Showme2 / Freda...would you believe this..

[De_Bunk]

I can levitate...not just a foot from the ground...but as high as i like.

I have recently discovered this new talent.

Am i lying...???

Am i faking it, when i do it, using techniques that manipulate peoples thinking...???

Well am i...

Do you believe me...or even just think that i might be able to achieve this feat of paranormal powers...???

DB

[Yahweh]

De_Bunk, you've made a believer! I will pray to you every night and good things will come to me (possibly in $$$$$ form...).

[De_Bunk]

Yahweh..

Thankyou...You can become a brainwashed disciple and help me move luminous trumpets...

DB

[geni]

Can I be the one who breaks away from your group early to spend the next twently years ingaged in interdoctrinal disputes with your fallowers?

[De_Bunk]

Geni..

What... you mean the rebellious one..???

DB

[showme2]

No, DeBunk, I wouldn't believe a word you told me because you are plainly an ignorant aggressive abusive mannerless individual.

Jallenecs has just demonstrated the RIGHT way to conduct a fruitful discussion on this forum, but it obviously hasn't sunk in with you has it ?
But "some fall on stony ground", as they say.

Goodnight.

Showme2

P.S. I'll bet you're a 15 year old kid.
You certainly write like one.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
No, DeBunk, I wouldn't believe a word you told me because you are plainly an ignorant aggressive abusive mannerless individual.

Showme2



So because you think Debunk is ignorant aggressive abusive mannerless he cannot levitate?
Logical fallacy.
His outlook has nothing to do with his talents.

[showme2]

Suezoled
Oh dear ... another moron who imagines that he's an intellectual.

[Aussie Thinker]

I on the other am never rude and think Showme2 is a sensible logical person..

Therefore MY levitation is FACT !

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled
Oh dear ... another moron who imagines that he's an intellectual.

Uh huh. And now who's being ignorant aggressive abusive mannerless?

Your logical fallacy still stands.

He?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled
Oh dear ... another moron who imagines that he's an intellectual.

And you're a hypocrite if you go around telling others how insulting they are yet turn around to do the same.

You know, I'm a medium and a psychic. Do you believe me?

[Ratman_tf]

Hey! I wanna be psychic too!

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Just provide us with certainly-not-photoshopped digital images of the miraculous event, and I'll join your cult presently.

I'll even change my name to Enlightened Flower Peace.

[Suezoled]

Wow! With so many psychics, levitators, clairvoyants, etc, you can get together and form a crime stopping-team. You can solve murders before they happen, point out scams, and tie villains up from bridges with bungee cord in a fashion where thy're swinging helplessly back and forth until the police arrive. The only clue as to who did all this would be a little notecard with flowers and smilies saying "the JREF 5" at the scene of each tidied-up crime area.

Or you could be a bunch of bad-@ss criminals who get away with things all the time and can map out the cops' trails and flee the crime scene before the crime even takes place! The possibilities are endless!

[Aussie Thinker]

Sue,

I have already been stopping murders before they happen for years.

I can prove it too… just look up “all the Murders that would have happened if I had not stopped them” at my website..

www.ihavesupernaturalpowersandyoucantsayotherwise. com

It is estimated that I have prevented over 40,000 Murders to date !

And if you don’t believe that I can give a local demonstration fully where I thwart a potential murder just with the power of my mind.

[Aussie Thinker]

Hey go easy clicking that link Guys.. Telstra Australia are having a meltdown on the phone lines..

I have had to remove my proof now because of the threat to the Internet being overloaded.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I can levitate...not just a foot from the ground...but as high as i like.

I have recently discovered this new talent.

Am i lying...???

Am i faking it, when i do it, using techniques that manipulate peoples thinking...???

Well am i...

Do you believe me...or even just think that i might be able to achieve this feat of paranormal powers...???

DB

Puh-lease! I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, De_Bunk. But baiting the man, just because you and he don't agree about something as simple as mediumship? That is childish and unkind.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I can levitate...not just a foot from the ground...but as high as i like.

I have recently discovered this new talent.

Am i lying...???

Am i faking it, when i do it, using techniques that manipulate peoples thinking...???

Well am i...

Do you believe me...or even just think that i might be able to achieve this feat of paranormal powers...???

DB

**** that I'll believe you if you start talking about crab people and invisible pink unicorns!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jallenecs


Puh-lease! I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, De_Bunk. But baiting the man, just because you and he don't agree about something as simple as mediumship? That is childish and unkind.

