| |
Discussion: Big-Foot/Sasquatch: Fact or Fantasy?
Member Since: 6/16/2010
Posts: 19,686
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
And my intention is to inform people to have evidence of something before believing it.
|
Then go to a church.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
This is more a discussion about agnosticism than about mermaids. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by (Cole)
I suppose that to be recognized as a legitimate creature, there has to be evidence for their existence...and at least scientifically, a lack of evidence for their existence means they can't be scientifically classified as an organism, meaning they don't exist, scientifically...
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING ANYMORE. I GIVE UP. YOU WIN, YOU MERMAID PEOPLE, YOU.
 |
I don't know what you just went on about, but an absence of evidence is not evidence. Endof. What you just said was circular. "Mermaids aren't scientifically classified as organisms because there is no evidence of them." Why is there no evidence of them? "Because they're not scientifically classified organisms."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2010
Posts: 3,155
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
This is more a discussion about agnosticism than about mermaids. |
Seriously. 
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
I don't know what you just went on about, but you an absence of evidence is not evidence. Endof. What you just said was circular. "Mermaids aren't scientifically classified as organisms because they haven't been found." Why haven't they been found? "Because they're not scientifically classified organisms."
|
I see what you're saying, but mermaids haven't been found because they haven't been found. Their scientific nonexistence has nothing to do with their non-discovery.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
And my intention is to inform people to have evidence of something before believing it.
|
And an absence of evidence isn't a good excuse to not believe in something. 
Seriously, though. All I'm saying is that it's biologically possible for a terrestrial humanoid to evolve into an aquatic humanoid, even if it is unlikely because of some time time discrepancies.
We're also all assuming that Mermaids would have evolved from anthropoids. It could have been something more grotesque and animal like.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 5/28/2011
Posts: 39,615
|
I wish they were real. Sadly, I've very skeptical of, like, everything.
However, scientists have said that a majority of creatures in the oceans will go undiscovered for a while, as they have so far, so it's not, like, entirely impossible. 
Plenty of people in the way olden days have seen sea manatees and thought they were mermaids.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/16/2010
Posts: 19,686
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
This is more a discussion about agnosticism than about mermaids. |
It all comes down to that eventually on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
Ramcoro, it is biologically possible for a terrestrial humanoid to evolve into an aquatic humanoid, or vice versa. That's all there is too it. You keep asking me for evidence, but I shouldn't have to -- because A) an absence of evidence is not evidence and B) it is possible. Any biologist would tell you it's possible in theory, it just may not be likely because of the time it takes to happen.
|
That's not how science works though. I could say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there, a gaint purple unicorn, etc. We don't have evidence of it, so we can't disprove.
Well the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the denier. That's how science and society work. You need evidence to first suggest it is possible.
You keep using the words "in theory" incorrectly. There is a difference between a scientific and a philosophical theory. A scientific theory needs lots of evidence. Like the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/5/2012
Posts: 7,953
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bea.
It all comes down to that eventually on the internet.
|
The utilization of this particular gif 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/14/2011
Posts: 21,274
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bea.
I'm pretty sure there are churches dedicated to both of these things.
And it is pretty similar to a belief in God when you take into account the arguments people are using 'there is no evidence', it is very similar to a belief in god. And some people would say a belief in an all powerful being is much more farfetched than a belief in a humanoid marine creature.
I guess people have forgotton what to each their own means.
|
But no one is trying to argue that God exists (at least I'm not); it's an abstract idea characterized by faith. You can believe in it or not believe in it, and each choice is a matter of personal morals rather than the existence or absence of concrete proof. Purposely giving in to a higher power as means of guidance, explanation, and acceptance is not the same as saying: "Well, no one can prove this almighty power exists, so I might as well believe in him to make things more magical for myself."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/4/2011
Posts: 4,178
|
It would be physiologically impossible for an aquatic humanoid to survive at the bottom of the ocean due to the massive amount of water pressure.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bea.
Then go to a church.
|
No. They're not asking for criticism by posting an open forum on the internet about it. If they do, then they're stupid.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
That's not how science works though. I could say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there, a gaint purple unicorn, etc. We don't have evidence of it, so we can't disprove.
Well the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the denier. That's how science and society work. You need evidence to first suggest it is possible.
You keep using the words "in theory" incorrectly. There is a difference between a scientific and a philosophical theory. A scientific theory needs lots of evidence. Like the theory of evolution.
|
I'm not going to nitpick my vocabulary for some arbitrary definition. You know what I mean.
I've said it like 6316546 times: It is biologically possible. The fact that we're still arguing about this.. 
It isn't biologically possible for spaghetti to fly and start living.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/5/2012
Posts: 7,953
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
That's not how science works though. I could say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there, a gaint purple unicorn, etc. We don't have evidence of it, so we can't disprove.
Well the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the denier. That's how science and society work. You need evidence to first suggest it is possible.
You keep using the words "in theory" incorrectly. There is a difference between a scientific and a philosophical theory. A scientific theory needs lots of evidence. Like the theory of evolution.
|
You need evidence to appropriately say that the possibilty of mermaids does not exist, though.
An absence if evidence on your part is not sufficient to discredit the speculation.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DiamondDust
It would be physiologically impossible for an aquatic humanoid to survive at the bottom of the ocean due to the massive amount of water pressure.
|
I don't think you understand why evolution happens. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/16/2010
Posts: 19,686
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
That's not how science works though. I could say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there, a gaint purple unicorn, etc. We don't have evidence of it, so we can't disprove.
Well the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the denier. That's how science and society work. You need evidence to first suggest it is possible.
You keep using the words "in theory" incorrectly. There is a difference between a scientific and a philosophical theory. A scientific theory needs lots of evidence. Like the theory of evolution.
|
They are using in theory correctly otherwise it would be stated as 'the theory of' it doesn't change the definition of the word theory until you directly apply it to something.
In theory anything could have evolved because the theory of evolution has no line that cannot be crossed, it takes time and the right circumstances but it is ALL possible, do you have to believe it? No. But you are being naive in drawing a line for yourself, 100 years ago it was impossible to walk on the moon, not very many years the cracken/giant squid was a myth and not possible...yet look at us now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
And an absence of evidence isn't a good excuse to not believe in something.
Seriously, though. All I'm saying is that it's biologically possible for a terrestrial humanoid to evolve into an aquatic humanoid, even if it is unlikely because of some time time discrepancies.
We're also all assuming that Mermaids would have evolved from anthropoids. It could have been something more grotesque and animal like. |
Read my post above about scientific theories.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2010
Posts: 3,155
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DiamondDust
It would be physiologically impossible for an aquatic humanoid to survive at the bottom of the ocean due to the massive amount of water pressure.
|
Shoop-da-woop, you win the thread. 
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
I don't think you understand why evolution happens. |
Think of the evolution and adaptation and time needed achieve said adaptation that would allow a humanoid to survive at such high pressures, though...there's a reason why the deeper parts of the sea are so devoid of life.
This thread has really got me wishing mermaids exist, though.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 5/28/2011
Posts: 39,615
|
However, if they were real, I'd imagine them a **** ton less glamorous and pretty as they've been made out to be.
I'd really expect a human-ish face, not so pretty, no hair, but more a matted down dark streak on the back of their head. No real "fins", but more like the body of an eel. An enlarged eel with a human-ish face, and no boobs, no matter the gender.
Either that, or these things:
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2012
Posts: 10,996
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DiamondDust
It would be physiologically impossible for an aquatic humanoid to survive at the bottom of the ocean due to the massive amount of water pressure.
|
What does this even mean? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
