Not knowing

Hello all,

i stumbled on a nice article about a new specimen of arachnids.

http://news.yahoo.com/rare-discovery-hook-legged-spider-found-oregon-cave-211926504.html


The hook legged spider was found in Oregon and this got me thinking.

I aint got no agenda behind this, i know there are some brilliant minds on here and would like to discuss

This got me to think, how can we be sure that a big foot or whatever other skeptic creatures do in fact exists? These new discoveries can only create wonder into other skeptic things that are out there.



What do you think of these types of discoveries?

I think being that our ancestors were of similar description as is a "big foot" today and that somehow we may be closely related to primates, i would like to leave that door open to question. Could there or could ther not be a "big foot" or any other skeptic creature that may exist today?

I also believe since the world and ocean are so vast and remote, there are plenty of areas that have not had a foot set on its virgin land , so how can we be so sure to simply discredit or poke fun at someone for believeing that there may be more out there then we think!

One and only comment on this, subject is to deep for my pea brain.

Personably it makes me seriously think all these save the world jackoffs don't have a clue about evolution or where this planet it headed. In nature any specie is possible. For every specie that has disappeared another has taken its place. Therefore what is Green Peace trying to save other than its massive bullshit income.

That spider had a coupla things going for it as far as staying hidden is concerned:
1) it lives in what appears to be a tiny range that hasn't been explored for long.
2) it's small. It's big for a spider, but still small.

Bigfoot (supposed) is a large creature, between man and bear in size. There have been reports of new large-animal species being found quite recently ... something in Indochina iirc ... but that is in an inaccessible place underexplored by folks who communicate with universities. But Bigfoot's supposed range in the American Northwest is heavily traveled by Westerners, and the chances of such a large, necessarily territorial creature managing to avoid detection (and that means bones, scat, tracks, any sign) are tiny and getting smaller with each day. Jmo. cn

Im not limiting these findings just to the US, but all over the world.

I get what you mean by big creature, but i think if we keep pushing housing and cevelopment to further remote regions, we will eventualy find something.

I remembering watching a hunting show and off focus but still in frame, a large biped creature passed by. Idk know if it has any validity to it, but who knows.

As for other things in the ocean as well. How can we be so sure if a "nessy" does not exist? Only a small percentage of the worlds oceans have been explored, so what might be out there is up to question.

cannabineer said:

That spider had a coupla things going for it as far as staying hidden is concerned:
1) it lives in what appears to be a tiny range that hasn't been explored for long.
2) it's small. It's big for a spider, but still small.

Bigfoot (supposed) is a large creature, between man and bear in size. There have been reports of new large-animal species being found quite recently ... something in Indochina iirc ... but that is in an inaccessible place underexplored by folks who communicate with universities. But Bigfoot's supposed range in the American Northwest is heavily traveled by Westerners, and the chances of such a large, necessarily territorial creature managing to avoid detection (and that means bones, scat, tracks, any sign) are tiny and getting smaller with each day. Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

but where is all the proof/evidence, last big creature to be found was a deer i think, much smaller then a Bigfoot, i refuse to be told to ponder something without any real evidense other then you say it should exist because you saw a video

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species/schaller.html

olylifter420 said:

Im not limiting these findings just to the US, but all over the world.

I get what you mean by big creature, but i think if we keep pushing housing and cevelopment to further remote regions, we will eventualy find something.

I remembering watching a hunting show and off focus but still in frame, a large biped creature passed by. Idk know if it has any validity to it, but who knows.

As for other things in the ocean as well. How can we be so sure if a "nessy" does not exist? Only a small percentage of the worlds oceans have been explored, so what might be out there is up to question.

Click to expand...

Part of the trouble with this is - there are no true unexplored wildernesses left on land. The deep ocean does remain.

However, a creature of Nessie proportions (say a plesiosaur,one of the more romantic ideas for a Nessielike creature still extant) would have a tough time hiding. We haveremarkably good active and passive sonar abilities to image the ocean. i consider it reasonable that those abilities exceed what we can find in the open press, because it's a militarily useful technology. And below a certain population size, no species can persist. So if there is a Nessie-type, it would have to defy what we think we know about zoology.

