This is a common misconception of what a skeptic is.Strange2 wrote:
Skeptic can argue or even debate, if this creature exists or not, but until they actually get up of there ass's, put down the books, move away from the computer. A Skeptics arguments are nothing more than theories....
You assume that everyone with a skeptical outlook is just some person who is surrounded by "book and computers". Besides the fact that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, this is about as far from the truth as saying every believer left school at 15, and has learning difficulties, and should get up off their ass and get a decent education.
Many skeptics have spent just as much time as any Yowie researcher crawling through the undergrowth. They just are not with you. If you don't see them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
The great outdoors are not just the domain of those that are passionate in their belief of yowies.
Might I suggest that the number of outdoorsy skeptics considerably outnumber those that believe in yowies, its just they don't have dedicated websites discussing yowies non existence.
All a skeptic has are theories? Such as evolution by natural selection? The theory of general relativity?
The building-block of science is the theory. New data results in new theories, and theories create experiments that are designed to test them, resulting in new data. The cyclic processes propels science forwards. Any new theory must displace an old one, and therefore needs abundant evidence in its favour; no-one will abandon the standing theory without good reason.
A scientific theory that explains the facts well is accepted; whereas one that doesn’t is rejected. That something “is only a theory” does not effect whether it is accurate or not. Some example theories include the theory of gravity, and the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Clearly, the evidence is more important than the theory. Who doubts the earth orbits the sun?
Please try to be less negative and disparaging of those you disagree with.
