₦airaland Forum

experts:
you are truely a professional deceiver, u try as much to catch attention by pointing out an argument were there is non,

I did not take you on an arguement where there was none. If I pointed out that you had plagiarised someone else's article to dress up here as your own, please show the forum that it was not true - and then your accusation that I were a professional deceiver would have substance. If, on the other hand, you cannot point out that I was wrong, you're playing the double professional deceiver in this thread - and you've been caught thrice with your pants down!

Own up, or just be quiet!

but thanks to the muslim experts who is equally good in making a point without diversion.

Praising yourself on your celebrated duplicity, are you? I give it to you - free of charge - what a deceiver you must be (pst: please let us know which of the muslims cells you received your dubious training from, thanks).

You accused the Qur'an,

Oh be quiet already! I did not "accuse" the Quran - that is why I posted the Quranic verse. Show me allah's remaining SIX EARTHS before claiming he created SEVEN EARTHS. Is that an "accusation"?

To prove the seven earth,

lol,

you are wonderful, and how i wish you are on the right path,perhaps you might be saved.

Goodness! You started out trying to "prove the seven earths", stuttered with a lol . . . and then turn round to say that I am "wonderful"?!? Dude, what's gwan with ya?

But i pray for you. May God open your heart to the truth,

I pray that prayer for you. For real.

Without taking much time, Every single Qur'anic prophesies has come to past. with scientific prove.

Plase show me the "prophecy" of Quran 65:12 - that verse says that Allah created SEVEN EARTHS - please show me where your muslims cosmologists and scientists have "proven" it to be correct.

About the seven earth is not an exception,


Earth’s Seven Layers

The Quran does not say "earth's seven layers" in Quran 65:12. If you doubt me, please read the following translations of that verse from your own Muslim translators:

[list]

English Qurans: Quran 65:12

YusufAli:
"Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. .[color=Black].[/color]. "

Pickthal:
"Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. .[color=Black].[/color]. "

Shakir; SherAli:
"Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like of them; .[color=Black].[/color]. "

Hilali-Khan:
"It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven). .[color=Black].[/color]. "

Khalifa:
"GOD created seven universes and the same number of earths. .[color=Black].[/color]. "

Rodwell:
"It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths .[color=Black].[/color]. "

A. Bewley:
"It is Allah who created the seven heavens and the earth the same number .[color=Black].[/color]. "

M. Sarwar:
"It is God who created the seven heavens and a like number of the earths. .[color=Black].[/color]. "

[/list]

Your Muslim scholars and translators did not say that the Quran was talking about one earth of seven layers. NO, not at all. Rather, they said the Quran was talking about SEVEN EARTHS - read the emphasis all in red (that's the colour of danger! ).

toneyb:
OK Viaro you win . Am out of here for good. Its really nice knowing you all these while and I mean it. I have learned a lot from you and enjoyed our interactions, banters and insults .

@toneyb, you're a very interesting guy - and I mean that as well. I deeply, deeply regret the crossed-out word up there ^^ - my fault and I acknowledge our exchanges (rubbing minds) could have been free of that, lol.

I never knew that my posts here are having a lot of impact on some people that read it. Just found out some days ago so I am leaving for personal reasons. You can drop your messages on nskjJkdnkndknkdnkd@ yahoo.com(Let me know if you have the email address cos I will take it out once you get it) Best wishes from this end. Thanks.

Very best wishes, pal. I've got the e-addy, pls delete pronto! <Many thanks again.

toneyb:
What i am trying to point out is that Carl Sagan never made any remark close to what you are trying to have us believe.

Okay, I think I've explained this point that it is now getting redundant. I would like to see/read your comments with substance on issues, not on persons. Can we move on then?

Checking and turning out to be accurate was part of the 3rd claim which Carl Sagan said should be properly studied. He did NOT remark that he checked or others checked and found it to be accurate he was merely stating the claims.

For clarity, did I state that "he checked" - that is, that Carl Sagan himself checked?? Please quote me, and I'm willing to stand corrected.

But the second part, that others checked could perhaps be included in the quote. The reason I say so is because in the same breath where the quote was taken from, we find this statement:

Similarly, Clarke agreed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were hard to explain, but also noted that a major problem for reincarnation was the lack of any known physical mechanisms that could account for personality transfer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#cite_note-25

While the author of the article might not be saying that Sagan agreed in any way about anything, the author nevertheless seems to have given the idea that not all reviewers actually dismiss Stevenson's work - which explains why the quote above begins with "Similarly" and argues that Clarke "agreed".

toneyb: They are VERY different re-read it again and see for yourself.

Please see my explanation - I still do not see what the problem is here; and that was why I requested this of you:

If I should take your objection in another angle by allowing the possibility that Sagan disclaimed any such things, I would ask simply: is it possible for you to show me where Sagan disproved (or proved as false) the "claims" in studies he was referring to?

toneyb: I did not say that he disproved or proved any thing, all I am saying is that you are wrongly trying to ascribe to him statement/remarks he NEVER made.

Maybe in the area of interpretation - which is amenable, as long as you do try to show the diferrence on both sides. To this end, I just posted the "similarly" from Clark who "agreed" from the same paragraph of that Wiki quote.

toneyb:
The same old sophism again. . You label your objections as objections and label the very well detailed objections from skeptic.com as excuse. How clever . I dig your style Mr Viaro.

No, I did not label mine as "objections", but said instead - "I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources". The "detailed objections" you claim from skeptic.com are quite an excuse - and I've shown how and why - and it would be great to see you respond to them instead of being evasive.

Relax and don't get all worked up over statements you actually made. Here is what you said.

Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that his research was accurate?

Okay, first - I was not getting worked up. I am open to see what your point was, and I think in my penultimate reply, I have commented and waited for you to share your misgivings. Howsoever, I did not assert anywhere that Carl Sagan had become a "believer" in reincarnation - I also made that point clear, no?

False. The skeptic's website showed why the believe that Stevenson's research was scientific untenable. Here is an example:

What Stevenson was looking for were stories that could not easily be explained by hypotheses other than the survival of personality. He knew that stories of previous lives could get contaminated in a variety of ways. They might be due to cryptomnesia. The source might have been a movie, a book, a play, a radio program, an overheard story or conversation. He thought that the best evidence for reincarnation would be those cases where someone wrote down the instances where a child gives evidence of a PLE and then later the written account is verified. For example, a father writes down his three-year-old son's statements that he was Joey the blacksmith in Portsmouth and was stabbed by pirates in the neck on a wharf in Hong Kong. Later, it is discovered that there was a Joey who was a blacksmith in Portsmouth who was killed by pirates in Hong Kong. Adding poignancy to this account would be the discovery of some sort of birthmark on the neck of the child. One problem with such a method is that the verification process may not occur for a decade. But even if it takes place within a few months of the written record being made, we must take it on faith that the father is being honest. We have no way of knowing whether the father (or an uncle) in a semi-drunken state read an account of Joey's death to his son and told him that that mark on your neck is the mark of Joey. We have no way of knowing that the father is being completely honest with us. In other words, we have to assume a story is uncontaminated in order to declare the case "solved" (as Stevenson calls those cases "when evidence of a person that corresponds to the experient's statements concerning a past life is found" [Mills and Lynn: 290]).

   In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.*

As Mills and Lyons note: "Merely because a particular case does not seem to be explicable in terms of social construction, it does not follow that the PLE reported is a genuine residue of a past life" (302).

Please show me the data analysis they critiqued - that has been the one thing I have been requesting from you, toneyb. I read several entries at skeptic.com on Stevenson, but did not find any critique based on any ANALYSIS of DATA. Could you show me any, and how that analysis is tenably scientific?

I would start first by NOT using data I get from sources I my self agree were dishonest

We all know that - you're stating what you would not use, which is NOT what I asked you. I asked you this: "show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study". That's what I would like to read, thanks.

Please restate the observations so that I can drop my opinion.

That's okay, here again:[list]

viaro: What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "motive". Are you sure you read the report at all?  

Okay, just in case I might've missed it, please show me how or where the research was pointing to Sumitra being involved in a murder investigation and motive that should warrant a fraud on those accounts to be addressed as such.

[/list]
There - I would like to see your objective response and answer to my request. Please show me.

They gave a clear example of how he acknowledged that his source of collecting data was dishonest and then went ahead to use the data he got from the same dishonest source.

What exactly was wrong with the DATA? Is the research based on the source or on the data?

The reason I ask this is because of this: the acknowledge that Stevenson published his researches in a peer-reviewed science journal (again, please simply don't try making any pretences about this, for it does not say 'fringe science journal' - let's be honest, thanks). Now, what I need to get from you is this: are researches published in peer-reviewed science journals based on "sources" or on "data"? Did the journal accept his research bacause it was based on analysis of the person or rather on analysis of the DATA?

Read the statement above as example of how he violated the said methodology.

Please show me - I'm not really finding substance in your rejoinders and beginning to wonder whether you're deliberately being evasive. If the latter is the case, please let me know - I've got other things or ways to pass my leisure.

. What kind of equivocation is this Viaro? . The man got data(information in this case) from an interpreter whom he himself acknowledges is dishonest and went ahead and used the said data(information). How you fail to see something wrong with the process is truly beyond me.

I'm more particular about the data, not the person through whom it was obtained. I know a lot of atheist 'scientists' who are themselves dishonest in their professional work as scientists - but I'm not looking at ad hominems, which is why I don't base my comments on this paper on the persons but rather on the data.

So, please tell me: what in the data itself was wrong? Please point out the data itself as the foundation of your objections. Thanks.

nuclearboy:
^^^ General Viaro:

Your boy is alright. I just keep having these repeated nightmares that one day, I went against you and ended up on a spit being slowly turned atop a fire. That was when it struck me that you must be a cannibal.

Admiral nuclearboy, I hope I'm safe? You can't throw me to the rank of 'general' just incase I get court-marshalled! I hear from the grapevine that you're soon to add another star to your numerous (and much-envied) shoulder-clips! Congrats in advance (that's another way of me saying: pls sir, remember me when the drilling of the other recruits begin!).

nuclearboy:
BTW, where are DeepSight's bones. Twould be nice to grind them and soak in Gari. Maybe I'll gradually imbibe that almost inhuman civility the guy possessed before he climbed on your spit.

Well, it so happened that these days both his bones and other paraphernalia follow my trail - couldn't shook 'em free!

Hehe . . . I long for him to come back - soon! And thanks to MyJoe who filled us in on about the holy controversies between 'em angels on our behalf! I almost agreed to be host for Castiel!

toneyb:
Carl Sagan made NO such remark.

From your quote.

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

From the quote it can be clearly seen that Carl Sagan only opined that there are three claims in parapsychology that deserve serious study and of the 3 claims the 3 claim is that that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

Lol, toneyb, I don't know waht you're on about here - but please compare both quotes and see the highlighted. What is it you're trying to point out here, please?

Now, if you have a real objection, perhaps it is in this part of the highlighted which you had excerpted from my previous reply:

      It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things
      are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE.

