lostindc wrote: To go even further, you did not even research the very basics of the topic you intended to discuss. For instance, you pretended to understand Nelson's research, which you displayed not to understand, then you attempted to denounce nderf and other sources that Nelson has deemed credible in his own scholarship. Lastly, you did little to look at the many reviews of Nelson's work and Nelson's own creationist beliefs and how they have effected his research. Sounds like another poster desiring to do little research and hoping that some preliminary research that one knows little about can help support their ideology.
Reading your posts is like reading spam for some sort of Dick Dawkins upcoming book project, you lack originality, research skills, communication, comprehension, and basic argumentation skills. Talking to you makes me feel like I am playing with my food before I eat it whole.
Here's a pro tip: it doesn't pay to brag about your in-depth knowledge of laughable pseudo-science and crankery that is, like so many others, dressed up in lab coats to fool the credulous.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Roger wrote:The words or images would have to be random and rotate so that no one could cheat or get lucky.
That would be important to make sure they are actually getting a hit. How researchers ask the patients about their expereince would also be important so as to not intentionally or unintentionally manipulate the results to get a hit.
lostindc wrote: To go even further, you did not even research the very basics of the topic you intended to discuss. For instance, you pretended to understand Nelson's research, which you displayed not to understand, then you attempted to denounce nderf and other sources that Nelson has deemed credible in his own scholarship. Lastly, you did little to look at the many reviews of Nelson's work and Nelson's own creationist beliefs and how they have effected his research. Sounds like another poster desiring to do little research and hoping that some preliminary research that one knows little about can help support their ideology.
Reading your posts is like reading spam for some sort of Dick Dawkins upcoming book project, you lack originality, research skills, communication, comprehension, and basic argumentation skills. Talking to you makes me feel like I am playing with my food before I eat it whole.
Here's a pro tip: it doesn't pay to brag about your in-depth knowledge of laughable pseudo-science and crankery that is, like so many others, dressed up in lab coats to fool the credulous.
Move along...your thread has been officially hijacked and turned into something slightly reputable no thanks in part to your poor efforts.
lostindc wrote:Move along...your thread has been officially hijacked and turned into something slightly reputable no thanks in part to your poor efforts.
Buffalo wrote:I notice you haven't been able to produce a single scrap of credible evidence for supernatural NDEs. :)
lostindc wrote:Oh come-on buffalo, lets try not to be so butthurt. Your thread has been hijacked with some interesting exchanges so please move along.
It might be interesting if some credible evidence were produced.
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace