(June 5, 2015 at 7:42 am)Little Rik Wrote: You don't even realize how you contradict yourself.That's because I did not contradict myself. Your reading comprehension is simply lacking. This is not surprising, from someone who thinks that "sentient" means "salad." I won't explain it further because my previous comment is clear enough. Your inability to understand something so basic is, as I continue to point out, not my problem.
Little Rik Wrote:All important discoveries always start with guessing and experiments.No, they don't. They begin with observations, and from those observations come hypotheses, then testing and experimenting and finally theories. Those researchers that you try to dismiss out of hand are not making guesses, they are making testable claims. YOU make guesses, pulled out of thin air and supported by similarly baseless nonsense. Once again, your ignorance is not my burden to bear, it is yours. That you bear it willingly and seemingly joyously is amusing, but mostly kind of sad.
Little Rik Wrote:One of these days i will charge you for giving all these tips.Fair enough. It wouldn't be the first time I paid for something that made me laugh a lot.
![Smile Smile](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Little Rik Wrote:G-forces may not use any drugs and the experiences produced by that experiment may well be naturalIt's not an effect similar to when someone dies; I'm not sure that there is such a thing. It's the same experience as those who claim to have been NEAR death. You point out that people are different, but that is irrelevant. We enjoy many experiences in very similar ways. And people who have survived near-death experiences describe them in almost the exact same way as those pilots who are exposed to high G-forces.
as the force may produce a similar effect to when someone die.
You are free to try and shift the goal-posts about what is or isn't natural, if you think it helps you to maintain your delusion. But it's just not very convincing to me. Neither is dismissing the work of researchers as "guesses" when you have nothing to offer on behalf of your own crackpot ideas. You've got to come up with something better than denial and gibberish. Step it up, Rik. You're threatening to become boring.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould