34792Y122That's Why The Theory of Evolution Cannot
Q&@
ACCEPT THE
IDEA OF SOULS,
AT LEAST IF BY 'soul'
we mean something indivisible, immutable
and potentially eternal. Such an entity cannot possible result
from a step-by-step evolution. Natural selection could produce a human eye,
because the eye hàs pàrts! But the soul has no parts! If the Sapiens soul evolved step by step
from the Erectus soul, what exactly were those steps! Is there some part of the soul that is more developed
in Sapiens than in Erectus! But the soul has no parts ...... You might argue that human souls did not evolve,
but appeared one bright day in the fullness of their glory. But when exactly wàs thàt brìght day!? We we look
closely at the evolution of humankind, it is embarrassingly difficult to find it! Every human that ever existed
came into being as a result of male sperm inseminating a female egg. [INCLUDING YEHOSJOEA VIA YOSEEF
AND OR 'PANTERA'!] Think of the first baby to possess a soul! That baby was very similar tot her father and
mother, except that she had a soul and they didn't? Our biological knowledge can certainly explain the birth
of a baby whose cornea was a bit more curved than her parents' corneas. A slight mutation in a single gene
can account for that. But biology cannot explain the birth of a baby possessing an eternal soul from parents
who did nòt have even a shred of a soul! Is a single mutation, or even several mutations, enough to give an
animal an essence secure against all changes,
including even death?
ACCEPT THE
IDEA OF SOULS,
AT LEAST IF BY 'soul'
we mean something indivisible, immutable
and potentially eternal. Such an entity cannot possible result
from a step-by-step evolution. Natural selection could produce a human eye,
because the eye hàs pàrts! But the soul has no parts! If the Sapiens soul evolved step by step
from the Erectus soul, what exactly were those steps! Is there some part of the soul that is more developed
in Sapiens than in Erectus! But the soul has no parts ...... You might argue that human souls did not evolve,
but appeared one bright day in the fullness of their glory. But when exactly wàs thàt brìght day!? We we look
closely at the evolution of humankind, it is embarrassingly difficult to find it! Every human that ever existed
came into being as a result of male sperm inseminating a female egg. [INCLUDING YEHOSJOEA VIA YOSEEF
AND OR 'PANTERA'!] Think of the first baby to possess a soul! That baby was very similar tot her father and
mother, except that she had a soul and they didn't? Our biological knowledge can certainly explain the birth
of a baby whose cornea was a bit more curved than her parents' corneas. A slight mutation in a single gene
can account for that. But biology cannot explain the birth of a baby possessing an eternal soul from parents
who did nòt have even a shred of a soul! Is a single mutation, or even several mutations, enough to give an
animal an essence secure against all changes,
including even death?
08 jun 2019 - bewerkt op 11 jun 2019
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 27 jan 2016 jr117b 'de myDi~verkondiging(en) van Yehosjoea' ~~
- O 27 jan 2016 Één v/d meest archetypische symbolen v/h middel-
- O 26 jan 2016 Je kunt alleen over jezelf lezen & over niets ~~~~
- O 26 jan 2016 Niet wie weinig heeft, maar wie veel wil is arm!!!
- O 26 jan 2016 jr116b hier moet dus wèl steeds bíjgezegd worden ~
- O 26 jan 2016 jr115cd bovendien, & dàt ìs nòg véél belangrijker,
- O 25 jan 2016 jr115b 'r zijn nòg mensen die hieraan argumenten
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114b 't gaat er om de vooronderstelling, dat het
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114 't beste voorbeeld v/d oude denktrant was al
- O 25 jan 2016 jr113 we kunnen bijna, vrijwel ongewijzigd, hier ~
- O 25 jan 2016 jr112VI het nieuwe ethos: (r)evoluties i/d ethiek
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111c er ÌS, ìn íeder gevàl, nog maar heel weinig
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111b èn tòch, al zou iemand maar ÈRGENS, ook
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111 overgrootouders in Victor- & Wilhelminiaanse
- O 24 jan 2016 jr110b voordat men dit afwijst als 'n al te slappe