Where did you think animals like the Yeti, Bigfoot, etc. came from, if they even exist? Do you believe that they do exist?

I don’t know if they exist or not.It’s possible I suppose.
A good friend of mine swears he and a friend saw the “Hairy Man” when he lived in Alaska,
I don’t think he was hammered. ;)

I dont really know if they exist. the scientist in me does not deny the possibility. I think one theory could be that perhaps people have seen rare types of known species in passing or out of the corner of their eyes. Abnormally huge bears or genetic mutations perhaps. (just a thought)

All animals are genetic mutations.

I basically always assume that there are freaky, monster-like animals out there that we rarely, if ever, hear about. Many could be the stuff of legend, occasionally making appearances to humans.

You see what you are programmed to see…whether it is the Boogeyman, Santa Clause, Sasquatch or Flying Monkeys….if you need your demons, make them up!

No, they don’t exist. Why are we so gullible? Even if we technically have to hold out the possibility of being wrong for scientific and philosophical purposes, let’s be firm about the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any of these creatures. Lines like “animals that science refuses to recognize” are just slogans used to sell a TV show and make it look “edgy” or “subversive” with the hope that this will make people more interested. They don’t exist, and we know it.

I’ve never seen China, either. It doesn’t exist.

@incendiary_dan But how hard have you tried? You can see China on Google Earth or Google maps, or you could just fly there yourself. No reason to doubt there.

I can see a Yeti in pictures. I have no proof either aren’t faked. Also, the moon landing.

My point is that lack of evidence isn’t negation of existence. That’s like Logic 101.

No, you can’t see a Yeti in pictures. You can see things that people claim are Yetis. That difference is Logic 101. And again, you can fly to China and see for yourself if you’re worried about the photographic evidence. You can’t travel to see a Yeti.

Lack of evidence isn’t the same as lack of existence, but quality of evidence is important. We actually do have good evidence for China and the moon landing, unlike Yetis and the like. In fact, we have better evidence than I have for your existence. So on your argument, maybe I should just be ignoring you and your sophistry.

@incendiary_dan : I like that. Lack of evidence isn’t proof of nonexistence.

@Uberwench : So you don’t believe in anything like that? What about angels, or demons, or anything?

@troubleinharlem No, I don’t believe in angels, demons, gods, faeries, leprechauns, or any of that.

@Uberwench Repeated denial doesn’t make China not exist. If anything like a yeti does exist, repeated denial won’t make it not exist. Sure, quality evidence is more convincing; I’m much more willing to believe in China than a yeti. But serious denial of either’s existence with the implied or explicit denigration of people who think differently is just stupid and illogical, as well as rude.

Your inability to grasp hypotheticals is sad.

@incendiary_dan You’ll have to show me where I said repeated denial makes anything not exist, because I’m pretty sure that things either do or do not exist independently of what we say. I’m also pretty sure that we have more than enough evidence to justifiably say that none of things asked about in the OP exist, and more than enough evidence to justifiably say that China and the moon landing both are real. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone, I just don’t believe in coddling these beliefs.

Wow.

Wow what? I’m reminded of an answer Marilyn vos Savant gave when asked about her opinion on fortune-telling:

“Opinion?! it’s damaging to our intellectual abilities to believe too many things are matters of opinion, and this is one of them. But if you insist, my opinion is that fortune-telling is a lot of nonsense. Also in my opinion is that 1 + 1 = 2.”

A similar answer seems applicable here.

It seems to me that @Uberwench is combining three very respectable epistemological positions: (1) future evidence could always prove our current beliefs incorrect, but (2) knowledge does not require certainty, thus (3) it is legitimate to say we know something despite our lack of absolute certainty. In fact, this is a fairly mainstream sort of fallibilism.

”If you go into the woods tonight, you’re in for a big surprise!”

The boogey man has many faces. Beware!

I think that like many things in this world, it doesn’t matter whether these creatures exist or not. As long as you believe they do and it makes you happy, that’s what counts. That’s what I tell my kid, instead of telling him half truths about Santa or the Easter Bunny.

I know someone who swears he has seen el chupacabra. According to him, EC is a cyclops…

@amandaray : I don’t know why believing in bigfoot would make anyone happy, but to each his own!

I believe in the possibility of those creatures existing.
The Bigfoot/Yeti/Sasquatch creature is present in mythology and folklore across the world, dating back many centuries (at the least). That would be before science had developed enough for easy, safe travel between those parts of the world. The Nepalese and the American Indians did not have any cultural encounters (to my knowledge) and yet both spoke of a man-ape.
It’s not unreasonable to believe. We don’t have constant surveillance of every single square foot of land, so we can’t definitively prove that they don’t exist. We can’t prove that they do either. Don’t be so eager to dismiss the unlikely, because it may just catch you unawares.

@Uberwench: @bostonbeliever gives a good point when he said “It’s not unreasonable to believe. We don’t have constant surveillance of every single square foot of land, so we can’t definitively prove that they don’t exist. We can’t prove that they do either. Don’t be so eager to dismiss the unlikely, because it may just catch you unawares.”

I have always believed the Patterson film to be genuine. Sadly, the lack of any other ‘good’ evidence surfacing has cast doubt on my belief in the existence of Sasquatch.

I find cryptozoology to be extremely fascinating, but Bigfoot is the only one I sort of believe in.

@troubleinharlem I made my position clear in my very first response: “Even if we technically have to hold out the possibility of being wrong for scientific and philosophical purposes, let’s be firm about the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any of these creatures.” It is not reasonable to believe something simply because it hasn’t been proven to be false. In fact, it’s fallacious to argue that way.