So, how is that different from what I have posted from your own reply, and then included the part of the excerpt from where I had quoted that same pointed? What really are you so painfully trying to distinguish and delineate as different in all three statements/quotes, toneyb??

Even more remarkable is that you're making the same point that appeared in the above - see:

toneyb:
This is ONLY a claim, The claim says that young children sometimes report details of previous life and according to the claim it turns out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

So, okay - what then has been your point?

toneyb:
The submissions were all part of the claims that Carl Sagan says deserves study. Nothing there suggest Sagan said anything like "where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE." as your wronglg stated.

Well, here again is the quote from Wikipedia -

Wikipedia: In The Demon-Haunted World (1996), Sagan wrote that claims about reincarnation have some, though dubious, experimental support, arguing that one of three claims in parapsychology deserving serious study is that, "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be [b]accurate[/b] and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

If I should take your objection in another angle by allowing the possibility that Sagan disclaimed any such things, I would ask simply: is it possible for you to show me where Sagan disproved (or proved as false) the "claims" in studies he was referring to?

nuclearboy:
DeepSight went at 2225. Toneyb is now at 1166  

I wonder how many posts he'll get to before he learns that "multi-tasking Viaro" is actually a particularly hungry cannibal who lives on the flesh of "unbelievers" who dare oppose him.

Chei, I wonder what raw toneyb will taste like

Hahaha . . . commander nuclearboy! Howdy? My heart missed a double beat when I saw that you have posted before my penultimate reply!

toneyb:
The accusations are not empty, The were explained in details on the skeptic website abu as usual you did not even bother to address any of the issues raised.

I've addressed your objections and pointed you to resources. You, on the other hand, are NOT facing the points I made but just trying ever so hard to ignore them by posting excuses from skeptic.com.

toneyb:
Where did Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate" Please show me in case i missed it. Where did Carl Sagan give credence to any Paranormal claims, All he said was that the Claims should be very well studied. What about other scientist that said that Stevenson did not follow rigorous scientific methods?

I've outlined what I posted on Carl Sagan's supposed statement - and I don't see how your assertion is saying what I posted. I would appreciate a lil honesty from you, please.

Now, as regards the other scientists who dismiss Stevenson's research as untenably scientific, I have also shown why they dismiss it - showing this from several sources. Apart from the fact that they were not willing to consider the research on Stevenson's invitation to his critics to do so, it should strike the objective reader that the other scientists are simply IGNORING his researches or otherwise just criticising them without their own study on such phenomena.

I have requested that you show me how you would have proceeded to study such phenomena and the methodology you would have chosen for your study - beyond the usual dismissal that is characteristic of pseudo-skepticism that appears in your comments. I also responded to your comments on the paper I posted - and you have just said nothing of substance other than your continued dismissal. Why are you playing your hide-and-seek games, toneyb?

PS. I'm still interested in your answer to this observation:

viaro: Dude, you must have been reading your own fallacy into the report - which is what pseudo-skeptics often do. What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "mo

The reason why I was hoping you would calmly point out some substance in response is because I'm beginning to observe that you're towing the line of pseudo-skeptics who read their own conclusive biases into a report that is NOT saying what they want the public to believe. This is what is going on at skeptic.com - and I want to be sure you're not trying hard to dribble around issues like they do. Thanks in advance.

toneyb:
Where did Carl Sagan say that Stevenson's methods are scientific accurate or give credence to psychokinesis?

Did I say so? Do you mind reading precisely what I said and sticking to just that? And please, don't run away from the request I posted there - please address it.

toneyb:
The skeptic.com say that those words came from Stevenson himself and they gave instances where he violated the said methodology he claimed to follow.

I posted his methodology from the same site - please show me how his methodoly that appears at the same site "violated" said methodoly, thanks.

toneyb:
They did not acknowledge his scientific protocols at all, they gave that reference to show that he himself does not even abide by what he claims to be his protocols and methodology.

Please sir, READ WHAT I SAID and stop this dubious claim of yours!
I could make this simpler: they posted his methodology - which they could not show how it violated the methodology that they would have simply followed in such a research. You initially stated that they did not tacitly acknowledge his "claims" - I never said they did, for crying out loud. But I did say that they post his methodology, no? If they did, that was what I had meant by "tacitly acknowledging" his methodology. That may not score well with you - but you could do better by showing how his methodology on the merit of his methodoly violated the said protocol, thanks.

Stevenson went to use data after he himself agreed that the translator was dishonest. So much for the fact that nothing was wrong with the data

I would like you to show me what was wrong with the data itself, not the person himself.

toneyb:
OK lets see how true the comment in bold is. From the same source(skeptic.com)

I read the source - the same pseudo-skeptic grumblings and ad hominems. I don't see where you're showing any read data analysis, though. Which was why I asked how you would have proceeded to conduct a scientific research of such things; and then let's have your own data analysis. Criticising the personality of a researcher is one thing; but actually conducting an objective analysis of his work is quite another thing. I would also like for you to offer me a critique of Stevenson's research paper having been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.

toneyb:
His belief in reincarnation overshadows his research since he begins with the assumption that the reincarnation hypothesis is the best possible explanation for the subject or phenomena he is studying.

He did not start out is research as a "believer" in such phenomena - don't let the skeptic.com guys fool you on this one. First, he had done some work on the philosophies/psychologies of mind and consciousness philiosophers of the past (Sigmund Freud, for example) and found them to be adequate in explaining certain aspects of behavoir and character development in people - which was why he opposed the determinism of Sigmund Freud. It was not that Stevenson started out as a "believer" in such things and then only served to be looking for data that supported any such belief(s).

toneyb:
They have examined his research in an objective manner and found it to be questionable and lacking on so many fronts. Here in the one I posted earlier.

Nope, they did not objectively look at his research but only tried to based their opinions on his personality. I also tried to read through Mary Roach criticism, but I didn't find any line where she analysed his data; nor did she seem to have offered any precedure hereself for the study she tried to critise. Wonder why it is easy for pseudo-skeptics to do this, but never undertake any study of their own?

toneyb:
His confirmation bias can clearly be seen in this case.

Seen on what analytical bases?

toneyb:
Carl Sagan did NOT say that he agree with reincarnation or any of the claims about it, He only stated that he believes that the CLAIMS such as young children reporting of previous life which upon checking turn out to be accurate deserve serious study. NOTHING there suggest that he agrees with reincarnation at all. He just believes that such claims deserve to be well studied.

I did NOT state that Car Sagan "agreed" with any claims about reincarnation - infact, I well anticipated this unnecessary jargon from you and questioned what Sagan might have meant by such observations ascribed to him. It is noteworthy that Sagan himself remarked that where such things are CHECKED, they tended to have proven to be ACCURATE. Please tell me why such a scientist would first acknowledge that checking such are "accurate" and then recommend that such studies need to be carried out instead of being abandoned or ignored?

toneyb:
. Where did Carl Sagan say that he agrees with the accuracy of Stevenson's research? As to the other guy, my comment on it is that every fringe group have some form of support from people in the main stream so what else is new there?

Please refer and read what Carl Sagan said, unless you want to confirm that you no longer can understand simple statements. And as to the other scientists, they did not stand out as "fringe groups", and if you don't mind moving past your unfounded statements that is beginning to tend to the ridiculous. I think some objectivity would be nice in your comments, toneyb.

toneyb:
A fringe scientific journal peer reviewed by other fringe scientist. Like I said every organization has fringe groups and Stevenson's gropu happens to be one. From the skeptic.com website.
The endless sophism again.

Please do you mind ending your deceit? The sources did NOT state it was a "fringe scientific journal". Refer to the exact quote from unbiased sources and see how you're bent to short-change yourself on this pseudo claim you've repeated without foundation.

toneyb:
Ian Steveson has been accused of conclusive bias by so many scientist in most of his "scientific" studies. A lot of skeptics and believers have carried out a lot of research on the paranormal and most of the time the results were inconclusive, Nothing concrete or objective has ever been found to support the existence of the paranormal. Here is a quote from Ian Stevenson himself.

If you're not going to start singing your own pseudo-skepticism, you ought to have seen that those "accusing" Ian Stevenson are the usual players who are more interested in singing to their choir - the pseudo-skeptics. It was for this reason that I pointed out that such "accusations" are empty and based on lazy-armchair criticism rather than objective appraisal of his researches.

Would you be saying that your so-called "accusations" have anything to do with objectivitity if scientists like Carl Sagan acknowledge that Stevenson's research was "accurate"? Was Carl Sagan a "believer" in reincarnation or psychokinesis? And what do you have to say about scientists who acknowledge that "Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research"?!?

You see, when objectivity gives way to empty ad hominem fallacies, the pseduo-skepticism you're playing out here is just that: "pseudo-skepticism" . Nothing more. If you have any substance, I would like to see you denounce other scientists (like Carl Sagan) who are NOT "believers" in the psychokinesis. Other do the same about scientists who have acknowledge that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research. It is more helpful to see you do this than pandering to the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.

toneyb:
These are Stevenson's claims that was how he described his methodology, he claims to abide by these principle and methodology when conducting his work, How true it is remains questionable to many.

Stevenson himself did not go about claiming this and that about his methodoly were - I left you links to show that the claim that Stevenson published in "peer-reviewed scientific journals" and that he "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" came from OTHER SCIENTISTS! You're acting like you're in such a hurry to dismiss Stevenson only on the pseudo-skeptical dodgy dismissal of folks at skeptic.com! Please check out what other scientists and skeptics have said about Stevenson's methodoly - I left you quite a few; and if you want more, I could post them in abundance!

toneyb:
No where did any member of the sketic.com tacitly admit to any of his claims rather they were only pointing out to the claims he made about his methodology.

By publishing his methodoly, they "tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research" (I did not say that skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged his "claims" - two different things, dude. I also pointed out that while skeptic.com dismissed his research, the dismissal was pseudo-skeptical and baseless. I don't see how they showed anywhere that his research was NOT published in any peer-reviewed science journal; but for the most part, other scientists acknowledge Stevenson's work as based on rigorous scientific method, no?

toneyb:
How clever . Take some few name that sings praises to Stevenson but cleaver discard so many other scientist that have discredited him. From the skeptic.com entry.

Of course we know the pseudo-skepticism of skeptic.com.
That was why I pointed out the other scientists who acknowedged the fact that Stevenson's research followed rigorous scientific methods - and they are not a few; nor are they "believers" (I don't know if you find Carl Sagan a "believer" in such things), and they are not empty dismissers like the guys at skeptic.com. Perhaps next time you want to pay attention to a simple request of checking things objectively rather than running to those lazy guys who never go out to conduct their own research in such things.

toneyb:
More from skeptic.com

Exactly - the pseduo-science of skeptic.com helps you miss the weightier matters. The fact was not that anything was wrong with the data - for the data itself was not affected by the personality of the person who was involved in the research. Please show me more substance instead of thise ad hominem fallacy that skeptic.com is known for, then we can talk. We know many of these pseudo-skeptic guys at skeptic.com who are very dishonest indeed; but as far as the subject is concerned, I'm asking for objectivity. Look at the data itself and critic them. Thanks.

toneyb:
His work are published in fringe "peer reviewed journals".

