Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate

[eqfan592]

58. Indeed it does require extraoridnary evidence...

...so it's a good thing there already exists some extraordinary evidence to support it.

Dealing with both the Pam Reynolds case as well as NDE's in general, we have no reason to assume the experiences that Pam Reynolds had took place during her time of brain inactivity. We already know biologically what is happening to people who experience NDE's, and I'd wager the same took place here. It is also possible that her brain activity wasn't as fully stopped as they believed, and that a very low level of activity remained during the surgery. As for her experiences, she already had an idea of what was going to occur during the surgery, and she may have even seen some of the tools that were used prior to the surgery. Her brain could have reconstructed the rest.

Reincarnation does have some interesting evidence, but it's not very solid and much further study would be required before it would constitute proof.

Incorruptible corpses are explained through a variety of means. A site that gives a quick run down is this: http://listverse.com/2011/04/19/10-mysteries-and-their-most-logical-explanation/

Incorruptible Corpses are corpses that have been ‘preserved without embalming or any other artificial means’. The most famous is St. Bernadette Soubirous (above), who died in 1879. Her face and hands are made out of wax. The wax was added because her face was emaciated when she was first dug up. Other incorruptible corpses give off a sweet odor, similar to embalming fluid. Others still are due to how they were buried, in alkaline soil, with a lack of oxygen and bacteria and worms.

As you said, we've talked about Sheldrake previously, and even though you deny it, his methodology IS very poor from a scientific perspective. He often fails to allow for controls, does little or nothing to eliminate observational bias, and his collection of data regarding psychic dogs is largely gathered from surveys filled out by the general public with absolutely no controls whatsoever, and thus must be completely discarded. He also now seems unwilling to open his research up to the peer review process, instead choosing to publish his work to the general public, which is an awful indicator of major woo. Maybe this will change with time, but right now he's going in the wrong direction with his work, becoming more secluded from the rest of the scientific community.