setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
If the conclusion is contested then it remains a claim.It's a conclusion from observation.
You can call it a claim if you wish.
Why are you so averse to calling it a claim?
It pretty nearly is common knowledge. Its just contested knowledge.The fact is that if there actually were evidence, then after thousands of years of theists claiming there is evidence, that evidence would have been common knowledge by now.
Consider this, and I concur with you - that there is probably no large "prehistoric" like animal in the loch today - if someone took a fairly clear picture today of a large unidentified phenomena in the loch showing the characteristics of having intelligent movement you would automatically color your conclusions of what it is by your past experience and presumptions. That is that it is not a large living creature but a floating log, a submarine, a misidentified boat of some sort - in the absents of supporting evidence, anything but a large living creature. Most probably even coloring supporting evidence as discardable for one reason or another. This is confirmation bias and its been the culprit of many a missed opportunity of discovery in my opinion. And everyone is subject to this logical fallacy.In the same way, I can say that there is no loch ness monster
The fact of the matter is though is that there has been and is still recently unidentified phenomena happening within the lock on occasion. Intriguing enough phenomena that it has kept reputable scientists throughout the years continuously studying such possibilities as unknown natural phenomena or large unknown species somehow living or occasionally appearing within these bodies of water.
I guess my point is that every once in a while possibilities arise out of nowhere and nip us in the mental butt. Especially when we've fenced in our minds with certainty.
Peace be upon you always...you spaghetti topped, meaty ball head.