₦airaland Forum

InesQor:
@mazaje/toneyb/viaro:
I am using my phone right now so I wont say a lot.

Thanks InesQor. The vacuous and rabid yappings of atheists when it comes to applauding cheats like Randi is simply golden. I have not seen anything that my two friends mazaje and toneyb have said that is new.

mazaje:
I watched a video on you tube soem time ago where one of the guy's fans was calling Randi a dishonest criminal for throwing a challenge against the guy(I will look it up and see, If I get it I will post it here). After the show according to the guy Randi was interviewed on TV, when asked if the guy's abilities are supernatural or fake Randi said that he believes that all these demonstrations are fake because the guy had to prove to him beyound reasonable doubt that his abilities were real. When asked if he could replicate the guys ability Randi simply said no. The guy went on to say that Randi was a dishonest liar just because Randi said on another TV show that the guy's ability could be relpicated. He did not say that he could replicate the guy's ability but he said that any body that knows the trick behind it can also walk very fast on hot coal like the guy did. How then is Randi a dishonest lair?

Thanks for trying to advocate for Randi. The thing is that Randi is a liar all the same.

It is not in reference to the said case of hot coals that I drew that inference; but on other cases that cast doubts on his credibility as an objective seeker of genuine cases.

However, I wonder that Randi came to the conclusion that the guy's case was fake - just because he believes it so. Not that he could demonstrate it, replicate it, or explain it away with credible protocol. Just Randi says this and that, and voila! he's alright, no? Please. Randi's claim that what he saw was fake amounts to nothing - afterall, there are cases where he has believed others to be frauds and went on to demonstrate them. Why does this one case elude him, and then he thinks he could just yap and leave it at that?

I have meet Randi and from the discussion we had I can conclude that he is only after the truth behind the claims people make or some of the abilities people have demonstrated.

Anecdotal news have their place - but not here and not now, sorry mazaje bro. I respect what you want to conclude for yourself; but that does not have any value just because he says this and that. If Randi is actually after the truth, he could honour the invitation and challenges of those who are willing to show him certain other phenomena. He went elsewhere outside his 'studio' and you met him in London - he could also go anywhere he has been invited. Why is he evading those other challenges if he does not have something to be ashamed of? Playing hanky panky works well for those who wishes to pander to - but he would not do honour the challenges where it really matters.

Randi's first challenge to the guy who walked on the hot coal for 30 seconds was stand on the hot coal for half the time he walked on the hot coal so that he can see if his abilities were true. If the guy has some spuernatural agent or agents protecting him from the heat and allowing him to walk fast on the hot coal as he claims, such supernatural agent/agents should also be able to protect the guy's feet and allow him to stand on the hot coal for half the time he spent walking on the coal Randi said.

Randi knows too well that if that guy had done that same thing, there's always another silly request up Randi's sleeve. The question at all that the said guy walked on hot coals for 30 secs says so much for Randi to do the same. Asking him to do so with boiling water is also dubious - Randi himself has said that he would refuse any scenario where there's a potential for the persons to get hurt. If that guy did what he knew best, and did so for 30 secs, and Randi could not deny the evidence of what he saw, one should expect at the very least that such a 'trick' could be replicated. That is where it truly matters much more than standing idle and asking someone to do this and that before you believe anything. What happened to the one that he saw but could not deny?

As expected the guy refused, His second challenge to the guy was to place his feet in boiling water or hot oil for the same duration he used in walking over the hot coal. His reason as pointed out by tony is that if the guy's supernatural agents could protect his feet and make him walk on hot coal they should also be able to protect him and make him stand on the hot coal for half the time he used in walking on the hot coal or protect him from boiling or hot oil that is of the same tempreture.

I've already explained that issue with regards to materials science. I wonder that this should escape you guys and you don't seem to recognise that hot coals and boiling water and oil are not the same. Please refer to my previous comments, thanks.

You keep coming up with this bizzare talk about Randi lacking the ability to replicate what others have done. That does not even come close to making any sense at all because Randi has never claimed that their psychic abilities do not exists, all he wants for them to do is to come and demonstrate evidence of their paranormal, supernatural or occult power under test conditions agreed to by both parties so that skeptics like him will accept and forever shut their mouths. That is all what he is after.

You're carping, dude. The conditions he seeks is what those other challengers offer him. Randi is too much of a dubious fellow to face up to those challenges. Period.

I did not assert anywhere what empty noise you are alleging here. If Randi believes that the paranormal exists, he would do well to address the divide that indeed such a thing exists although there are frauds. You yourself have stated that Randi confided to you in your acquaintance in London that he suspects these abilities to be "mere charade". He did not tell you that he believes SOME are frauds but was rather happy to make a sweeping remark about their being charade - you were impressed because that is what folks like you wanted to hear from him. If I were you, right there and then I would have posed the obvious question to him: Randi, are you saying that ALL CASES in all possibilities are mere charade, since that is what you "suspect" them to be? Rather than talk sensibly, you're arguing an empty case that keeps Randi's amazing duplicity at large.

He is only after the veracity of such claims.

Then he should go to where it matters and put himself out of his misery instead of hooting that he suspects them to be mere charade. A man who draws such sweeping conclusions is obviously dubious, no offence.

The fact that he is unable to replicate their tricks does not give credence or legitimize their tricks as supernatural events.

Of course not - and I agree. But again, the fact he is unable to replicate them is the more reason he should not be dismissing them hastily and emptily. He calls them 'tricks' - how does he know? If that is what that particular case was, then let him use the same tricks to replicate what he witnessed. QED. Either that, or he should just shut up about "using the same tricks" (as in toneyb's earlier) comments.

I may not be able to replicate the so called abilities of 419 tricksters that used to trick people back in the days when we were kids by openly demonstarting their ability to turn ordinary paper into naira notes and claim that the source of their ability is juju or some other external agent but that does not stop their tricks from what it is. Randi does not have to replicate anything, If the psychics are so sure of themselves why not just take up his challenge and shut him up for ever as tony pointed out?

If Randi has any case to make, the challenges are there - he should just simply take them up and put his old drunken heart at rest. The challenges I have seen are not asking Randi to demonstrate that he has any psychic ability which he believes to be supernatural - that is not the point. Please see the link in my initial replies and see what it was all about (you [or toneyb] seemed to have hastily dismissed it as new ageism WITHOUT even giving it a good look over).

His challenge still remains, If you claim to have or have demonstrated supernatural abilities(Such as the ability to withstand or deflect bullets fired from a gun, walk on hot coal, heal blind people or people who are suffering from paralysis) come and demonstrate evidence for this supernatural under test conditions and win a million dollars.

Please shut up. The 1 million dollars is a farce - just because Randi told you he would be happy to give a million dollars he does not have does not therefore settle it. He can keep his boast about what he cannot give - does not surprise me, judging from his records to lie anyhow. Someone (ala toneyb's report earlier) walked on hot coals - Randi did not deny what he saw, but he simply would find some way of discrediting so that his million dollars would not dissolve through his fingers. Please.

The fact that people are all over the place making noise from long distances as my man tony said instead of standing up to his challenge is very very telling. Non of them will like to go and embarass him or herself as expected.

The fact that Randi has NOT answered those who have invited him to what he was seeking actually speaks volumes about his cedibility - more as a sham, a dupe and a liar whose theatricals appeals to those meeting him in London.

mazaje:
What I can personally say about these things is that there is that the veracity of such claims is zero. There is only anecdotal evidence, which is ALWAYS the evidence you have when you have no evidence. It's bollocks.

So it is your own anecdotal evidence of meeting Randi is London that is not bollocks? Please pass.

If you and Randi want to be serious, stop sitting lazily in one dark corner and congratulating yourself on what you have not found out. There are free passes where Randi could prove his mettle by taking up the challenges offered him on fairness and objectivity. What is keeping the amazing Randi from such simple issues?

Basically, if you translate the words "religious", "spiritual", "mystical", and "supernatural" as meaning "great steaming pile of crap" you won't go far wrong.

Fortunately, no one else translates them as such - only lazy atheists with ready-made pat-answers for their laziness often do so. No big deal there.

