Evolution

[Amarok]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof.

Lol 

[He lives]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof.

Well, that's nice...but no one thinks "happenstance" is the explanation...so?

We can watch DNA replicate itself but we can't explain why it happens.

No one thinks that DNA explains the beginnings of life on earth either.  Point of fact, though...we do understand organic chemistry and cell division.  I'm not sure what you're talking about here when you say that we can't explain why DNA replicates itself.  

I will continue to believe in the more obvious intelligent design rather than the belief in happenstance which I deem to be a complete impossibility.

Obviously what.....lol?  

Personally, I doubt that pixies or "happenstance" is the answer.....but the question I asked you, that you quoted and responded to..was why you thought those two exhausted the list of possibility in the first place.  You're arguing with ghosts, up above.

Our understanding of why a cell divides is very limited. For instance we know that cells regulate their division by communicating with each other using chemical signals from special proteins called cyclins. These signals act like switches to tell cells when to start dividing and later when to stop dividing. However that knowledge is just the tip of the iceberg. The more we understand, the more we realize that we don't understand. Do you have another possibility for abiogenesis? I only know of two, intelligent design or happenstance.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC I do.  The entire establishment of biology does as well.  You're the odd man out, apparently.

You did (ostensibly) read and quote and respond to at least -one- other option.

[Succubus]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof.

Happenstance, what an ugly word do you mean life formed by accident? Well that's one way of putting it. Another way is, given the right conditions the formation of life from non life is inevitable. Granted this is little more than conjecture at this stage but people are working on it.

We can watch DNA replicate itself but we can't explain why it happens.

That 'You' don't understand how it happens doesn't mean it can't be understood, all it means is that 'You' don't understand. I don't understand how ink jet printers work, so fucking what?

I will continue to believe in the more obvious intelligent design rather than the belief in happenstance which I deem to be a complete impossibility.

Intelligent design? No. 'God did it' is not a theory.

Then I take it that you are capable of creating a DNA molecule out of basic chemicals.

No. Far from it but then we've only been playing around in labs with cellular biology for around 60-80 years, nature on the other hand has a planet sized laboratory and billions of years to produce something that worked. And by worked, I mean a self replicating molecule.

DNA is very complex.

Yes, and?

[Amarok]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof

Chemistry is not happenstance but nice weasel words . The mythology  that invisible sky wizards poofed life into being has even less proof . See i can use demeaning terms too .

We can watch DNA replicate itself but we can't explain why it happens.

Yup i can't explain does not equal intelligent design 

I will continue to believe in the more obvious intelligent design rather than the belief in happenstance which I deem to be a complete impossibility

Personnel credulity is not an argument 

Then I take it that you are capable of creating a DNA molecule out of basic chemicals.

The incapacity to replicate something does not invalidate a theory . And even if we did you would just move the goal post to insist that that proves intelligent design . Plus i point out DNA is already made of basic chemicals . What do you think it's made of magic ?

DNA is very complex.

Irrelevant

[Angrboda]

In order for there to be evolution, their has to be persistence of the 'scroll' across different lives ('descent').  In order for it to be an unrolling of the scroll, there has to be change which persists across those different lives ('modification').  You may not call it descent with modification but that is exactly what you are claiming, regardless of your opinion of Darwin.  Nothing about NDEs demonstrates reincarnation.  That's just your ludicrous interpretation colliding with your dogma about 'the system'.  But I'm all ears.  Feel free to explain how any NDE necessarily entails the existence of reincarnation in a future life.  You can't because they don't.  Aside from a bunch of irrelevant quibbles, you haven't actually disputed anything I stated.  You have a case to make.  Show that NDEs necessarily entail the truth of reincarnation, and show that the "unrolling of the scroll" persists across lives.  Your appeal to the past meanings of 'evolution' didn't change dick.  Make your case or shut the fuck up.

Your stupidity has no limits yog.  

First of all you only present one point among those who I already knock down in the previous post.
Wonder why you keep silent about those.  

I did mention those.  They were irrelevant quibbles like I said.  

Generally speaking reincarnation is necessary only in case when the karma is still present or when a parallelism with God has not been achieved yet.
But even there some of those who had an NDEs and could stay with God come back not because they still had some karma but for other reason like a mother that feel sad to leave her little kids alone so let us not generalize and see case by case.  

Your worthless speculation is noted.  Try addressing the point, dickwad.  None of this is evidence of reincarnation.  And here you've introduced some God character.  Where's your evidence for God?  You can't just assert his existence.  Assertions like that are just as easily dismissed. And now you've introduced yet another bullshit religious notion, karma. Where's the evidence for karma? You don't demonstrate one unjustified claim by making more unjustified claims. You don't have evidence for shit, and the only way your babblings make any sense is if we charitably give you additional things you can't demonstrate. Well fuck that. Demonstrate God, karma, and reincarnation. You're going backwards, not forwards, piling on additional bullshit that you can't demonstrate.

Science teach us that to reach a goal we got to go through a lot of hard work.
If you need to get a degree in something you got to go through primary, high school, other teachings, uni and so on.
Human evolution run in the same way.
One life is not enough to reach the goal of life that is why reincarnation is needed.

More bullshit.  It's generally assumed that achieving a goal requires work.  What isn't assumed is that "evolution run in the same way."  That's just another worthless bare assertion on your part.  It's not evidence.  It's just shit you pulled from your ass.  It doesn't demonstrate squat.

This is science yog.
The very science that atheists glorify all the time.
The funny thing is that science contradict atheists all the time so atheists are left with an empty fist and a lot of fantasies.    

No, that wasn't science, it was more of your unevidenced fantasies.  It's garbage and has nothing to do with science.  

Obviousy NDEs in most cases entails reincarnation.

Obviously....  Not!  This is what you're supposed to be demonstrating, not simply asserting.  Again you fail at the most basic of tasks.

Why then God would send these people back?
If these people would be ready to be with God right then then God would not send them back.
It is like in this physical-material life that if you still have some work to do you are not ready to get your degree.

Who the fuck is "God" and what evidence do you have that he/she/it exists?  You don't demonstrate one thing without evidence by simply asserting something else that is equally without evidence.  Even IF I were to accept the existence of this "God," this is nothing more than baseless speculation.  You were asked to show that NDEs necessarily entail reincarnation.  Your masturbatory fantasies about what some "God" would do are thoroughly worthless.  They don't demonstrate shit.  All we have is your worthless assertion that it is "like" that.  Two can play that game.  I assert that it is NOT like that.  Now, where's your evidence that it is "like" that? It's like you don't have a fucking clue what it takes to demonstrate reincarnation.  Given that, I can only assume you swallowed the idea without any such demonstration.  You wanted to believe the dogma, so you did.  It is "like" you don't know fuckall about reincarnation and are just running off at the mouth without proving anything.

I bet you never though of that yog, did you?  

That I never thought about the fact that you're a worthless twat who doesn't have the first clue how to make a coherent case for his beliefs?  Yeah, I knew that.  Like usual, you talk and talk but it's all empty assertions and bullshit analogies that you can't substantiate.

Try again, fucktard.  Your last post was a total waste.

[He lives]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof.

Thank you. It's always nice to know that we can ignore anything you have to say on a topic by demonstrating your complete ignorance of the topic with your first words.

Perhaps you should read up on abiogenesis. There you will find : "Primordial soup" hypothesis, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Clay hypothesis, Panspermia hypothesis, PAH world hypothesis, Radioactive beach hypothesis, etc. All of which can be termed as happenstance.

[Banned]

Intelligent design? No. 'God did it' is not a theory.

A theory can be anything.
But once you make a theory the truth...then ! ?

[He lives]

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof.

Happenstance, what an ugly word do you mean life formed by accident? Well that's one way of putting it. Another way is, given the right conditions the formation of life from non life is inevitable. Granted this is little more than conjecture at this stage but people are working on it.

The formation of life from inorganic materials was not inevitable. Where did you come up with that statement?

We can watch DNA replicate itself but we can't explain why it happens.

That 'You' don't understand how it happens doesn't mean it can't be understood, all it means is that 'You' don't understand. I don't understand how ink jet printers work, so fucking what?

Yes it can be understood by someone who has greater understanding and knowledge than the top scientists of today.

I will continue to believe in the more obvious intelligent design rather than the belief in happenstance which I deem to be a complete impossibility.

Intelligent design? No. 'God did it' is not a theory.

The human body had to be designed. It is much to complex for happenstance.

Then I take it that you are capable of creating a DNA molecule out of basic chemicals.

No. Far from it but then we've only been playing around in labs with cellular biology for around 60-80 years, nature on the other hand has a planet sized laboratory and billions of years to produce something that worked. And by worked, I mean a self replicating molecule.

In my opinion, life as we know it could not have been created by happenstance in any amount of time. Intelligence has always existed and God is the most intelligent of all.

DNA is very complex.

Yes, and?

It was created by intelligent design.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you should read up on abiogenesis. There you will find : "Primordial soup" hypothesis, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Clay hypothesis, Panspermia hypothesis, PAH world hypothesis, Radioactive beach hypothesis, etc. All of which can be termed as happenstance.

What, in your estimation, -wouldn't- be "happenstance"?  I ask..because if it turns out that anything short of tinkergod making you from mud is somehow "happenstance"..earlier, all you were saying reduces to;

"Either god did it or it happened some other way.  I can't believe it happened some other way".

An unsurprising and completely uninformative declaration.