• 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:
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...

No different in that this is the correct response.

No one has any business opposing something when they don't even know what it is they are opposing. Someone absolutely SHOULD read the Bible if they are going to then discuss it, (at least, the parts they are going to discuss), either to praise or criticize it. Or else, what are they going on, word of mouth and their own best guess?

Same thing with evolution. I have zero respect for someone who loudly voices an opinion on a subject they haven't even informed themselves about.

I can't believe you actually scoff at the notion that someone should be expected to know what they are talking about before forming an opinion on a subject and engage in debate. Of COURSE you should know what you're talking about before you become vocal on a subject.

If you haven't even bothered to marginally inform yourself about the mechanations and evidence behind evolution from actual evolutionary science texts, then your opinion is completely and totally worthless.


I echo others who have said that I have yet to meet a creationist who could even correctly define evolution. I and I have yet to meet one who has ever read "On the Origins of Species." People who place absolutely no value in thinking for themselves, they just listen to what other people SAY is in "Origins" and then assume they are correct.

What is it about thinking for yourself that is so completely and utterly appealing to some people? It's not like I'm going to put blind faith in Christopher Hitchens to tell me what's in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
...no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.
Click to expand...
Then I will show you.

First, a spot of skin was sensitive to light just a tiny bit from a random mutation. Can you envision that? This may infer an advantage over those creatures that can't detect light, to hide from preditors or evade them. Then, due to natural selection, those creatures with more light sensitivity reproduce more. The more sensor spots and the more fine the resolution in a proto-image, the better off they are. Can you envision that? It's only a matter of degree before a proto-imaging eye becomes a true eye, and the better it is, the more they are selected for. Can you envision that?

I've just explained numerous, successive slight modifications, and indeed, we see such gradations in the animal world. Since some eyes are compound, some have no lens, some are super-sensitive to light. It appears that the eye has evolved not just once, but dozens of times.
 
Fnord said:
Ten ... or more ... I cain't count no higher without gettin nekkid.
;)
Click to expand...

ahhh, so your johnsons marked off in centimetres and you got cofused with inches, no worries, happens to all of us at some point. I kept trying to add 16 and 17 last week and kept coming up with 42 for some reason, must be an inner programming glitch

btw, this is page 5
;)
 
psychicwonderer628 said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, where is the proof of reincarnation and what problems does reincarnation solve?

None that I see on both.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
psychicwonderer628 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um, you show proof of reincarnation that involves specific facts and does not have contamination and we can talk. Most of the 'evidence' presented in usually very weak and has confounding explanations.

I am open what do you think qualifies? Now remember i will apply the same standard I do to all things, so there must be something that is not possibly caused by confounding factors.

So the case of 'he chose the guy's eating bowl" is not very good as there may have been cuing involved.
 
I just popped into this thread. Six years ago, I sent a letter to ABC about this same reincarnation case, after their show Primetime Thursday. I copied it to Michael Shermer, who published my letter in his eSkeptic newsletter. The newsletter is here:

DEAR PRIMETIME THURSDAY:

I was severely disappointed in your paranormal stories from April 15 about the boy who is allegedly reincarnated, and the “Psychic Sherlock” Carla Baron. I had seen your teaser commercial a couple of days before, which said something like “if you’re a skeptic, we dare you to watch,” so I was expecting something quite a bit better.

It took me about ten minutes of researching on the Internet to conclude that the reporters either didn’t check their facts, or they intentionally left out key details which would cast doubt on the stories as presented. What happened to the maxim “if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out”? The PT reporters didn’t even find basic evidence to question their stories.

For example, the story about the reincarnated boy differed from the account offered in the Pittsburgh Daily Courier from April 15. That article specifically said that the boy was taken to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum when he was 18 months old, and that his fantasies and nightmares started *after* that time. I don’t recall your TV show clearly stating this timeline – I had the impression after watching the show that the “memories” happened by themselves, without an incident to prompt them.

Then in the interview with the mother, she tells the astonishing story about how her son knew what a “drop tank” is, and she had never heard of one. It didn’t take me too long to visit the web site of the Cavanaugh Flight Museum and see, among the few items exhibited that are not actual airplanes, a drop tank! This isn’t some obscure museum piece that wouldn’t be noticed, there are not that many of them there, others being an ejection seat and some guns. Why did you not mention this in your program? Was it because the reporter didn’t even do very basic research, or was it intentionally hidden?

...
Click to expand...
 
