Corwin

Veil.... an accurate answer to your question would be to ask another question... 'exactly how many times do you expect us to prove gravity works? If you're such a hardcore skeptic... there's a window... 15 stories up. Do us all a favor.'

The fact that we reject that which has been disproven over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and contradicts established and observed fact doesn't detract from our freethought or openmindedness.

Openminded is not a synonym for gullible.

Veil of Fire

Oh, someone's disprove it? Really? Where can I find this lovely piece of scientific research?

Appeal to Ridicule is not 'debunking' anything.

infidelchic

Veil,
Do you know what a "search engine" is?

Corwin

Fine Veil. How do YOU explain 'psychic behavior?' In animals OR humans? How do you explain the CIA? They did some work a few decades back with 'remote viewing.' (ESP.) Suffice to say... they were somewhat less than impressed with the results. In fact psychic behavior has failed in EVERY SINGLE LAST CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT THAT HAS EVER BEEN DONE!

But of course... we're being 'closed minded.'

Go away kid.

Veil of Fire

Do you know what "supporting your own claim" is?

Red Herring. That's not the question I asked you.

I don't make a conclusion either way, about ANYTHING, until there's actual evidence one way or the other. It's called 'reserving judgement'.

The Russians did the same experiments, and came out with much better results. Two contradicting studies does not lead ME to a definite conclusion.

Also, do you really think that if the CIA found an amazing new way to spy on foriegn governments they'd go run to tell the New York Times? Really? Being that I work in the State Department, I can tell you right now that such information would be classified CSI, codeword level, as in BEYOND Top Secret. Hell, the methods we use to spy MUNDANELY are Top Secret classified!

So point some out to me already. I don't want your opinion or Appeals to an Unknown Authority. I want something I can actually base a conclusion on.

Ad hominem. Also not anything to base an actual conclusion on.

Are you incapable of holding a discussion without falling back on logical fallacies??

Corwin

Here.

<a href="http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html</a>

That's a start. Rationalizing everything in that should keep you busy for a while.

Now go away.

Marduk

I saw a real live 'horse whisperer' on TV. He said there is NOTHING supernatural about it, you observe the animal, it's behavior, body language and reaction to you etc. combined with what is known about certain animals. Horses are not predators but prey and react as such in the way they deal with strange people. I would think it is the same with other animals as well.

As for the CIA, there was a guy on Art Bell last week who claimed to have done remote viewing for them. He remote viewed back in time and saw that the Pyramids were built by giant insects!

infidelchic

What's so funny about the pyramids being built by giant insects?!?!?!?! I believe it to be True! Do you have any evidence that they were not built by insects?

Veil of Fire

Annie:

Are you functionally retarded, by any chance?

I haven't made ANY claim. You have. I'm asking you to BACK IT UP.

The only claim I've made here is that you feel you don't need to support yours with anything but 'it's stupid'.

Corwin:

It's about f!~cking time, and I notice you couldn't even do THAT without adding an ad hominem. Why is asking for evidence such a crime here??

Marduk

"Do you have any evidence that they were not built by insects? "


er... well I do but... it's all hear say. Absensce of evidense is not evidense of absence of insects.