Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

Thank you for accepting this topic for debate. I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponent's views. 1. Bigfoot has impacted on culture. Bigfoot was a journalistic term generated in the middle of the last century during a rash of sightings in Northern California; its use is not unreasonable since the species has proportionally much bigger feet than those of human beings and, furthermore, the word has come to be recognized widely. A goodly selection of fanciful terms have been used by pioneers and later non-native inhabitants of North America for the occasional published and repeated encounters with Sasquatches. Source: http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com... So how did Bigfoot came into existence into popular culture? There have been many hundreds of alleged Bigfoot sightings. These are some of the most notable ones: * 1924: Fred Beck claimed in an 1967 book that he and four other miners were attacked one night in July 1924, by several "apemen" throwing rocks at their cabin in an area later called Ape Canyon.The men went outside and shot at what Beck described as "mountain gorillas". The next morning, large footprints were claimed to be found around the cabin. Speleologist William Halliday argued in 1983 that the story arose from an incident in which hikers from a nearby camp had thrown rocks into the canyon. There are also local rumors that pranksters harassed the men and planned faked footprints. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Bigfoot wouldn't be made up because there are more than a few sightings of it. For example, if I told the public that I found a monster in my back yard, no one is going to believe me. However, if I give the description of the monster and later on, 1000 more people have found the same monster and matched it with the description of mine, the monster will more likely to exist. 2. Science is a self-repairing mechanism. "The geocentric model had very little evidence, and most of it was trivial such as direct observation by looking in to the skies." That is why the scientific community was wrong about the geocentric model. You agreed that there is a possibility that evidence for Bigfoot might come up. And it is also equally possible for evidence for aliens and other myths to be validated. You said "We shouldn't base our beliefs on something SOLELY with the reasoning that they MIGHT be validated in the future. This would usher for us to believe in practically everything, citing our reasoning as stated." But I disagree. There is evidence that Bigfoot existed, including eyewitnesses. A. Native American artifacts Legends and certain historical artifacts of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast have been presented as circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot. These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist Roderick Sprague in Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads, which he argues have distinctively primate-like features. Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved. B. Footprints Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologists as important evidence. It is from that that Bigfoot received its most widely used name. Advocates of Bigfoot claim that tracks provide enough evidence to determine whether a footprint is genuine or hoaxed without having a gold standard from which to work from (i.e. a cast made from a footprint that is universally agreed to have come from Bigfoot).[20] Coleman and Clark write that hoaxes are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes."[21] Notably, Krantz claimed to have two ways of determining if a footprint was genuine or a hoax. He did not reveal his two techniques due to concern that they would be used in future hoaxes. One of the features that Krantz argues suggests that footprints are due to a real creature rather than hoaxers is pressure ridges. These are small mounds of soil created "by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground." Krantz writes that "the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me," and argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Bigfoot feet can create this feature, after trying to duplicate it. Krantz writes: "The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual's standing height, or a trace more. Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are "in excess of three feet", arguing that this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially by wearing fake feet. C. Hair and blood Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a Bigfoot hair sample to compare to. Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University has other hair and DNA samples that are clearly primate in origin, but from no known primate species. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach in Arizona has several hair/DNA samples which he concludes are Sasquatch in origin—samples screened from hundreds of possible samples sent to him over the years. Many hair samples sent in for examination did not contain hair follicles, so DNA analysis was impossible. D. Absence of fossil evidence Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of Bigfoot's absence. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe argue that "no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place". North American human remains are themselves quite rare outside of grave sites, although it is certain that large human populations existed in North America, as indicated by caches of discarded tools. It is worth noting that fossils can only form where and when conditions are suitable, such as tar pits, sink holes, swamps, and some caves. Just because there are no fossils evidence for Bigfoot, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fossils are rare because they need suitable conditions to form. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort. Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare. Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains. Source: http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com... 4. Supporters often argue that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views.