UncleBeer
Veteran
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: temporarily trapped in Holland
21 Dec 2007, 11:08 am
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
21 Dec 2007, 11:39 am
21 Dec 2007, 11:49 am
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
21 Dec 2007, 11:55 am
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
21 Dec 2007, 12:00 pm
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
he is from the skeptic inquirer he is a former magician that pretended to have psychic power but didn't. He fights with alot of psychics even to the point of getting sued and losing. He is not unbiased which you need for scientific research but here sure. As per wikipedia but I'm betting your going say its bull
Quote:
Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[12] The study did not undergo scientific peer review, and CSI's Ray Hyman, a psychologist and noted critic of parapsychology, wrote a detailed critique of Schwartz's methodology and conclusions in a 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.[13] Schwartz responded to the critique,[14] leading Hyman to write a rebuttal.[15]
look up John Edwards on Wikipedia and look at the link.
21 Dec 2007, 12:08 pm
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
he is from the skeptic inquirer he is a former magician that pretended to have psychic power but didn't. He fights with alot of psychics even to the point of getting sued and losing. He is not unbiased which you need for scientific research but here sure. As per wikipedia but I'm betting your going say its bull
Quote:
Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[12] The study did not undergo scientific peer review, and CSI's Ray Hyman, a psychologist and noted critic of parapsychology, wrote a detailed critique of Schwartz's methodology and conclusions in a 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.[13] Schwartz responded to the critique,[14] leading Hyman to write a rebuttal.[15]
look up John Edwards on Wikipedia and look at the link.And the part you quoted didn't interest you in the slightest, raise an eyebrow?
It says it hasn't been peer reviewed. That still doesn't have anything to do with the point you brought up about scientists being biased though since our former magician (Who I'm well aware of considering I was the first to mention him) is not a scientist.
I'm betting you're either not going to respond, or say something else, am I right? Of course I am. That's the kind of dumb sh** a guy like Edwards would pull. It's called Cold Reading in case you're a newbie.
21 Dec 2007, 12:09 pm
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
he is from the skeptic inquirer he is a former magician that pretended to have psychic power but didn't. He fights with alot of psychics even to the point of getting sued and losing. He is not unbiased which you need for scientific research but here sure. As per wikipedia but I'm betting your going say its bull
Quote:
Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[12] The study did not undergo scientific peer review, and CSI's Ray Hyman, a psychologist and noted critic of parapsychology, wrote a detailed critique of Schwartz's methodology and conclusions in a 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.[13] Schwartz responded to the critique,[14] leading Hyman to write a rebuttal.[15]
look up John Edwards on Wikipedia and look at the link.And the part you quoted didn't interest you in the slightest, raise an eyebrow?
It says it hasn't been peer reviewed. That still doesn't have anything to do with the point you brought up about scientists being biased though since our former magician (Who I'm well aware of considering I was the first to mention him) is not a scientist.
I'm betting you're either not going to respond, or say something else, am I right? Of course I am. That's the kind of dumb sh** a guy like Edwards would pull. It's called Cold Reading in case you're a newbie.
There are scientific facts or so they are called that have not undergone scientific peer review. Its just to use something to say look at the response and you'll see that as he claims that usually these thnigs are not always done and still things are proven. As I've seen him in person he does not cold read neither does he get everything right but as he says himself alot of times things that don't make sense there make sense when they think about it at home.
So whos talking bout biased dumb sh*t that he accused everyone else of doing? Lets start getting on theories about science where I effectively debunk the scientific theory of creation. Tell me did the scientific theory of creation get peer reviewed? wait it wasn't peer reviewed untill it was already stated ok so then scientific theory of creation must be false then I bet. Your illogical sitting there grabbing at straws at things you do not understand so give it up. There is no fact because facts are rewritten everyday there is no science because there is bias everywhere where science is about objective data. Its sad how people believe their own hype.
21 Dec 2007, 12:35 pm
21 Dec 2007, 1:23 pm
21 Dec 2007, 1:25 pm
21 Dec 2007, 6:36 pm
jjstar wrote:
beautifulspam wrote:
Hello Jistar. I taught myself to do this one afternoon with a pencil balanced on the edge of my kitchen table. Air currents created by your hand-having can cause light, evenly balanced objects to rotate, even when you move your hands very slowly so as not to create a stronger breeze.
You are dumb.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
OK - I'm sure I have a gold star somewhere...c'mere
there. BTW, I'm sure you wanted to write Sweety Plumb there but it came out *dumb*. Might've been da breeze flapping on da keyboard.
No, I mean that you really are dumb.
I have just offered you proof that at least one piece of evidence for your belief in telekinesis is a hoax, and this is all you can think of? How about re-evaluating your conclusions?