The problem is that there is NEVER any verifiable evidence? ONLY special pleadings and them say them say. My point is that pretending that their is verifiable and objective evidence for the supernatural is no way to get around the fact their is isn't objective evidence to support any supernatural activity or process.

Dude, wake up. Randi will not tell you where studies have been carried out for EVIDENCE. That is because you're too lazy to check, simply don't care, or far too drunk on your own bollocks to be man enough to source Randi out. Enjoy your misery.

When you do wake up and desire to find evidence on the same plane, please search - you may surprise yourself far beyond your anecdotes for Randi. The case below is not a nightmare to the atheist, but it might help to take a peak and see that what Randi claims to be looking for has been studied and applied ALREADY - just an example:

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 103 -1 18, 1987
Pergamon Press plc Printed in the USA.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_01_2_schmidt.pdf

Abstract -This paper discusses evidence for a psychokinetic effect acting on chance events. Emphasis is laid on action on pre-recorded random processes and its interpretation in terms of two general hypotheses, the weak violation hypothesis, and the equivalence hypothesis. 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.

mazaje:
Why is viaro dancing all over the place? . . . . .The same convoluted spin master is at work. . LOL!!

Howdy my man?

Actually, I'm not spinning or dancing around - my case is simple and factual. Please identify where you disagree and make some case for what you want to present. That would be more interesting to read rather than argue in empty box.

mazaje:
Where did Randi state that the paranormal does NOT exist, Pls produce any source that says he ever made such a statement. Thank you.

Did you read me make a claim that Randi stated that the paranormal does not exist?

I hope you saw clearly the first part of the quote from my comment that you quoted? I said "The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no." And by that it should be clear to any objective reader that I did not lay a direct charge at Randi for such a claim as you supposed.

For those clamouring after Randi, my direct call to them is for them to smart up and stand for what they are saying. Example, toneyb (as well yourself, I suppose) is convinced that the abilities which have been demonstrated in the presence of Randi are "not real" - therefore, he wants to convince himself that such a thing as could be defined as paranormal or psychic does not exist. I may be wrong; but IF either you or toneyb are not saying that such a thing does not exist, then why all the pains to defend the what you cannot credibly dismiss on any objective grounds other than the usual sob atheist stories you have been singing all along?

Let me quickly address some points here. I have meet, listened to and watch so many of Randi's videos. I was opportuned to meet him in London about 2 years ago(2008) when he came and delivered a lecture in London, I did not really know who he was at that time, A friend happened to be a member of the association(The Skeptic magazine) that invited him. He got the tickets for us and we went. After the lecture and demonstration from him and other speakers we went forward and meet him. We took some pictures with him and chatted a little. I personally asked if he was truly willing to give out 1 million dollars to any body that could stand his test and he said yes, In fact he said he will be very happy to. He told me that he truly wanted to know if these abilities are real. He is a skeptic who is willing to see if those alleged abilities can stand for themselves or if they are mere charade as he suspects them to be.

I have not met Randi in person - nor do I need to. Your good fortune that you did and got to hear him say for himself that he suspects those abilities to be mere charade. Yes, you also said that he lectured and demonstrated - whatever. But with reference to the case presented earlier by toneyb, I would have been delighted to see him replicate the case of walking on coals in the same manner that he witnessed and could not have denied!

Anyone could try to discredit another person - that is easy-peazy. But it is quite another world to go beyond mere talk and replicate what someone else has done which you cannot deny. That is where you convince the objective person that you're not preaching to the choir merely because Randi "suspects" that those other cases are mere charade. Objectivity does not rest on someone's "suspicion" - otherwise, if it did, then anyone could dismiss Randi on mere suspicion and call it a fine day!

Why does Randi need to replicate anything? .

Because toneyb on his behalf claims that he (Randi) uses the same tricks to discredit others. Let him therefore use any number of that same trick to walk on hot coals - then we know that he understands what he is saying and there would be substance in what he claims.

OK let me address the talk about the guy who walked on hot coal. Toneyb got it wrong when he said that the guy walked on hot coal for 50 seconds.

Please I beg you - I deeply beg you, mazaje. You guys are changing your diapers far too quickly for me to keep track of anything. I don't think toneyb claimed that the guy walked on hot coals for 50 seconds - rather he said it was Randi that threw the challenge to the guy "to do the same with boiling water and hot oil, stating that if the guy could walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds (or there about) without hurting his feet, he should also be able to put his feet in boiling water or boiling oil for the same duration and come out unscathed." Randi was the one (supposedly in toneyb's account) who yapped about 50 seconds, not that he said the guy walked for 50 secs on hot coals. Yet, I don't see where Randi denied that such an event did occur.

The guy walked very fast on hot coal for 30 seconds not 50 as toneyb said.

Okay - here's wishing Randi some good luck to walk on hot coals for 30 seconds as did that guy! It does not matter how fast Randi does it - 30 seconds is scientific enough! Okay, Randi .[color=Black].[/color]. over to you. Roger me when you're done!

ilosiwaju:
Viaro, what's up baba? Regarding Randi's refusal to take some tests and some randi tests psychics dare not take, dont you think the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary claim?
What i mean is this: If you believe ghosts exist, it's up to you to prove it. I should not be the one to prove the non-existence of ghosts.

@ilosiwaju,
I like the way you simplified it. Respects.

But I don't necessarily agree it is that simplistic. The question is not that this or that exists or does not exist - no. Rather, if one is saying that NOTHING defined as paranormal or psychic exists, then it is up to him to explain those which he has witnessed but cannot deny their existence. This is where he ought to replicate what he claims he "uses the same tricks" for, just as he witnessed in those cases (walking on hot coals a ready example).

Of course, in every endeavour we know that frauds exist. But we are not concerned more about frauds than about genuine cases. It is not whether or not we can find some naturalistic explanations for what we observe; instead, we ought to acknowledge the fact of what is being observed even when we sometimes fail to find explanations for them. It is quite duplicitous to find a means to "discredit" people just because we fail to find a means of explaining what we have observed, especially where we claim to use the same 'tricks' and YET CANNOT replicate them!

It is all the more worrying that those who have invited Randi to consider some other genuine cases have not received serious responses from him as to taking up their challenges - and he is not willing to take up those challenges. WHY?

It's quite easy to dispel frauds - the easiest of things to do in the world. There are also frauds in science; but should we therefore ridicule science on account of many frauds in science?

But if you leave the frauds aside and be willing to examine other cases which present a protocol that matches standard precedures that the investigator agrees with, there would be no doubts raised about the investigator's credibility. Other investigators do that same thing - they go out to examine what is presented before them, see if such things could be replicate on site under controlled protocol, and then make any conclusions you want to. But no - not in Randi's case: he has something to protect far more than any 1 million US dollars, and that is why his debunking theatricals cannot stand up to match these other challenges. So he busies himself "discrediting" what he neither could deny nor replicate. What objectivity is in such a behaviour?

toneyb:
It also cites those who wrote the science standards for the California State Board of Education in its sources. Vairo please name just ONE respectable or mainstream scientific body that have stated or established that psychic abilities exists scientifically or for ever keep your mouth shut.

You wish!

Dude wake up. As explained above, there are several ORGANISATIONS and PUBLICATIONS of psychic phenomena well staffed by scientists of past and present! You just quibble over matters you never researched yourself so that you can act like a local town-crier for the amazing cheat Randi.

If you want some, here are a few:

From among the list on that Wikipedia page:

[list]~  Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh
~  Parapsychology Research Group at Liverpool Hope University
~  SOPHIA Project at the University of Arizona
~  Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of Liverpool John Moores University
~  Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at the University of Northampton
~  Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths University of London

~  The Parapsychological Association
~  Society for Psychical Research, (publisher of the Journal of Society for Psychical Research)
~  American Society for Psychical Research, (publisher of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research)
~  Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology, (publisher of the Journal of Parapsychology)
~  Parapsychology Foundation, (publisher of the International Journal of Parapsychology)
~  Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, (publisher of the Australian Journal of Parapsychology)
*  The European Journal of Parapsychology is independently published.[/list]

Scientists, do you care to remind yourself of some? >>>

[list][li]William Barrett, 1844-1925[/li]
[li]Alfred Russel Wallace, 1823-1913[/li]
[li]Stephan Ossowiecki, 1877-1944[/li]
[li]John Elliotson, 1788-1868 [/li][/list]

By no means the only names in the past or present - but I do hope those will help sate your thirst for the moment.

toneyb:
Randi has ALWAYS been open about his magic tricks so there is nothing new there. It his sincerity and fairness that lead him to set up the challenge, but this time he wanted to really know if those shouting at long distances really have anything of value up their sleeves to present instead of empty noise and tricks.

