently you don't understand the scientific method at all.

Verificaionism is a fallacy and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

You don't get to plaster the thread with fallacy and then claim you are on the side of the "scientific method", a concept about which you obviously understand fuck all.

[Montegriffo]

No bones, no evidence Yeti existed.
No proof that Yeti never existed because you can't prove a negative.

I understand that you have no problem in believing in things that you can't prove, you even go into tall pointy buildings with other people to believe en masse.

I need the bones.

[Speaker to Animals]

No bones, no evidence Yeti existed.
No proof that Yeti never existed because you can't prove a negative.

I understand that you have no problem in believing in things that you can't prove, you even go into tall pointy buildings with other people to believe en masse.

I need the bones.

You are espousing a fallacy. To argue something isn't true unless you have proof is literally a logical fallacy. Something can be true whether you have proof or not.

In this case, I don't claim to have proof. I claim that there exist more reasons than not to side on these things having existed in the past.

Furthermore, Occam's Razer is decidedly against you on this since you now have to make countless assumptions that completely disconnected people all simultenously and independently described the same mythical creature, same behaviors, same body characteristics and everything, but it's all just a coincidence because it doesn't exist.

I only need to make one assumption: that they all describe the same animal because that animal once existed.

Furthermore, we already know that similar phenemonon had to have existed for a fact, since we all harbor DNA from other hominid species. We are not one species. We are an admixture of different hominids. Right now, whites are up to 5% Neanderthal. At one time, there had to have been people walking around with as much as 50% Neanderthal DNA. Those people would have been bizarre in the extreme. It isn't a stretch to imagine that this happened with other hominid species that resulted in very tall hominids.

[DrYouth]

No bones, no evidence Yeti existed.
No proof that Yeti never existed because you can't prove a negative.

I understand that you have no problem in believing in things that you can't prove, you even go into tall pointy buildings with other people to believe en masse.

I need the bones.

You don't believe in dragons...

So you are an adragonist.

There is a special circle in dragon hell for people like you...

And you suffer a penalty on saving throws against breath weapons.

[Speaker to Animals]

In particular, when you see some legend or myth spread across enormous distances and across myriads of cultures, there are two hypothesis worth considering:

(1) the myth is so old that it dates back to a time before the migration of peoples to distant places.

(2) the myth is describing a real phenomenon that all these cultures experienced.




The alternative hypothesis is least likely according to parsimony (though still possible): that all of these cultures independently invented the same story. To defend this hypothesis, you have to assume that, for every single culture one identifies with this story, they independently made it all up. That various Algonquins invented stories of the same big foot creature that the Nez Peirce did, as well as the tribes in British Columbia. Really, almost all of the tribes have stories of big foot. It's a lot of assumptions. Far less likely to be just a story. Still possible, but not the primary hypothesis if you take Occam's Razer seriously.

Hypotheses (1) and (2) each only make ONE assumption.

[Montegriffo]

No bones, no evidence Yeti existed.
No proof that Yeti never existed because you can't prove a negative.

I understand that you have no problem in believing in things that you can't prove, you even go into tall pointy buildings with other people to believe en masse.

I need the bones.

You don't believe in dragons...

So you are an adragonist.

There is a special circle in dragon hell for people like you...

And you suffer a penalty on saving throws against breath weapons.

I believe the chance that Yetis exist is infinately greater than the chance dragons or gods do.
I wouldn't put money on any of them though.