22 Dec 2007, 5:21 am
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
he is from the skeptic inquirer he is a former magician that pretended to have psychic power but didn't. He fights with alot of psychics even to the point of getting sued and losing. He is not unbiased which you need for scientific research but here sure. As per wikipedia but I'm betting your going say its bull
Quote:
Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[12] The study did not undergo scientific peer review, and CSI's Ray Hyman, a psychologist and noted critic of parapsychology, wrote a detailed critique of Schwartz's methodology and conclusions in a 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.[13] Schwartz responded to the critique,[14] leading Hyman to write a rebuttal.[15]
look up John Edwards on Wikipedia and look at the link.And the part you quoted didn't interest you in the slightest, raise an eyebrow?
It says it hasn't been peer reviewed. That still doesn't have anything to do with the point you brought up about scientists being biased though since our former magician (Who I'm well aware of considering I was the first to mention him) is not a scientist.
I'm betting you're either not going to respond, or say something else, am I right? Of course I am. That's the kind of dumb sh** a guy like Edwards would pull. It's called Cold Reading in case you're a newbie.
There are scientific facts or so they are called that have not undergone scientific peer review. Its just to use something to say look at the response and you'll see that as he claims that usually these thnigs are not always done and still things are proven. As I've seen him in person he does not cold read neither does he get everything right but as he says himself alot of times things that don't make sense there make sense when they think about it at home.
So whos talking bout biased dumb sh*t that he accused everyone else of doing? Lets start getting on theories about science where I effectively debunk the scientific theory of creation. Tell me did the scientific theory of creation get peer reviewed? wait it wasn't peer reviewed untill it was already stated ok so then scientific theory of creation must be false then I bet. Your illogical sitting there grabbing at straws at things you do not understand so give it up. There is no fact because facts are rewritten everyday there is no science because there is bias everywhere where science is about objective data. Its sad how people believe their own hype.
Yes I'm sure, but there's nothing that I've seen to make me think that is the case here. That sentence was very awkward and didn't make much sense. So I'm supposed to listen to what you say and assume it's the truth? Why should I take what you say seriously versus what experts say and what I've noticed about the way he does things?
That sentence was also pretty awkward. Oh so now the entire basis of science is sh** because you say there is no proof for the scientific theory of creation? Why does there have to be any evidence, it isn't as if they simply state something and leave it at that, scientists have to take the evidence as it comes and revaluate what they already know based on that, if they hadn't done that all this time and simply stuck to what they believe as you seem to want them to do then we wouldn't be where we are.
So what is your point here? Are you saying that I should believe in the paranormal because you say that the paranormal debunks science and that science is debunked because the paranormal is right? Or that because science revaluates itself it's wrong?
You know if you're going to hold firmly to that whole "There is no truth, facts are meaningless" nonsense then this conversation is going to be pretty damn meaningless itself since you'll just stick to what you say no matter what.
22 Dec 2007, 6:00 am
Oh and sorry about not replying straight away, I was over at my Grandparents home. 
eddiedog8
Veteran
Joined: 1 Aug 2007
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,431
Location: not in my house not in my street not in my shool but in my own world
22 Dec 2007, 7:02 am
22 Dec 2007, 1:14 pm
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
UncleBeer wrote:
What a waste of ya'll's psychic talents! Really: why not 'man up', take James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, contribute the cash to charity, and enjoy a sterling karma for the rest of your days (not to mention being able to sneer at mere mortals such as myself, who can only claim rationality as a 'special power').
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
C'mon now; do the right thing. Think of all the baby seals you could save with your powers.
He would sabotage the results there are some psychics who have already done studies through scientific means whats happens is really that they put the report stating their opinion if the psychic is real or not if its not they push it so far forward to make it seem like theres no such thing and if it is then they refute it several times and it never goes anywhere between idealogical war. Science cannot and will not accept the thought of psychic abilities.
You know all that evil scientific conspiracy bull is really played out. Can we have some facts for once? You know some sort of website or something, or than just your word? If what you're saying is true I'm sure we'd all like to get it from the orginal source.
he is from the skeptic inquirer he is a former magician that pretended to have psychic power but didn't. He fights with alot of psychics even to the point of getting sued and losing. He is not unbiased which you need for scientific research but here sure. As per wikipedia but I'm betting your going say its bull
Quote:
Gary Schwartz, a psychologist and researcher in the controversial field of parapsychology, designed and administered a series of tests for Edward and several other mediums to verify their paranormal claims and published his belief that Edward's abilities were genuine in his book The Afterlife Experiments.[12] The study did not undergo scientific peer review, and CSI's Ray Hyman, a psychologist and noted critic of parapsychology, wrote a detailed critique of Schwartz's methodology and conclusions in a 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.[13] Schwartz responded to the critique,[14] leading Hyman to write a rebuttal.[15]
look up John Edwards on Wikipedia and look at the link.And the part you quoted didn't interest you in the slightest, raise an eyebrow?
It says it hasn't been peer reviewed. That still doesn't have anything to do with the point you brought up about scientists being biased though since our former magician (Who I'm well aware of considering I was the first to mention him) is not a scientist.
I'm betting you're either not going to respond, or say something else, am I right? Of course I am. That's the kind of dumb sh** a guy like Edwards would pull. It's called Cold Reading in case you're a newbie.
There are scientific facts or so they are called that have not undergone scientific peer review. Its just to use something to say look at the response and you'll see that as he claims that usually these thnigs are not always done and still things are proven. As I've seen him in person he does not cold read neither does he get everything right but as he says himself alot of times things that don't make sense there make sense when they think about it at home.
So whos talking bout biased dumb sh*t that he accused everyone else of doing? Lets start getting on theories about science where I effectively debunk the scientific theory of creation. Tell me did the scientific theory of creation get peer reviewed? wait it wasn't peer reviewed untill it was already stated ok so then scientific theory of creation must be false then I bet. Your illogical sitting there grabbing at straws at things you do not understand so give it up. There is no fact because facts are rewritten everyday there is no science because there is bias everywhere where science is about objective data. Its sad how people believe their own hype.
Yes I'm sure, but there's nothing that I've seen to make me think that is the case here. That sentence was very awkward and didn't make much sense. So I'm supposed to listen to what you say and assume it's the truth? Why should I take what you say seriously versus what experts say and what I've noticed about the way he does things?
That sentence was also pretty awkward. Oh so now the entire basis of science is sh** because you say there is no proof for the scientific theory of creation? Why does there have to be any evidence, it isn't as if they simply state something and leave it at that, scientists have to take the evidence as it comes and revaluate what they already know based on that, if they hadn't done that all this time and simply stuck to what they believe as you seem to want them to do then we wouldn't be where we are.
So what is your point here? Are you saying that I should believe in the paranormal because you say that the paranormal debunks science and that science is debunked because the paranormal is right? Or that because science revaluates itself it's wrong?
You know if you're going to hold firmly to that whole "There is no truth, facts are meaningless" nonsense then this conversation is going to be pretty damn meaningless itself since you'll just stick to what you say no matter what.
no I'm saying science will not give paranormal a fair shot so you can't be like well if it was right I'd be scientifically proven cause that is false. So if you don't believe it believe it because you don't believe it don't not believe it due to science saying its wrong. Science would not allow such a thing to be proven as fact because it esses up with the scientific agenda to replace religion. While the people who do not feel science is a replacement for religion will study it make a report it will be rebutted by those who want to make science replace religion as its own political power.
They refut it on the basis of peer review and uncontrolled variables but as every scientist says that is really not that much of a common measure and many things that are taken as fact have not been peer reviewed or every variable controlled. Its a different amount of scrunity I remember reading one rebuttal that acutally admitted that the guy never had his work peer reviewed or a firm control of variables but he said because of the topic all those measures should be in place. That is contradictory in nature and no matter how much firmer people control variables they will always say its not enough because if its proven as a fact they'd need a reason and there is no real reason.
Its a gift while sometimes genetic most are usually not genetic so what can they call it a disease? everyone would be trying to get that disease. How is it spread? how is people chosen to have this gift? all the lack of answers to these questions would hurt science badly since psychic ability was always kind of weird subject who noone but the crazy scientist took. So as I'm saying believe what you want but honestly if we apply the same scrunity that has been asked for 75% of the things that science has "proven" is wrong. So theres no way anyone can say psychics had a fair shake on this they didn't and theres alot of proof that it does exist.
So you were saying you wanted me to show some facts I did and thats only the tip of the iceburg on it. So don't put down anyone's belief in psychics because obviously it was such a unbelieveable thing that much of the cold war was devoted to get telekinetics (they can manipulate the rhythm of the heart see : Nina Kulagina), telepaths (used in spy operations, and psychically wiped targets to assassinate then recover making them look crazy.), remote viewing (this allowed to find people who were hard to find or submarines and such project stargate was initially very good at this operation).
The KGB in particular came out with some technology through their observations of psychic talent. Mostly using radiowaves to block certain emotions like fear. Russians even helped a nation who was against America and another force by using remote viewers to help them avoid planted landmines. They also used radiowave technology to get people sick which they usually pointed towards US Embassy buildings.
Its a topic I find interesting but I responded to you thinking that your way is right its not. If Psychic power wasn't possible the Russians and Americans wouldn't have used it. Am I saying do a 360 and suddenly whole heartedly believe in psychics? nah thats your choice but you gotta understand that because of the biases in the world there is no facts because a fact is objective and unable to rewritten which all of our "facts" currently can be. So understand the political forces and agendas behind where your learning your information. Then you'll be able to find your own truth and know which information is real and what information is propoganda and dogma.
22 Dec 2007, 2:02 pm