Oh dude, please stop making empty pseudo-science carping. The sources said "peer-reviewed scientific journals", not 'fringe peer-reviewed journals' - at least, be honest to yourself for once.

toneyb:
The points raised from the paper is very interesting but however falls far short of what would commonly be considered science.

The research followed a rigorous scientific protocol - please see my critique of your comments on Ian Stevenson. The best you could argue here is that most scientists in 'mainstream science' IGNORED Stevenson's research - but some scientists (and even those scientists most critical of his work) have acknowledged that Stevenson's research was accurate and indeed he had rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research.

Most scientist care less about their personal beliefs but that can not be said of Ian Stevenson who believes first and then tries to find "scientific evidence" for his beliefs.

That's not true. Ian Stevenson did not "believe first" - those scientists and skeptics who have tried to take an objective look at his research are profoundly of the view that he had presented a research that rigorously followed the scientific method. I don't know when science journals started publishing the "personal beliefs" of researchers; but does it not strike you that your comments are unfounded in face of the fact that Stevenson published his research in peer-reviewed science journal?

Ones personal stand on philosophy/metaphysics is irrelevant to the process of science honest scientist follow where the evidence leads them not where the philosopher leads.

I agree that honest scientists follow where the evidence leads them rather than where the philosopher's personal views on metaphysics tend to lead. On that basis, we might be quite at home with views from scientists like Carl Sagan who had dispassionately acknowledged that Stevenson's work were "accurate"; as well as the dispassionate acknowledge of other scientists that Stevenson had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

Firstly this is a single data point, while oblique reference is made in the report to other cases of 'possession' it is only ever as a generality. Consequently there is no data analysis.

It depends on what you mean by "single data point" and "data analysis". What kind of 'data' did you assume are suited to psychokinetic studies? How do you proceed to analyse the data if you saw one?

And talking about "generality", please be informed that Stevenson did not draw upon just one or a few studies. I'd like to remind you of this summary excerpt from Wikipedia:
[list]

Stevenson argued that the 3,000 or so cases he studied supported the possibility of reincarnation, though he was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation," or "cases of the reincarnation type."^[3] He also recognized a limitation, or what Paul Edwards calls the "modus operandi problem", namely the absence of evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.^[3] Against this, Robert Almeder argues that "you many not know how something occurs but have plenty of evidence that it occurs."^[18][19][20] Recent work by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff on quantum consciousness has been suggested as hinting at a possible mechanism for the persistence of consciousness after death.^[21]

[/list]

I acknowledge that one cannot draw conclusions on a single paper - it would be irrational to do so. However, each case would be examined on its own merit; and even though one may not be able to understand how things work (such as providing 'evidence of a physical process'), it would be quite unethical to dismiss the whole research merely on grounds that you cannot understand its mechanism. Even the hard-nosed skeptics like Carl Sagan would not have been inclined to such low ideals, considering his having stated (supposedly) that - "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation".

Indeed, the question might be asked: what would Carl Sagan have meant by "reincarnation"? Oh, please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Sagan believed in reincarnation, nor am I questioning his or anyone's rights to feel howsoever they might about that subject. But my question is only pointing out that while "mainstream science" might IGNORE the researchers on such phenomena, at least other scientists seem to acknowledge the simple premise of "following where the evidence leads".

toneyb:
Second, the actual 'remembering' took place outside controlled conditions. The 'scientists' did not arrive on the scene till after the event. On the subject of leading questions and cueing they say:

This is NO PROBLEM at all. Most of the 'scientific' studies you might be happy to argue as verifiable are predicated on fact that events took place where nobody could have been on location of occurence. Unless you have another objection that carries weight, I don't see how that counts as anything, if at all. Are you suggesting that Samira should have waiting for scientists to have been at the scene before she supposedly "died"?

The fact was that the research followed a protocol that eliminated the possibility of cueing, NOT one that encourage[/i]d cueing. I think that is the bigger index you have to take into account.

toneyb:
This is followed by descriptions of second hand reports. The report is littered with similar bare assumptions, such as

which tend to be followed up by anecdotal evidence, in this case:

Moreover the section on the various possible answers to the mystery is bordering on ludicrous. Under the analysis of the possibility of Fraud in a passage that starts:

You have not told me anything about WHY you might object to the findings of the research. All the above is merely complaining that falls on "conclusive bias", which often is the case where the critic does nothing other than just object without himself following any scientific protocol of analysis as to why he objects or how he could [i]eliminate cueing. What you're doing here only reminds me of my initial reply to your background ad hominems on ian Stevenson - and I wonder how your comments would stand alongside those of the scientists who have acknowledged his researches are based on scientific methods.

Let me say this simply: beyond your objections, could you provide me with HOW you would have obtained your 'data' for such a study; and then WHY you would have adopted your method of study to proceed in such a manner to gather your 'data'? What I mean is this: how would you have conducted that study scientifically?

toneyb:
I count 7 important assertions, one question and absolutely no evidence.

What do you mean by "evidence"? That should be explained before I point out what you had missed in your reading that report objectively.

toneyb:
Moreover the point that Sumitra was now involved in a complex murder investigation and the motive this may provide for fraud is not addressed (last I heard perjury in India carries a seven year tariff).

Dude, you must have been reading your own fallacy into the report - which is what pseudo-skeptics often do. What I mean is this: Sumitra was NOT the subject of a "murder investigation", nor would she be the principal or ancillary subject or object of a "motive". Are you sure you read the report at all?  

Okay, just in case I might've missed it, please show me how or where the research was pointing to Sumitra being involved in a murder investigation and motive that should warrant a fraud on those accounts to be addressed as such.

toneyb:
In their conclusion the section discussing the possibility of possession has this to say on it's inherent probability compared to other explanations:

And your objections (if any) would be?

toneyb:
This article is proposing an extremely radical belief in a personal soul that survives death. Yet it rests its case on the above analysis of possible explanations.

That's not true. It researches a case, presents its findings, and also went the extra mile of addressing skeptical objections about the posible occurence of cueing or fraud. I don't see how you have addressed these areas objectively on the same scientific basis as you might have hoped the research was conducted.

Besides, you possibly might have misread the paper or otherwise read your own misconstrued ideas into the paper - since I don't understand how you arrived at the idea that Sumitra was herself involved in a murder case as the to in any way to be in a position of accessing possible 'motive' of such a murder.

toneyb:
Frankly I would seriously distrust not only this piece of "science" but any journal that willingly publishes it.

Would you distrust the fact that Wikipedia acknowledge that ian Stevenson's research in peer-reviewed science journal? Are you just saying that simply because you don't have anything objective to say about the paper itself that shows you could have handled it in a better scientific protocol which you did not provide?

toneyb:
No wonder at all why JSE is considered to be a fringe science journal. Like every organization fringe groups exist which to me is what the JSE is.

Sorry, 'fringe science' is NOT pseudo-science, if you're confusing ideas here. The fact is that what you are happy to consider 'mainstream science' has IGNORED scientific studies of what they cannot deny nor have any explanations of their mechanism! If your 'mainstream science' could find an explanation of mechanisms accounting for these phenomena, you suppose they would not have been more than happy to fund it?

To say the least, I had expected a far more insightful accessment of the paper, not the usual dismissal such as one would find among pseudo-skeptics which seems to have appeared in your comments. Yet, I should say that your attempt is appreciated.

@toneyb,

Many thanks for your comments. I was quite anticipating that you would veer from the request to take an objective look at the research paper - which would mean that you do just that: take an objective look and avoid 'conclusive bias'. One very clear example of the mistake of conclusive bias that appears in your comments is the usual atheistic cliche that those who research the paranormal and anomalies must by default be "strong believer(s)" in such phenomena before they even embarked on such studies. It does not say anything about such 'skeptics' actually doing anything to embark on the study themselves - and this attitude tending to ad hominem fallacy is what weakens the position of the atheistic 'skeptic' (more properly, psuedo-skeptic).

Let me draw a few from your comments to highlight what I mean.

toneyb:
I have read through the "scientific journal" and found it lacking in on so many fronts,I also did a background check on the primary author of that article(Ian Stevenson) and discovered that he was a strong believer in reincarnation himself. He tried to collect "evidences" for alleged past-life experiences.

I'm sorry, toneyb, but that is all on a wrong footing. Yes, the source of your 'discovery' may be the guys at 'skeptic.com', so I wasn't surprised to see that you had drawn from their own faulty conclusions to make Ian Stevenson simply a believer instead of a researcher.

Even from their own webpage which you provided on Stevenson, you might have missed the very fact that the skeptic.com tacitly acknowledged Stevenson's scientific protocol in his research. They simply dismissed it on their own pseudo-skeptic excuses. Let's have a look at what skeptic.com says about Stevenson's research procedures:

[list]In the study of spontaneous paranormal phenomena we must usually interview and cross-question informants about events that have happened before we arrive on the scene. In principle, the methods are those that lawyers use in reconstructing a crime and historians use in understanding the past. Once we have the best account possible of the events in question, we consider one by one the alternative explanations and to try to eliminate them until only the single most probable one remains. Then we try with further observations to confirm or reject the initially preferred explanation. In addition, we search through series of apparently similar phenomena for recurrent features that may provide clues to causative conditions and processes of occurrence. (Stevenson 1989).[/list]

But leaving the pseudo-skeptic dismissal at skeptic.com, what have other objective scienstists said Stevenson's research procedures? On this Wikipedia entry, I excerpt a few:

Stevenson’s conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community, although Eugene Brody has suggested many of them simply dismiss ideas like reincarnation.^[5]

While Stevenson published his research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research,^[5][8][9] for the most part the scientific community ignored Stevenson's reincarnation work.^[3]

There are few things that immediately stand out here:

1. Stevenson's work actually was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - I think you should understand the weight of that statement, so that we don't get carried away by the ad hominem fallacies of skeptic.com.

2. Regardless what skeptic.com might have argued in manner of dismissing Steven's research, the quote above acknowledges that "three scientific commentators have stated that Stevenson rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research" - should that also not be weighty enough to see that skeptic.com is operating under the illusion of their own pseudo-skepticism?!?

