Actually - it think they have retested it 1600 times so far. I would agree, I am a skeptic, albeit a healthy one. I like to think that I'm open to changing my opinion, whether it's something I'd like to believe or not. I think the problem with a lot of skeptics is that they become cynical - and dismiss things out of hand, because they seem improbable.
When I said one test, I meant one particular experiment. I should've clarified. Whether something's improbable or not doesn't relate to how true it is, Piskie. Darwin didn't say anything about abiogenesis, TFWNN. Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution. Now you don't believe in climate change, either? Anything else to add?
Surely the test of an experiment qualifies whether the experiment's hypothesis is correct? and 1600 tests of that experiment would suggest that the hypothesis is correct (unless the instruments are giving erroneous readings) as for improbability - it doesn't mean that it's impossible. The Darwinism and climate change weren't my opinions
E=mc2 Ballssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Money goes out of my account faster than the speed of light FACT.
i remember reading something years ago an indian girl died for 5 minutes or so back in the 80s and when came around she said exactly what she saw in the room in those few minutes she said she shot up to the ceeling and saw everyone in the room then went down a tunnel with bright light at end,she then said met her dead relative who said it wasnt her time and then suddenly went back to her body on the bed.
I think that it's 16,000 tests, Piskie. As you say though, the equipment could be faulty or they may have failed to factor something in. Probability has no influence on possibility. The most unlikely things may be true. If they are though, then they're probably provable!
That's actually a common theme, across cultures, recorded through history, amongst disparate groups of people in different parts of the world.
I would suggest that the experiment is probably right. Probability and possibility may not be linked, but the point was that some people dismiss things because they seem improbable When in fact the most unlikely things may be true Although it depends on how you are measuring them to determine whether they are provable.
here we go again DARWANISTS not DARWIN can you point to where I have said i dont believe in climate change? thanks I would like to add you are full of ****
"Darwinists" is a pretty stupid term for those that agree with Darwin's theories and in particular those that accept evolution. Abiogenesis wasn't one of his theories, you twat. Global warming is part of climate change.
I see. so you will resort to abuse when proven wrong? so the term darwinists now doesnt exist? and scientists havent tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis? can you point to where i said darwin did have abiogenesis as his theory, you cant read, pedantic, mother ****er? I am well aware that global warming is part of climate change. However scientists initially were putting their weight behind cooling, now it is warming. so **** changes. and again I ask, point to where I have said i dont accept/believe in climate change
You didn't prove me wrong. When did I say that the term Darwinist didn't exist? As usual you're seeing things that aren't there. If I say that you're stupid, does that mean that I think you don't exist? Abiogenesis and evolution aren't connected. One deals with the start of life and the other deals with the change of existing lifeforms. You can accept one without accepting the other. I'm trying to work out whether you're exceptionally stupid or extremely ignorant. I'm undecided.
Is it true that when a person dies the last thing they do is release their bowls? If so then theres your ****ing energy.
Soup bowls? Fruit bowls? or bowling bowls? Each would have a different density and mass and therefore a different energy signature
Actually, it's not a modern phenomena. People have been reporting the same thing throughout history. from in different parts of the world, from different cultural backgrounds unconnected by modern media. Which makes it interetsing. I agree about the modern phenomena of the 'little grey' Alien It is an image that has been mass distributed by the media and therefore unsurprising that it's replicated in testimony. But Near Death Experience reports are a different phenomena altogether.
I agree - I don't know if you read my comments earlier in the thread, but I am a healthy skeptic, I'll always look for a rational explanation based on agreed understanding. and not one that leaps to speculative conclusions based on an untenable faith or belief system. That said, if all brains die in the same way, and those who experience NDE's and report the classic - going towards the light and meeting dead relatives etc then you would surmise that there is some truth to those accounts.
