Evolution

[He lives]

We do not have real knowledge about how life on earth started. The only two possibilities are intelligent design and happenstance.

Why on earth would those two things have exhausted the list of possibility?  Is there no room in your cosmos for the predictably constrained product of organic chemistry?

After contemplating the intricacies of the human body with it's ability to reproduce, I believe that happenstance is an impossibility.

Meh, the "intricacy" of the human body is explained, and not an issue of how life on earth started.  We're a few years late to the grand opening.

The hypothesis of the beginning of life by happenstance lacks any type of proof. We can watch DNA replicate itself but we can't explain why it happens. 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.

---

We do not have real knowledge about how life on earth started. The only two possibilities are intelligent design and happenstance.

This is a contradictory statement   

After contemplating the intricacies of the human body with it's ability to reproduce, I believe that happenstance is an impossibility.

 Their is nothing about the complexity of the human body that implies intelligent design . Just an assertion  of personnel credulity .

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

[Little Rik]

5) Finally NDEs already proved that consciousness carry on in the next life.

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.  
Never mind.
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.  

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.

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.    

Obviousy NDEs in most cases entails reincarnation.
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.

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

[He lives]

We do not have real knowledge about how life on earth started. The only two possibilities are intelligent design and happenstance.

This is a contradictory statement   

After contemplating the intricacies of the human body with it's ability to reproduce, I believe that happenstance is an impossibility.

 Their is nothing about the complexity of the human body that implies intelligent design . Just an assertion  of personnel credulity .

You do not believe that DNA is a complex molecule?

[FatAndFaithless]

Reading comprehension, my dude.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is a contradictory statement   



 Their is nothing about the complexity of the human body that implies intelligent design . Just an assertion  of personnel credulity .

You do not believe that DNA is a complex molecule?

Despite the fact that if it were untangled it would stretch around the world and more?

[Nay_Sayer]

You do not believe that DNA is a complex molecule?

Despite the fact that if it were untangled it would stretch around the world and more?

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2 meters long, all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Despite the fact that if it were untangled it would stretch around the world and more?

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2 meters long, all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

Yeah, something like that. 

[Amarok]

You do not believe that DNA is a complex molecule?

Yup and that does not demonstrate intelligent design it say DNA is complex

[The Grand Nudger]

Why on earth would those two things have exhausted the list of possibility?  Is there no room in your cosmos for the predictably constrained product of organic chemistry?


Meh, the "intricacy" of the human body is explained, and not an issue of how life on earth started.  We're a few years late to the grand opening.

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.

[Ravenshire]

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.