(March 24, 2018 at 12:03 am)He lives Wrote: Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.

https://youtu.be/WNbdUEqDB-k

No it's not! It's evidence of clairvoyance!

Btw, Pam Reynolds was fully conscious when she had her OBE and NDE. Nothing to do with death. (Reference, HERE)

(March 24, 2018 at 12:45 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 12:36 am)Lutrinae Wrote: I prefer to comprehend that you're just gullible.

You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesis.

You buddy Francis Crick published his support of abiogenesis.

Quote:You didn't even have time to watch it. You are extremely biased and closed minded.

Or he's not falling for it i don't blame him these videos are shit evidence 

Quote:I am aware that very good evidence can be posted on youtube with parameters of actual evidence. I see you have no rebuttal to the video. In case you missed it here it is again:

and that evidence is not your video's . And there's nothing to refute 

Quote:Perhaps that is because you refuse to look.

Or more likely because there is nothing their 

Quote:You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesisis.

 Because it is a viable theory unlike NDE bunkum . Thus one not guible for believing it. Regardless of your quote mining. And pulling bullshit statistics  out of your rectum .

If you watch the video, which is not compelling, you will hear Pam say that when her OOB experience began she could hear the surgeon's instrument begin to whir. The chart below is from Jor's Link. It shows that the OOB started well before any simulated brain death had occurred.

Quote:First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG.[16] Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began.[17] Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below.

He Lives, this is the problem with accounts such as these. The ones that actually allow for individual details to be investigated don't hold up to scrutiny. I watched your video. It reminded me very much of the stuff about paranormal activity and hauntings that my mother used to watch when I was younger. There is atmospheric "heavenly" music included with the video. As she recounts her story, there is an emotional and moving tone when she describes light being "the breath of God." This video is about telling a story not presenting a case. Since you're a believer, it resonates with you. But if (like us) someone is combing it for relevant facts that might prove a certain phenomenon, it's next to useless. 

What might earn you a bit more credibility here is if (when you present a case) you post skeptical objections to your claims (like the one's found in Jor's link) and then proceed to show us where the objections might fall short. What you are doing now is hopping back and forth between posting weak anecdotal accounts and then, when somebody begins to poke holes in them you shout "abiogenesis!"

You seem to be fascinated by the accounts of people who have the sensation that they "look down upon their own body." When I was younger, I experimented with hallucinogenic drugs. One of these was ketamine. A handful of times the drug produced hallucinations that were not unlike some of your accounts; one time I remember sitting on a couch feeling like I was two feet to the right of myself, looking at the side of my own head. One might conclude that ketamine somehow causes the soul to become briefly disembodied... that that is a side effect of the drug... or one might conclude that, in instances of sensory deprivation, the brain produces images that are interpreted as "disembodiment" as a consequence of the lack of stimuli.

I'm not saying you should outright deny NDEs or OOBs. I'm saying, keep your mind open to to a purely physiological interpretations of the phenomena. Be a skeptic of your own beliefs (after all, that's what a true skeptic is). When I watched your video, I opened my mind to the possibility that it might substantiate your claim. It did not. What I saw was a finely-woven story complete with spiritual music and stage effects of brilliant white light. There was no scrutiny of the facts. There was no substantiation of the claims. Why would anyone find this convincing? Put yourself in a skeptic's shoes. Think about what objections we might have and treat them.

If you really want to make your case, why don't you read the article that Jörmungandr posted above. Quote a passage from it and show point-by-point how it fails to debunk Reynolds's claim. Airy fairy music and "you guys just refuse to believe!" isn't going to convince anyone to change his or her position.

(March 24, 2018 at 12:03 am)He lives Wrote: Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.

https://youtu.be/WNbdUEqDB-k

Or a longer version:

https://youtu.be/S-hi8bMIlQ4

Aaaaand once again changing the topic in mid flight.

---

(March 24, 2018 at 12:45 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 12:36 am)Lutrinae Wrote: I prefer to comprehend that you're just gullible.

You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesis.

And once again with the switch.

(March 24, 2018 at 12:47 am)drfuzzy Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 12:29 am)He lives Wrote: I am aware that very good evidence can be posted on youtube with parameters of actual evidence. I see you have no rebuttal to the video. In case you missed it here it is again:

https://youtu.be/S-hi8bMIlQ4

---

---

Perhaps that is because you refuse to look.

https://youtu.be/S-hi8bMIlQ4

---

Nope.  Peer-reviewed evidence in reputable journals only will suffice.  Any yahoo can make videos to post to YouTube -- I have a cousin who made one at 7 years of age.
YouTube, Wikipedia, biased webpages and propaganda media sources will never be considered as evidence by anyone who honors scientific method.

You didn't watch the video either, that is why you don't have a viable explanation to share and no comment on who made the video.

---

(March 24, 2018 at 12:57 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 12:03 am)He lives Wrote: Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.

https://youtu.be/WNbdUEqDB-k

No it's not!  It's evidence of clairvoyance!

