• 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.

Proof of reincarnation

gerg said:
He wasn't even a scientist, let alone a knowledgeable biologist.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist...

...In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence as a scientist, he was one of only five 19th-century UK non-royal personages to be honoured by a state funeral, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
Click to expand...
gerg said:
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we can conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
So, are you lying or just ignorant?
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we can conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.
Click to expand...

Scientists have good hypotheses about how the eye came about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
 
gerg said:
Despite centuries of digging, nobody has found any remains that prove it is possible for one species to turn into another. Now that, my friend, is telling..
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that there is evidence that supports the theory some people make demands that they can't meet for their own ideas. The fact that evolution happens all the time is just ignored by some people and the overwhelmeing evidence is just disregarded.
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
Here's why you've proven to be the fool. The theory of evolution is not a modern idea. The ancient Greeks first proposed a form of it in the 7th century B.C. Darwin had no field. He wasn't even a scientist, let alone a knowledgeable biologist.
Click to expand...

ok, the voice from ignorance again is it gerg
the modern theory of evolution is a very modern idea, that you don't know that shows that you don't know anything.
In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection became understood in combination with Mendelian inheritance, forming the modern evolutionary synthesis,[15] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[12][13][16] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, anthropology, conservation biology, paleontology, agriculture, medicine, psychology, philosophy and others.
Click to expand...

admit it, youve never even heard the term "modern evolutionary synthesis", have you, never heard it, never read about it, never understood it, yet here you are trying to tell us that its false

what is your major malfunction ?
:D

gerg said:
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Click to expand...
Thats correct, and every organ can be shown to have developed step by step
gerg said:
After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we can conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.
Click to expand...
Are you really that uninformed gerg that you aren't aware how the eye evolved step by step, clearly again this is self imposed ignorance on your part, you could spend the next 5 minutes researching eye evolution, but you won't will you, the fact that you are bringing up one of the worst arguments made by ID proponents shows your true colours doesn't it.
gerg said:
By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down. You carry on with your "superiority" delusions marduk. lmao
Click to expand...
uhuh I can show to anyone how the eye evolved in under five miniutes, its a simple process that my 8 year old nephew understands, this means that you are less intelligent than an 8 year old, but seeing how your belief system was created by bronze age shepherds and hasn't taken one step forwards since then you are in no position to start telling anyone whats what,
if I need an opinion on mass murder, genocide or treating women like cattle I'll ask you gerg, til then I'd shut up if I were you, youre not qualified to speak about things that you have consistently demonstrated that you know nothing about, for my part I know more about evolutionary subjects than you do, thats very clear, that I know more about the bible than you do as well seems lost on you, how is that possible gerg, someone knows more than you about every subject and their opinion is completely opposite than yours. thats not free will gerg, thats just me being a lot more intelligent than you are. People like you were designed for the bible, youre mentioned in it repeatedly, one of the little sheep who doesn't have the brains to see he's being led.
baaa baaaa gerg bbaaaaa
:D
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
Believe me when I say your approach is no different to a bible basher telling me to go an read the Bible.
Click to expand...

Apparently you can't read either, there was a suggestion, the issue is that you do not even understand the basis of the theory or the evidence that supports it, and therefore you can not make an educated judgment. And that is why there is a request to educate youurself, in moist cases the arguments against evolution are based upon a false understanding of the theory and the mechanics of biology, so they are straw arguments based upon ignorance. Most of us are familiar with the bible and the evidence, it is not compelling.

Now do you know what chromosomes, telomeres and centomeres are? Because if I say to you that one of the lines of evidence of evolution is that humans have one less chromosome pair than apes and that it happens that humans have a chromosome set that had two centomere instead of one, that is strong evidence that there was a transition from the line of other great apes to humans.

Now there is lots of evidence, I am not saying that this is definitive in any way, but given the amount of evidence that is supportive of a theory of natural selection through reproductive success, and that the other theories do not match this data, the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
 
gerg said:
Here's why you've proven to be the fool. The theory of evolution is not a modern idea. The ancient Greeks first proposed a form of it in the 7th century B.C. Darwin had no field. He wasn't even a scientist, let alone a knowledgeable biologist.
Click to expand...

Ah, the rhetorical goal post, nothing is so mobile. And the greeks and romans had things comparable to chemistry and physics, therefore you can talk about how Aristotle disagreed with Democritus as though that has meaning for the modern theories. Therefore what Pliny the Elder thought is relevant to the discussion of the values of the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations of QM.

Epic fail, in that same rhetorical sense.
 
gerg said:
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we can conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.

By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down. You carry on with your "superiority" delusions marduk. lmao
Click to expand...

Except for one thing, if you studied the actual theories around it, which is apparent you haven't, there are reasons why the theory that the eye developed makes more sense that is was designed.

IE (Maybe you will try to Google this), why are the blood vessels in the eye in front of the retina? Seriously if you were going to design an eye, you would put the blood vessels behind the material for sensation, would you not?

Now there are reasons that biology has for suggesting how this may have come about, so do you know what they are? Or are you making an argument from ignorance and just parroting what you have read somewhere else?
 
The general consensus seems to be that Gerg is either ignorant of the facts and is simply repeating anti-science rhetoric, or he's well aware of the truth and is simply ignoring it while repeating anti-science rhetoric. Either way, he has almost single-handedly kept this thread open for 15 pages.

The real question, however, is "Why?"
 
kerikiwi said:
I would disagree with this.
First it would be necessary to establish that the bible was a valid source, before even bothering to read it.
Click to expand...

It is a valid source of information on what the believer claims to believe. It helps to know what the bible thumpers are thumping on.;)

Additionally, many believers make statements on things and claim that it comes from the bible. When you whip out a copy of the bible and tell them "nope, it doesn't say X here, is says Y" then you can at least show them up as ignorant buffoons.
 
MortFurd said:
Additionally, many believers make statements on things and claim that it comes from the bible. When you whip out a copy of the bible and tell them "nope, it doesn't say X here, is says Y" then you can at least show them up as ignorant buffoons.
Click to expand...

And have a great laugh while you are at it :D
 
gerg said:
After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we can conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.
Click to expand...
Shows you how much you don't know.



Paul

:) :) :)
 
Fnord said:
The general consensus seems to be that Gerg is either ignorant of the facts and is simply repeating anti-science rhetoric, or he's well aware of the truth and is simply ignoring it while repeating anti-science rhetoric. Either way, he has almost single-handedly kept this thread open for 15 pages.

The real question, however, is "Why?"
Click to expand...

how many pages ?
:D
 
Here's another example of transitional species:

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/whales-graph.jpg

I believe gerg has been given some "scientific" data by a religious group to "prove" they are open minded and want him to make up his own mind. A friend of mine brought up the point about the eye when we discussed it. He was a Jehovah's Witness and they had given him a list of scientific articles to go read that were outdated and biased. And they didn't want him to read anything other than the specific articles/books listed. And the eye thing was one of them.
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
So, are you lying or just ignorant?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with ignorant. Virtually every person I've met who argued against evolution turned out to not have a clue as to how evolution actually works.

Their main argument goes something like: "How come we've never seen a dog evolve into a cat? Huh? Explain that one, Darwin-boy!" Or some other equally ludicrous demonstration of their ignorance. It used to bother me enough that I'd try to sit down with them whilst sharing a couple of pints (if they were of legal age of course) and try to reason with them.

Nowadays, I simply laugh uproariously at them, call them a maroon, and then go on my merry way. It really drives my young-earth adherent Aunt nuts.

</derail>

As to the OP, reincarnation - along with the idea of an afterlife - is a coping mechanism created due to some peoples' inability to comprehend the utter finality of death. It's as simple as that - in my humble opinion.
 
Nothing close to that kind of cost for Suzane. $149 for a reading with 12 others.I can see why you must be upset. It's your money I spent.
 
Talk about topics going off course; reincarnation to evolution?

Anyway, I thought this site might involve open mindedness about reincarnation, but there are so many posters trying to bring flippancy to an art form. Sadly, these "discussions" end up being similar to trying to discuss life with your kid brother.
 
psychicwonderer628 said:
Anyway, I thought this site might involve open mindedness about reincarnation, but there are so many posters trying to bring flippancy to an art form. Sadly, these "discussions" end up being similar to trying to discuss life with your kid brother.
Click to expand...

Open mindedness? Certainly. Also critical thinking.
What is the art fom you refer to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom