OT: Hello, My Name Is...

[Johno]

I'd give mermaids and such water based species 100x higher chance of actually being real and undiscovered since humans have only explored about 5% of the oceans. Opposed to land, where most places have been explored.

 

[Primetimey*]

Name: Justin
Age: 21
Sex: M
Birthplace: Winnipeg, MB
Hometown: Winnipeg, MB
Mode of Transportation: Nissan Sentra SE-R
Job: Summer Student
How and when you became a Stars fan: I was in grade four, don't remember any specific reason why. Stuck with them since.
Current Favorite Stars Player: Jamie Benn
All-Time Favorite Stars Player: Jere Lehtinen
Current Favorite Non-Stars Player: Kevin Bieksa
All-Time Favorite Non-Stars Player: Teemu Selanne
College Attended/Attending: University of Manitoba, Red River College
Favorite Band(s): No real favorite
Favorite Movie(s): The Hangover, The Dark Knight
Favorite Food: Korean BBQ
Favorite TV Show(s): The Walking Dead
Favorite City: Stockholm, Ocho Rios
Hobbies: Video games, Computers, Photography, Traveling, Biking
Interesting Fact About Yourself: Ionno

I guess I should update my profile!

Name: Justin
Age: 23
Sex: M
Birthplace: Winnipeg, MB
Hometown: Winnipeg, MB
Mode of Transportation: 2010 Nissan Sentra SE-R
Job: Online Marketing Coordinator
How and when you became a Stars fan: I was in grade four, don't remember any specific reason why. Stuck with them since.
Current Favorite Stars Player: Jamie Benn
All-Time Favorite Stars Player: Jere Lehtinen
Current Favorite Non-Stars Player: Kevin Bieksa
All-Time Favorite Non-Stars Player: Teemu Selanne
College Attended/Attending: University of Manitoba, Red River College
Favorite Band(s): No real favorite
Favorite Movie(s): The Hangover, The Dark Knight
Favorite Food: Korean BBQ
Favorite TV Show(s): The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men
Favorite City: Stockholm, Vancouver
Hobbies: Video games, Computers, Photography, Traveling, Biking
Interesting Fact About Yourself: I work part-time, as a consultant, for the computer peripheral manufacturer Razer.

 

[john skull]

Name: John
Age: 33
Sex: M
Birthplace: Arlington Memorial
Hometown: Pantego
Mode of Transportation: NYC MTA
Job: Truck Driver
How and when you became a Stars fan: Friend at work in High School gave me a ticket to game one WCF '98, we lost but I was hooked.
Current Favorite Stars Player: Jamie Benn, I mean how can it not be
All-Time Favorite Stars Player: Joe Nieuwendyk
Current Favorite Non-Stars Player: Rasmus Ristolainen, flavor of the week
All-Time Favorite Non-Stars Player: per johan axelsson, alyn mccauley, Andreas Dackell, Idk something in there
College Attended/Attending: City College NYC
Favorite Band(s): Pixies, Radiohead
Favorite Movie(s): Brazil
Favorite Food: Burritos
Favorite TV Show(s): The Wire, True Detective
Favorite City: Berlin, Kyoto
Hobbies: Eating
Interesting Fact About Yourself: I'm Huge.

 

[Klockis]

I'm not saying 100% he's out there. But given everything, it's definitely in the realm of possibility.

Well one would think those photos would be a little clearer by now wouldn't it? Also most of those reporting could also describe a bear or another big hairy animal. The thing is the giant squid is a creature living on hundreds of meters and we didn't really have cameras which could function so far down. Also we have had dead corpses of them coming ashore lots of times and other evidence. The deep ocean is still pretty unknown to us, might be other big creatures lurking there.

You are also nitpicking. Panda bears have been known by the Chinese for a long time, I'm not knowledgeable about when they was a myth in the west but I'll going to give you examples why people took those reports from the far east/africa/amazons with a grain of salt in those days. There were poeple claiming that there were humans without necks or skulls with their heads in their chests in africa. Eldorado and lots of other hambug coming from the amazonas. There were other weird stuff from the far east too, don't remember any specific right now though.

Now Pands bears have been know to the Chinese though since forever so that point is pretty moot.

Mountain Gorillas were discovered by the west in the early 1900, when expeditions were quite popular and the colonization of africa reached it's peak.