Btw, Pam Reynolds was fully conscious when she had her OBE and NDE.  Nothing to do with death.  (Reference, HERE)

Finally someone who actually watched the video. However Pam Reynolds was not fully conscious when her spirit left her body. In fact her eyes were taped shut and she was clinically dead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

---

(March 24, 2018 at 1:05 am)drfuzzy Wrote:

(March 24, 2018 at 12:45 am)He lives Wrote: You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesis.

You buddy Francis Crick published his support of abiogenesis.

He believed in abiogenesis as many do. However abiogenesis is a belief, so is flat earth a belief.

---

(March 24, 2018 at 5:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:You didn't even have time to watch it. You are extremely biased and closed minded.

Or he's not falling for it i don't blame him these videos are shit evidence 

Quote:I am aware that very good evidence can be posted on youtube with parameters of actual evidence. I see you have no rebuttal to the video. In case you missed it here it is again:

and that evidence is not your video's . And there's nothing to refute 

Quote:Perhaps that is because you refuse to look.

Or more likely because there is nothing their 

Quote:You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesisis.

 Because it is a viable theory unlike NDE bunkum . Thus one not guible for believing it. Regardless of your quote mining. And pulling bullshit statistics  out of your rectum .

Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.

(March 24, 2018 at 10:18 am)He lives Wrote: Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.

Abiogenesis is no more a "theory" than is god-did-it. Both are assumptions. We assume that eventually a reasonable theory regarding the manner in which inorganic chemistry crossed the barrier into the organic variety will emerge. You on the other just assume that god did it and have no expectation of ever understanding how. You're fine with going without a theory forever since you assume human beings just aren't up to it.

(March 24, 2018 at 10:18 am)He lives Wrote: Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.

Tell that to magic book.  Correct me if I'm wrong..but it does say that djinn made life where once there was none..does it not?

Mud, was it, and magic breath?

(March 24, 2018 at 6:08 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: If you watch the video, which is not compelling, you will hear Pam say that when her OOB experience began she could hear the surgeon's instrument begin to whir. The chart below is from Jor's Link. It shows that the OOB started well before any simulated brain death had occurred.

Quote:First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG.[16] Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began.[17] Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below.

He Lives, this is the problem with accounts such as these. The ones that actually allow for individual details to be investigated don't hold up to scrutiny. I watched your video. It reminded me very much of the stuff about paranormal activity and hauntings that my mother used to watch when I was younger. There is atmospheric "heavenly" music included with the video. As she recounts her story, there is an emotional and moving tone when she describes light being "the breath of God." This video is about telling a story not presenting a case. Since you're a believer, it resonates with you. But if (like us) someone is combing it for relevant facts that might prove a certain phenomenon, it's next to useless. 

What might earn you a bit more credibility here is if (when you present a case) you post skeptical objections to your claims (like the one's found in Jor's link) and then proceed to show us where the objections might fall short. What you are doing now is hopping back and forth between posting weak anecdotal accounts and then, when somebody begins to poke holes in them you shout "abiogenesis!"

You seem to be fascinated by the accounts of people who have the sensation that they "look down upon their own body." When I was younger, I experimented with hallucinogenic drugs. One of these was ketamine. A handful of times the drug produced hallucinations that were not unlike some of your accounts; one time I remember sitting on a couch feeling like I was two feet to the right of myself, looking at the side of my own head. One might conclude that ketamine somehow causes the soul to become briefly disembodied... that that is a side effect of the drug... or one might conclude that, in instances of sensory deprivation, the brain produces images that are interpreted as "disembodiment" as a consequence of the lack of stimuli.

I'm not saying you should outright deny NDEs or OOBs. I'm saying, keep your mind open to to a purely physiological interpretations of the phenomena. Be a skeptic of your own beliefs (after all, that's what a true skeptic is). When I watched your video, I opened my mind to the possibility that it might substantiate your claim. It did not. What I saw was a finely-woven story complete with spiritual music and stage effects of brilliant white light. There was no scrutiny of the facts. There was no substantiation of the claims. Why would anyone find this convincing? Put yourself in a skeptic's shoes. Think about what objections we might have and treat them.

If you really want to make your case, why don't you read the article that Jörmungandr posted above. Quote a passage from it and show point-by-point how it fails to debunk Reynolds's claim. Airy fairy music and "you guys just refuse to believe!" isn't going to convince anyone to change his or her position.

I looked at the illustration. OBE started at 8:40 a. m., but there is no indication when it ended. She stated it ended when her heart was restarted. That would have been 12:00 p. m. Therefore it is clear to me that she was able to see and hear what was going on in the room when she was indeed clinically dead. How can you explain that she was able to recall what was said and hear the conversation when her eyes were taped shut and her ears were plugged. She was also able to accurately describe the instruments used in the operation.

Religiously. a disembodied soul is subject to the predations of Satan till it is SAFELY ensconced in Heaven.

I'm surprised, therefore, the Christian religious among us would consort with ANYTHING defined in Scripture as a "familiar spirit" since that is FORBIDDEN.


Bible has an answer for all kinds of things, but getting all the ding dong believers to either look up or remember them is such an arduous challenge.

How does Jesus stand it ????