This is why people are calling you a fool. You haven't the foggiest notion of what is or isn't science, yet you make these stupid judgement posts again and again.
Can you elaborate on that?
I just don't go along with the scientific religion, of course people won't like that, it's like blasphemie to them.
Furthermore I don't care about people calling me a fool. I am just searching for truth,
If that makes me a fool in their , and your eyes, so be it.
Get it over with.
btw have YOu read the book by Ian Stevenson?
Right! Thought so!
A very small portion of the criticisms against Stevenson's works:
The major problem with Stevenson’s work is that the methods he used to investigate alleged cases of reincarnation are inadequate to rule out simple, imaginative storytelling on the part of the children claiming to be reincarnations of dead individuals. In the seemingly most impressive cases Stevenson (1975, 1977) has reported, the children claiming to be reincarnated knew friends and relatives of the dead individual. The children’s knowledge of facts about these individuals is, then, somewhat less than conclusive evidence for reincarnation.
David Barker an associate of Stevenson discovered that the famous reincarnation case of the child Rakesh Gaur had acquired through normal means the information. Barker, who worked with Satwant Pasricha in the investigation of 59 alleged reincarnation cases "could not find a single case in which there was convincing evidence of the presence of paranormal process."
The linguist Sarah Thomason has commented on an analysis by Stevenson on a lady known as "TE" who claimed to be able to speak Swedish, learned in a past life. According to Thomason "Stevenson is... unsophisticated about language" and TE’s Swedish is unconvincing as the other cases she examined. Thomason concluded "the linguistic evidence is too weak to provide support for the claims of xenoglossy." The psychologist David Lester has written Stevenson's subjects made grammatical mistakes, mispronounced words and did not show a wide vocabulary of words in foreign language; thus cannot be considered evidence for xenoglossy.