MrGatr said:
I have spent countless hours on my history fair on Bigfoot. 65 slides, no slides with only pics, and 4th place in district... If that ain't enough for you then I don't know what else you expect a group of kids to do.
D master is right..
Kthxbai.
^Cool story. I have spent many hours coding a physics engine for a friend's game. That is many sleepless nights and tons of time perfecting this engine. The final product game out to a couple thousand lines of code... no pictures
. I got an A on the project, and a compliment from a professional game developer. When he analyzed it, though, he said that my logic was poor and that I wasted memory.
Just because you spend time studying something and you end up doing well doesn't mean you are an expert. Your theory is obviously unprovable and nonsensical. Why is it that religious people think that age is an excuse for not knowing something? If you really want to know something, look it up! You do not know something because you have not researched it enough. Your age has nothing to do with this. It is true that the older you get, the more trivia you are subjected to, but after the age of about 7, people develop their brains well enough to specialize in learning something specific. Your theory is obviously stupid, and your age has nothing to do with the stupidity of your theory. Old people come up with stupid theories all the time -- it isn't something specific to young people. Either study up and expect to be debated as an equal (no excuses based on age), or back off and let intelligent people talk.
As far as Dmaster's claim goes, there are mountains of reports. There are also mountains of reports of people talking to God. Like God-encounters, the reports rarely ever corroborate properly and can usually be better attributed to human imagination and seeing something simple than actual encounters with bigfoot. The fact that bigfoot is a very popular myth doesn't help. People are trained to see special things instead of ordinary things. That is just how our minds work. Wouldn't it be cool to be that one guy who sees the actual bigfoot? Because of this, we can jump to incorrect conclusions and retell stories that are usually hyperbolic, inaccurate, or completely fictional. I'll go back to my previous conclusion that a "bigfoot species" is highly unlikely. We would definitely know about this species by now -- especially given its theoretical size. Once again, there are many species we don't know about, but those are usually very small species, or are underwater. We would have proof by now.