Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (11)
sábado, janeiro | 12 | 2013Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU
Êste já é o “11″ capítulo incluído nêste website sobre o debate que segue a êste vídeo no Youtube, com nossa participação
XXXXXX
Posts da Matrix/DNA para debates:
TheMatrixDNA – 6: 57 PM – Jan – 15 – 2013
I am asking permission to commentators, to Bill Nye and Youtube, for adding one approach, which is forgotten here. We are adults debating what we should transmit/transfer from our experience of life to our loved next generations. But, what about the other side? There are no children here speaking for themselves. We should try “empathy”, changing informations about “who are them”, thinking from their “mysterious” wishes, and making comparisons between their bias and the real world as we know it.
TheMatrixDNA - 6: 57 PM – Jan – 15 – 2013
When I try to think from the “children perspectives”and the world that is waiting for them, some issues comes quick to my mind. First of all, the issue about over-population.This world will become very unsuitable for them. It seems this issue is solved in first world of Europe, but till Europe will face the effects of world over-population. We need acting over education at third world countries. What we will teach: the control by scientific methods or this “non-control” by their religions?
TheMatrixDNA – 3:26PM – Sat – jan – 12 – 2013
Apes, are healthier and perfect physical machine than human beings.They are the fittest for getting better life at this biosphere built by a kind of perfect machine, described by Newtonian mechanics. But human mind is a natural production that changed the environment, in a way that apes aren’t more adapted.Then, physically, there are degradation of the inherited ape with 75% of bad mutations and 24 neutrals. Humans are the dark reverse light at the same avenue that is advancing the white light
XXXXXX
INICIO DOS DEBATES
XXXXXX
So the fact that males have genes encrypted for a uterus, this implies a creator rather than common ancestry?
You’ve lost me, here. This definitely seems to imply the latter..
No. It just implies that the common ancestor of all living beings is in the sky. Which means that had no abiogenesis, but, cosmological embryogenesis with a big mutation due the ancestor was made with solid and gaseous states of matter, and the first living being was nurtured in a womb where emerged the liquid state, hence chemistry.
is… in the sky?
wow…
and you say that this “first living being was nurtured in a womb where emerged the liquid state…”?
So correct me if I’m wrong here: a magic baby turned into this thing we call Chemistry as we know it today?
AWESOME! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks.
Well…it is not in the sky in relation to earth, because earth is part of it. It is in sky like you are just now. Have you thought about that? The “womb” for the first living being was this planet…in this cosmic region. Stellar systems and galaxies were nurtured in environment existing only solid and gaseous states. At least organic Chemistry is a recent emerged process. Something wrong here?
Then you sound like a New-Age Pantheist or Gaia worshiper of some sort…
Still cold?
No human names for world views. My method was applied by the forst time in Human History: comparative anatomy among all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies to brains… and now, consciousness. Academic Science is missing to do that and the result is very bad: they had shared Universal Natural History into two separated blocks, with no evolutionary link between them. That’s why they can’t understand the emergence of life here. matrix/DNA has a better rational theory about
Wait, what? Comparative anatomy of galaxies?
Is this a course they teach at universities? Or is it perhaps something someone made up and then wrote in a book (or YouTube comment section)?
I wonder. Hm.
Comparative anatomy of natural systems. Galaxies are merely one of those. This method is rational because it is the right thing to do if you make the rational question: the first living being was a system, the cell system. So, its creator must be a system. Which natural systems were existing at that time? Which is the most suitable for to be the past evolutionary link? The right question brings on the right answer.
Super-nova is not explosion and emergence of a new star. It is the opposite:implosion. Of a dark giant planet turned on a pulsar. All planets has as nucleus the germ of a star, which nuclear reactions goes eating the layers of rocks from inside to outside. When the last layer is tiny, it collapses and the internal light is released to the external world. A new baby was born. Our ancestor made everything like we do now.
I’m all for this “ancestor” theory of yours… but what does this “ancestor” consist of?
Is it/he/she material or immaterial? If material, then which elements make up this “ancestor”?
Is this ancestor anthropomorphic or is it some kind of amorphous gaseous blob that floated around in an eternal vacuum until it “decided” to fart out the universe?
This ancestor is seen when galaxies are observed from Biological perspective, I mean, by the reverse way of evolution, knowing the last product (cells) and calculating the ancestors…It is the opposite way used by Physics perspective.There was a nebulae of lighter atoms about 12 billions years ago. The nebulae made the first lightest stars. These stars were under forces that imprint the process of life cycles. They changed shapes and composed an almost living system. Lots of evidences for it.
But why are you looking at galaxies from the “Biological perspective”?
You do realize that you’re simply making an “analogy” between “biology” and “astronomy”?
Then I hope you realize that in most schools of Logic, analogies are considered technically “fallacious” (though you can come up with “good” and “bad” analogies)… Why? Because you’re ultimately comparing apples to oranges. Yours falls under “False Analogy”.
