chockfull

Sorry just had to get a quick capture of Raf's idea of the scientific method before it gets edited.

Yes, other readers of the thread. I feel the same way. If Raf has something that deserves a response, please quote it for me. I've wasted far too much time already on this argument, and I have no common ground any more with Raf on the logical aspects of this topic...

It matches well with your practice of ASSUMING the context is there for every single time you repeat opinion as fact. Just repeat that line over and over again. OH, NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT the context of Samarin's opinion. All the other times you quoted it, the context was NOWHERE NEAR, and just ASSUMED TO BE TRUE. I am just pointing out that without the context of what you are talking about, it is a completely ignorant statement because you can't rule out it's talking about Acts, or any genuine SIT account. Just wanted to point out that when Raf paraphrases, it's not really an accurate representation of the study. You have to understand, it has to go through Raf's filter of "how strongly does this prove all SIT is faking it", had selection applied, and also do a little spin control of the way we are phrasing sentences too. Now that Raf has another Samarin book that nobody else does, we're going to hear veiled references to this book along with Raf's insults. But never just direct quotes that you can read for yourself and form your own opinion. No, the Anti-Tongues Justice League (ATJL) HAS to paraphrase, dear reader. Because they think they are smarter than you. Meaning, I've read every one of chockfull's latest posts, and really don't like the fact that he isn't letting my insults slide any more but is responding in kind. But I'm going to pretend I'm above the matter, and not the one making continual snide insulting comments. LMAO!!!!! This guy gets funnier every post! So we have a new way of proving things, called "classification". It "employs the scientific method" along with "all science". Hypothesis testing apparently is an element of classification present "in every step of that process". It's just that we don't actually DO the formulation, or any of the actual steps that are involved in hypothesis testing. And we certainly wouldn't write about all that work - like the Newburg study. No, we just write our opinion and not any of the actual research!! Hilarious!!!! It's an implicit thing!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!! And here is where it is SIMPLE to see the difference between how a RESEARCHER thinks, and how RAF thinks. To Raf, the scientific method is like sniffing a carton of milk. Nothing recorded, one act, one "impression". But somehow it's still the scientific method. Hahahahahaha!!!!!! To a RESEARCHER, the important part is RECORDING THE DATA. I mean, like actually DOING the hypothesis test. Why is this? Because if it's done correctly, then further studies can be done expanding upon it. Not just the 1000th idiot in a long line sniffing a carton. No, you left me with the impression that you are completely clueless when it comes to just about any aspect of the scientific method, and that if I want to find out a true definition of these terms, I should start with an internet search. That way I know I won't be led in the opposite direction of truth. I want people to stop being liars. A liar is a hypocrite. A hypocrite says "this is proven", but has zero evidence of methodology that is REQUIRED in every field of science to use the term "proven". So no, I don't require a positive result on an alternative hypothesis (Raf can't even get the terminology right when trying to state my viewpoint) to show the difference between a faker and a genuine SIT speaker. I just want people to not be liars and to not use lying terms and phrases.

Then let the sentence be modified so that it stands on its own and does not confuse what YOU mean by glossa with what the charismatic world means by glossa. Otherwise it's just a guilt by association term that is NOT DISTINCT from Biblical glossa or the general charismatic discussion of glossa. The assumed definition of terms on this thread is enough to gag me with a pitchfork.

Actually, any study related to SIT would be on topic for this thread. SIT is the first word in the thread topic. Actually, now that I'm looking at that, how weird of a thread title is this anyway? SIT, TIP, Prophecy, and Confession? All right, we're talking about the inspiration manifestations and "confession"???? Like "Bless me father, for I have sinned, I called a man a dumb-@$$"??????? I mean, is this thread the place for "confessions"??? Like the lying and faking confessions??? I mean, no offense, but can't people just confess their sins to God in the privacy of their closet or something? I mean the thread audience is not their mediator or anything. And nobody is a Catholic priest on here. So if we could just leave out all the sin and guilt of people with their past lying and faking, and the need for them to have others to share in that guilt with them, then we could have a lot of discussion going on about many things related to SIT, and interpretation and prophecy.