De_Bunk is illustrating how absurd ShowMe's claims are. De_Bunk's claims are just as valid and evident as ShowMe's claims. I don't think it's baiting as much as a lesson in fallacy.

De_Bunk's actions are hardly childish. What's childish is believing in spirits and mediums.


Oh, and De_bunk doesn't simply disagree with ShowMe about mediumship, REALITY disagrees with ShowMe.

[jallenecs]

If you have something to say to me, TBK, then I suggest you direct it to the thread designated for that purpose.

Thank you.

[ImpyTimpy]

What are you now, the Net cop? Are you the new world leader or something? TBK will do whatever TBK will do and you getting all huffed and puffed over it isn't going to change anything.


Originally posted by jallenecs
If you have something to say to me, TBK, then I suggest you direct it to the thread designated for that purpose.

Thank you.

[Julia]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Sue,

I have already been stopping murders before they happen for years.

I can prove it too… just look up “all the Murders that would have happened if I had not stopped them” at my website..

www.ihavesupernaturalpowersandyoucantsayotherwise. com

It is estimated that I have prevented over 40,000 Murders to date !

And if you don’t believe that I can give a local demonstration fully where I thwart a potential murder just with the power of my mind.

What!!! Are you serious?!!!

[Aussie Thinker]

Julia,

My supernatural powers are at least 5 times more powerful than Uri Gellers !

I swear this is true !

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jallenecs
If you have something to say to me, TBK, then I suggest you direct it to the thread designated for that purpose.

Thank you.

Eat ass, biatch. I will poster wherever and whenever I like. My last post is highly appropriate and on topic. Your post, however, skirts the point that I made.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
What are you now, the Net cop? Are you the new world leader or something? TBK will do whatever TBK will do and you getting all huffed and puffed over it isn't going to change anything.




Nope, no net cop. He can say what he pleases. I'm just putting him on notice him that I'm not going to address him anywhere except in the Flame War thread. He has posted dozens of times in various threads that I'm also monitoring. I have not touched him. But when he quotes me directly, then he receives this gentle reminder.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Hey go easy clicking that link Guys.. Telstra Australia are having a meltdown on the phone lines..

I have had to remove my proof now because of the threat to the Internet being overloaded.

I know you're a N00B and all, but you don't really think your crappy link is going to impact on Telstra's infrastructure? The problems they've been having are to do with hacker attacks, not excess traffic.

Edit to add: Arrrrgggghhh, I think he was being sarcastic. Use tags, damn you!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jallenecs


Nope, no net cop. He can say what he pleases. I'm just putting him on notice him that I'm not going to address him anywhere except in the Flame War thread. He has posted dozens of times in various threads that I'm also monitoring. I have not touched him. But when he quotes me directly, then he receives this gentle reminder.

Good, then I'll quit posting in the Flame War thread. :D

[Aussie Thinker]

Mr Manifesto,

I didn’t think I was THAT subtle..lol.

I must admit I have jumped on people before realising they were being sarcastic !

I was just trying to point out to that BOOB Showme2 that ridiculous claims should be treated as such UNTIL proven.. not the other way around !

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Mr Manifesto,

I didn’t think I was THAT subtle..lol.

I must admit I have jumped on people before realising they were being sarcastic !

I was just trying to point out to that BOOB Showme2 that ridiculous claims should be treated as such UNTIL proven.. not the other way around !

I can usually tell when people are being sarcastic, but in this particular forum (skepticism and the paranormal) there are so many kooks who make comments like that in all seriousness that I get sucked in. My apologies. :D

[showme2]

Another flawed assertion Me Old Cobber.

Who DECIDES whether they are ridiculous when they have not been proved either way ?

[showme2]

Hold on, Aussie !

I think I get it.
YOU want to decide what is a ridiculous claim and what isn't.

But isn't that seeking to replace my unproven prejudice with YOUR unproven prejudice ?

Yep, I think so.

[geni]

Originally posted by showme2
Another flawed assertion Me Old Cobber.

Who DECIDES whether they are ridiculous when they have not been proved either way ?

When something is asking us to rewrite most of our laws of physics then it think I good qualtity evedence is going to be needed before it is givern serious consideration.

(by the way I realy can levitate all I need is about 7 nuclear power stations and a big eletromagnet)

[Aussie Thinker]

Showme2,

Are you serious.. did my assertions sound “ridiculous” to you ???

If they didn’t you have a serious problem.. BTW I have the block of land in Florida I would like to sell you….

If people claim “paranormal” powers the default situation is “ridiculous” because NONE have EVER been proven. The onus is on them to prove it not on us to accept it until we can DIS prove it !

[showme2]

Aussie

Yes, I certainly CAN claim that your assertions are invalid because you want to apply different rules of acceptance to them than you do to mine. And neither are supported by conclusive evidence. Therefore both are equally valid to the beholder.

Mine are based on convincing personal experience, whilst yours are based on a mere academic theory that "science" explains everything.
But you only have to look back over the past 300 years to see how "valid" scientific concepts have been proved to be ridiculous.
(Let's start with "The world is flat" and work our way forward from there, eh?)

At the end of the day, what you're saying is that your prejudices are acceptable because they seem rational to YOU, whilst my first-hand experiences are not because they are not rational to you.

And this from a sceptic who insists that scientific proof is the arbiter of everything !
Get outta here !

No, that's nothing whatever to do with either "scientific" or "rational".

[Aussie Thinker]

Showme2,

Try this simple statement.

NOTHING paranormal has EVER been shown to exist.

Does NOTHING and EVER seem ambiguous to you ?

The conclusion from the above is that anything that “seems” paranormal either has a NORMAL explanation that you are unaware of or it is a fraud.

Please explain YOUR personal experience that has led you to believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena and this Board here will politely explain HOW you have been tricked.

[geni]

Originally posted by showme2
Aussie

Yes, I certainly CAN claim that your assertions are invalid because you want to apply different rules of acceptance to them than you do to mine. And neither are supported by conclusive evidence. Therefore both are equally valid to the beholder.

we have a lot more evidence than you do

Mine are based on convincing personal experience, whilst yours are based on a mere academic theory that "science" explains everything.

As a chemistry student I have found that science explanes everthing I run into so far.

But you only have to look back over the past 300 years to see how "valid" scientific concepts have been proved to be ridiculous.
(Let's start with "The world is flat" and work our way forward from there, eh?)

All you have proved is that when new eveidence comes to light science changes it mind. You have been making the same claims for the whole of human histor and have totlay ignorded any new evidence

At the end of the day, what you're saying is that your prejudices are acceptable because they seem rational to YOU, whilst my first-hand experiences are not because they are not rational to you.

I have first hand experance of coins vanishing and people knowing what card I picked without looking. Stangly enough I don't abdon science of think that something inexplicable is going on.

[EdipisReks]

i say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. that's the only way to be sure.

[showme2]

Aussie

"Ambiguous" ? i.e. Unclear of meaning ? No. (I think you might mean "significant"? There's no point in using big words if you don't understand what they mean. Stick to the shorter ones - nobody will think any the worse of you.)

No, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to invest a considerable amount of time relating my first-hand experiences to you, because you have demonstrated unequivocally that you are not capable of dealing with them logically and rationally.

That the world was round was perceived as "ridiculous" not so long ago. It is therefore a serious mistake to believe that "science" explains everything. It explains everything only within the confines of our present knowledge ... which contradicts what the same science explained years ago in terms of present knowledge then, and which was held to be equally "ridiculous" at the time.

Why don't we talk about Rugby instead ? (oops - oh no ... better not mention that, had we ?)

P.S. Don't take it too seriously. It's only a little discussion forum as Hal says. It ain't life.

[geni]

Originally posted by showme2
Aussie

"Ambiguous" ? i.e. Unclear of meaning ? No. (I think you might mean "significant"? There's no point in using big words if you don't understand what they mean. Stick to the shorter ones - nobody will think any the worse of you.)

insults are a waste of time and convince no one

No, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to invest a considerable amount of time relating my first-hand experiences to you, because you have demonstrated unequivocally that you are not capable of dealing with them logically and rationally.

If scientist took this aproch you would quite rightly have a fit. Anyway how about explaning them to me I'm interested to here them and will do my best to deal with them logically and rationally

That the world was round was perceived as "ridiculous" not so long ago. It is therefore a serious mistake to believe that "science" explains everything. It explains everything only within the confines of our present knowledge ... which contradicts what the same science explained years ago in terms of present knowledge then, and which was held to be equally "ridiculous" at the time.

I think I have already covered this one

Why don't we talk about Rugby instead ? (oops - oh no ... better not mention that, had we ?)

P.S. Don't take it too seriously. It's only a little discussion forum as Hal says. It ain't life.

If you can back up the claims you are making this will be the most important event in human history.

[Aussie Thinker]

Showme2

"Ambiguous" ? i.e. Unclear of meaning ? No. (I think you might mean "significant"? There's no point in using big words if you don't understand what they mean. Stick to the shorter ones - nobody will think any the worse of you.)

Well I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.. belief in paranormal is usually reserved for complete woowoo’s .. but the above shows you don’t even have a proper understanding of English words.

My above use of “ambiguous” was to ask if those words were “unclear of meaning”.. how could you infer otherwise ???

No, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to invest a considerable amount of time relating my first-hand experiences to you, because you have demonstrated unequivocally that you are not capable of dealing with them logically and rationally.

Translation.. “My personal experiences sound Woowoo even to me.. I will look even more foolish than I already do if I post them here. You will take apart my experiences logically and destroy my little fantasy where woowoo stuff REALLY does happen.

That the world was round was perceived as "ridiculous" not so long ago.

Only by NON-scientist and religious people. The simple fact is there were not many scientists and most people were ignorant. Now we have lots of scientists and MUCVH less ignorance.. try and come up with a modern version of your “round world” faulty science hypothesis !

It is therefore a serious mistake to believe that "science" explains everything. It explains everything only within the confines of our present knowledge ... which contradicts what the same science explained years ago in terms of present knowledge then, and which was held to be equally "ridiculous" at the time.

No one here says science explains everything. It is simply true that ALL things EVER explained have had natural origins.. it is therefore logical to assume anything unexplained will also have a natural origin.

Why don't we talk about Rugby instead ? (oops - oh no ... better not mention that, had we ?)

Why not.. the farcical part of the world cup is almost over (Australia 147 Namibia 0).. it actually get interesting when we get down to the teams that can actually play.

[quote]P.S. Don't take it too seriously. It's only a little discussion forum as Hal says. It ain't life.

Mate it’ll be a cold day in a non-existent hell before you EVER catch me being serious (note my farcical levitation claims)

[showme2]

Sorry folks, its 1.00am here in Britain and I'm off to bed.
Catch up with you cynics tomorrow.
It has been fun !

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. that's the only way to be sure.

Aliens! Hicks supporting Ripley's decision!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
Aussie

Yes, I certainly CAN claim that your assertions are invalid because you want to apply different rules of acceptance to them than you do to mine. And neither are supported by conclusive evidence. Therefore both are equally valid to the beholder.

Nope. Same rules. Different results. Not equally convincing if you apply things like, say, basic physics and chemistry to the situation.


Mine are based on convincing personal experience, whilst yours are based on a mere academic theory that "science" explains everything.
But you only have to look back over the past 300 years to see how "valid" scientific concepts have been proved to be ridiculous.
(Let's start with "The world is flat" and work our way forward from there, eh?)


Who believed the world was flat? It was believed in Columbus' time the world was round, just a heck of alot smaller than it really was. Pseudo history should not be thrown around so liberally. It's insulting to the facts. "They" persecuted Gallileo, it's true, but Gallileo was right, while others have been proven to be wrong. Your attempt to downplay the role of science and the consistency, as well as its ability to adapt and correct itself, is self defeating. Valid scientific concepts have proven themselves, and if they have not, they have been discarded. Science is not "knowing," it's "discovering."


At the end of the day, what you're saying is that your prejudices are acceptable because they seem rational to YOU, whilst my first-hand experiences are not because they are not rational to you.

No, I'm saying your assertions and prejudices are unacceptable because you cannot back up what you are saying with proof. If they really are true powers the medium calls up in a formal setting, they should be equally reproducable anywhere, including in a laboratory/testing setting. The fact that, as mediums have been operating for thousands of years, none have taken up or cooperated with the rationalist community and successfully achieved a paranormal feat, really makes me wonder about its validity. The value of Insulin was proven a few years after it was developed. The value of psychics and mediums have never been proven, neither as a valid trade, nor as a mechanism to better humanity, nor even as legitimate undeceiving entertainment.

And this from a sceptic who insists that scientific proof is the arbiter of everything !
Get outta here !

No, that's nothing whatever to do with either "scientific" or "rational".

Wrong. Wash the anger from your eyes. Read and listen. You have been deceived, and it's not by the skeptics here.

[Blondin]

Science does not explain everything. Science *seeks* explanations for everything. It's a continuing process. A theory must support all the available data. If new data is presented that is not supported by the current theory then the theory is amended or abandoned.

No one has yet presented incontrovertible data that proves the existence of clairvoyance or other paranormal abilities. Where does incontrovertible data come from? From controlled, repeatable, experiments. Not from anecdotes, testamonials from satisfied customers, gut feelings, polls, subjective or biased articles, etc.

I don't believe anybody has proven the impossibility of mental telepathy, telekinesis, etc. but nobody has proven their existence either.

And... a hell of a lot of the claimnants to such abilities *have* been proven to be fraudulent or self-deluded.

[showme2]

Blondin

"Science does not explain everything. Science *seeks* explanations for everything. It's a continuing process. A theory must support all the available data. If new data is presented that is not supported by the current theory then the theory is amended or abandoned."

Yes, I was reading those same words on a Web site last night ! (But I didn't nick them and present them without acknowledgment as my own.)

Ignoring that .....

So what you are saying now is that "science" and scientists do not always get it right first time, and correct their mistakes later if they are wrong.

So why, then, do scientists merit any supremacy in judging the abilities of mediums.
If the scientists CAN get it wrong first time, they could plainly get it wrong first time when assessing a medium.
(Thus they have no superior claim to expertise in such testing than, say, I have because, as I have acknowledged, I too could get it wrong.)
But I prefer to make my own judgment of whether I have got it wrong rather than rely on someone else - anyone else - not having got it wrong.

I think you've just shot the "scientific testing" case in the foot.

[showme2]

Suezoled

"""Not equally convincing if you apply things like, say, basic physics and chemistry to the situation. """

We've just dispensed with that. Since it has been acknowledged on this very thread that scientists can and do get it wrong at first, and correct their conclusions later, they can have no prior claim to judging a phenomenon which is acknowledged to be outside their field.

"""""Who believed the world was flat? """""

Almost all of the population at one time, educated by scientists of their day.

"They persecuted Gallileo, it's true, but Gallileo was right, while others have been proven to be wrong. """"
Yes, persecuted by the Church, supported by its tame scientists I understand.

""""Valid scientific concepts have proven themselves, and if they have not, they have been discarded. Science is not "knowing," it's "discovering." """"

Yes, proven themselves so far as we know with knowledge today.
Once one accepts that previously accepted truths and facts are discarded, one admits that science is not always right first time. And thereby you lose the right to judge everything by science and nothing else.

"""No, I'm saying your assertions and prejudices are unacceptable because you cannot back up what you are saying with proof. If they really are true powers the medium calls up in a formal setting, they should be equally reproducable anywhere, including in a laboratory/testing setting. """"

Nor can you now it has been admitted that scientists can get it wrong.

""""The fact that, as mediums have been operating for thousands of years, none have taken up or cooperated with the rationalist community and successfully achieved a paranormal feat, really makes me wonder about its validity. """"

Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, wondering about validity.
But asserting that you know it is not valid and that it is all rubbish (and some seek to do here) is not, however, either valid or rational. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
---------------------------------------------------------

Another reasonable post, however.
Hey, there ARE some people on here worth debating with, apart from jallenecs, after all.
Wish I had more time !





__________________

[thaiboxerken]

Aussie
Mine are based on convincing personal experience, whilst yours are based on a mere academic theory that "science" explains everything.

I think you have it backwards. Your persoal experience is "mere" where science is THE only method proven to work when it comes to new discoveries.


But you only have to look back over the past 300 years to see how "valid" scientific concepts have been proved to be ridiculous.
(Let's start with "The world is flat" and work our way forward from there, eh?)

No science involved with that assumption, that assumption was biblical and science proved it wrong. Also, scientists have been wrong in the past, true. However, unlike beliefs, science is self-correcting.


At the end of the day, what you're saying is that your prejudices are acceptable because they seem rational to YOU, whilst my first-hand experiences are not because they are not rational to you.

They aren't rational because they require defiance of known physics to believe. Are you saying your experiences outweigh the laws of physics?

[thaiboxerken]

So what you are saying now is that "science" and scientists do not always get it right first time, and correct their mistakes later if they are wrong.

So why, then, do scientists merit any supremacy in judging the abilities of mediums.

It's because scientists don't just do it one time and call it quits, they are constantly checking their results and designing better tests to validate their results. They also use the ONLY method that has been proven to work in discovering new things, that's the scientific method.


If the scientists CAN get it wrong first time, they could plainly get it wrong first time when assessing a medium.

This is true, that's why mediums should be testing all of the time, right? Maybe the scientists are wrong. For some reason, when a medium fails testing, they refuse to be tested by scientists again. For some unknown reason, if they ever test positive.. they refuse to be tested again. Mediums evade science, they hide and run from science because they know that science will show them to be normal human beings with no superpowers. Some mediums may genuinly think they have powers, those mediums are afraid to put their beliefs to the test.


(Thus they have no superior claim to expertise in such testing than, say, I have because, as I have acknowledged, I too could get it wrong.)
But I prefer to make my own judgment of whether I have got it wrong rather than rely on someone else - anyone else - not having got it wrong.

Yes they do, that's why they are called scientists. It's their job to design tests, measure results and draw conclusion using the scientific method. Your own "judgement" isn't scientific and it's flawed. You haven't ruled out mundane possibilities and you haven't been to see a medium under controlled situations where measures have been taken to ensure that the medium doesn't cheat. Then again, even if you caught the medium cheating, you'd simply argue that it was prankster spirits.

I think you've just shot the "scientific testing" case in the foot.

Su has done no such thing. Scientific testing is merely tests that are controlled to ensure all variables possible are measured and all factors are taken into consideration. Sometimes scientists make mistakes, but repeated testing is a tool scientists use to fight mistakes.

It seems that the whole jist of your argument is that scientist have made mistakes in the past, therefore your experiences are just as valid. I am merely showing you that your argument is fallicious.

[showme2]

TBK

"""" So what you are saying now is that "science" and scientists do not always get it right first time, and correct their mistakes later if they are wrong.
So why, then, do scientists merit any supremacy in judging the abilities of mediums.""""

Response:

"It's because scientists don't just do it one time and call it quits, they are constantly checking their results and designing better tests to validate their results. They also use the ONLY method that has been proven to work in discovering new things, that's the scientific method. "


Scientists have been offered the opportunity to test Colin Fry over an extended period, but none is prepared to dedicate the time. They want to do a "one-off" test and walk away.

[thaiboxerken]

Scientists have been offered the opportunity to test Colin Fry over an extended period, but none is prepared to dedicate the time. They want to do a "one-off" test and walk away

No, that's not what they want. Repeated tests could be done on Fry. 10 years of time and money is not warranted, however. Colin Fry's "offer" is really just an evasion. Can you tell me WHY 10 years is required? Can Colin? If it takes 10 years to test, why do you believe Colin is real, since you haven't given him a 10 year trial?

[De_Bunk]

Oh dear...

Not another argument on one of my threads....:D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Showme2...

Yes... i can really, really levitate.....( i cant move trumpets)...but levitating...Hoo boy...see me fly...

And that is the absolute truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God..

I can levitate as high as i want to...100 / 200yds....vertical...no problem...

Up, up and away...

I am not lying...i am not faking...i am telling you...i can do it...

I can't see why you don't believe me...

DB

[Blondin]

Originally posted by showme2

"Science does not explain everything. Science *seeks* explanations for everything. It's a continuing process. A theory must support all the available data. If new data is presented that is not supported by the current theory then the theory is amended or abandoned."

Yes, I was reading those same words on a Web site last night ! (But I didn't nick them and present them without acknowledgment as my own.)

Ignoring that .....



How childish.

The point you choose to ignore is the most important point in the whole "science vs paranormal" argument.

Science is NOT about knowing. Science is about finding out, seeking corroboration, being objective. In other words being sceptical.

Showme2 seems to be hung up on this claim that because science has been "wrong" in the past it could be "wrong" about anything.

Get this through your head: there is no Big Book of Things Proven by Science and no serious sceptic claims there is. Science is a *process*. It's all about attempting to disprove things and, by so doing, provide likely explanations and eliminate unlikely or wrong ones.

BTW: all of the above words were found the Oxford English Dictionary.

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
No, DeBunk, I wouldn't believe a word you told me because you are plainly an ignorant aggressive abusive mannerless individual.

...And those are his good qualities. He's also a dung-tossing monkey and a spoon-bending, clock-starting, Michael Jackson befriending ... uh, wait, that's someone else.