Go google: “False Analogy”
Dave, the human idea about evolution was made based in analogy between species, fossils, DNA, etc. Why? It is the unique rational alternative we have for inquiring the unknown past times. Where Biological systems came from? Be it what to be, it was inside an astronomical system. You will not agree with that if you believe in magics, by gods or randomness. So, if biological came from astronomical, the principles for biological must be hidden in the astronomical. That’s so clear!
Ok. Just because we call a cell a “system” and a galaxy a “system” doesn’t imply that they have some relationship.
I’m not saying they aren’t related, I mean obviously a cell is part of some galaxy…
But to claim that the name “system” creates some kind of palpable relationship between the two is REALLY stretching it.
What about this cool “Lean System Success Plan” i can buy online for 100 dollars that guarantees I will lose 10 lbs in one month? It’s called a “system” too! Is it relevant? NO
It really doesn’t imply, but, implying that a cell system came from a non-system, like the primordial soup, is less rational.I think what is missing for modern academic Science is knowledge about natural systems. I think there are only three: atomic, astronomic and biological. I had aligned them in this sequence for you notice that there was a movement from the simple to most complex in right chronological time. This is evolution. Universal Natural MacroEvolution. There is genetic relationship
XXX
Adam didn’t have a uterus, did he?
Where did Eve get hers–you claim she needed Adam to have all the parts that she had….
Yes Adam had a uterus. All males have it. Encrypted In the genes. It is not expressed because the gene for phallus is expressed two times. If you see the cosmological model of the state of the world when the Bible says that Adam existed you will see that those primordial galaxies were hermaphrodite, Adam and Eve encrypted. Things are more, lots more complex than you think…sorry.
XXX
I’d believe in fairies before I would believe the universe once could fit on the head of a pin.
Can you see the error of atheistic science yet?
But yours body once time could be fitted on the head of a pin, Goo. Why not the Universe? The smaller initial size of the Universe is not food for atheism, it is food for agnosticism and creationism. What was existing before your body being smaller than a pin? Yours parents, right? Why not the Universe? You need to understand that nature applies nanotechnology ( making a big body as a microscope one) and giantology ( making a microscope body being a big one)
XXX
I don’t think the sun is a fusion event.
The lack of Neutrinos is telling.
So are sun spots, 11 year cycle and speed of the equator.
I believe it to be an electrical plasma process and the sun is probably a giant anode.
This issue is very important because if we knew the truth about the sun we could built a mechanical copy getting another kind of energy. And an important factor should be a better understanding about life origins and operations. There is a problem with the method used today: they are calculating the sun from Physics perspective only. But, since that all life is dependable of Sun’s energy, and life was created by this energy also, we need the biological perspective of the sun, made by Matrix/DNA
XXX
I just let it play out and continue as is. 
In a way, I’m sure it is kind of mean. My area is neuropsych, though, and I intend to study clinical psych (in fact, just got an RA position in a neuropsych and social cognition lab so we’ll see how that goes). From what I understand so far about it, cognitive behavioral therapy is actually fairly difficult and challenging, in that the therapist or clinician challenges the client’s beliefs and cognitions where they are maladaptive.
How do you know that the client’s beliefs and cognition are the wrong ones and not the social system’s beliefs, which erected the wrong social system?!
Because the cognitions are maladaptive. Examples would be, “I am worthlesss”, “I am God”, or “I hear voices which tell me to kill myself”. Also, cultural considerations are made. For instance, an American might say that a particular Japanese person is neurotically shy when it may turn out that he is just culturally reserved. I will learn a lot more about this later, but I know some now. Just please know my knowledge is incomplete.
Ok. I think the area of neuropsych is very important for future of human kind but it needs urgent self-analyses. You will think that this idea is odd, but, for neuropsych professionals to understand what is going on in the brain they will need study astronomy also. Nature produced the brain which neurons must mirror the connections among natural phenomena for to be healthier. Culture can works as a kind of malignant virus, when culture has the wrong interpretation of reality. Am I wrong?
I need to go out, but I will check back because this is an interesting conversation.
I don’t understand your idea of self-analyses in terms of astronomy. You are correct that neuropsych scientists and clinicians must understand the brain. We do, however, spend a great deal of time understanding basic brain processes such as neurodevelopment and the basic concepts in learning like plasticity, sensitization, and habituation with model animals in controlled experiments such as those done with aplysia.
I will try to explain, but, be advised, it is merely my theory. I am trying to follow the everyday new discoveries published by neuropsych scientists and clinicians.But I apply the knowledge of the brain for trying to understand the Universe and vice-verse.The brain is shared into two hemispheres. Do you know why Nature did it this way? The building block of galaxies is shared into two hemispheres also, the connections between them help us to understand the connections here. Same functions
Only for yours sake: Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A ‘Giant Brain’ – If you are interested, Google it
Well, the idea of culture being wrong about something is very touchy. There are psychologists who devote themselves to cultural psychology, such as culturally specific mental illnesses. The definition of a mental illness may help here, which is that it is only a mental illness if it 1. Causes you mental stress and 2. Interferes with your daily functioning.
