It's definitely not science to say that reincarnation is a reasonable conclusion to make in instances like this. There are so many more logical explanations that Zone seems to want to dismiss out of hand because the idea of living again after you die seems like it'd be fun.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that you have to prove first that a consciousness can exist separate from the brain, and that somehow this consciousness can be implanted into a new brain. It's an uphill battle because there's just no way to prove that some kind of conscious energy which used to be active in a person's brain can somehow survive after brain death, float around for a while without being dissipated by other energy sources, and somehow make its way into the brain of a developing embryo/fetus and to be revived again. If Zone has a hypothesis for how this can happen, I'd like to hear it. But whenever someone proposes something like reincarnation, they only go back to the "he couldn't have remembered this any other way" and rely on woo.
Woo is not science.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that you have to prove first that a consciousness can exist separate from the brain, and that somehow this consciousness can be implanted into a new brain. It's an uphill battle because there's just no way to prove that some kind of conscious energy which used to be active in a person's brain can somehow survive after brain death, float around for a while without being dissipated by other energy sources, and somehow make its way into the brain of a developing embryo/fetus and to be revived again. If Zone has a hypothesis for how this can happen, I'd like to hear it. But whenever someone proposes something like reincarnation, they only go back to the "he couldn't have remembered this any other way" and rely on woo.
Woo is not science.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
