• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

if people take the 3 they're will see the body is the one and the soul is the two and three is the powar that makes the univers incrnation funtionality of the strong forces energey. diabetis is the proofs of this becaus phsychon people are sick not in India but also Macedonia and all world. See the reelality of how the 3 maked all reeincrnaton happen.
 
Hmmm, Wogoga is back, and Skamandros is in his thread.

This can't end well.
 
I found this gentleman's exchange here a real hoot:
http://www.ureader.de/msg/14669028.aspx


What is it that you find so amusing?

Do you deny that Immanuel Kant presented a quite consistent hypothesis of biological evolution decades before Charles Darwin?

If you think that I simply cooked up the claims concerning Kant and evolution, then you should also read the two messages I wrote before the above one. The first one containes the corresponding original quotations from Kant, and the second a short defence of my claims.

That Kant quite consistently advocated biological evolution can also be recognized from quotes like this:

In the 1770s, Immanuel Kant expressed his thoughts upon differing human physical traits: ... He subscribed to the theory of "hybridization, or the invariable inheritance by offspring of the differing characteristics of both parents...", but had difficulty reconciling it with the vast variety of physical traits in the human species.

He rejected the multiple origin hypothesis of the human species because humans could interbreed and produce fertile offspring with each other. This made him arrive at the conclusion that human "parents descend from common, original stock in which different, invariably inherited characteristics subsequently developed." ...

Or do you consider "a real hoot" my logical conclusion that Charles Darwin essentially explained biological evolution by differential mortality (which is quite similar to explaining life by death)?
Cheers, Wolfgang
 
What is it that you find so amusing?

Do you deny that Immanuel Kant presented a quite consistent hypothesis of biological evolution decades before Charles Darwin?
Hadn't lots of people come up with somewhat evolutionary type ideas in that period? What does it matter if they did?

That Kant quite consistently advocated biological evolution can also be recognized from quotes like this:

In the 1770s, Immanuel Kant expressed his thoughts upon differing human physical traits: ... He subscribed to the theory of "hybridization, or the invariable inheritance by offspring of the differing characteristics of both parents...", but had difficulty reconciling it with the vast variety of physical traits in the human species.

He rejected the multiple origin hypothesis of the human species because humans could interbreed and produce fertile offspring with each other. This made him arrive at the conclusion that human "parents descend from common, original stock in which different, invariably inherited characteristics subsequently developed." ...
By the sound of it he missed mutation.

Or do you consider "a real hoot" my logical conclusion that Charles Darwin essentially explained biological evolution by differential mortality (which is quite similar to explaining life by death)?
Surely it's differential breeding success, not differential mortality? Unless differential mortality results in differential breeding success, what does it matter?
 
With regard to the OP,where is the proof that reincarnation is a fact?

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!
 
funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

I think we've found a new word. "Reincranation" is what happens when your brain falls out and you try to stuff it back in. The above post suggests that the operation is not without side effects.
 
funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

Tell you what, as soon as you get the radishes on board, we'll talk.
 
funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!
Tell you what, as soon as you get the radishes on board, we'll talk.
Teh radishes have lefft teh bilding
 
I think we've found a new word. "Reincranation" is what happens when your brain falls out and you try to stuff it back in. The above post suggests that the operation is not without side effects.

Reincarnation is when you come back as a flower.
 
funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

Where is the proof of reincarnation in that farrago of nonsense?
 
With regard to the OP, where is the proof that reincarnation is a fact?


A 'proof' (as opposed to 'unquestionable evidence') is essentially an argument from authority. So it is only relevant to those submitting themselves to the corresponding authority.

I've presented a lof of evidence for reincarnation in this thread. And only such concrete evidence can in the end decide whether reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis is in agreement with reality or not.

So read my contributions of this thread, and let me know why you don't consider my arguments in favour of reincarnation as valid evidence.

Whether all biological species (from enzymes to humans) are limited in number or not, makes a huge difference in the real world, or don't you think so?
Can you imagine a science fiction world, where reincarnation acutally exists?

If yes, what kind of evidence would you consider a proof that reincarnation is actually a fact in this science fiction word?

Cheers,
Wolfgang
 
A 'proof' (as opposed to 'unquestionable evidence') is essentially an argument from authority. So it is only relevant to those submitting themselves to the corresponding authority.

I've presented a lof of evidence for reincarnation in this thread. And only such concrete evidence can in the end decide whether reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis is in agreement with reality or not.

So read my contributions of this thread, and let me know why you don't consider my arguments in favour of reincarnation as valid evidence.

Whether all biological species (from enzymes to humans) are limited in number or not, makes a huge difference in the real world, or don't you think so?
Can you imagine a science fiction world, where reincarnation acutally exists?

If yes, what kind of evidence would you consider a proof that reincarnation is actually a fact in this science fiction word?

Cheers,
Wolfgang

I was asking about proof in the real world.
 
funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

are you from Uberwald ?
:p
 

Back
Top Bottom