Now north america has been in western control for hundreds of years but still no evidence? Cameras have been around for a long time and still no clear photo, don't that make you a little suspicious?

Not sure how productive discussing this with you is. No point in discussing if something exists if there is no evidence that this thing exists.

 

[tjcurrie]

Well one would think those photos would be a little clearer by now wouldn't it? Also most of those reporting could also describe a bear or another big hairy animal. The thing is the giant squid is a creature living on hundreds of meters and we didn't really have cameras which could function so far down. Also we have had dead corpses of them coming ashore lots of times and other evidence. The deep ocean is still pretty unknown to us, might be other big creatures lurking there.

You are also nitpicking. Panda bears have been known by the Chinese for a long time, I'm not knowledgeable about when they was a myth in the west but I'll going to give you examples why people took those reports from the far east/africa/amazons with a grain of salt in those days. There were poeple claiming that there were humans without necks or skulls with their heads in their chests in africa. Eldorado and lots of other hambug coming from the amazonas. There were other weird stuff from the far east too, don't remember any specific right now though.

Now Pands bears have been know to the Chinese though since forever so that point is pretty moot.

Mountain Gorillas were discovered by the west in the early 1900, when expeditions were quite popular and the colonization of africa reached it's peak.

Now north america has been in western control for hundreds of years but still no evidence? Cameras have been around for a long time and still no clear photo, don't that make you a little suspicious?

Not sure how productive discussing this with you is. No point in discussing if something exists if there is no evidence that this thing exists.

Both the mountain gorilla and the giant panda were reported but not believed by science for years and years.

Again, bigfoot has only been "searched for" for a few decades. That's not a long time at all. And until very recently it hasn't been by many. Not nearly enough to have the odds in our favor.

You claim there are no clear photos, but there are. It's ridiculous that people want a photo and when presented with one, they just deny it. Many fakes out there for sure and I don't buy in to everything I see or hear, but the Patterson-Gimlin footage has been around for nearly 50 years, yet with all our technology today it hasn't been debunked. All you can see when zooming in and picking apart is muscle and facial movement. Were those two mountain hicks that far ahead of their time that they could foil all the technology still 50 years later?

Not much point in arguing. I take what I know and say, "Maybe." You need it to be in front of your face. We're not going to agree on anything here.

 

[Starry Knight]

Sasquatches are an evolutionary improbability. There are no great apes in the Americas so they would not have evolved in a distinct lineage here. The bone structure for walking erect would not have evolved twice in under 1 million years (approximate time since humans diverged from other apes). This would suggest common ancestry, but at this time all evidence points to the out of Africa theory. There would not have been the requisite reproductive isolation for speciation to occur. All other offshoots of the homo sapien line (Neanderthals for example) were absorbed and definitively unlike what bigfoot is supposedly like.

Sorry I am an evolutionary biology/genetics nerd, I had to

 

[Ampersand]

Sasquatches are an evolutionary improbability. There are no great apes in the Americas so they would not have evolved in a distinct lineage here. The bone structure for walking erect would not have evolved twice in under 1 million years (approximate time since humans diverged from other apes). This would suggest common ancestry, but at this time all evidence points to the out of Africa theory. There would not have been the requisite reproductive isolation for speciation to occur. All other offshoots of the homo sapien line (Neanderthals for example) were absorbed and definitive unlike what bigfoot is supposedly like.

Sorry I am an evolutionary biology/genetics nerd, I had to

 

[ginblossoms]

a movie involving the wilds of Alaska... john sayles' "limbo"...

i'm convinced... of the possibility... heh...

 

[ginblossoms]

Sasquatches are an evolutionary improbability.

... so you're saying there's a chance...

 

[beepeearr]

Sasquatches are an evolutionary improbability. There are no great apes in the Americas so they would not have evolved in a distinct lineage here. The bone structure for walking erect would not have evolved twice in under 1 million years (approximate time since humans diverged from other apes). This would suggest common ancestry, but at this time all evidence points to the out of Africa theory. There would not have been the requisite reproductive isolation for speciation to occur. All other offshoots of the homo sapien line (Neanderthals for example) were absorbed and definitively unlike what bigfoot is supposedly like.

Sorry I am an evolutionary biology/genetics nerd, I had to

Not arguing the existence of bigfoot, but North America doesn't have Elephants either but we do have plenty of Mammoth fossils.
And the fact we are still making discoveries of creatures we didn't know existed, would help his argument wouldn't it, by your own statement you just admitted we don't know everything that's out there living on this planet.
To claim that science gets it right every time is wrong too, after all wasn't it early scientist who claimed the world is flat, that Pluto was a planet, that dinosaurs were lizards, when now we think many species were actually feathered early avians.
And you say not to believe in anything without proof... seriously, isn't Evolution still just theory, with several gaps in the transitional fossil record, but is regarded as the most likely belief due to what evidence they do have... By your same argument shouldn't that transitional evidence have been found by now? The fact is we can't prove Evolution because the transitional fossils likely dont exist because the circumstances for a fossil to be preserved are rare. So essentially the same argument he's using to say it would be difficult to find the fossil evidence of big foot, is the same logic used in saying it would be difficult to find the transitional fossils to prove evolution.

Some people want to believe in fantasies and hidden wonders, how else could you explain the existence of Maple Leafs fans.

 

[Klockis]

Evolution is just theory.... you lost me there. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[beepeearr]

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

theory[ thee-uh-ree, theer-ee ]

noun [plural the·o·ries.]

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

 

[LT]

Evolution is just a theory.

Hell, even gravity is technically just a theory.

 

[beepeearr]

Evolution is just theory.... you lost me there. The evidence is overwhelming.

By its own definition Evolution is a theory. Its right there in the name and description. I'm not trying to disprove it or anything, just pointing out that scientist believe in stuff all the time without concrete evidence.

 

[beepeearr]

Evolution is just a theory.

Hell, even gravity is technically just a theory.

Right, its an observation, we know it exists, and we have laws on its effects, but only theories on why it exists

 

[Satan]

Hi my name is Tyler

 

[TrillMike]

Who's going to start the offseason mystical creatures and conspiracy thread?

 

[Klockis]

I'm going to make a proper response.

Not arguing the existence of bigfoot, but North America doesn't have Elephants either but we do have plenty of Mammoth fossils.
And the fact we are still making discoveries of creatures we didn't know existed, would help his argument wouldn't it, by your own statement you just admitted we don't know everything that's out there living on this planet.

At the time animals could wander from africa to europe/asia then to NA. Mammoths did that. If a big ape like creature would have done the same, isn't it strange we haven't found any fossils of that creature in europe or asia? Or even in NA. We don't know everything, but the sad truth is that we have probably discovered every big land animal.

No we don't. But no clear evidence suggest the existence of Bigfoot.

Therefore why there is no point in searching for it when it is no evidence of it. Like searching for a ghost (not arguing with you here, just agreeing).

To claim that science gets it right every time is wrong too, after all wasn't it early scientist who claimed the world is flat, that Pluto was a planet, that dinosaurs were lizards, when now we think many species were actually feathered early avians.

Those early scientsts who claimed the earth was flat were catholic Church. The Mongols, americans, the ancients greeks and muslims basically most civilazed places were Christianity wasn't around. It was the catholic church who kind off screwed people up. That the earth is round is not exactly anything new. Anything before modern times is prett sketchy when it comes to science, pseudo-science and religious beliefs were often merged with real science.

And you say not to believe in anything without proof... seriously, isn't Evolution still just theory, with several gaps in the transitional fossil record, but is regarded as the most likely belief due to what evidence they do have... By your same argument shouldn't that transitional evidence have been found by now? The fact is we can't prove Evolution because the transitional fossils likely dont exist because the circumstances for a fossil to be preserved are rare. So essentially the same argument he's using to say it would be difficult to find the fossil evidence of big foot, is the same logic used in saying it would be difficult to find the transitional fossils to prove evolution.

Fun fact. The idea of species evolving was created in ancient Greece too. Darwin made it what it is today though.

I researched a little, my wording is wrong but my point is right. A theory is not necessarily a hypothesis it could also describe a fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is this:

well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can inco
rporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

No amount of proof changes a theory to a law. So the point is that when scientists say "theory" they don't necessarily question it's truth. The theory of evolution base it on creatures mutating and changing, based on fossils other evidence. The evidence is so overwhelming that all trustworthy institutions and scientists regard the theory of evolution as a fact.

Some people want to believe in fantasies and hidden wonders, how else could you explain the existence of Maple Leafs fans.

The problems is that people like to convince other people of their fantasies. This creates more people who is willing to accept bad arguments.

Edit: I'm a horrible writer. Trust me I'm much better at these discussions verbally.

 

[beepeearr]

Who's going to start the offseason mystical creatures and conspiracy thread?

Nill might be a Wizard... or any creature that can grant wishes... he's already granted us two wishes after all 1 & 2 C, now we just need that number 1 D

 

[Stars99Lobo37]

My head hurts.

 

[Klockis]

By its own definition Evolution is a theory. Its right there in the name and description. I'm not trying to disprove it or anything, just pointing out that scientist believe in stuff all the time without concrete evidence.

As I pointed out in my big post (I was writing it while you posted ). Both you and LT is selling "theory" short, the theory of evolution is regarded as truth among scientists. And also you are selling scientists short, but I'm not going to go into a discussion about that.

Nill might be a Wizard... or any creature that can grant wishes... he's already granted us two wishes after all 1 & 2 C, now we just need that number 1 D

Think we're onto something.

 

[beepeearr]

At the time animals could wander from africa to europe/asia then to NA. Mammoths did that. If a big ape like creature would have done the same, isn't it strange we haven't found any fossils of that creature in europe or asia? Or even in NA. We don't know everything but the sad truth is that we has probably discovered every big land animal.

Those early scientsts who claimed the earth was flat were catholic Church. The Mongols, americans, the ancients greeks and muslims basically most civilazed places were Christianity wasn't around. It was the catholic church who kind off screwed people up. That the earth is round is not exactly anything new. Anything before modern times is prett sketchy when it comes to science, pseudo-science and religious beliefs were often merged with real science.



Fun fact. The idea of species evolving was created in ancient Greece too. Darwin made it what it is today though.

I researched a little, my wording is wrong but my point is right. A theory is not necessarily a hypothesis it could also describe a fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is this:
No amount of proof changes a theory to a law. So the point is that when scientists say "theory" they don't necessarily question it's truth. The theory of evolution base it on creatures mutating and changing, based on fossils other evidence. The evidence is so overwhelming that all trustworthy institutions and scientists regard the theory of evolution as a fact.



The problems is that people like to convince other people of their fantasies. This creates more people who is willing to accept bad arguments.

Couple things, evolution actually would say that a species of great apes did travel across the land bridge, man sarcasm alert

its kind of unfair to blame Flat Earth on Christianity, most cultures at one time or another (including most of the ones you mentioned) believed in and dismissed flat earth before having any contact with Christianity, the Chinese believed in flat earth up until the 17th century.

And like I said before, and posted the definitions of theory, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone on evolution, just pointing out that it is believed even though concrete evidence isn't present. Scientist use the evidence they do have, to explain what they think happened for the parts they don't have evidence for. There is nothing wrong with that. We simply don't have fossil records for everything that ever existed, and its a really low percentage for what we do have fossils of, much lower then you would think.

We do discover new things we didn't know all the time, we find new species, new fossils, new planets, but we also find that things we have always believed to be true were incorrect.

 

[Satan]

I love beer and liquor

 

[beepeearr]

But seriously hockey season really needs to hurry up and get here

 

[Klockis]

Couple things, evolution actually would say that a species of great apes did travel across the land bridge, man �� sarcasm alert

its kind of unfair to blame Flat Earth on Christianity, most cultures at one time or another (including most of the ones you mentioned) believed in and dismissed flat earth before having any contact with Christianity, the Chinese believed in flat earth up until the 17th century.

And like I said before, and posted the definitions of theory, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone on evolution, just pointing out that it is believed even though concrete evidence isn't present. Scientist use the evidence they do have, to explain what they think happened for the parts they don't have evidence for. There is nothing wrong with that. We simply don't have fossil records for everything that ever existed, and its a really low percentage for what we do have fossils of, much lower then you would think.

We do discover new things we didn't know all the time, we find new species, new fossils, new planets, but we also find that things we have always believed to be true were incorrect.

Fair enough.Don't mistake my "defence" of evolution saying we know everything or facts can't change. Just saying that it is probably impossible for the theory of evolution not to be true.

Sorry didn't fact check the flat earth part (was lazy of me but it is in the middle of the night here), was just going by memory. Thanks for clearing that up.

We need a thread for this.