Basic scientific disciplines are reasonably accepted because they are testable, repeatable, peer-reviewed, and factual. When better evidence is presented, then your conclusions must change. Otherwise you're talking philosophy, not science.

Present some better evidence, Rich. Grainy movies, footprint casts, and anecdotal evidence are not good evidence. Present some evidence and people will believe you.

People didn't believe in dinosaurs at one time. It wasn't because there was some conspiracy, or people were unable to accept that kind of thinking - it was because there was a lack of evidence. Once the evidence was collected and presented, people believed.

I know it's a concept that may be difficult for you to come to grips with, but it is reality.

You know the guy on the street corner that talks to himself and swats at flies that aren't there? He thinks the flies are really there - contrary to any evidence of them existing. Kinda like you and bigfoot. Now if the guy came up with a dead fly when he clapped his hands together, then you'd have to believe his story. The dead fly is good evidence. A dead bigfoot would be good evidence. A bigfoot skeleton would be good evidence. A grainy film is not good evidence. Foot casts are not good evidence. A story from some guy - or any number of people - is not good evidence.

Your definition of good evidence may vary from mine.





Now let's discuss gnomes in more detail. Have you seen a gnome?