More than this, perhaps my singular most serious problem with these pseudo-skeptic folks is the fact that NONE OF THEM ever makes any attempt to examine the research facts for themselves in an objective manner! It is one thing for someone to critique a research, quite another thing for someone to 'criticise' another research without doing the research yourself!! This is fact that has been observed by others -

[list]In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work. In a commentary for the issue, psychiatrist Harold Lief described Dr. Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious, investigator, whose personality is on the obsessive side." He also wrote: "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known . . . as 'the Galileo of the 20th century.' "[/list]

[list]But with rare exception, mainstream scientists -- the only group Dr. Stevenson really cared to persuade -- tended to ignore or dismiss his decades in the field and his many publications. Of those who noticed him at all, some questioned Dr. Stevenson's objectivity; others claimed he was credulous. Still others suggested that he was insufficiently versed in the cultures and languages of his subjects to do credible investigations. Dr Stevenson responded that his critics should come investigate the cases for themselves. That did not happen.[/list]

Despite the fact that Stevenson's critics were NOT WILLING to objectively consider the scientific research of what they criticised, it is noteworthy to read, however, that ~

[list]But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."[/list]

[list]source of excerpts above: "Ian Stevenson; Sought To Document Memories Of Past Lives in Children" by Tom Shroder, Senior staff writer, The Washington Post[/list]

But it is not only Carl Sagan that agrees on the accuracy of Stevenson's research. The Wikipedia article comments that Arthur C. Clark "agreed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were hard to explain, but also noted that a major problem for reincarnation was the lack of any known physical mechanisms that could account for personality transfer". In addition,  Robert Almeder (himself a philosopher of science) endorsed Stevenson's research and concluded that "the evidence he assembled argues strongly in favor of reincarnation, to the point of it being irrational to disbelieve that some people reincarnate" (Wikipedia).

In all of this, the bottomline is that any number of "skeptics" who assume that Ian Stevenson's work were not scientific ought to think carefully about their pseudo-skepticism. I wonder how a work that failed to pass as a scientific research would then get published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Not to mention that those who are deeply skeptical of the paranormal would agree profoundly that Stevenson's work was both "accurate" and that he had "rigorously followed the scientific method in conducting his research".

To this end, I'm really not impressed one tiny bit about the empty dismissal of Stevenson's work by the guys at skeptic.com - they are often polarised to the point of their own extremism that they never take to time to see the fallacy of their own pseduo-skepticism.

toneyb:
Skeptics take a somewhat dubious view of the whole enterprise:

We know why: they are never interested in objectively examining research that they criticise on empty grounds.

toneyb:
[quote author=mazaje link=topic=422521.msg5824037#msg5824037 date=1270314582]Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review) there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

I like this it is important to note that according to the wikipedia page, The opinions of the organization(SSE) are usually at odds with those of mainstream science.. It seems to be some fringe group of scientists whose opinions differ from the pack. But nevertheless, Their explorations should not be discarded off hand.[/quote]Good point, toneyb (and mazaje). For the benefit of the general reader, let's be clear on one thing: the JSE is actually peer-reviewed. The difference is that it is not peer-reviewed by the mainstream, since the mainstream is not interested in pursuing or funding studies of anomalies as an established discipline within its matrix.

Perhaps I should provide some gist to the fact that the JSE is peer-reviewed in its own right. People should be very careful about 'conclusive bias', which in many instances are very, very misleading indeed. For example, this Wiki page tries to list a few journals by stating that "The following are scientific sounding journals of questionable reliability". If that is the case in general consensus, one might suppose that those listed journal on that page would not be listed in the W[/b]eb [b]o[/b]f [b]S[/b]cience (WoS).

That Wiki page (by Yilloslime) lists Neuroquantology as one of those journals of "questionable reliability" - yet if you do your own background check carefully instead of basing your conclusions on Yilloslime, you will surprise yourself in discovering that 'Neuroquantology' is actually indexed in the WoS (Web of Science - you can do a search to verify). My question is: why would a journal consider to be of "questionable reliability" be indexed in the WoS?

Another example is the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is indexed by PubMed, but is [b]not peer-reviewed. Although listing an article or journal in PubMed is not endorsement, nonetheless it is noteworthy that PubMed is highly regarded with respect at par with WoS.

The above are examples among many others that should help us be very, very careful about whatever people just say anywhere with regards to peer-reviewed journals and publications.

So it is as well with the case of the JSE not being indexed in the WoS, which is like that of the Noetic Journal (also not indexed in the WoS). However, the Noetic Journal is actually a peer-reviewed professional journal:

[list]The Noetic Journal is an inter-disciplinary peer-reviewed science journal providing an international forum specializing in the physical basis of consciousness, including aspects of Extended Electromagnetic Theory, de Broglie-Bohm and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Computing, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Superstring (M, F-Theory), Philosophy of Mind and Cartesian Dualism. (the [url=http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/index.html]Noetic page[/url])[/list]

[list] . . . The Institute maintains a commitment to scientific rigor while exploring phenomena that have been largely overlooked by mainstream science.[/list]

And what about the JSE? Here:

[list]The S[/b]ociety for [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration, or SSE, is a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying unusual and unexplained phenomena that cross traditional scientific boundaries and may be ignored or inadequately studied within mainstream science.^[1] The opipnions of the organization are usually at odds with those of mainstream science.^[2]  It holds annual meetings and publishes a quarterly [b]peer reviewed journal called [b]J[/b]ournal of [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration (JSE).
(Wikipedia again).[/list]

The SSE has a short vid summarising and contextualizing their scientific research type, posted below. Enjoy.

          [flash=360,210]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=4495682&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&[/flash]

          Society for Scientific Exploration (Adam Curry)

mazaje:
Sure I agree. . . . I will like something more concrete and substantive not some anecdotal references.

I have provided just a few. Please refer. If you would in all cases reject anecdotal evidence, in just the same way you could not argue anything on Stuart Vyne who uses that same premise to draw unfounded conclusions.

Interesting. . . .Let me begin by saying that I am not dismissing their claims without completely reading it. But I will like to note that the authors published for JSE,(The journal is not indexed in Web of Science, an indexing service for leading scientific journals, and is not considered actual peer review)

I have read the above about the JSE not listed in the web of science - but that does not therefore set it aside for less than its value. Mainstream science is not interested in pursuing or funding research in the area of psychokinesis, so we can understand why some just hastily conclude that studies published in the JSE are not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, a futher careful background check reveals surprising weight of those behind the parent body of JSE - the parent body being the SSE: Society of Scientific Explorations.

[list]The Society for Scientific Exploration, or SSE, is a professional organization of scientists and other scholars committed to studying unusual and unexplained phenomena that cross traditional scientific boundaries and may be ignored or inadequately studied within mainstream science.[/list]

[list]The society's peer reviewed scientific journal, the [b]J[/b]ournal of [b]S[/b]cientific [b]E[/b]xploration, was established to provide a scientific forum for ufology, parapsychology and cryptozoology, having published research articles, essays, book reviews and letters on those and many other topics that are largely ignored in mainstream journals.[/list]

Perhaps you should do your own background check rather than relying on hasty conclusions that miss essential points on these issues. Just a thought - it would help.

there are no real details in the "study" other than first names and vague village names from what i have read so far, and the bulk of "evidence" provided is by hearsay of "witnesses".

There is a real study, and the names of the villages and subjects are verifiable and not hearsays. The problem with this type of attitude that appears in your rejoinder is why many people miss the opportunity of considering issues before they make unnecessary conclusions.

I remember the monkey man that caused widespread panic in India a few years ago. We had plenty of witnesses for it as well. Did a monkey man exist and make hell for a few days only to evaporate? I like tony will read it, when I feel I am informed enough to drop my comments I will definitely drop them and then we will continue from there.

I don't think the case of the monkeyman was reported as psychokinetic. I'm interested in remaining on this particular subject instead of drawing unrelated issues into our discussions. I look forward to your comments after perusing the article, thanks.

mazaje:
What does the paper say about the scientific evidence, The journal you posted gave some vague explanations and nothing conclusive to show that psychokinesis can be scientifically supported.

Please discuss them and let's see how you arrived at your conclusions. The paper does not draw the conclusion you want to believe it did, so kindly point me to where you saw that in the paper, thanks.

According to wikipedia there is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists and it cites this as its reference. Vyse, Stuart A. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford University Press US. p. 129. ISBN 0195136349. "Most scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.".

Wikipedia does not argue that there psychokinesis does not exist - rather, it says that the evidence is not 'convincing', which is not the same thing as saying that there is no evidence at all for psychokinesis. In fact, the same page acknowledges that some evidence exists although small {'A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could be explained by publication bias.^[11]"}.

The denial of the evidence of psychokinesis is to be understood within the context of mainstream science. The argument that it has not reached a concensus in mainstream science does not therefore mean that it is psuedo-science. I have also given reasons for this dichotomy in post #32 in response to toneyb. This is why the research is ONGOING and is being funded privately in many universities around the world.

As regards the case of Vyse, Stuart A. (1997) in Wikipedia, it does not conclude all cases of scientific experimentations or observation of psychokinesis. This is especially the case in that same page where the following is reported:

[list]Nina Kulagina (1926 – 1990), alleged Soviet psychic of the late 1960s and early 1970s,[^30][54][55] mentioned in the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency report from 1978: „G.A. Sergevev is known to have studied Nina Kulagina, a well-known psychic from Leningrad. Although no detailed results are available, Sergevev's inferences are that she was successful in repeating psychokinetic phenomena under controlled conditions. G.A. Sergevev is a well-respected researcher and has been active in paraphysics research since the early 1960's.[/list].

In the same Wikipedia page, the following is carried -

[list]Alleged psychokinetic events have been witnessed by psychologists in the United States,^[62][63][64] and elsewhere in the world by professionals with medical degrees,^[64][65] physicists,^[66] electrical engineers,^[63] military personnel,^[67][68] police officers,^[69] and other professionals and ordinary citizens. Robert M. Schoch Ph.D., professor at Boston University, has written "I do believe that some psychokinesis is real" referring to the evidence for micro-psychokinesis obtained by the Princeton PEAR laboratory experiments and similar studies and some reports of macro-RSPK observed in poltergeist cases.[/list]

From the foregoing, of course, Stuart A. Vyse's book and personal arguments do not form the concensus of ALL investigated cases of psychokinesis - he is much a disbeliever in that phenomenon but does not make an objective statement on the matter at all. The names which appear there ought to be carefully scrutinised (without favouring any one side - disbeliever or believer in psychokinesis). One example for this is the mention of Richard Wiseman, whose complete disregard for ethical values in fair examination of research into psychokinesis ought to wake the sane skeptic. If you would like objective material showing Wiseman's unethical control freak in these matters, I would be quite glad to oblige you in detail.

Enough of the endless banters about Randi. . . .Do you have any conclusive evidence to show that it exists from a peer reviewed scientific journal?

I already had thrown Randi's shenanigan to the ground. For conclusive evidence, please read the few resources I provided and let me see you discuss it rather than turning to conclusive bias.

These three things which appear in your reply:

experts:
Lexical Meaning . .

English Muslim Versions . .

Contextual Meaning . .

. . can be found in that page I talked about earlier from Sam Shamoun's article. That article does not argue that that Quran came to "correct", but rather that it came to CONFIRM the Holy Bible - and by reposting Shamoun's article you have destroyed your own argument already. Well done.

experts:
The Qur'an agreed that it has come to confirm the bible, not authenticate it.

The word CONFIRM is basically the same as AUTHENTICATE - check over from various Thesaurus and English dictionaries. For example, Roget's Thesaurus on "confirm" has the following words in the same meaning -

2. To assure the certainty or validity of:
attest, authenticate, back (up), bear out, corroborate,
evidence, justify, substantiate, testify (to), validate, verify, warrant.

So, whether it is "confirm" or "authenticate", they are THE SAME - and that is what the Quran came to do with respect to the Bible. Authenticate DOES NOT mean 'to correct'.

experts:
now i have a verse that tells you exactly what the Qur'an confirmation means.

"And unto you have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watch over it …, " (the Qur’an 5:48)

This emphasizes two main aspects of the Qur’an:

a) The Qur’an confirms those teachings or passages of previous scriptures which remained intact.

That is not what the Quran says at all, so stop deceiving yourself. The Quran does not select some passages to "correct" or "confirm" - it simply states that it came to CONFIRM the Scriptures that were revealed BEFORE the Quran - so please stop trying to force selective reading into your Quran: it won't work!

b) The Qur’an is the last, complete, authoritative and authentic revelation. It is the final arbiter and the only criterion to correct any inaccuracy or misinterpretation which might have occurred in the transmission of scriptures.

What "authenticates" the Quran, dude? The Bible speaks of only ONE EARTH (Genesis 1:1); but the Quran speaks of SEVEN EARTHS (Quran 65:12). Between them, which one has been confirmed to be correct? If the Quran was correct, where are the remaining SIX EARTHS of Allah, mr experts?

The Quran is not a complete/authoritatve/authentic revelation to have argued SEVEN EARTHS where we all know that there is ONLY ONE EARTH! I am willing to be proven wrong about only one earth - as long as you can show me where the other six earths of the Quran are located! WHERE ARE THEY?

It helps in discovering human additions to or interpolations of previous revelations, even as it reveals possible deletions which might have taken place through the centuries prior to its revelation (the Qur’an). Indeed one of the names of the Qur’an is al-Furqan (the criterion which distinguishes between right and wrong, truth and falsehood).

^^ Quran 65:12 is clearly a human addition - it cannot determine truth because the claim of SEVEN EARTHS is a golden falsehood. Show me where the other SIX EARTHS are located, and I will congratulate you.

It follows therefore that a Muslim has no reason to reject the essence of any passage in the Bible if such a passage is confirmed by the Qur’an.

There is no grounds for selective reading in the Quran - and Muslims have plenty of reasons to reject a Quranic claim of SEVEN EARTHS (Q. 65:12) because we all know there is ONLY ONE EARTH.

When you come back, please try and use your own reasoning faculty instead of yanking other people's articles to post here as if they were your own. People should be tired of reading Muslim plagiarism on this forum - so if you must steal articles from others, do us the favour of posting them in the Muslim section. Cheers.

@experts,

experts:
oh Mr, i wonder what you gain from lying,

Where have I lied? If I were lying, I would gain nothing from it - but we have seen how many places you have tried to lie your way through and end up stuck on non-issues. Please deny again that you did not copy-and-paste all your arguments from other websites to post here? Was the OP not from Sabeel Ahmed? Were the other posts (#55 - #58 ) not the work of someone else as well which I have supported with links?

Can I ask why you keep running from website to website to PLAGIARISE other people's arguments a[b]s if they are your own[/b]?

It is quite shameful that you would be drawing on what others have said, then present them as your own, and then destroy your own effort - not to mention that up until now you have not answered my request about the missing and cancelled verses of your Quran!

The latest answer above ^^^ (post #62) is another plagiarised effort. Yes sir, it is! Deny it again and let's know that you do nothing better than championing deceit. Please mr. experts, if you have nothing to present on your own (because you actually do not have anything), then stop trying to entertain yourself with the adventures of stealing other people's arguments, okay?

---

Let me address the copy-and-paste post in your latest reply:

experts:
Arabic language was used in the Qur'an not english.

Please keep your ignorance to yourself. I did not argue that English was used in the arabic quran, so your statement up there is dumb! I posted verses from the English translations of the Quran (Yusuf Ali; Pickthal; Shakir) - if you have anything against them, go take it up with the Muslim translators, instead of sobbing here.

experts:
here is what you lack

first we turn to the lexical data to see how the words saddaqa ("confirm" and muhaymin are defined.

Lexical Meaning

ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = to watch over, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, protect, determine what is true. muhaimanun - guardian to watch and determine what is true and what is false witness, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, protector.

Sad-Dal-Qaf = to be truthful, true, sincere, speak the truth, establish or confirm the truth of what another has said, verify, keep faith, observe a promise faithfully, fulfill, speak veraciously, hold anyone as trustworthy. sadaqa fi al-qitaali - to fight gallantly. tsaddaqa - to give alms. sidqun - truth, veracity, sincerity, soundness, excellence in a variety of different objects, salubrious and agreeable, favourable entrance, praise. saadiqun - one who is true and sincere, one who speaks the truth. saadiqah - perfect woman. sadaqat (pl. saduqaat) - dowry. siddiiq - person who is trustworthy, sincere. saddaqa - to confirm, verify, fulfil. asdaqu - more true.
so how is this different from my facts?

. . . . . . >snipped<

Please end your misery. In all the above, no matter how you twist the lexical meaning of 'confirm', it still does not say that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible. The whole arguments can be seen from another website in an article by Sam Shamoun, where he notes that -

[list]As the readers can see, the general meaning of saddaqa is to confirm as true, to bear witness to, to verify. Muhaymin, however, can mean to determine whether something is true or false. Yet the use of both terms in the same verse makes it rather apparent that muhaymin cannot mean that the Quran determines which parts of the Holy Bible are false or have been corrupted. After all, Q. 5:48 states that the Muslim scripture confirms the Book which was between Muhammad’s hands. How, then, can it falsify a Scripture which it also confirms to be true and reliable?

The fact that muhaymin is coupled with the verb saddaqa leads us to conclude that its meaning in this particular verse is that the Muslim book guards/protects/safeguards/assures the Holy Bible. Admittedly, there is also another plausible meaning of the term which we will discuss shortly.[/list]

Not in one instance does it say that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible, so give up your deception dude.

experts:
these above was derived from the arabic usage of the word used in the Qur'an,

The arabic usage does not say anywhere that the Quran came to correct the Bible - rather, it says that the Quran came to CONFIRM the Bible. Period.


Now, in all your arguments, this is the same thing that I have been saying that you have just attested to - and thereby shooting yourself in the leg -

experts:
English Muslim Versions

An examination of the various English translations of the Quran shows that most of them understand muhaymin to mean that the Quran not only testifies to the authority and preservation of the Holy Bible but also guards and protects it from corruption.

Dude, read again what you quoted above - the English translations understand muhaymin to mean that the Quran testifies to the authority and preservation of the Holy Bible! Do you understand what that means? It does not mean at all that your Quran came to "correct" the Bible - NO> It says that even your English translators understand that the Quran is testifying to the AUTHORITY and PRESERVATION of the Holy Bible. I am quite satisfied by that, and there should not have been any further comment from you.

toneyb:
Ohh, Randi's challenge was to to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties, not some obscured new agers that are busy crying from a distance and also desperately looking for a plat form to gain popularity and cheap fame.

I did not present any new ager seeking Randi's cheap fame and popularity charade for a 1 million dollars he does not have. This was why I left you guys some links - and you have patently played hide and seek and never once be man enough to check them out before making unfounded conclusions.

Randi does not need to respond to new agers and their bogus claims, he has already put forth his challenge, Sending emissaries like you to come and cry on their behalf and try to sell their already failed product will not fly.

Those who have thrown out the challenge to Randi are NOT new agers. A specific example was given - and your noise here about new agers is both illiterate, deceitful and easy carping. You ought to have realised that fact before hooting like a cheap toy train.

No wonder you were qucik to direct us to go read some bogus rants challenge on some obscured web site about some unknown people.

The websites I posted are not considered "bogus", nor 'obscured', nor are they rants. When people like you are damn to ashamed of your cowardise, you quickly sweep what you can't face up to as bogus. So much for your rational defence of the amazing cheat Randi - he so loves this unpaid advert you're running on his behalf. Be man enough to do the sane thing by checking them out - that is what rational people do, instead of sitting nibbling your fingers and tooting.

Randi knows better than entertaining the responses of some obscured and nameless noise makers and their cronies who are only seeking cheap popularity and a medium to market their already failed products. You and your new agers so go look for a better way of selling your ware instead of shouting, chasing your long tails, biting them and crying at the same time. .

This seems to have degenerated to a lying spree you take up for Randi. NOT ONE link I gave you are advertising anything for popularity, nor marketing, nor are they new agers. If you don't mind packing your duplicity one corner, thanks. To keep harping about what those people are NOT is to keep lying for Randi - please continue doing so and confirm for us the kind of sinister lengths you would go to keep lying.

_______________

toneyb:
Good to see that the topic is no longer about Randi and your obscured new agers .

The topic was never about those - you are the first to parade Randi's shenanigan in this thread, and mazaje was the first to yap about 'new-agers' in the thread. 

I will read parts of the paper(its too long) and will give my thoughts and reflections when am done. It might be today or tommorow but will definately get back and drop my thoughts when I feel I am informed enough on the matter to make comments.

That would be nice to see. Cheers.

experts:
The cow and the guilty Priests
In the Quran {2:70} it relates how the Jews request Moses to elaborate on the cow ritual, ( to the point of almost, non-compliance) with respect to someone found dead within the
percents of a town. The Biblical reference is given as Deuteronomy 211-9).

How the two accounts don’t match:

In Deuteronomy, the Bible records that Jews are forgiven for murder a purely innocent man by simply killing a cow, this of course is a degradation of human life, and the Bible editors may have been motivated to record the story in this manner in order to alleviate the guilt off the Jewish people, the Biblical story is also in line with how the Jews from Egypt thought the cow was sacred and in this case, equal to the murder of a human life.

^^
Let me first address the above before I round the remaining up for you.

Quran 2:70 does not refer in any detail at all to the scenario in Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Of course, as a gullible Muslim you won't see that because you were too busy plagiarising other people's articles even where they do not make sense but pepper their arguments with shameless lies.

This is what Quran 2:70 says - "They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills." But when you begin to ask what 'heifer' they are talking about, you see something else, especially when we read the surrounding verses together. The context presumably begins from verse 67 about Moses saying "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." Then it continues -

[list]verse 68 - They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what (heifer) it is!" He said; "He says: The heifer should be neither too old nor too young, but of middling age. Now do what ye are commanded!"[/list]

[list]verse 69 - They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us Her colour." He said: "He says: A fawn-coloured heifer, pure and rich in tone, the admiration of beholders!"[/list]

[list]>> verse 70 - They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills."[/list]

[list]verse 71 - He said: "He says: A heifer not trained to till the soil or water the fields; sound and without blemish." They said: "Now hast thou brought the truth." Then they offered her in sacrifice, but not with good-will.[/list]

It should be clear that the verses above from Quran chapter 2 have nothing to do with Deuteronomy chapter 21! So far all that have played out in the verses above are concerning what type of heifer/cow was to be sacrificed - and on and on Muhammad was telling his tales about the heifer: for colour, to whether it had tilled the soil or not, etc, etc.

However, from verse 72 there is a narration about a slain man concerning whom they had fallen into dispute among themselves. Read verse 73 - which depicts Allah saying that the people should "strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Why? Because by their doing so that was how allah wanted to raise the dead man back to life! Did it happen? Far from it - rather verse 74 says that the people's rejection of such a thing was deemed as 'hardness of heart'.

Now as regards Deuteronomy 21:1-9, the Jews were NOT accused of having murdered a man. Rather, it makes plain that it is possible that no one knew how the man died - "If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him .[color=Black].[/color]." So when you claimed that "Jews are forgiven for murder (sic) a purely innocent man", you were fabricating another Muslim LIE.

Now, as I said before, you had PLAGIARISED that article from somewhere else and you don't have any arguments of your own! You don't even understand what you were stealing to repost here - the grammar is sickening, the flow is incoherent, and the sense trails off without showing anything of what it asserts - not to even mention that it was claiming things which are not true in historical and cosmological facts (eg., your lie that scientists did not know what to believe 1400 years ago; whereas they already understood there was ONE EARTH and not SEVEN EARTHS as the Quran claims).

Before you bite your chest, I stand by my assertion that our arguments are plagiarised from Muslim sources. It is a PDF document where the author appears to be nameless - try the following sources:

1. TheStraightPath (pdf)

2. JewsForAllah (pdf)

After plagiarising your redundant arguments, please come forward and answer the questions I raised concerning the first plagiarised work from Sabeel Ahmed in the OP:

viaro: (2) I gave specific examples of verses which Muslims in Muhammad's time were reciting as PART OF THE REVEALED verses from Allah, verses which no one had any authority to excuse away from the Quran:
¬ "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Stoning"
¬ "The Cancelled Verse(s) of the Martyrs of Badr"
¬ "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Suckling"
What those verses contained are found in the SAHIH hadiths I quoted; but they are NOT found ANYWHERE in the Quran. If you have any Quran verses where they are found, please just simply post the verses and let's read for ourselves. We are not interested in any arguments and excuses you make - ONLY POST THE VERSES and let us read for ourselves. Period.

At least, you had to admit that there are no verses claiming that the Quran came at anytime to "correct" the Bible - worse than that the Quran makes fantastic claims that you have not been able to answer to (such as the claim that Allah created SEVEN EARTHS).

In the second case, I would like you to post any Quran verses for those which are identified as the MISSING and CANCELLED verses of the Quran. Sabeel was deceiving you and himself to argue that the Quran we have today was preserved in its entirety - that was a huge lie. The verses I outlined above are MISSING and nowhere found in the Quran. If you believe they are in the Quran, simply post them and let us read for ourselves. QED.

experts:
The Bible, The Quran, and Evolution

God gives all humans a reason to believe, and in the case of the Qur’an, the reason was given over 1,400 years ago, before the scientists even knew what to believe in.

What new knowledge did the Quran bring into science 1400 years ago? It's been over 14 centuries and yet no Muslim scientist has been able to show us the seven earths that your Allah says he created - we know of only ONE EARTH. Show us the remaining six earths of allah's creation. Where are they?

Here we will compare the Bible, and the Qur’an to the popular theory of
evolution.

Astronomers today have powerful telescopes and have studied the formation of our neighboring galaxies. From the studies we learned that galaxies are formed from the condensation of spiraling celestial "mists." This is confirmed in the Qur’an 14 centuries before this was discovered by
the " Hubble Space telescope" in 1925.
"Then He settled/equilibrated unto the firmament(sky) when it was smoke, " ( Qur’an 41:11. We know from both scientists and the Qur’an that in the beginning, there was nothing in liquid or solid state, only in gaseous state yet the Bible is not in agreement on this matter;
Genesis 1:1-2 (Revised Standard Version) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the
face of the waters."

First of all, mr Experts, do you mind not expertly lying in front of the camera in public? I quoted you that verse Quran 41:11 from a few other well respected translations -

YUSUFALI:
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke:

PICKTHAL: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke,

SHAKIR: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor,

Form the above, the one question of that verse was NOT THE EARTH, but rather the sky. Although your various translations regard the sky as a vapor or smoke, that verse did not say that the heavens were actually a smoke/vapour in the beginning. Let us read it together with verses 10 and 12:

[list]

Quran 41:10-12, YusufAli -
¹⁰He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance). ¹¹Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience. ¹²So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge."

[/list]

This shows that even at the beginning, the EARTH was a SOLID piece in your Quran - that is why we read that the earth and the sky were to come together in verse 11. If they were in a gaseous state, please tell us how allah was adorning the lower firmaments/heavens/sky with lights in two days when the earth was ALREADY A SOLID entity?

You guys will go to any length to deceive yourselves on a Quran you know nothing about.

And by the way, cosmological sciences were well underway LONG BEFORE your claimed knowledge of 1400 years ago for the Quran trying to teach anything to scientists! Please take a look at History of Cosmology from the 6th Century BC from the History World. Back then and up to the present, people have known a whole lot about the universe and no one has ever claimed that there are SEVEN EARTHS anywhere in the Universe - it was your own Quran that claimed allah created SEVEN EARTHS and started making noise about teaching scientists what Muslims can't teach themselves! Where are the remaining six earths of Allah, mr Experts?

experts:
i hate when people conclude without knowing nothing about something,

I drew my conclusions based on what I know - that you plagiarised Sabeel Ahmed's redundant arguements and came here pretending it was your own! I left you links to check for facts in post #8 that your plagiarised article belonged to Sabeel Ahmed - are you the same person as Sabeel Ahmed? So what is it that we don't know already - tell us?

It is true that there is no verse in the Holy Qur'an that stated that the Qur'an came to correct the bible,

Good. Next time try not to lie in a public forum - such shameless lying is why people are very weary of Muslims arguing trash that they have nothing to back up their statements.

what we have in the Qur'an is that it came to confirm the bible, yes.

Very good. I was waiting to see how you would have denied that fact. Now if the Quran came to CONFIRM the Bible, why are folks like muhsin bent on arguing further trash and sweating on nothing? The way you guys try to cheat your own selves is simply golden!

But let me ask you, when i say, i have come to confirm your work, that does not mean i have come to accept it, it means i have come to check the authenticity of your work. i.e to asses the quality of the work and in case of any error, to correct it.

that is the interpretation of the confirmation said by the Qur'anic verses.

Rubbish! The Quran did not say that it came to "check" the Bible; nor does it say it came to "asses" the quality of the Bible; nor did it claim that it came "to correct it".[color=Black].[/color]. you're still bent on deceiving yourself by arguing that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible, even after agreeing that the same Quran did not make any such claims?!? You're not such an "expert" at continuing this deceit in your posts, you know?

This is why after all is said and done, I noted that in post #36 that 'The Quran did not argue in one instant to have come to "correct" any line in the Bible - it is Muslims who want to force themselves to believe that lie that keep crying out repeatedly that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible' - and you're one of such Muslims forcing that lie upon yourself.

But let me help you:

The Quran asserts that it came to CONFIRM the Bible - and you agree with that, no problem. From the Concise English Dictionary, the word 'CONFIRM' has the following meanings:

      1. establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts
      2. strengthen or make more firm
      3. make more firm
      4. support a person for a position
      5. administer the rite of confirmation to

Just about the same meanings appear for the word 'confirm' in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and several others. Besides, not in one instant does any dictionary changes the meaning of the word 'confirm' as you have twisted it to mean in order for you to dribble in your dubious meaning.

now, to establish my fact and see if my interpretation of the confirmation said by the Qur'an is genuine, i have bellow.

That was not your interpretation - you asserted an obviously convoluted LIE that the Quran came to correct the Bible whereas you know very well that is not what the Quran claims. Unless you want us to believe that it is alright for Muslims to lie for the Quran, then your efforts to keep deceiving yourself here does not count at all.

LIE #1.

Meticulously and precisely the Quran corrects the Bible.

On on the contrary, the Quran itself claims that it came to CONFIRM the Bible (see the quotes in post #10).

Whereas the Qur'ân depicts prophets as the best model of piety and moral uprightness,
Qur'ân 21:27 and 22:52, in the Biblical version almost all prophets seem to commit major sins in faith and moral standing.

This is where you disqualify your beloved muhammad - he was a major sinner and he said so both in the Hadiths and the Quran. Therefore, your Quran does not "correct" the Bible but absolutely CONFIRMS it!

Muhammad's sinning:

      Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319:
      Narrated Abu Huraira:
      I heard Allah's Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah
      and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day."

Which one of the Biblical prophets was sinning and repenting MORE THAN seventy times a day, mr experts?

What Does the Bible Say about God ?
The question to Christians is simple, do you choose as a Protector, "a God
that needs to Rest", or a "God that does Not need Rest".

My answer is simple: I choose to worship God in the Biblical sense instead of an allah in Islam who sends all muslims to hellfire without rest.

Next?

experts:
still waiting for your reply on this b4 i proceed

What reply are you waiting for? Did you attend to my questions?

experts:
moderator why did you delete my post?

I don't think moderators deleted your posts. You should learn to discuss matters instead of PLAGIARISING other people's encyclopedia-length redundant arguments that are not answering any questions already addressed!

Go and copy from your muslim sites again and watch the s[color=Black]pa[/color]mbot eat your post!


Please address these:

viaro: My questions are simple enough:

(1)    please post me the verse to verify the claim made by mr experts that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible. I have posted a few verses that I have read in the Quran saying that it came to CONFIRM the Bible - without arguing anything! So please post me the verses that say that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible, without dribbling or arguing anything. No excuses please - SIMPLY POST THE VERSE FROM THE QURAN. Period.

(2)    I gave specific examples of verses which Muslims in Muhammad's time were reciting as PART OF THE REVEALED verses from Allah, verses which no one had any authority to excuse away from the Quran:
       ¬  "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Stoning"
       ¬  "The Cancelled Verse(s) of the Martyrs of Badr"
       ¬   "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Suckling"
What those verses contained are found in the SAHIH hadiths I quoted; but they are NOT found ANYWHERE in the Quran. If you have any Quran verses where they are found, please just simply post the verses and let's read for ourselves. We are not interested in any arguments and excuses you make - ONLY POST THE VERSES and let us read for ourselves. Period.

@toneyb and mazaje,

I'm not going to tell stories, but please hear me out.

In particular reference to the thread topic (ie., on Psychokinesis), I woulod say that a subject of this sort is basically pointing to just one thing: are such things as psychokinesis 'real'? And is there any evidence from any study at all published in a recognized journal as evidence at all for psychokinesis?

It does not help us to keep arguing on and on about Randi - you have your praise for him, I have reasons why I'm not impressed by his theatricals. But as regards the question of psychokinesis, one would be asking in particularly (if you're like me) - "is there any evidence of sorts for psychokinesis?"