Sure. Just go with the word size and communication strategy that is inverse to the size of your ego, and you should have a good guideline there. And you are not Zoltar, Master of the Universe such that I need your permission for raising questions of this sort. Samarin never claimed that I could read anywhere that he was able to detect samples of a language he didn't speak and identify them. In fact, I've never really read ANY linguist claim that they could do this as part of their expertise. This is fact. Not speculation. The speculation is yours, where you think that you can automatically assume that because Samarin had some pretty boldly stated opinion on the subject, that you find that he claimed the ability to take a sample of a foreign language and detect it and identify it even if he did not speak the language. He did not. The easy way to verify that would be to mix in half and half glossa samples with samples of one person speaking a praise type speech in a foreign language. But that really isn't necessary, because linguists aren't claiming about themselves what you are claiming about them. Why a semi-intelligent human being would say something that stupid? In Acts 2 on Pentecost, SIT is referred to in the Bible as glossa and lalia, and the historic record in Acts was that everyone understood them speaking in their own native languages. So that clearly is an example that immediately contradicts this inane statement. Actually, let me rephrase my question. Why would a semi-intelligent human being not only say something that stupid, but present it like it is an argument that is proven fact? Do they expect the thread audience all to have IQ's under 60 at this point?

You're losing me. Samaring DID recognize the languages somewhere? I was just pointing out that the fact that Samarin didn't recognize the languages did not mean that he was ruling out the possibility of it being an existing human language in use or extinct language. Did he state somewhere that he was ruling out the possibility of ALL languages that I missed? Because that is one that I CERTAINLY would like to see the evidence on. I'm out too, off to scare small children. See you guys tomorrow....

Well, whatever the conclusions there, my first comment is this paper is the first one I've read that is solid and sound from a scientific method perspective. So it's worth reading on that front if nothing else. Newberg conclusively proves that there is different frontal lobe brain activity in glossolalia when compared to singing.