Still yapping, are you?   If he has "always been open", please tell me something: WHY oh WHY did the same Randi not replicate the same results of walking on hot coals? Why are you just dancing in the rain soaked with your saliva?

I'm after results, dude .[color=Black].[/color]. RESULTS from Randi's REPLICATIONS of what he witnessed about walking on hot coals! Please stop entertaining and impressing yourself - just give us results! Ha!

Randi does not claim to have the ability to walk on hot coals, The other guy obviously has developed some tricks that enable him to walk on coal but instead of coming out and telling people he assigns it to some supernatural cause which is what Randi is really after.

HAHAHAHAHA-Hahahaha!! Your penchant to be amazingly evasive is golden!
Randi tells you it is some "trick" - you also wrote earlier that Randi uses the same tricks, no? Were you dreaming when you were saying those things on his behalf? Rest your heart - Randi is a cheap talker, a dropout who thinks everyone he hears about is also a dropout! I'm not asking Randi anything other than REPLICATING what he witnessed or just shut up.

If the guy's supernatural agent can enable him walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds then why not also enable him stand the heat of boiling water for 50 seconds. Coal burning at 100degress and water or oil boiling at that temperature and the same no?

Even in simple materials science, water and coal and oil are not the same. Try applying heat and pressure to these materials as far as their critical points and you will see that they do not have the same properties or critical points. Your making them the same is as far as the cheap science that Randi can teach you with his school dropout diploma!

Dude, please don't make me laugh at you! It's been such fun taking you by the nose today - what happened?!?   And what was that about "supernatural agent" you wrote up there?

The guy is obviously a trickster and there is no supernatural agent that is giving him any ability at all. He obviously developed the trick.

Are you now desperate?!? Hehehehehe!!   First, you say posit something about the guy's supernatural agent (yeah, I know it was aconditional "if" - but then you say there was no supernatural agent? Okay - that is why I would wait forever for the professional and amazing cheap talker Randi to use simple natural agency of his own to replicate that same thing. I just want to see Randi produce results - why is that sooooooooo HAAAAARRDD!??

Stop shouting my brother. Randi is NOT a psychic and he does not claim to have such abilities.

Okay, in smaller print, hehe. Randi is a retired magician, so he says - no? Good. Whatever it is he claims, let the dude REPLICATE RESULTS. That's all I ask.

He is only interested in how real such claims are. An external agent that can make you walk on hot coal for 50s seconds should be able to guide you through boiling water of the same temperature no? The fact that the irony escapes you is laughable.

I agree - that fact that such irony escapes both you and Randi is golden! Please take a stroll and peek into materials science and come back telling me they are the same. The amazing duplicity you guys will advertise is why this world is slow!

How do you know that if the guy had walked on boiling water or hot oil that would not have changed Randi's mind? Are you a mind reader?

I truly wish I were a mind reader. Sorry - maybe when I'm bored, then my training on that trickery begins.

toneyb:
Another very lame talk. Randi is not a psychic, He is an ex magician and a skeptic. He might not know all their tricks but that does not mean its still not a trick. All he is telling them to do is come and display their so called psychic powers under the radar and let people know how real it is, but as usual instead of them taking up the challenge they are all over the place(including their praise singers like you) attacking Randi for failing to take up their own devious challenge.

Sad apologetics, toneyb. Do you have anything of substance to say at all? Randi (according to YOU) witnessed a guy walk on hot coals. He never claimed that it did not happen. It makes no difference WHERE that guy demonstrated it - Randi could have done the same by replicating what he saw. WHY has he failed to do so? Your cheap talk is quite a comedy - go to comedy central: I'll be your devoted viewer!

. My guy no be fight, you are the one that needs to grow up. I got this from wikipedia it cites about 5 different sources that says that the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have NOt been scientifically shown to exist. Here is just one out of the 5 sources.

Dude, I'm not fighting with you. I saw those and MORE sources of what the scientific community feels about such phenomena. They did not draw up any OFFICIAL conclusion that such phenomena do not exist; rather, they are skeptical about it for a number of reasons (among which is that they are not agreed about what field or branch of scientific discipline is properly suited for such studies).

But as regards what you excerpted, there's something fishy about your conclusion:

"^ Reuters (5 September 2003). "Telepathy gets academic in Sweden". CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/05/offbeat.telepathy.reut/index.html. Retrieved 9 March 2009. [i]"Despite decades of experimental research ,  there is still no proof that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist, mainstream scientists say"

. . . however, if we would not quote things out of context but let fairness be displayed, here's what that quote said:

         'Despite decades of experimental research and television performances
         by people such as spoonbending psychic Uri Geller, there is still no proof
         that gifts such as telepathy and the ability to see the future exist,
         mainstream scientists say.'

It is important to note the highlight (in purple) - especially from a newsmedia (CNN). I don't know if CNN is acting on behalf of the "scientific community" to draw any conclusions - and I don't see how Uri Geller's case of spoonbending should act as the totality of all telepathic abilities.

Rather than a conclusion that such things do not exist, CNN on that page reports that Sweden "will take a leap into the unknown by appointing northern Europe's first professor of parapsychology, hypnology and clairvoyance". That report was since 2003, and it does not say that such things do not exist - instead says that the first professor, to be appointed by Lund University Dean Goran Bexell, was expected to start work in 2004. Yet, it reports that "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," said Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm - which again answers to what I noted earlier {'they are not agreed about what field or branch of scientific discipline is properly suited for such studies'}."

Bro, let's be objective in what we say rather than just rush to hasty conclusions.

Now, as regards the so-called consensus of the 'scientifi community', let me post the position on this from some of your '5 sources':

Parapsychology website: Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to investigate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method. Parapsychological experiments have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of precognition and psychokinesis with both human and animal subjects and Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception.

While the results of such experiments are regarded by some parapsychologists as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities, the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist. Critics argue that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes. The status of parapsychology as a science has also been disputed. Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience because parapsychologists continue investigation despite not having demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research.

Laboratory and field research is conducted through private institutions and a small number of universities worldwide.

(1)  Parapsychology and Paranormal Phenomenon

(2)  Parapsychology - Wikipedia

. . . and other sources.

The last line that 'Laboratory and field research is conducted through private institutions and a small number of universities worldwide', we don't forget that what a professor in Sweden has said: "Verifying the existence of paranormal phenomena does not seem to be a promising field of science," (Sven Ove Hansson, professor of philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, KTH).

What then does this mean?

Simple: that the field of PARAPSYCHOLOGY is a developing field on its own right. This is why even the Wikipedia page lists parapsychology organizations and publications for that purpose. It is not as if ALL scientists are agreed that the psychic studies have produced zero results - NOT AT ALL. Rather, because the 'establishment' is more a political bloc when it comes to funding, the bias is usually expressed in misleading verbiage that "that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist" - not that they deny its existence; instead, they have no 'science' within their matrix to recognize such phenomena for funding - which is why it is now privately funded.

toneyb:
. No need to get all worked up my brother.

I wasn't getting worked up at all.

Viaro do you know any pastor, psychic, babalawo or that can fully demonstrate his so called abilities in front of every body under full scientific scrutiny if yes name the person and put us all to shame once and for all? All your endless cries will not help you.

I know some who have demonstrated the supernatural. You named at least one guy whose demonstration Randi witnessed. If Randi could not replicate what he saw, please continue with your cries and msiery free of charge. If only you were actually looking for fairness, I would oblige you; but since you are beginning to sound like a joker, I could let you continue.