Paulhoff said:
OK, where is the proof of reincarnation and what problems does reincarnation solve?

None that I see on both.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Reincarnation I admit is still a theory at this stage. Like as in the theory of evolution..
 
gerg said:
Reincarnation I admit is still a theory at this stage. Like as in the theory of evolution..
Click to expand...

1.Didn't someone explain 'theory' to you recently?
2.Did you understand the explanation?
3.What is your understanding, now, having had it explained to you, of what 'theory' means?
4.Where did you learn about evolution?

1 and 2 are simple yes/no answers
3 requires a little more effort
4 is pretty simple
 
gerg said:
Reincarnation I admit is still a theory at this stage. Like as in the theory of evolution..
Click to expand...

ok fair call, but as it has already been explained to you (as someone would a child) that the theory of evolution is both a theory and a fact would you go so far as to claim that reincarnation is also a fact ?

or would you stop short of that ?
:D
 
kerikiwi said:
1.Didn't someone explain 'theory' to you recently?
2.Did you understand the explanation?
3.What is your understanding, now, having had it explained to you, of what 'theory' means?
4.Where did you learn about evolution?

1 and 2 are simple yes/no answers
3 requires a little more effort
4 is pretty simple
Click to expand...

I believe the answer to number 1 is yes. The other answers Gerg should supply.
 
gerg said:
the theory of evolution is not a fact and here's a webiste that explains why >

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
Click to expand...

dude, you can't refute scientific facts with religious belief
none of the arguments on that page are even close to valid

why don't you stop being such a lazy ass and actually do some research into evolution yourself from credible scientific sites that don't expand on the incredible level of ignorance that you have already displayed here

you have consistently proved to everyone here that you are attempting to refute something that you don't understand and have never even bothered to study.

This means you are willfully ignorant, if you can't refute peoples replies to your ignorance then just shut the hell up until youve learned something, reading your posts is actually getting painfull.
:mad:
 
gerg said:
the theory of evolution is not a fact and here's a webiste that explains why >

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
Click to expand...

I would suggest reading, in turn, Coyne's "Why Evolution is True." It is a very good book for a layman.

Will you read this book gerg? I will mail you my copy.

If you are not willing to read this book or any other book on evolution which explains why it is true, than you're nothing but a blind man criticizing the Sistine chapel

By the way, that you consider this a "scientific" website is laughable.

One of the very first criticisms states:

"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds"


Evolution makes no claims as to how the universe came into being. That is a completely different scientific field. Evolutionary science has nothing to do with the cosmos and makes no claims related to their genesis.

So you think a website that doesn't even know the difference between cosmology and evolutionary study "disproves" evolution? Interesting. Do you also think chemists give medical advice?



also, every "point" they make which you find so convincing is simply scientfically false. For example:

"All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive."

Absolutely not, these systems do not have to have been in place in order for them to survive. That's just patently false and there are plenty of examples of animals with transitional systems in place rather than fully formed ones. Ever hear of a lungfish? Again coyne's book I list above he explains this subject thoroughly.

The fact that you think this web site makes valid "points" only shows that you lack even rudimentary scientific knowledge. The fact that this website claims its points are "Scientific arguments" makes me weep for the American education system.

do you even know the difference between the term "theory' used colloquially and a Scientific Theory? Do you understand that things like how germs, gravity, and atomic energy works are also described as theories? Do you find gravitational theory similarly dubious?

last post on this subject as it is a serious thread derail. But my offer remains open to send you the book.
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
the theory of evolution is not a fact and here's a webiste that explains why >

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
Click to expand...

The link you provided doesn't pertain to evolution but abiogensis. In other words biotic diversity as compared to how life began. In other words, someone who doesn't understand evolution providing a link to an organization that doesn't understand evolution.
 
gerg said:
Reincarnation I admit is still a theory at this stage. Like as in the theory of evolution..
Click to expand...

Um, they are all theories dude! There is no law of gravitation, it is Newton's theory of gravitation. Kepler's laws are now really theories.

Theories are approximate models and so far your reincarnation one seems to lack good evidence.
 
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.
 
gerg said:
the theory of evolution is not a fact and here's a webiste that explains why >

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
Click to expand...

Oh boy, yu don't know much about theories, they are never facts, you must be new to this. So please educate your self before you keep up with teh starw men.

later today in this area of the JREF I will start a thread called 'For Gerg:The theory of evolution', I will start with the web sire , and piece by piece we can show you how inaccurate it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom