Evolution

[Angrboda]

You're still contradicting yourself about the obviousness of life in matter.  If Einstein never said anything about it, why did you bring him up as an example of how I was contradicting science?

Einstein said that everything is vibration.

Vibrations move, they are energetic, vigorous, vibrant, sparkling and full of life so they are not dead.
The other option is that they are dead but have you ever seen something dead that does the above actions?

If vibrations are not in fact alive, then yes, I've seen many vibrating dead things as all things are then essentially dead.  Besides begging the question, this again doesn't differentiate between the Yoga view that the vibrations are alive and the Christian view that God is alive and He is making the vibrations do what they do.  In order for your view of evolution to hold, you need to be able to distinguish the former from the latter.  Stringing together a bunch of adjectives that might describe vibrations doesn't do it.  As can be seen in the vibrations that are water waves, which are caused by an application of an exterior force, wind, it's possible that the vibrations are an effect of the interaction of otherwise constant forces, as in how a window shudders in the wind.  In that case, vibrations would vibrate because of the interaction between potential vibrators, not because of anything internal to the vibrations themselves.  So, no, this only shows that you, once again, are the fool.

To see life in a rock is not easy that is why we can say that is not possible to see life in matter but life is there anyway.
Certain minerals like uranium release energy and energy-consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet so matter is not dead therefore the vibrations that compose the matter are alive.

Using one bit of unsupported Ananda Marga dogma to support another unsupported bit of dogma gets you nowhere.  You're just running in place.  What reason do you have for believing that wherever there is energy, there is consciousness?  If you have no reason, then energy and consciousness aren't two sides of the same sheet.  I think this is an overly simplistic understanding of what Sarkar said, anyway.  His claim was that consciousness implied the existence of a suitable prakrti in each case observed.  Is a suitable prakrti observed in radioactive matter?  No.  Radioactive matter decays in rigidly fixed patterns, unlike the way things we know have consciousness behaves.  Simply equating energy and consciousness is little more than begging the question.  (See Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy, Ch. 1, What Is Dharma?)

1) Within this universe wherever there is a body there is a mind-consciousness.
It doesn't really matter whether this body is a human body or a rock (matter).
Consciousness and body always go hand in hand.

Dog... ma.....

Outside this universe as has already been demonstrated by thousand of NDEs consciousness does not need a body but within this universe it does.

Since you declined to answer the clairvoyance objection, that makes your claim here false.

2) Radioactive matter can not in any way be compared to higher type of conscious life.
It is natural that a very low type of consciousness such as the one in the matter or radioactive matter in this case will act in a total different way and have different way of react.

If it can't be compared, then why are you comparing it to that?  You're filled with contradictions.  You're claiming now that radioactivity doesn't behave like the life of conscious things, therefore it is like the life of conscious things!  You make no sense.

Going up and up in the evolution scale the more there is evolution the more there are visible evidence that vibrations are alive.

Such as?

There is a parallelism between vibrations and state of awareness so the movement and the sparkling life within a human body can not be the same as the one found in matter.   In matter the vibrations reflect the state in which this matter lie which is a latent-inactive-dormant stage.  

You claimed that more evidence of life was available the higher up the evolutionary scale you go.  Besides not answering the question put to you, this is just more irrelevant twaddle.

We humans are alive and we are made of vibrations.
As we come from previous life and this previous life goes back to pure matter then the evidence that life come from life is more than evident.
Only stubborn idiots believe otherwise.    

You're putting the cart before the horse.  Until you can demonstrate that vibrations are alive, there is no point in talking about what goes back to pure matter.

See above above but most of all wake up and grow up.  

Now let us talk about Abiogenesis.

It say.............the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances........or..........is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds............

Fool like you think that inanimate substances or organic compounds have no life in them but they do as has already been demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated jack shit, douchebag.

Yes, I did by showing that there is life in matter such as uranium.  

Like I said, you didn't demonstrate jack shit.  Not only do you claim that the behavior which indicates life in uranium is different from the behavior that indicates life in things we know possess it, thus leaving you without a valid point, your claim that uranium was alive was based on unsupported dogma about some equivalence between the presence of energy and the presence of consciousness.  Supporting one bit of dogma with another bit of dogma gets you nowhere.  You're just arguing in a circle.

Uranium is an inanimate substance yet there life in it.

Pure bollocks.  Tell me which of the following events carries the signature of life?

You want evidence?
Go to Hiroshima and ask the survival of the bomb whether there was life or not in the explosion.

More irrelevant twaddle.  What in fuck are you trying to say here?  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not demonstrate that uranium was "alive."