Large water-breathing creatures are another story. The coelacanth, the giant squid and the oarfish are recently-discovered marine megafauna. For the squid, sign existed in the form of battle scars on sperm whales, and from the largest of these we can deduce that the biggest giant squid were big indeed, with one specimen arguably 108 feet in overall length, but the largest known mantle (main body) is not much more than seven feet long. Most of this creature's length is in two long trailing tentacles.
There's also the intriguing, rare Colossal Squid, which could reach a ton in weight, making it the largest of the invertebrates.

But on land, I hold no real hope that a creature approaching or exceeding human size will be found. By now, the remotest corners of the Amazon, central Africa and New Guinea have been looked over. cn

george xxx said:

One and only comment on this, subject is to deep for my pea brain.

Click to expand...

Seems I replied to a post on a subject I know nothing about. I am a firm believer in Keep your mouth shut if you don't know what your talking about. Since my reply is not very well understood I now have the need to attempt explaining something I know nothing about. Hopefully this will not create more question than answer.

Radiation has fried my brain enough to sometimes make it difficult to stay on task or focus. Periodically I stop to ponder something I should have ignored.

These new discoveries can only create wonder into other skeptic things that are out there.



What do you think of these types of discoveries?

Click to expand...

Such discoveries are facinating and open the door to many possibilities. What else is hiding out there The oceans seem to be full of never before seen creatures that are anything but small. Are such discoveries of creatures that have been here many eons or are they newley evolved life forms? Who is to say? No one has ever seen one before. There are no experts on an unknown never before seen creature. While facinating and interesting enough to read they also invoke some anger toward environmentalists. They want to save every creature on the planet claiming it is a valuable part of some eco system that will suffer if a creature is lost. How in the hell can you save an eco system you know nothing about This planet survived millions of years before these idiots were here and will survive a few million more years without their help. Such bleeding hearts idiots and the so-called experts tend to be the cause of unnecessary restriction and costs imposed upon the general public that are to some extent lunacy.

olylifter420 said:

I also believe since the world and ocean are so vast and remote, there are plenty of areas that have not had a foot set on its virgin land , so how can we be so sure to simply discredit or poke fun at someone for believeing that there may be more out there then we think!

Click to expand...

Heis and Zaehet had a cool conversation yesterday about belief vs. faith-based ideas. Heis pointed out that evidence dictates belief, so if there's no evidence, it's not truly a belief but a faith-based idea/assumption/speculation. I feel this is why someone gets fun poked at them for elevating a faith-based (not theological in this instance) idea to belief status...

I like the intelligent way you are saying that pretty much im retarded for thinking things

Well good to meet ya buddy

tyler.durden said:

Heis and Zaehet had a cool conversation yesterday about belief vs. faith-based ideas. Heis pointed out that evidence dictates belief, so if there's no evidence, it's not truly a belief but a faith-based idea/assumption/speculation. I feel this is why someone gets fun poked at them for elevating a faith-based (not theological in this instance) idea to belief status...

Click to expand...

tyler.durden said:

Heis and Zaehet had a cool conversation yesterday about belief vs. faith-based ideas. Heis pointed out that evidence dictates belief, so if there's no evidence, it's not truly a belief but a faith-based idea/assumption/speculation. I feel this is why someone gets fun poked at them for elevating a faith-based (not theological in this instance) idea to belief status...

Click to expand...

olylifter420 said:

I like the intelligent way you are saying that pretty much im retarded for thinking things

Well good to meet ya buddy

Click to expand...

where did he call you retarded or infer that you were?

he said without evidence to prove your theories, it is just speculations or faith based ideas or theories


if anyone is painting you as a retard it is yourself, . . .. . . or me

olylifter420 said:

I like the intelligent way you are saying that pretty much im retarded for thinking things

Well good to meet ya buddy

Click to expand...

You didn't state that you believed in bigfoot or some other mythological creature, just that you were wondering. It's fun to speculate, I do it all the time, I think everyone does. Speculation is a component of science, scientists often speculate on ideas for which there is not yet any proof. This process often leads to forming hypotheses for to be tested further. So, speculation can be the start of acquiring actual knowledge. My point was that one shouldn't elevate speculation to belief without adequate evidence, as it is evidence, or lack thereof, that should separate speculation from belief. If you're wondering/speculating about the possible existence of myths like bigfoot or the lochness monster, that's cool. If you actually believe they exist with our current lack of evidence, then yes, you are a dumb-ass