Perhaps it seems pertinent to state the obvious, that discussions on psychokinesis might as well have a bearing on such things regarded as 'paranormal', and this takes many forms. It is not just a stereotypical idea which some of us might hold, especially if we're inclined to pride ourselves as 'skeptics' on such things. Basically, some sources present the paranormal as involving events which are 'impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science' (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary). I am not asking that anyone "must" adhere to only that definition - and readers are quite free to think differently.

Therefore, examining the phenomenon about paranormal and psychokinesis is not just a matter of whether "someone is claiming" to have a paranormal ability which they personally possess and are able to demonstrate at will. Beyond that, the question of whether the 'paranormal' exists at all should move us to want to examine cases where such things might have occured independently of anyone making any claims of possessing a paranormal ability. Are you agreed on this?

So what happens where certain events are reported (from rigorous studies, of course) that cannot be explained by known natural forces or by science? Perhaps we might agree that the weight of such studies is in the question of whether they are published in credible journals.

Let me leave you one example:

JSE: Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol. 3, No. I, pp.  81 - 101,  1989
Pergamon  Press  plc.  Printed  in the  USA.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_03_1_stevenson.pdf

A Case of the Possession Type in India With Evidence of Paranormal Knowledge

Abstract - A young married woman, Sumitra, in a village of northern India, apparently died and then revived.  After a period of confusion she stated that she was one Shiva who had been murdered in another village. She gave enough details to permit verification of her statements, which corresponded to facts in the life of another young married woman called Shiva. Shiva had lived in a place about 100km away, and she had died violently there - either by suicide or murder - about two months before Sumitra's apparent death and revival.

Subsequently, Sumitra recognized 23 persons (in person or in photographs) known to Shiva. She also showed in several respects new behavior that accorded with Shiva's personality and attainments. For example, Shiva's family were Brahmins (high caste), whereas Sumitra's were Thakurs  (second caste); after the change in her personality Sumitra showed Brahmin habits that were strange in her family. Extensive interviews with 53 informants satisfied the investigators that the families concerned had been, as they claimed, completely unknown to each other before the case developed and that Sumitra had had no normal knowledge of the people and events in Shiva's life.  The authors conclude that the subject demonstrated knowledge of another person's life obtained paranormally.

^^^
The investigators were:

   ~   Ian Stevenson, Department of Behavioral  Medicine  and Psychiatry,
        University  of Virginia, Charlottesville:  VA 22908.

   ~   Satwant Pasricha, Department of Clinical Psychology,
        National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
        (NIMHANS),  Bangalore,  India.

  ~   Nicholas McClean-Rice, Department of Behavioral Medicine
       and Psychiatry, Universily of Virginia, Charlottesville,  VA 22908.


Please just objectively go through that published study - and then think of your own reasons for any conclusions you may draw as to whether such a phenomenon is possible or not possible. Also note here that the subjects involved in that study do not claim to have 'abilities' which they could demonstrate at will.

In proffering the case study above, I have this from mazaje in mind:

Is it about occurance or about the veracity of the claim of an external or supernatural agent?

Further, I am not asking anyone to 'replicate' anything, since here we are only seeking to establish any inferences about 'veracity'. Cheers.

toneyb:
Stop patting your self on the back yet, I said Randi's case is a special one, that you are trying to make light his achievement does not mean it is not special it is. I then went on to say that the world record awards goes only to special people or special events. But that was not what mazaje was talking about, his emphasis was on one point and that is if Randi had ascribed his special(very few people can do what he did) abilities to the supernatural you will be all over the place licking his boots.

Okay, let me guess. I said that Randi's case was NOT SPECIAL. You believe it was "special". What made it special for Randi? I don't lick Randi's boots as you do, so let's cut to the chase - you believe Randi is special, please tell us why that is so in respect of the particular subject about paranormal/supernatural/psychokinesis that we have been discussing. Remember, I made clear that Randi's case was not special, no?

How is Randi's case NOT special, How many people have been able to do what he did? Every body would have bagged that award if it wasn't special no?

I did not claim that Randi's case was special - you did. You also objected to my stating clearly that it was not special even though you can't quote me anywhere saying that mazaje had argued such. You really have your issues confused here and that is why I feel so sorry for you lately. You who argue that his case was special, I will bet you will come back to argue the direct opposite. Just tell us how Randi's case was special.

You ask how many people have been able to do what Randi did? I don't know - but I do know that some people survive far more precarious circumstances longer than 55 minutes. Ever heard of a man who survived two weeks trapped in snow-covered car? No, he wasn't asking a dime from Randi, nor was he seeking any award from Guiness - but I don't know what 55 minutes mean to you in surviving such a situation for TWO WEEKS.

Please be quite Mr man. What part of my writing do you not understand?  .

Hehe . . perhaps the part where you load us with tomes of excuses for Randi's inability to replicate results?

if Randi has ascribed his special abilities or magic tricks to the supernatural you will be on your knees crying and licking his boots no?

Absolutely NO. Why? Because I'm not impressed by charlatans!
Thus, a charlatan (Randi) 'debunking' charlatans like himself is no screaming, bleeping headline news!

Randi was asked for his opinion by a television station as mazaje rightly said after the event and he said that he would have taken the guy seriously if the guy stayed on the hot coal for half the time he used on walking on the coal or steeped on other hot substances. He just laid out the criteria on which he will take the guys abilities serious enough. He said that the guy has to stand on the coal or some other hot substance for him to take him seriously. The TV crew sent the message to the guy and the guy started ranting and swearing. Randi did not formally tell the guy, he just gave his thoughts to a television station and went on to say that the guys abilities can be replicated by some body that knows the trick. I don't even accept that walking on hot coal has anything supernatural about it.

^^ Awwww . . . here we go again with worn-out stories again!
Dude, of all the excuses that you can garner, I am asking simply for results. You argued on Randi's behalf that he uses "the same tricks" on people as those charlatans so - all I ask is that you show me where he used "the same tricks" to replicate results. QED.

Are you now singing a different song? Will you tell the people you are crying on their behalf to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge and discredit him already?

I never shifted one inch from what I said - and Randi remains the sham he is. 

InesQor:
@ilosiwaju: Big bro, thanks for the input jare. I am hardly missing Deep Sight much anymore 'cos it's like viaro's got Mazaje and Toneyb nowadays, just that viaro vs toneyb/mazaje does not seem as hot and engaging as viaro vs deep sight

@viaro: LOL na real wa, my brother!

I just don't know what has happened to our friends mazaje and toneyb. If ever I thought the day would come for these two to be chasing their tales with loads of excuses, I never guessed it would be so soon.

toneyb:
If they are not charlatans as you are so desperately trying to sell them without any success, why not tell them to man up, cite their supernatural abilities go meet Randi and shut him up with their abilities. What is hard there? Posting links to some obscured new age site will not help your campaign here.

Toneyb, please show me where I have ever claimed that those in particular who challenge Randi are themelves claiming to possess supernatural abilities. Please quote me and let me address your misgivings, thanks.

Where did Randi formally ask a person to do what they have not claimed to do? One example will do.

Let me use your own example of the man who walked on hot coals. I don't read that he claimed the ability to stand - but you have noted that Randi requested that IF he could stand on hot coals or in boiling water or boiling oil, then you/Randi/others of your ilk would then consider it 'real', no?

toneyb:
The last time I check guniess awards only go to special people, special events or special occurrences no? How many people do you know have been able to achieve this feat? What is even pathetic is that NOWHERE did mazaje say that Randi's display was something that no body else can do, he even alluded to a guy that survived in ice for an hour. The message he was putting across to you that if Randi ascribed his abilities to some super natural agent you will be on your knees crying, praising and licking his boots. .

You're a very funny fellow now - specially gifted at saying the ridiculous.
Did I argue that Randi's case was special? I said kindly "Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special" - and after coming forward to argue that guiness gives awards to SPECIAL people and special this and that, you still made my point? I can't laugh enough.

So, let me guess - Guiness awarded Randi an award for your argument that he was not special, yes? And how does that square with what I said that Randi's case was NOT SPECIAL?

You see toneyb, you've lost track of comprehension. I feel sorry for you - but please show me where I either said that mazaje was arguing for Randi's ice bolck case as "special", or kindly learn to shut up instead of desperately trying to read issues into my post that I never argued.

So Randi must walk on hot coal else that performance is a supernatural event?

So the man who walked on hot coals MUST also stand/walk in boling water/oil ELSE his performance is "not real"? It is okay for you to excuse Randi's dubious case, but when it comes to facing the same kind of argument you pose for him, it becomes questionable, yes? Please.

I must be able to divide the moon into else I must accept that the prophet of Islam once divided the moon into two. . Your flawed reasoning truly deserves an award.

You can do so IF that is what you are claiming - I did not claim any such on your behalf. Randi will be glad to ask you to do more than splitting the moon and the sun perhaps . . . just so he can be sure your claim was "real". Enjoy your excuses and provide us with more comedy.

toneyb:
The same empty drivel again.

Suit yourself but please answer my simple request or just shut up.

What exactly have you said that comes close to sense?

Other have seen the sense in what I argued (Ilosiwaju and InesQor refers) - but only mazaje and you toneyb are riding the wind to have missed it. Clap for yourselves.

Since when did vacuous sophism equate to "making sense"?

Nobody else made such a claim other than yourself. If only you and mazaje were making sense, you would not have been thumbing your sophistry over and over again in your empty boxes.

Carry on with the flawed reasoning,

Please grow up. I answered your objections and posted resources to attest what I was saying. If you can't stand up to reason them out, stop trying so hard to impress yourself - we're done laughing on your old jokes.

At least Randi has exposed so many people, will you tell the nameless psychics who you are desperately trying to sell without any success to hurry up, take on Randi's challenge, prove themselves, discredit Randi, earn 1 million dollars, earn more popularity and shut Randi up for ever?

Randi has no US$1 million to give anybody - that is why he is asking people to do what they have not claimed to do. Besides, you must be a very, very funny fellow with your hangovers to have missed the links and resources I posted. Refer to the one I left mazaje that he was ironically arguing his own dismissive misunderstanding as expected. If your beloved Randi has ANYTHING to match genuine quest for truth, nothing stops him from actually taking up the challenges offered him in fairness - those I have pointed out are not after any dime that Randi does not have in the first place. The sham he is can keep lying all he wants and ducking forever so he could ride high on your applause .[color=Black].[/color]. but please tell him to grow up on his acts - fresh comedy will do for a start.

When will the nameless charlatans you are desperately crying on their behalf accept or agree to the challenge and do it once and for all.

They are not charlatans - that is why I posted links for your consideration. Does it surprise me that you guys will not take up those links and come forward to discuss anything? Nevermind, I'm open and willing to put up with Randi's dropout noise making.

Randi made a very simple proposal, If you have psychic, supernatural or occultist abilities come prove yourself under a controlled environment and will 1 million dollars, Instead of the charlatans taken up the challenge they are busy sending town criers and sophist like you to tell Randi to come and accept their own devious challenge . How cleaver.