This goes back to our discussion of sample space again. I'm going to have to explain. Your misunderstanding of sample space just involves lack of completeness, it's not that your point is incorrect. The definition you focus on is sample space consists of "the entire range of possible values". How does this apply to the field of say, drug testing for FDA approval? So for a cancer drug, the sample space would be the entire population that has cancer. You select study participants based upon in part their qualification to the basic space. So for example, it would make no sense to allow a person without cancer into the study as it would prove nothing. How does this apply to the possible values and/or possible people to include in Samarin's study? If he decides to include mediums in the study, then BY THAT DECISION he is opening up the sample space to include NOT ONLY THOSE FAKING IT, but also the possibility that they are in reality conversing in another language with a spirit entity. Likewise, to include those SIT in the study, he would have to include those that are at least possibly genuinely doing it in addition to those who are faking it. The sample space here is TOO WIDE to prove one single occurrence one way or the other. Sure it is remotely possible that both SIT people AND mediums are faking it. I'm not so sure of the "consciously or not" phrase. But yes, humans are capable of stringing sounds together so that they can sound like a language, as much as you can identify what an unknown language WOULD sound like. We have major disagreements on Hockett's 16 criteria on what consists of a language, and only 5 of those attributes deal with the phonetic side of it. The point I disagree with here is that IF there is spiritual energy behind it, that ABSOLUTELY distinguishes it from made-up sounds. The other point is, that unless the language is understood, there is no way an independent researcher COULD distinguish it from made-up sounds. Unless is was obvious gibberish, which WAS able to be detected. So what there is failure to address with this point is that IT COULD BE SIT WITH A PERFECT LANGUAGE SPOKEN AND SPIRITUAL ENERGY BEHIND IT, and it still would be classified as not distinguishable from "free vocalization" or made-up sounds by Samarin, Poythress, or ANY OTHER RESEARCHER. This point proves NOTHING. Another way to state this is both Samarin and Poythress are reaching the conclusion "I don't understand either one of these samples, so they are the same to me". Outside of measuring how often consonants occur, and looking at language constructs like sentences, phrases, etc. that's basically all they are saying and concluding. Is this meaningful? NOT REALLY. I really don't know why you are fixating on this "innate human ability" phrase. Did you read that in one of the studies, or just make it up? Can you find the quote for me if it is from someone else? So it's an "innate human ability" that someone can run their mouth, not thinking about what they are saying, and someone else won't understand? STOP THE PRESSES, WE HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH. I submit that this happens in school classrooms across the world every day. From my perspective I can remove all the high-falutin' science language for you here. Humans can speak in various capacities where others won't understand them. There. That pretty much sums up what is meant by "free vocalization". Mostly because the science approach here isn't getting him anywhere. Kind of like we aren't getting anywhere with the science approach. I agree with this logic for the most part. My feeling on spiritual power demonstrated is that first of all, you have to have the components to detect this. This means to me that you have to be BORN AGAIN, or as the Bible states, things concerning the spirit will simply be foolishness to you. I also feel that someone has to not be closed off to consider spiritual sources. An extreme pessimistic viewpoint concerning all things spiritual in my opinion will put you in the same place that someone not born again is. An over-dependence on the 5 senses combined with a pessimistic science-fact-only based viewpoint is an individual making up their mind that spiritual things are foolish to them, regardless of whether they are born again or not. This is the age-old Illuminati argument - science vs. faith as depicted in Dan Brown's novels. Let me state this for you in simple terms that remove the scientific mysticism from it. The minute you understand the language in SIT, it becomes no longer gibberish to you. Until then, SIT is just gibberish to you. This is no revelation, SIT is defined to be this way in the Bible. "He that speaks in a tongue, no man understands." It is also described as "foolishness" unless it is interpreted. You are wrong in your "fails to match the phonemic strata of any known language" statement if you are trying to say anything beyond that it is not understood. Samarin himself marvels at the innate linguistic ability of man to make up sounds that incorporate so many elements of language. Could he be listening to a genuine SIT message there? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing that would rule that out. It would be the height of human stupidity to scientifically reach a conclusion that a genuine SIT message "fails to match the phonemic strata of any known language". And there is NOTHING IN ANY STUDY I've read to date that conclusively shows a sample doesn't meet the sounds that a language does, except for in Poythress study two gibberish samples were introduced, and detected IMMEDIATELY and discounted. However, these two gibberish samples were still classified in the "free vocalization" category. You are starting to sound here like linguists are able to identify and classify as a language a sample THAT THEY DON'T SPEAK, WRITE, READ, OR UNDERSTAND ANY VOCABULARY WORDS IN. I have not read anything to show me that is the case. Look if genuine SIT taps into 7000 known languages and includes 15000 extinct languages and interchanges between them in a given message, it's not necessarily conspiracy theory that it is not understood. I mean if the Bible says it's not understood, then I take that to mean that outside of special miracles going beyond what is written in the Bible, it is not going to be understood. How is that possible? If God can select which language to energize, then HE pretty much would be completely in control of whether or not the language is understood. I'm only aware of this by individual anecdote. I've heard approximately 12-15 of those accounts, both inside and outside TWI. To me they would be considered a special miracle, like in Acts 2 at Pentecost. It's completely within my realm of possibility that God chooses when to energize a special miracle, and the terms surrounding that being that it never becomes a scenario where someone sees that first and then believes. The times to see it first then believe are OT times. In NT times, the sign we have is Jesus Christ's life itself. Actually, taking a step back here, it's not really up to me to prove it. It's up to God. He's the one that energized the writing down of the epistles that describe SIT. He's the one that stated it's use and purpose, that it is not understood. He's the one that would be energizing each of the messages. So why don't you take up with God the whole "burden of proof" topic? Obviously you seem to think that God doesn't understand the concept of burden of proof any more than I do.

I do not feel your mod powers should be revoked. You have not abused those powers in general in my overall opinion. You explained the actions you took in a timely fashion, and corrected any action quickly that stemmed from a conflict of interest. This is completely just my opinion, and paw and other mods are completely free to ignore my opinion, of course. I call things how I see them.

Socks, really I feel the same way as you. My life itself is the proof to me. And my journey with the Father is pretty unbelievable too. However, I'm not as smart as you. I took the bait of someone calling me a liar and faker, and have been arguing with them. So here's a story that was witnessed by nobody and is hard to believe, but happened once. I was at the Adv. Class, and walking around in the dark in my room. We had bunk beds. I ran smack dab into the corner of the bunk bed at a walking pace, with the corner going into my eye socket. My hands went up to my eyes, and I felt the whole eye swelling up. I thought for sure I'd have a really nice shiner through the rest of the class. I prayed immediately, and thanked God in Jesus Christ name for helping my eye. I immediately felt the exact opposite of it swelling up. It shrunk up at about the same pace it swelled up. In about 20 seconds, I removed my hands and started blinking. After about 2 minutes, I went in the bathroom to assess the remaining damage. There was no remaining damage. There was no mark at all on my eye. Now this little event is such a stupid little meaningless thing in a way. The healing happened there although it didn't happen in other circumstances that I would have thought to be much more opportune moments. I don't have a story like you do regarding SIT and others understanding. I never experienced that. What I do know, however, is the impact of the power of God working. I remember that stupid little healing incident decades later, in exact detail. Why? It was the power of God - it made that much of an impression. Anyway, that's my accommodating your request for outlandish stories.

So here is another point that I have to consider. Does the scientific method apply? If not, how would it not apply? In answering this question, we have to arrive at some kind of consistency. What I mean is, if the scientific method reasonably and logically would not apply for some reason, then the terms related to the scientific method such as "this is proven", etc. have to also be removed from the conversation. You can't mix and match terms from the scientific method and remain consistent. One issue with the scientific method in identifying the language involved in the phenomenon is we may not be able to rule out all the languages. How many languages are alive and functioning now? 7000? How about during all of mankind's inhabitance of the world? 15,000? More? There is no one person that can identify all of them. There is no linguistic research society that claims to be able to identify any given language sample with a known language on earth. If we include extinct langauges, that problem increases.

You are crossing the line on that other thread with the namecalling. I am responding and am not lilly white in that category. There is no reprimand that could be handed out on that thread that would not include your behavior as either the #1 or #2 offender. Then cool yourself down just like everyone else has to do that participates. Walk away. The fact that you are "trying to cool things down" while also controlling not allowing others to post on the thread is an abuse of the mod power. If the thread crosses the line on rules then it should be shut down by an uninvolved mod. You have a conflict of interest moderating that thread in any fashion. As your opposing viewpoint I will vouch for you that you never edited or chastised anyone with your mod powers. And shutting down the thread and re-opening it, while violating a conflict of interest, in my opinion isn't an abuse that is of the magnitude where I would request your mod status be revoked. But make no mistake, if I did see those other actions - editing or chastising while arguing, I would call for your mod status to be revoked.

This is getting quite pedantic. I am not dismissing innate human abilities, like that of making up Pig Latin, making up gibberish sounds, making up sounds that could sound a little more like language, making up interpretations and prophecies, etc. I'm not dismissing the possibility of people faking a séance to get attention. I'm not dismissing an actual séance where people talk to spirit guides, I'm not dismissing those things. What I am dismissing is labeling dissimilar things as similar for the purpose of research. Now I see why a linguist who is NOT BORN AGAIN would do this. He sees things that are supposedly another language that wasn't studied by the speaker, then he sees someone SIT, someone faking it, someone making up sounds, reads an account of a séance. All these things seem the same to him. As a linguist, whose primary field involves classifying language, labeling this phenomena is the first step in studying it. All these things have in common that there was a speaker, one or more listeners, and the sounds spoken were not understood. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE SIMILARITY HERE. Then I see ATTEMPTS to classify the sounds by laws of language. I see NO PROOFS, but I see conclusions reached like by Samarin that he marvels at the ability of the human mind to make sounds that sound like they could be languages. Could this happen by Samarin hearing ACTUAL SAMPLES OF GENUINE SIT? Yes it could. Would he be able to distinguish between GENUINE SIT and FAKED SIT? No he would not. He could not understand either utterance, and already has defined the term to include both genuine or faking AS THE SAME THING. That in a nutshell is my issue with the term "free vocalization". Now I'm hoping once everyone meditates, takes their meds, has a drink, has a good night sleep, or whatever else it is that they do to CALM DOWN and get over being mad that this logic won't escape them. But my hopes aren't very high.

Then instead of abusing mod power you should have asked another mod to do it and waited until they did. I probably won't continue a conversation with you because of the dishonesty involved in this action shutting down opposing viewpoints. I would suggest at this point that you are too spun up or upset or whatever to continue this conversation. I have brought up valid logical opposing points to automatically classifying anything in this by the term "free vocalization". In my opinion, this is winning an argument by defining the terms in a dishonest way to obtain an advantage. It ONE MORE TIME is circular logic to define the term "free vocalization" to include any act of producing a phonetic result that someone else doesn't understand, then to supposedly "prove" that SIT is "free vocalization" by saying it has a similar phonetic result that isn't understood. There is NO PROOF involved here at all, simply a too broad definition, then a lot of harping on similar characteristics with other IMO completely non-similar events. Even if I concede the definition, IT PROVES NOTHING ABOUT SIT. But you are not treating the subject matter honestly. I believe that SIT can be faked, and depending on how closely you scrutinize the result, the fakery could be as simple as we used to do speaking Pig Latin as children.

My argument with the term stands. It was invented by people trying to evaluate the charismatic movement and contains inappropriate inclusions, including medium conversations with spirit guides. The minute you guys can show me how that is included in whatever you were performing in acting classes, I'll withdraw my opposition to the term.

Wow.

You sound pretty lost here again. "Free vocalization" one more time is a made-up term by linguists lumping together occurrences of languages they didn't understand themselves and the speakers stated they didn't know. The fact they made this term up to be a "kitchen sink" type of a catch-all description, and thus it is not narrow enough to use in a hypothesis test, just goes to illustrate that THEY ARE NOT PROVING ANYTHING. All studied samples fit my "free mouthnoiseization" definition too. What does this prove? You got it. NOTHING. I made up the word to include the samples. Completely wrong. "Free mouthnoiseization" is a term that describes SIT, arguments with relatives, made up child-like languages, and blowing bubbles with vocal action. The concept DOES exist - I just introduced it. Just like "free vocalization". You can observe the phenomenon ANY TIME YOU LIKE, by listening to relatives argue, someone blow bubbles, make up languages, or SIT. It can be reproduced at will easily among those unfamiliar with it. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by the same group of people. They may not understand the term, just like they may not understand the term "free vocalization". It is an invented term. The concept DOES EXIST - I have the concept, I described it and communicated it. It can be reproduced. It can be easily taught. Here, I'll teach it in one easy sentence. "Stick your head under water, blow bubbles, and make a MMMMM sound". See? Now you are "free mouthnoising" it. It PROVES NOTHING MORE to use that term than it is to use the "free vocalization". In fact, those two terms are remarkably similar, even though I just made it up. And the irony of this paragraph is that Raf is describing EXACTLY THE ISSUE WITH THE TERM "free vocalization" here. False equivalence (SIT, medium conversation), a shared trait (a language others in the room don't understand). But, like "free mouthnoiseization", there are too many differences between a medium conversation, someone SIT, and someone making up a gibberish language for them to be REALISTICALLY CONSIDERED the same by anyone with half a brain. Please, by all means, keep using that made up term. It means exactly NOTHING with respect to proof, just like it always has. But hey, you have to have SOMETHING to cling to when logic fails. Raf, I really don't want to let facts get in the way of your ignorant rant here, but you really ought to read a little more on the subject. Here's one example. It's a college paper. Now I know how you are regarding ad hominem attacks on college students, but I really think you ought to read this guy's paper, as the terms he uses and defines are common ones in the field, they are clearly written and easy to understand, and it WOULD make you look a little less stupid to understand the same terms that anyone with a background in the scientific method knows: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Hypothesis-Testing-381176.html Yeah, it's tedious to keep calling you on stating opinion as fact. And the namecalling is obnoxious. Or you hesitate to share it BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE IT. I'm sure I will subject their samples to no less a level of rigorous questioning that say, you have to socks here last page on his account. To do less wouldn't be fair. And the definitions you accept without scrutiny ABSOLUTELY lead you to ONE WAY of looking at this. You will never get past this until you can get honest about the terms you are using.

Not so easy. How do you propose statistics to prove whether or not it's a human language? The fact that the linguist and people in the studies don't understand it doesn't prove that. You COULD make attempts towards that by posting up samples up on a website and offering a reward for anyone recognizing the language. That still wouldn't prove it conclusively but would strengthen the case. But nobody has done that. Free vocalization is DEFINED to include human made-up gibberish languages, people talking to spirit guides, and MAYBE a genuine sample of SIT. (I can't tell that for sure because I haven't seen ANYONE in these studies write up their samples yet.) You can't prove something where you define the term to mean what you are trying to prove. That is a circular logic fallacy. You are not understanding the very clear point that you can't prove something that by nature you are defining to be something. So NO, that is not proven. Using a circular logic fallacy is NOT proof. And you not understanding it is you being dishonest about it. YOU are lying saying it is proven.

And probability theory / statistics theory is EXACTLY what is used in hypothesis testing. And sample space IS the complete population that you are modeling. But please, enlighten all the readers here about your erudite understanding of this field and the terms in it SEEING AS YOU JUST FOUND OUT THAT TERM EXISTED in the last page. Instant expertise, I call it. Or, more accurately, you DON'T UNDERSTAND the terms, are struggling to come up to speed with what is necessary to actually do scientific method testing, and are trying to save face in the process. And all you have to do to prove I'm lying is SHOW EVIDENCE that ONE THING you are claiming as PROVEN ACTUALLY IS. Show the evidence, research, statistics. But you can't. So the evidence points to YOU being the one lying. There are a lot of names and accusations flying around the thread. "Ad hominem" specifically refers to the logical fallacy of discrediting research by attacking the researcher. You and I aren't really presenting research on this thread, so "ad hominem" really wouldn't apply to our discussion, regardless of the civility, name-calling, etc. present or not. And yes, it's a difficult topic.

You know, you would be less of a tool if you weren't trying to act all high and mighty surrounding something that has simple definitions on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof There are 3 definitions below this, and one points to the same Wikipedia reference to "Scientific Method" that I posted previously. You know, the article that contains definitions of hypothesis test, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, and confidence intervals? Those terms which you don't have a clue about, to the extent you are saying "there is no such thing as sample space"???? We went through this exercise a couple pages ago, where I went back 4 pages out of 60 and provided AMPLE examples of you misusing "proof". I think during that exchange I challenged you to show ONE thing that WAS proven. You never have.

No, I understand burden of proof, I just disagree with you on what consists of "an affirmative claim". I started my discussion on this thread under the premise of disproving YOUR claim. You are trying to maneuver me into a corner of the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy, where you say if someone can't disprove it, then it's true. I don't make that claim. I'm not saying that. I have a nonstop campaign of presenting honesty related to this topic, and using accurate terms. Like not saying "proven" unless it is. Like pointing out issues with research. If you are not acting honestly in your use of the word "proven" then you ARE the target of this. That's your problem.

I seriously doubt you would have believed it even if you were there in the room.

You started the thread, you made the accusations that everyone SIT in modern day is faking it. That is the claim. Therefore by your logic it is your burden of proof to prove. Your tactics are to state as fact opinion, and lie about it to the point where you think people won't see through it. You are doing so here again. Where are SIT speakers making a claim here on this thread? Please point it out to all of the readers, including making the FIRST claim. I let you off the hook on that, saying that since the argument started long before this thread, it was unclear on who had the burden of proof - those stating that SIT is fake and false, or those saying it was genuine. Now you dishonestly are trying to frame the conversation so that you don't have a burden of proof which very clearly you are unable to meet. I see why you are doing it. Fear, knowledge that you can't prove it, not wanting to look bad. But it's still a dishonest approach. You mean how YOU shifted the burden of proof? Your affirmative claim "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". Your further affirmative claim "all those saying they are SIT in modern times are liars and are faking it. Look, not only does this place the burden of proof squarely on YOUR shoulders, but you are also being obnoxious. I didn't start out calling you a liar and a faker, it took about 60 pages of seeing you dishonestly state opinion as fact, to fill the thread with rhetoric, and summarily dismiss any of the opposite positions first-hand anecdotes, all which accepting without question those on your side. You are dishonest. You are lying. You have called people names since the beginning of the thread. I say your testimony of yourself tells the whole story. You lied about SIT while in TWI. And you are lying now about research. Nobody really made that big fat claim. For instance myself. I didn't come here, and start a thread how modern SIT is Biblical SIT. Pretty much to the charismatic Christians in the world, it's not something they NEED to make a claim about. They practice their faith in peace and quiet. For me, I got pulled into an argument by someone acting like a douche@g calling charismatic Christians names like liars and fakers. I got sick of it, so I decided to humor the conversation to see how full of it they were. I see they are plenty full of it, and won't listen to reason. What exactly is it about your behavior on this thread that makes you think you deserve ANYTHING from me? Name-calling and lies don't earn you anything. Yes, it's really clever to look at Wikipedia's definition of "the scientific method", whereby all peer reviewed scientific research papers are all evaluated against, and highlight some of the terms there involved with "proof". The reason I had to be so "clever" was Raf abusing the word "proof" all throughout the thread. Finally, I decided to call him on it. Apparently, since he is unable to show any measure of fact or use of the scientific method that is anywhere near what is used in sociological studies, psychological studies, and virtually all modern research, then he falls back on his next line of defense. Name-calling, and lies. "Cleverness". Wow. That's a new one. I never knew looking up a main term on Wikipedia was so "clever". Hahahaha. There is NO SUCH THING as a sample space. Do you think such a transparent lie is going to stand? A "sample space" is the entire population that you are trying to study. It differs from general population in that it is the entire population that you want to apply the hypothesis test to. The sample space is the pool from which you select your sample. Sample size is the number of samples you use in your study. And again, ignorance should not be mixed with stating opinion as fact. In hypothesis testing, YOU SELECT what the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are. And they equally could be selected to try and prove either side of the argument here. And ONE MORE TIME, where are the samples? Where is the writeup on them? Where is the statement of the hypothesis? Where are the numbers measured? Where is the mean, the standard deviation? Where is the confidence interval? But I'm OVERJOYED to see that we HAVE this information. I'm expecting to see you post up links to it within your next couple of posts. I just love it when we are now discussing PROOF in terms of "what is safer to assume". So you're admitting there is no proof here? And suggesting guidelines on what we should assume about it? Your arguments are so full of logical fallacies you couldn't see the truth if it hit you in the rear. Even your terminology is BS. I don't have "attacks" on research. I am simply asking to see evidence of PROOF that backs up their wild conclusions. I have yet to see any. All you have to do is provide the references to where we can all read it. I guess that's too hard, though. So instead you can just provide some ad hominem attacks on your opposition. I don't have a pity party going on. You are attacking me ad hominem on almost every post now. That's very apparent. That's your problem, not mine.

And without twisting history we can note that basically Paul said "all in Asia be turned away from me". Paul was martyred in somewhere around the 64AD - 70AD timeframes. There were a lot of things that disappeared from the church shortly after the detail of the first generation. That in and of itself should not be taken to be proof of any gifts subsiding, as it's fairly evident that by the 3rd century Christianity was politically influenced and the Pope had established power. There are a lot of ad hominem attacks on this thread. Mostly in an attempt to discredit research writings (someone was called a college student with a paper assignment I recall), and mostly to discredit. Raf subjects me to ad hominem attacks about every 3 posts, telling everyone how I'm dishonest, not interested in true research, etc. Usually the extent of the ad hominem attacks show me that I've presented Raf with something that he doesn't want to face, such as lack of systematic research, calling opinion as fact, etc.