And who are YOU? Your position in the scheme of things is WHAT? Of what importance is your opinion in anything? Are you a psychic? Why does Randi have to appeal to people like you? Randi might be a cheap cheat but so are all the others that can not come out and fully demonstrate their so called abilities and show that it can stand scientific scrutiny.

Dude, easy. Did I ask Randi to appeal to ME?!? Are you drunk or what? WHERE did I ask Randi to appeal to me? BTW, who are YOU in the scheme of things, toneyb? Since you want to start acting like a drunk, let's have a go at it - just what is your qualification in these things? Or better still, what is Randi's scientific qualification? Please pack yourself one corner!

If you know a dot about 'scientific scrutiny', please tell me what "science" establishes that UNLESS the guy who walks on hot coals repeats the same thing for 50 secs, then it is not "real"? What science determines that it would require 50 secs for anything to be real whereas Randi neither could replicate what he saw nor could he DENY it?

Dude, please read well before sounding more like a joker.

And who are those that will not kid with his road side show? . Will they just go show their psychic ability and shut him up forever and show to the entire world that they truly have the abilities they claim to posses and show that he is a charlatan?

If you did a lil background check you would have seen it. The challenge is out there - go sob all you want to Randi the charlatan - he likes so well that people can cry on his behalf that is why you never take time to source him out before you come celebrating him. Let Randi go over to them and put them all out of their miseries - just like he saw the guy walking on hot coals but could NOT DENY it! I'm waiting for REPLICATED RESULTS from your beloved Randi, toneyb.

So what if it is not his money? The money is still up for grabs. Who are those that have "exposed" him? . Will they quickly go and show that their abilities are real and can stand scientific scrutiny? Will they do that and shut Randi forever? Crying endlessly without taking the test will neither save you nor the guys whose boots you are continuously licking.

Oh c',mon, dude. Did you not say that Randi has 1 million dollars earlier? Quickly changing your mind about that? Hmmm. Oh, yada .[color=Black].[/color]. I forgot: atheists like you like so well to revel in Randi's trickery, no? Look, don't let him continue to deceive you with loud noise making that he can't replicate, get it?

Now a word about 'scientific scrutiny' - please shut up! Randi is NO SCIENTIST but a sham! The drop-out from high school is what you're presenting on the platform of "scientific scrutiny". Dude, you need a wake-up call!

'Scientific scrutiny' indeed. If you have someone credible with sound qualification - EARNED (not dubiously awarded) - then please let's talk. Celebrating a charlatan who's a dropout for the 'scientific scrutiny' that he won't know what to do with if he saw one, that is simply comedy central! Does it now baffle you as to WHY Randi will never take up SERIOUS challenge where fairness based on intelligence and scientific protocol are on ground? Pack yourself into one small garage, please! I forgot Randi is a loud mouth!

Randi did not say that he is a psychic and he has never said that psychic abilities does not exists, all he said is that anybody with such abilities should come forward and display them under some scientific scrutiny for people to see how real those abilities are.

Hang on, dude. So you do have a high-five for someone who's not a psychic to then be properly qualified to draw conclusions about psychic realities, yes? Clap for yourself. Oh, maybe I got that wrong - so let's try again: that Randi has 'never said that psychic abilities do not exist' means what exactly: that he believes that they do exist, yes?

Please don't kid yourself. Randi, if he believes that such things exist, would NOT be placing a millio[color=Black]n bu[/color]cks to disprove that same thing! It is because Randi DOES NOT believe that such things are real, that is why he places such a stake as a skeptic to DISCREDIT, DENOUNCE, and DISMISS them! This is why the talk about Randi's "scientific scrutiny" is ghost-ship talk. What correlation is there between such "scientific scrutiny" and Randi's confirmed sham of trickery?

That is a very SIMPLE request for any body that truly has the ability and can demonstrate it. The same charlatans are all over televisions and in various show displaying their so called abilities no? Some of them even have temples and claim a very high success rate, Will you and them stop crying all over the place and take up the challenge?

First, I have not claimed that I have any such abilities. Second, YOU have narrated that one guy walked on hot coals and Randi nowhere claimed that it never happened. Third, if Randi has credibility beyond his celebrated noise, WHY has he not REPLICATED the same thing but rather boasted that he uses the same tricks to discredit people? Would you please wisen up and stop deceiving yourself with your doublespeak?

^^ I faced the same dilemma, hehe. But I think your other answers are hard to beat!

^^ lemme do i-spy.

JeSoul:

11.Which newbie invented the memorable phrase “logic of contamination”? (a) Iyineda (b) InesQor (c) chukwudi44

Newbie? InesQor?

I thought that was Iyineda?

Okay, must take a quick dive out for now .[color=Black].[/color]. still working on my answers (the exam is kinda tough - I need more 'i-spies', hehe).

toneyb:
The guy quickly refused and began to attack Randi as usual. I completely agree with Randi if the guy could walk on hot coal why not step his feet in boiling water or boiling oil for the same duration. Randi uses the same tricks they use on people to discredit them and that irony is what escapes them

WHY then did Randi NOT produce the same results for that little amount of time BEFORE asking anyone else to do same?

The thing that amazes me is that you could be so gullible to "completely agree with Randi" - whereas that guy was no fool! The guy may not have claimed that his own ability was in walking on hot water. What he claimed was walking on hot coals - he demonstrated it, Randi got amazed .[color=Black].[/color]. but being unable to REPLICATE the same results and did not know a single trick to do the same, Randi dismisses the guy. And people like you sing your halleluyah chorus: hooray! If there's anything more idiotic under the sun, I don't know it!

We know that Randi NEVER seeks objectivity. What I would like to know from you are these:

(a) Randi agrees that the guy could walk on hot coals: and the guy did. Randi could not replicate the same thing but tries to DISCREDIT the whole thing - "Randi uses the same tricks they use on people to discredit them" yada-yada .[color=Black].[/color]. BUT the same Randi could NOT replicate what he had just witnessed! Does that not tell you something, toneyb?

(b) If Randi could have done the same thing, surely Randi himself could have used the same tricks to walk on boiling water: please tell me - where did Randi go ahead to walk on boiling water?? And yet, the simple "trick" of walking on hot coals far eluded the same randi?

Look, toneyb, you're merely carping! If Randi really knew how to "debunk" what he could NOT DENY before his very eyes, and IF indeed he knew that particular trick that he had just witnessed, we would expect at the very least of all possibilities that he would REPLICATE the same thing! Afterall, did you not say that "Randi uses the same tricks they use on people . . ."?? If Randi COULD NOT REPLICATE that very thing, he's a cheap cheat who is known more for cheap talk than any seriousness to produce results!

And oh, btw .[color=Black].[/color]. you can cry all you want for Randi in another example - it wouldn't make any difference from the fact that he's still a lousy noise maker with no results when it comes to real stuff. Go take a look rather than blindly canvassing for him.

The same hoaxes they use in deceiving people and collecting their money is the same thing Randi uses against them. Randi may be a hoax but so are the fraudulent and unscrupulous people that go about deceiving people and collecting their money.

WHY DID RANDI NOT REPLICATE THE HOT COALS SCENARIO that was performed before his very eyes? Did he run out of "trickery"? WHY did he not replicate what he saw, toneyb? Your talk is CHEAP-CHEAP-CHEAP!!

The people "challenging" were pushed to the wall and had to fight back.

Tall dream. They were not pushed to the wall - that is the lie atheists will tell themselves so as to make them feel god on randi's behalf! Nobody's losing sleep for challenging him - and even those who were once amazed by the so-called 'Amazing Randi' have felt more embarrased on his behalf than anything else. Rather, it is because Randi is pushed to the wall that is why he often shifts the goal posts - like the scenario just panned out above. We want to see Randi WALK ON HOT COALS - or better still, less cheap talk and more REPLICATION of results!!

Since Randi is a person that revels in exposing their trickery and fraudulent activities, They just had to find a way to shut him up, Not because they so called abilities are real but because they know very well that they will loose their means of lively hood or their source of prestige should they allow Randi to keep exposing them. The challenge is very simple and still stands. If you think you have the ability to display supernatural powers go display it and win a million dollars, throwing your own challenge to Randi without displaying yours under scientific scrutiny is nothing but an act of face saving.

Em, the highlighted - "Not because the so called abilities are real" - WHY did Randi not reproduce what he witnessed and could NOT DENY?!?

I'm thoroughly ashamed on your behalf that you could narrate an incident affirming the fact it was real which Randi attested to in witnessing it - but you are the same person trying so hard to deny it all at once. The fact is that neither you nor Randi and his gang of 'amazing cheats' who revel in deceiving themselves, are looking for genuine demonstration of what they question. You guys will always try to deny the obvious so you can feel good about yourselves.

Next time try replicating or reproducing results with/without "trickery" before enslaving yourself to the amazingly cheap Randi.

toneyb:
The fact they they are not willing to come forward and attempt or take on his challenge says more about them and their so called abilities NOT him.

The fact that Randi is NOT willing to face up to them says volumes about his charade - especially where his credibility is now in doubt. We know Randi always wants to shift the goal posts: charlatans always do so in order to come claiming some cheap glory. The guys who are challenging Randi have offered him all fairness - fairness that he cannot refuse - so that this matter should be settled once and for all. Randi enjoys attacking the credibility of others; but he also enjoys people like you who try to shield him from facing up to real challenges when the chips are down.

The so called "intellectual with scientific protocols" do not exist because the consensus of the scientific community is that psychic abilities have not been demonstrated to exist.

Why are you lying through your teeth? Where has the "scientific community" drawn that conclusion with such finality as you're trying to deceive yourself into believing? The intellectuals with scientific protocols indeed exist - if you only but did a little check on you own rather than sit lazily behind a PC making such silly and ridiculous statements tantamount to nothing other than gutless lying! The way you atheists just make such noise about the "scientific community" is awesome - but shameful. Please grow up!

I really liked what mazaje said that Randi is willing to use trickery to unmask, debunk and otherwise humiliate psychics and paranormal researchers.

Should anyone be surprised about that? Should I even be surprised that you would celebrate a man who uses trickery instead of sincerity and fairness? This is why I am laughing at the ridiculous inclination of atheists to celebrate falsehood and trickery while they make excuses for real case scenarios proffering openness and fairness! I'll chalk that up so next time I know it's no longer news that atheists also celebrate trickery and falsehood. Says nothing, though, about WHY Randi is running like hell from the challenges open to him. He knows - because no 'tricks' under the sun will help him produce the same effects. Let him DARE.

Like mazaje rightly said the irony truly escapes them. There was this guy that could walk on hot coal. He demonstrated that ability in front of his audience and fans. Randi came there and was truly astonished and openly said that he did not understand the trick behind the guy's ability. He then threw a challenge for the guy to do the same with boiling water and hot oil, stating that if the guy could walk on hot coal for about 50 seconds (or there about) without hurting his feet, he should also be able to put his feet in boiling water or boiling oil for the same duration and come out unscathed.

Story! I could BUT laugh at the sheer stupidity in that narration. Dude, what have I been saying all along? WHY does/did Randi NOT walk on hot coals for even 10 seconds? And he has the idiocy of priding himself as a "debunker"? HAHAHAHAHA!! You this man, please go and sit down in a small corner!

I don't care how many seconds Randi wanted to see the act that surprised him. Calling for the same act for 50 seconds will not make any difference. The fact was that Randi saw but could NOT deny that such an event took place! LET RANDI PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS for the same amount of time as he saw in that act - 5 secs, 10 secs, 15 secs - doesn't matter: Just let him replicate the same results with his own "amazing Randi trickery". That's all! WHY DID YOU NOT REPORT THAT HE DID?

Now assuming the same guy walked on hot coals for the requested 50 seconds, would that change Randi's mind one bit? Of course not - and we know why! 

@toneyb,

You have a subtle way of taking us for a ride - and I really don't appreciate that. Where you have sometime in the past been sensible, I have looked past the notion of you being an atheist and appreciated what you had to say. But excuse my being blunt with you in this one.

toneyb:
Randi maybe a charlatan but so are all the other psychics out there who claim to be what they are not at all.

That is the usual atheistic skeptic cry. When you guys do not know how to save face, you declare everything and everybody to be as fraudulent as your own charlatans. And Randi so likes to read this cheap lullabies from those of you who like to make these broad categorizations.

They just go about waving their charade in front of gullible people who never take time to source them out that is why they appeal to people like you.

Don't you see how very empty your drivel is? The one thing you can't cement on others who call Randi's bluff is the accusation that we "never take time to source" Randi and his ilk out! This is why in my previous reply it is obvious that Randi does not appeal to people like me - which was why I made clear that I would not bet a dime on his silly a[color=Black]ss[/color]. The guy is a cheap cheat - if you have any salient thing to do other than lick his boots, go source him out and stop being so deceitfully apologetic on his behalf!

Thanks to Randi we now know how the charlatans operate and the methods they use.

And thanks to those who call Randi out for the charlatan he is - no biggy there. Randi as a charlatan "debunking" charlatans - what news is in there? But let him go near those who will not kid with his roadside show and let's see how much of "debunking" he would muster.

This is just lame and ridiculous, Just like mazaje has said Randi does not need to face any challenge, He was the one that put forth a challenge to any psychic who believes he is real to come forward and demonstrate his psychic abilities and win 1 million dollars but instead of coming forward and doing that very simple task some thing the psychics claim they can do or have been doing all the time, the charlatans are instead throwing some bogus challenge around just to save their faces as mazaje pointed out. If they truly have the ability why not just go demonstrate it and embarrass Randi or shut him up once and for all?

Your whole garboil is LAME with a capital L. Randi is a dupe, we know. The same thing he set up is what others have set up - even at a cheaper rate! The US$1 million is NOT his money, so cry all you want. If Randi has any credibility, let him face up to those who have exposed him for his charade. You don't think there's anything there? No surprises - because Randi enjoys the charade his boot-lickers put up in his defence so he can ride high on your ridiculous whinging here.

This is just too lame, Randi's challenge is for those so called psychics to come forward and demonstrate their psychic abilities under controlled and watchful eyes of others(in the open).

The same thing Randi has been offered - the clock is still ticking and he has NOT been able to face up. Please tell me why instead of crying on his behalf.

InesQor:
@viaro & mazaje: I believe that my perspective on these complications about proving the supernatural is this:
One may prove the supernatural, but one may not always do so BECAUSE the physical does not control the supernatural. It's vice versa, the supernatural controlling the physical at its own will.
Thus, Randi may never get his winner, and even if he does, it would just be a matter of fate (luck?) for the person to achieve the same results 100% throughout the trial period. Real supernatural things don't work that way.

I don't think you needed to clarify. We know that Randi is never going to award that US$1 million - first, because it is NOT his money; and second, the guy is a cheat and shameless loud mouth who has no results in his sham of 'debunking'. I want to see Randi replicating the same "walking on hot coals" that toneyb talked about rather than making all sorts of cheap and very lousy noise in this thread.

WHERE is Randi's replication by himself of walking on hot coals? Let him do it by "luck" and keep his award that is not his in the first place.

is a woman who is traditionally and legally married but not wedded in church recognized as being sinful before God

I think sometimes we trouble ourselves with far too many religious bottlenecks than are necessary.

If two people come together as one and get married, let us learn to respect and value that tie as a legal/legitimate marriage. Asking whether the marraige took place in a 'church' is unnecessary - we could as well question the validity and legality OT marriages since people like Abraham still married long before the Church existed.

mazaje:
See, here is the problem.The charlatans know very well that they do NOT have any verifiable evidence so in other to save face they decide to attack the integrity of James Randi. The cannot give Randi's challenge legitimacy because it demonstrates their claims are false so their only choice is to discredit him and the challenge and what is offered as proof? some cranky new-age website!

Sorry mazaje, no biggy there. Randi is a charlatan and knows it so very well. He may wave his charade in front of people who lick up his boots and never take time to source him out, that is why he appeals to you. On several occasions when randi has been challenged to bear up for many of his claims, he has had to admit he's a liar - without anyone "attacking" his so-called "integrity". That integrity he does not have is what he wants cheap minds to believe is being attacked, so what is surprising there? randi himself is BIG on attacking people's integrity when he cannot find a way to dispel his own mythical skepticism. Go and find out instead of being sorry for the cheap cheat.

Randi does not need to take up any challenge from any body.

We know why - because he does not really have any fairplay up his sleeves. We can as well say that nobody needs to take up any challenges from Randi - that is what he wants his chorus singers to say so that he could go off dancing on ice. Randi ought to face up to to those challenges IF he has any credibility at all - that is the point.

If you can prove the existence or reality of supernatural powers do so and you will have 1million dollars.

Rubbish. Let Randi REPRODUCE what he calls 'hoaxes' and stop running away from those challenges. Why is that proving too hard for him? Let him keep his US$1 million (it is not his personal money) - but let him face up to serious challenges from intellectuals with scientific protocols. Why is that a hard thing for him to do?

The believers in these things don't accept Randi's change as legitimate,they see him as the charlatan because he is willing to use trickery to unmask, debunk and otherwise humiliate psychics and paranormal researchers, the irony escapes them. Funny how all these name brand psychics all charge (a lot!) for their "gifts from god" LOL.

Yes, Randi is ready to shift the goal posts and decide on who to debunk - the charlatans he knows only too well will fall face down for his trickery. He also knows he will be humiliated free of charge by those who are still waiting for him to face up to the challenges they have for him. Let him use his trickery to REPRODUCE the same results.

Thanks Randi for his efforts to expose these frauds preying on people. The claim by Randi is a direct reply and statement to those fakes who claim 100% accuracy and go on media and are frauds. If they claim they have amazing gifts Randi counter claims that they are amazing BSers and that is what the challenge is for.

Nothing new - we all know that there are frauds. So Randi picks on them (the frauds) but he escapes the challenge from those who are not going to kid with him. If it was not for these others who challenge him, the same Randi would have been riding high on gullible praise singers who excuse his hoaxes.

Anyone with true gifts should be able to go in and show a CLEAR function of their gift and if they had to do it 1 time or 100 times they should be able to demonstrate it. The test is there so that no luck can occur, the test is there to prove the claims of these fakes who say they don't use luck themselves so the test makes sure there is no luck or random chance at all. If your guide can tell you the answer to a question once then surely the guide can tell it to you 100 times and heck, win the million and donate it right back or give it to charity. But as usual since they know very well that they can't stand up to the challenge its easier to attack Randi than to just go and simply reveal their so called supernatural abilities. If you go about lying to people that you can fly or suspend in the air go and prove it and win 1 million dollars end of story.

It shows you are not in current news, dude. Go and find out more about the so-called "integrity" of Randi you're praising here before you eat back your words. If Randi goes about lying to people, he should be named and shamed in the same way that he takes pleasure at naming and shaming charlatans - that is the whole point in those who have challenged him. It is a shame that some people will excuse Randi from real issues and claim that he does not need to take up any challenge - that is simply a lazy way of thinking and a ready-made escape hatch that Randi enjoys so well.

My goodness! I couldn't stop laughing .[color=Black].[/color]. I'm almost bursting!

Very, very refreshing! Please let me wipe the laughing tears from my eyes before I sit the exams!!

Fantastic!

benodic:
if you misuse any of them for personal gain or for ego trips you will lose it faster than you can say jack robinson

How did you arrive at this conclusion??

@muhsin,

Although toba in his own right has answered you, I on the other hand will not allow you drag this into distractions about Biblical doctrines. Islam has no bearing on Biblical doctrines, and it is hopeless for the Muslim to try to use his quran to argue against the Bible. Therefore, I would rather repeat the fact that you are running away from the things I commented on and arguing what I did not post on, nor what appears on the OP.

Why do Muslims like to be so dubious like what you want to do here, muhsin? When you chaps behave this way, I lose all respect for you and shake my head in pity at your tendency to confirm that Muslims champion nothing other than deception and lying. This is why you SKIP EVERYTHING I have argued and ran off to something else:

muhsin:
Let me skip your everything but answer one thing, i.e. where the Qur'an correct bible but in context, which is what I mentioned initially.

This is a disgraceful twist of events that is aptly called 'Muslim deceptive distraction' (mdd). Dude, why are you ignoring the FACT of the points I raised so you can twist things to become entirely what I did not comment on?

Please muhsin, please post me the verse for the Muslim LIE that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible. Where is that verse?

If you don't have the verse to show, it's either you're happy to keep lying as a Muslim - or at least deny what the Quran says. The Quran simply said that it came to CONFIRM the Bible, not "correct" it. Is that true or false? Please post me the verse - that is all I ask. WHERE IS THAT VERSE, muhsin?


If I wanted to follow the same trend of skipping whatever you have posted and just remain on one question, I could as well ask you to answer me one simple question that does not appear in the OP: the Quran claims that Allah created SEVEN earths (Quran 65:12): since we know of only one earth, please tell me where the other SIX EARTHS are located? WHERE are Allah's remaining SIX EARTHS, muhsin??

I bet you would have no answer for that.

But this is not about comparing the Bible alongside the Quran. The OP discusses the "Memorization" and writing of the quran in its entirety - it does not discuss Biblical doctrines of the Godhead, the Deity of Christ, salvation, etc. Why then are you trying so hard to detract from the OP and bring in irrelevant subjects, dubious muhsin?

My man, I am waiting for answers to the questions I asked in regards to the OP:

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.

If you don't have any of those verses to post, don't bore us with your usual Muslim excuses.

toba:
Is there any religious person that can be more deceptive like mohammad the promiscuous prophet?

^^ lol, toba . . . let's leave out direct castigations on the person of Muhammad and just discuss mr Experts' plagiarised network.

muhsin:
Hmm . . . You are a deceptive man, Viaro. I like the way you write. But that beside, your argument hold no water, whatsoever.

Ha, muhsin .[color=Black].[/color]. you could not post any verses from the Quran in answer to my question: so the last rope you want to hold now is accuse me of deception?!?

One, I'll like you to stick to the thread subject, i.e. comparing Bible and Qur'an side by side to simply find which one is correct and which one is incorrect. Your grab has extended to that.

What yapping is this? My previous comments focused on Mr Experts' plagiarism of Sabeel Ahmed's redundant arguments - I have outlined my concerns, presented evidence for them at least from the SAHIH hadiths, and left you and your friends very simple questions to find verses to counter my points. Have you done so? Why have you not done so in answer to my questions?

Two, I pin-point that I couldn't say this verse exactly say exactly what you are asking. But remember that content can represent part and vice-versa. If you believe in that then the case is virtually closed because many contents demonstrate that fact.

Please stop making excuses. Either post the verses or just zip it.

Three, I won't go into that repeated arguments of scientific proofs of Bible or Qur'an. I can recall Nuclearboy, Abuzola, Olabowale, et al have recently thrashed that out. And many more posts.

Hehe .[color=Black].[/color]. nice try, dude. Your attempt to deviate from the points I highlighted didn't help - so you resort to what has been "thrashed out" previously, no?

Look, I'm not interested in distractions. My concerns were borne out in my previous replies to mr Experts - if you have clear verses from your Quran for his fallacies, post them. If otherwise, count your loss - it's not my problem.

KunleOshob:
It might even be the means by which God knows what is in our mind. Ability to be able to manipulate and control brain waves would give man tremendous power over other men becos you would be able to control them and manipulate them. You can imagine the potentials of this "technology". The use and manipulation of this brain wave technology might actually be what is responsible for a good number of paranormal occurences. For more on brainwave technology check the link below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6661974/

'The use and manipulation of this brain wave technology might actually be what is responsible for a good number of paranormal occurences'
^^^
such as . . .?

toneyb:
James Randi has 1million dollars(US) to give to anybody that can prove that his/her mystical capability is real.

I wouldn't bet a dime on James Randi. He's much too controversial with simple truth, if he ever was genuinely interested in finding evidence for the paranormal.

Randi pats himself with the offer of US$1 million to anyone able to prove the existence and reality of the supernatural and/or paranormal; but the same Randi has never been able to take up the challenges offered him by others. An example: go to Survival_After_Death and find 'The Ultimate Psychic Challenge - A Challenge to James Randi'. Has Randi taken up the challenge at any time?

Of course, there are a number of serious challenges - following intellectual and scientific protocol - thrown at Randi. The dude has not attempted any serious answers or responses to them; and his theatricals are vanishingly (and astonishingly) abating and far less impressing .[color=Black].[/color]. except, of course, to those who just want to be entertained by Randi's dishonest skepticism.

The move by the USA is criminal. How many embassies in the US would halt any project in USA undertaken by the US government - on their own land?

America is always having a sense of 'security threat' these days because they can't grow up past their burger-fed faces! What security threat does Nigeria pose to the US embassy?

This is more than ridiculous to read!

Well done, Steve Ayorinde .[color=Black].[/color]. professionalism shines through.

It would be interesting to see Ishiekwene's professional response to the well articulated infractions in Ayorinde's petition.

A public body that begins to lick the honey it rejected will not be in any hurry to quarrel with the bees.

^{Please translate for your private consumption.}

@muhsin,

muhsin:
There is something you seemingly misunderstand with Mr. Experts's post, and that is: there are many, many issues that are already discussed by another person(s), knowing that therefore shun-away every need to re-compose the same piece with the same content. I kinda believe taking it and re-posting it is not what you claim it--plagiarism, especially since boards like this one is not an academic platform. Though I believe with something you raise, at least to some extent, that he (Experts) should include the piece's link for at least regard to the effort of its original writer.

Thank you for your comments, but I don't think they made any difference in my responses to mr Experts' plagiarised arguments from Sabeel Ahmed. Yes, I maintain that it was plagiarised - because some of us happen to have seen Sabeel's oft-recycled article in many Muslim fora. When Experts reposted it here, he ought to have left a disclaimer in recognition of its author; or done the more appropriate thing in posting it in the Muslim motherboard/section of Nairaland, if his intention was to bless Muslims and not come here in the broader Religion board seeking an unnecessary argument.

Whatever the case, the substance of Sabeel's argument are altogether redundant - and that was what I set out to demonstrate.

On the thread topical issue, you got really wrong there: although I can't, as of now, point directly a single verse where the noble Qur'an is said to be correcting the Bible, yet there are numerous proofs that that's what it has been sent to.

That again is an oft-repeated deliberate falsehood. 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. Rather, to my surprise, I discovered after my first reading of the Quran that there are numerous verses affirming that it came to CONFIRM the Bible. This was why I posted several verses showing that the Quran came to CONFIRM the Bible - so that even though I might not have explained anything, the reader would see it in white and black that the Quran indeed asserts itself to confirm the Bible.

Do you have a single verse anywhere that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible? Please post that verse and let us read it for ourselves - that is all I ask. Anything other than posting that verse will simply be regarded as what I call an F³ formula - F[/b]ARCE, [b]F[/b]ALSE and [b]F[/b]ALLACY!

For a typical example take the contents of the both two sacred books. On many instances bible tells stories that were later found and proved incorrect, unscientific, fiction, etc and when compared side by side with that of the Qur'an the latter's found correct, scientific, based on historical facts etc. This does not stay here but also on matters about the God, His being, His messengers and their acts, etc.

Please don't humour or try to impress yourself. How 'scientific' is the Quranic statement that allah created [b]SEVEN earths?? Yes, the other things about God and the acts of His messengers are for another discussion as you said; but please tell me what is scientific about the fallacy of seven earths - did you ever check that?

You see, this is not the time and place for me to begin to engage you guys on any other arguments. I want to remain simply on the issues I pointed out to mr Experts - if he wants to provide the verses I am asking for, let him do so. If neither you nor him nor any other Muslim is able to provide a verse for that simple question, then please end the drama and let the fallacy of mr Experts stand as a testimony of its empty claims. The Quran did not come to "correct" the Bible; rather, it came to CONFIRM the Bible. period.

I'm afraid I lack sufficient time I should have to demonstrate these points to and other readers. But I'll see to it later, inshaAllah.

I would be glad to read you post me ANY VERSE where the Quran claims to have come to "correct" the Bible. Just one verse will do. If you don't have any such verses direct from allah's book, I'm afraid no lie from any Muslim scholar will be more authoritative than your Quran.

Post me that verse to answer my question - that is all I ask. Can you find such a verse? I am waiting.

experts:
i was a little busy,

i will get back shortly and everything will be explained,

stay cool

I'm not looking for any al-taqiyya 'explained' from you. Just post me any verse where the Quran claims to have come to "correct" the Bible. I have posted verses where the Quran said that it came to CONFIRM the Bible. Now do you have any verse for your fallacy that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible?

I just took a look in the other thread and saw that babs787 has done the honorable thing in admitting that no such verse is in the Quran. So what are you Mr. Experts now trying to do with your "explanation"?

Simply post me the verse where the Quran claims to have come to "correct" the Bible - just as I posted verses where the Quran says it came to CONFIRM the Bible (post #10).

Where is your verse for your Quran claiming to have come to "correct" the Bible? SIMPLY POST THAT VERSE so we can read it for ourselves. Period.

@babs787,

babs787:
@Viaro
We both know ourselves.

Please don't try to bribe me - I don't know you from Adam; but I find it very queer indeed that the way you argue issues here are very, very not impressive at all. The concerns I tabled in reply to mr. experts are simple: it's either you don't have any answers so you don't need to offer excuses to twist anything; or you just want to waste your time impressing no one else but yourself. The one thing I would like to see is that you don't come forward making false and unfounded statements.

Let us be civil this time. I could see that this thread was 'intelligently' diverted but wopuld continue shortly.

I welcome civility - but not deliberate falsehood. There was NOTHING "intelligent" in your comments or in mr. experts PLAGIARISM of Sabeel's redundant arguments.

__________________________

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.

If you don't have any of those verses to post, don't bore us with your usual Muslim excuses. I hope you can appreciate my simple request - and thanks in advance.

@babs787,

babs787:
I thought you claimed to have read the Quran or better still understand Islam. The above is talking about ways to recite it and make it pleasing.

What I stated is clear - unless you no longer understand English. This was what I said:

    Not too long ago I started reading the Quran in English - and now that
    I've completed reading it, I can agree that there's not a single verse
    where Allah or Muhammad ever claimed that the Quran came to "correct"
    the Bible on any matter! Nada. Zilch. Nix.

I did not claim anywhere to have "recited" the Quran in either quraish or any other arabian dialect! So, what I said still stands solid and sweet - IN ENGLISH. Therefore, if any copy of the Quran ever claimed that it was given to "correct" the Bible, please post that quran verse for us all to see! If you cannot find that verse for us, everything you have argued here is an absolute waste and confirms you had no mission here than to fill pages with empty noise.

At the very least I gave Quran verse that affirm that the Quran was given to CONFIRM the Bible. Now please find that quran verse that claims that your Quran came to "correct" the Bible - for that is the whole point in my comments to mr experts (unless you are the mr experts). If you cannot find that verse, why are you wasting your own time here?

A reciter may recite differently through Tajweed but they all refer to same thing.Reciting in different ways does not have any big as you are portraying it. It is just like composing same songs for 5 singers. You should not expect them to sing the same way and if you are able to understand it that way, you would know that it is not a big deal reciting differently.

Did I claim anywhere to have "recited" the Quran? Please show me.

You muslims are a very funny bunch of people. The subject here is not about who recited what. I could not care less whose recitations occured in 70 milliom ways; but for all intents and priposes, any muslim claiming that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible is lying through his or her yellow teeth! Period. If you don't want to be confirmed as such, then post that verse where the Quran in any "recitation" or "translation" claims the Quran came to "correct" te Bible - or just keep your Muslim fallacy to yourself.

I will get there.

You never get anywhere - please answer the simple question I asked above. Thank you.

Why did Umar or any of the companions not include it if it supposed to be part of the Quran?

Dude, I was not Umar's partner in compilation nor did I dictate for him what he was intending to do. It is up to Umar to answer that question himself - which sadly is impossible, since he has long been buried. The fact is that Muslims during his time noted that such a verse was revealed by allah and was recited and memorised by Muslims -

    'Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent
    down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was
    sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it.'

Since that was the OBVIOUS case, it is not up to me to find excuses for why Umar or anybody else did not include it in the Quran. The excuse that it was abrogated does not even cut it for you - the point was that those Muslims recited such a verse, retained it in memory, understood it, and acted upon it - but today that verse is NOT found in the quran. That is the point - and no muslim excuse will cover it.

It was part of the recitation but abrogated but its ruling still remains.

Just listen to yourself, dude! That is quite a shame and you know in your conscience that is a lie. There are Muslim scholars who do not claim that what was abrogated "still remains" in its ruling! Oh gosh! It's either you guys find it convenient to use all sorts of doublespeak when caught out flatly with your pants down, or you just keep foaming out more and more excuses!

Look, I'm not a Muslim, but what I draw upon to state here are from MUSLIM sources! As regards abrogation of verses in the Quran, it is Muslim scholars themselves who tell us that there are different types of verses - those called nasikh (the abrogat[b]ing[/b] verses) and those called mansukh (the abrogat[b]ed[/b] verses). The point at the end of the day is that the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses. This is the concensus of Islamic scholars themselves - and therefore your claim as regards the abrogated verses as "its ruling still remains" is a FARCE!

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the Prophet leave anything (any other Qur’an besides this Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave anything (any other revelation) except what is (safe) between the two bindings (of the Qur'an[/b])." Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, "[b]The Prophet did not leave (any other revelation) except what is between the bindings (of the Qur'an)."

You know why that is also a fallacy? Oh c'mon! We know that the compilaton of the Quran into a single codex took place AFTER the death of Muhammad! You guys are a funny bunch!

Muslims themselves cannot excuse this fact; so here's an excerpt from one Muslim source: "It was not in book form but in different parchments. Other Companions also had collections of the Qur'an for their personal record but no standard copy of the Qur'an in book form existed." (see Albalagh)

Hello babs787,

babs787:
@Viaro
Could you please be explicit on what you meant by 'being soundly debunked'?

@babs787, I posted the link to the thread where that Muslim fallacy was debunked. I went through that link from the first to last page and did not find any intelligent answers from ANY Muslim to show anywhere that the Quran claimed to have come to "correct" any line in the Bible - rather, as was pointed out, the Quran in many places claimed to have been sent to CONFIRM the Bible. I hope that is clear enough?

babs787:
@Viaro
Hold on dude. For calling something a disagreement, you should be able to provide a copy pf the Quran that says this and another copy saying that or a copy having a verse but missing in another copy just like we have examples in your book. I would agree with you when you are able to bring up a verse in the Quran missing but present in another or a verse saying yes and another saying no (you know i have examples from your book)

Dude, I clearly pointed out the three areas of concerns that are NOT found in the Quran. I can trust you to either be honest to have seen those areas - or rather be a typical Muslim and DENY them as much as you wish. The point is that we have grown tired of Muslims claiming this and that and then denying those same claims. The precise quotes of the SAHIH hadiths (Bukhari and Muslim) attest to those verses that were either cancelled or are missing in the Quran - nevermind that Muslims are alwasy excusing Uthman's burning of all copies of the Quran AFTER his own political redactions.

babs787:
@Viaro
Let me tell you something that you fail to understand, there may be have been disagreement between the alleged copyists but you could never see such in the Quran. You will never see a verse present but missing in another and that alone shows the completeness of the book.

Babs787, please do kindly stop excusing the obvious fallacy of that Muslim claim. The hadiths I quoted showed that there were disagreements between the copyists; and these are attested in several other hadith verses I cited to show those missing verses. My question was simply that Muslims should please show us either WHERE those verses are found in the Quran or explain WHY they were altogether cancelled and not found in the present Quran today. You seem to be filling pages with excuses rather than just go straight and provide answers to those pertinent questions - I don't expect you would provide any answers in future though .[color=Black].[/color]. which is the usual Muslim thing to do.

babs787:
For example, so called disagreement are being made by the copyists in only the hadiths but not in the Quran while in your book, the copyists extended it to your holy book and you have these to debunk:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-46848.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-46848.32.html

Em, sorry - it is a factual lie you waving here in our faces, so please keep it to yourself. No sincere and honest Muslim with a good conscience will lie publicly that it is only in the hadiths that copyists had disagreements - that is why the SAHIH hadiths are named "sahih" because Muslims hold them as AUTHENTIC and AUTHORITATIVE! It will be queer of you to come and make these pale and lame excuses here in this time and age as if the usual Muslim games of deception ever works around here. It is either your "sahih" hadiths are 'sahih' or you're saying that Muslim scholars who called them SAHIH have been lying to their Muslim ummah. Which one is it?

toneyb:
I am a reckless driver as already pointed out by nuclearboy.

The road ought to be well-paved so you don't get flat tyres, hehe.

_______________

nuclearboy:
It comes to mind that Moses informed Pharaoh before the fact. How would you explain that and his knowledge of the order of the plagues before they occured?

I didn't really think the connections in the report had substance. Although a couple of scientists were named -

     Professor Augusto Magini, a paleoclimatologist
     Dr Stephan Pflugmacher, a biologist
     Professor Werner Kloas, a biologist
     Nadine von Blohm (??)
     Dr Siro Trevisanato, a biologist

-  yet it strikes me that the article tended more to speculations than real scientific findings. Too many conjectures, IMO. It is one thing to study historical climatic and atmospheric conditions of any region or place, but quite another thing to posit actual historical events as fact.

'They have compiled compelling evidence that offers new explanations for the Biblical plagues, which will be outlined in a new series to be broadcast on the National Geographical Channel on Easter Sunday', says the article. Although one should not therefore jump to any conclusions before the series is aired, yet it is not too much to ask that the scientists undertaking such studies first establish the Biblical plagues as historical facts before trying to offer any "new explanations" anywhere. This is not saying that viaro as a Christian doubts that the plagues are historically factual; but I think the way the report of the scientists is given only tend to more questions scientifically than answers by the same measure.

An example of why that article seems to have far more conjectures than substance is this quote:

Scientists have found pumice, stone made from cooled volcanic lava, during excavations of Egyptian ruins despite there not being any volcanoes in Egypt.

Well, I don't know - but the highlighted in blue makes me wonder what was meant by there not being any volcanoes in Egypt. What about field studies indicating the presence of some of these residue resulting from Tertiary Volcanic activity IN EGYPT?

Even if one may argue rather for the particular case of any volcanoes (rather than volcanic activities)  in Egypt, what then about the Rennebaum Volcano - in Egypt? I don't want to mix up issues here for anyone, but here's an excerpt I found:

[list]East of Cairo, Oligocene quartzitic and reddish sandstones were exposed at Gebel Ahmar (Red Mountain). These sands extend to lake Timsah (Cuvillier, 1930) and are associated with petrified wood and chert conglomerate. They contain miniature volcanoes (Rennebaum volcano) attributed to silica-bearing hydrothermal fluids because of the presence of silicified tubes cutting across the sandstones.
~ ([url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wBXdka5y9KwC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Rennebaum+Volcano+in+Egypt&source=bl&ots=VWGjOS32XF&sig=iscwfvgMoHiREQhX-9766nAjI1c&hl=en&ei=3hCyS8fdEqi80gT7nYmoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Rennebaum%20Volcano%20in%20Egypt&f=false]Geology of Egypt and Libya[/url] By E. Tawadros, Ezzat Tawadros)[/list]

In any case, the article about the scientists and the Biblical plagues - that seems a loaded conjectural work, IMO. The areal extent of their study should mean that just about the same 10 plagues happened at about the same period in a radius covering quite a number of continents! So why the pointer suddenly to the Exodus narratives of the Bible here? This is not unique, for in the recent past, many such connections (rather conjectures, IMO) have been attempted - another example:

'In The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Exodus Story^,[49] geologist Barbara J. Sivertsen seeks to establish a link between the eruption of Santorini ca. 1628 BCE and the Exodus from Egypt in the Bible.' (Wikipedia on the Minoan eruption).