Randi does not make any proposal he can keep track of. It shows you still are too shamed on his behalf to go source him out. Ever wondered why you guys keep ducking pertinent issues so dismissively? Is this all you can do in your amazing defence of the amazing cheat randi?

mazaje:
By the way if christianity is true then you yourself should be a magician walking around doing magic as your god promised you guys in his alleged book no? .

This is not about whether Christianity is true or whether I have claimed anywhere to be a magician. I have not, and I am not a magician.

But I do want to see how you drop your shadow boxing and take up something of more substance in the topic of this thread. I have offered you and toneyb some links, pointed out a few things in them, and answered some of your objections on this issue of Psychokinesis. If you have checked the links and resources provided, I would have seen you say something about them rather than being so evasive.

The same thing with toneyb - the few resources and links I provided in my answers are still standing. Would I have the fortune of reading you (toneyb) discussing them instead of playing evasive on them?

The conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are axiomatic from the paper you pasted is WHAT?

Please mazaje bro .[color=Black].[/color]. please do it easy and try to calm down to simple issues so you first understand yourself before expecting that others might understand you.

1.   I did not present any paper with a conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are 'axiomatic'. To state that such was what that paper had argued is quite ironic, not to even say that you're arguing against yourself.

2.   The irony is that the paper did not argue that psychic abilities are 'axiomatic' - for the word 'axiomatic' basically means that "evident without proof or argument". Instead, the paper was published in the Journal of  Scientific  Exploration, and posits in its abstract that -

       This paper discusses evidence for a psychokinetic effect acting on chance events. . . .
       These hypotheses imply that psychokinesis can act on the outcome of indeterministic
       quantum events only, and that, basically, all such events are affected to the same degree.

3.   If you had taken a look at the paper itself, you would not be beating yourself over with the irony of supposing it was arguing "conclusive evidence that psychic abilities are axiomatic" (that is, 'evident without proof or argument') - quite the opposite is what the papar argues!

4.   And if you want the evidence from the arguments presented by that paper, please read the paper itself - it discusses its methodology, analysis and outcomes - which was why it abstracts that it implies that psychokinesis can act on the outcome of indeterministic quantum events only. Yes, it bases its conclusions and evidence on the arguments that it presents in the paper.

5.   If you have anything to counter in the paper, please come forward and DISCUSS rather than 'dismiss' it. To dismiss it the way you did only demonstrates the lazy man's perfect escape hatch.

toneyb:
I have missed out on this but my man did a very good job already.

I agree - he did a very "good job" in sounding quite ridiculous in the same way you tried to excuse sanity for Randi.

What the hell is this sophist (vairo) saying?

I am not saying anything than what I have already said and which others are already making sense of. Your own sophistry - that is quite golden, but I pass . . . hehe.

I am tired of this endless sophism.

I know the feeling . . after trying to dribble round and round until you became dizzy by your own yoyo.

Vairo is calling Randi a fraud and a cheat for failing to honor an invitation.

No - that is not why I call him a fraud and a cheat. I have tried to correct your misconception that it was not due to the story about walking on hot coals or because of whatever else you suppose that Randi is known as a cheat and a liar. I said plainly that such a point is predicated on other issues that attest to it. If Randi, on the other hand, wants us to believe he's got nothing up his sleeves, there is no reason why he should decline those other challenges that are based on fairness and not on fraud. Based on fairness because they match the very same criteria he has stated would be his guiding principle in "investigating" those phenomena, as well that they follow scientific and intelligent protocol that he just cannot refuse unless he wants to confirm he's a sham just like those frauds he discredits.

What then will vairo call those who keep failing honor or to take up his challenge? Cheats and frauds?

I don't call anyone anything until they show they have reason to be so addressed. This kind of quip shows it's either you have never done your own background sourcing of the Randi issues or you just want to keep blinding yourself to it simply because you can't bear to see Randi exposed. Choose your poison whichever way suits you best.

ilosiwaju:
b. A way to debunk him would have been to just replicate what the guy did since we are so sure it's possible without supernatural abilities.

In fact, I hold my peace - you have just stated the same thing I wanted to pass on to our friends toneyb and mazaje.  

Increasing the stake by telling him to walk on fire or hot oil is asking him to prove the negative(something he did not claim he could do) and that upsets the whole thing.

There, thank you again. It is only Randi's sorry attendants who never see that point, all in their desperate attempts to cover up for the sham of their amazing cheat. Randi will keep asking people to do what they never claimed was their own ability to do - and if anyone does the same by asking that Randi faces up to obliging what he did not claim for himself, the irony eludes his local-town criers.

mazaje:
What else do you do around here beside crying, singing, spinning and shouting?

I don't understand anything about all the noise you guys have been making. I pointed out certain simple issues which until now you guys have not shifted one dot to counter.  

And please learn not to abuse the word factual because its very clear that you do not understand what it means at all.

What does it mean, mazaje? Have you shown anything close enough of its meaning other than your golden prevarications?

What have you stated that is a fact? . . . . .Look who is talking about agruing in an empty box. . .Mirror, mirrior on the wall .

Please stop crying. You sound again like you're holding your nose close to an empty box and belching even worse than before.

Yes you did. You also stated it as the reason why he dropped 1 million dollars as a challenge.

Please show me where I stated so. I am really ashamed that you no longer understand simple English constructs.

Then what exactly are you crying and ranting endlessly about?

I have not cried nada - just asking you guys to take your amazing cheat Randi to one step closer than his lying adventures. That is all.

Will you shut up already? How does walking on coal equate to paranormal? .

Why don't you ask Randi to simply replicate it and end your noise? Your bleating is beginning to be too embarrassing to read, dude. I did not come forward to claim anything about hot coals other than using that narration from toneyb to ask that Randi replicates it. If that were not real as toneyb asserted, no worries - he should just replicate it. That was all. Where are the results? When you guys have nothing to produce, then you enter into unnecessary excuses to prevaricate on your empty drivels. Please mazaje, your noise is unnecessary - just produce results on Randi's behalf and let's move forward, if you may. If neither you nor randi could produce any results, please shut up and let's attend to something else.

There are documentaries on National geographic (Super Humans) where a US navy seal survived for an hour inside ice, something no normal human can do by employing some tricks coupled with the help he recieved with his training as a navy seal.

. . . hehe - the story begins again! Carry on!

Even Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and that action bagged him a Guinness world record award.

. . . clap for yourself. That is not a surprising thing to do. People have survived very cold temperature without asking any dime from Randi - and it so happens that we know that lower temperature reduce the body's metabolism.

There are people who do not claim to have any special abilities but have survived unusual circumstances. A two year old, Oluchi Nwaubani, survived after spending about 18 minutes (three times longer than the brain can usually survive) at the bottom of a pool in Bromley, London. Doctors say while the case is highly unusual, it is not unprecedented.

Randi being encased in a block of ice for 55 mins is not special. You're only deluding yourself to think, 'oh, hooray . . . that must be awesome!' Dream on - medical practitioners know what affects the body in lower temperatures.

IF a person can use external or supernatural agents to walk fast on hot coal for 30 second I bet the same supernatural agents should be able to protect the person and make him stand on the hot coal for 15 seconbs no?

All the same mazaje, please shut up. Give me where your super-Randi has walked on hot coals even for 15 secs. Stop making useless excuses on his behalf. I did not claim that the said case was supernatural, nor was I the person who talked about a man walking on hot coals. 30 secs, 50 secs, 15 secs - it's all breeze you're blowing if you can't go beyond excuses and show results of Randi replicating them. Standing in a block of ice is easy-peasy .[color=Black].[/color]. anyone can sit in cold temperature for long periods of time. You ask Randi to walk on hot coals and I will send you a check of my next month's pay. I just want results, not 3 pages of useless arguments for the sham that Randi has shown himself to be.

Why can't the same supernatural agent protect against other hot substances of the same degree? . . . . .That irony escapes cry babies like you I guess. . . . . . . .So what you are saying is that Randi should replicate ALL tricks? . . .How lame.

I see you're at the end of your imagination.
Did I ever ask Randi to replicate ALL tricks? Why are you beginning to fall all over yourself with vacuous statements that do not appear in my comments? Bro, again I ask in all humility: only this one that toneyb yapped on about - please show me Randi walking (not standing) on hot coals for the same period (30 secs as you say) in the same way that you and toneyb are pushing your luck for Randi. That is all.

It amazes me that all through your reply this one case of walking on hot coals is what you're fighting. Pity. Even more hilarious is that you make all excuses and yet show absolutely zilch of Randi doing same. It's a 'trick', you want to believe - that's fine, for the story was not mine. So please show me results of that same trick on Randi's behalf. That is all I ask. Excuses and lame excuses for your Randi is not cutting it and makes me laugh at the empty noise you further attempt. I did not ask Randi to replicate ALL tricks - just that one that toneyb yapped about.

Your lame and empty talk about replication is asinine because it makes NO sense at all. . . . .Must every body replicate every trick?

Asinine or not, I asked for ONLY ONE, not "every trick". Please give me that simple one I asked and stop wasting pages with further excuses.

You sorry lot know how to demand this and that from others while you stand lame at the sidewalks unable to put your mouth where your money is. It is not a case of standing on hot coals - let Randi WALK on hot coals since that was what the guy did. QED.

Thanks to Randi we know that Uri the spoon bender is a fraud, Randi has also exposed other people whose abilities he could NOT even replicate for the frauds they are.

Blowing empty air is your favourite pasttime. I did not present Uri Geller's case to you for anything - you want to deviate from this simple example of the guy who walked on hot coals and run under the case of Uri. Sorry bro, come back to base and stop dancing in the air.

The tricks he used does not have to be the same as the ones the tricksters use.

I didn't say they have to be the same. Nor did I say that the guy had the same tricks to stand on hot coals. If anyone ever argued for "the same" in walking and standing and then making hot coals "the same" with water and oil and all that, it is you and toneyb. You make such frivolously empty charade because you don't know the difference - but when a simple request is made for your super-Randi, you grow blue and red in the face complaining and making further excuses for Randi's empty bragado.

Is it about occurance or about the veracity of the claim of an external or supernatural agent?.

You are beginning to sound like an entertainer out to impress himself. I'm after veracity - which is why I ask for RESULTS and REPLICATION. That again was why I stated that I did not read Randi denying its occurence. Whether veracity or occurence, pick your poison and stop quarrelling with yourself over words that elude your understanding - just give me credible results of Randi having replicated same.

Randi himself was encased in a block of ice for 55 minutes and survived.

How many times will you be repeating that story as if it is the biggest part of your dream world? It still does not take anything from the simple issue of the case before you - I ask this once again: GIVE ME RESULTS OF RANDI REPLICATING WHAT HE COULD NOT DENY HAD TAKEN PLACE IN HIS PRESENCE. That is all, and many thanks as you look again for desperate excuses to cover up.