And how is the definition of the whole society mental illness? How to diagnose the social mental illness? How we know if a social behavior is naturally healthier or more one collective mental illness that is not synchronized with the laws of Nature? But.. there is no way for to know what is Nature here and now if we don’t know what is our astronomical system. For instance, the cosmological model resulting from a biological perspective is different from the cosmological model made by Physics
You need understand that civilizations are built by a specific interpretation of the world = culture. All human interpretation of the world must be wrong, with some few degree of rightness.But, human beings have the resource of self-cure, or self-correction. When an individual is under this process of social self-correction, his behavior will be not normal in relation to that “wrong” civilization, which causes stress. What we can do? The patient is the society, not the individual
Because our brain has 2 halves and thinks and some pre-galaxies have 2 halves you believe that they think.
No, it is not so simple like that. Only for yours sake: Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A ‘Giant Brain’ – If you are interested, Google it. The fact that human brains are not an entire whole, or that is not shared into 3, 4, 19 parts is because this bi-lateral symmetry is a constant pattern of natural systems, from galaxies to biological systems.
Here’s some more of the Huffington Post article
“No, it doesn’t quite mean that the universe is ‘thinking’ – but as has been previously pointed out online, it might just mean there’s more similarity between the very small and the very large than first appearances suggest.”
And the piece of speculation you are basing your claim on is “might just mean”. Hardly concrete evidence
Yes, but it doesn’t quite mean that the universe is “not” thinking also. We don’t know. My personal investigation using anatomy comparative method already suggested that the first cell is an exactly copy of primordial galaxies – if astronomical bodies are under the process of life cycle formation. I have lots of evidences suggesting it is. And “if” the cell is a copy of galaxies, the brain must be a copy of Universes. There is nothing more reasonable: the creature is the face of the creator
All I know is how the two hemispheres develop in neurodevelopment but I will look up that paper. Is that the title of the paper and do you have the authors and/or journal it came from?
This is a big opportunity for you being a famous and helpful professional for Humanity. I am suggesting a new approach for neuropsych area that nobody tried before. I can’t do it because I am researching thousands of other issues and I have no knowledge/resources you have about this field.
I disagree. That would be an opportunity for me to commit career suicide before I even start. I would prefer by continuing to study cognitive rehabilitation in post surgical epileptics and learn what I can from that experience.
Ohhh…sorry, I was forgetting to talk only the things that are safe for you being a good synchronized citizen of your “health” society. I have committed my career suicide, it is very painful, I ‘must not suggest to others doing it.There are centuries people are “studying” cognitive rehabilitation and it does not works yet, without forcing the cure with drugs. be a good professional following this mindset, it is about money.
What? I don’t understand your first comment. I can, however, say that cognitive rehabilitation is a very specific therapy that has not been around for centuries and is a valid form of therapy. We are looking at a specific implementation of cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive rehabilitation works based on the idea that the brain is plastic, which wasn’t known centuries ago.
I am not resumed to cognitive rehabilitation therapy, which deals with injured brains ( If I remember it right) but I am thinking the broad sense of cognitive remediation therapy which deals with traditional diseases like schizophrenia, ADHD, and major depressive disorder.
For yours sake: The US Department of Defense has declared that cognitive rehabilitation therapy is scientifically unproved. As a result, it refuses to cover the cost of cognitive rehabilitation for brain-injured veterans
It is enough paste the title at Google. It does not talks about two hemispheres, this issue is about Matrix/DNA Theory’s models. If you see the configuration of a bi-lateral pair of nucleotides you see two hemispheres. Remember that brains are evolutionary result from evolution of nucleotides. If you try to understand how was the state of the world that created nucleotides, you need a cosmological model. If you get the right one, you will understand each division and function in the brain.
The way to tell if a society is healthy or not is simple. Is society (objectively) growing or declining. If it’s growing it’s healthy. “naturally healthier” is a subjective judgement, requiring you to impose your personal values which are not necessarily valid in the society you are commenting on.
So, when the dinosaurs society were growing it was naturally healthier? ( Don’t tell me that fare tale about meteorites) Same for lions, wales, eagles… all of then going to extinction. No, growing in not indicative that nature is happy and will support a species. It can grow in wrong way. Besides that, who is growing now and well adapted to this environment will be sick and destroyed by the next environment due natural changes.
I disagree. That would be an opportunity for me to commit career suicide before I even start. I would prefer by continuing to study cognitive rehabilitation in post surgical epileptics and learn what I can from that experience.
Actually, you can study neurodevelopment in early organisms and in humans to understand how the brain developed over time, from the nerve ganglion in some flatworms to our brains. In order to understand the organization and function of the brain, you need to study the brain using various methods, including neuroimaging, nothing more.
Nothing more? In order to understand the organization and function of the brain we need to know about natural systems, a forgot area by modern mindset. Brains are the new evolutionary shape that came from atoms systems, astronomical systems, cells systems, early organisms systems, etc. Don’t do that and you never will know what a brain is about.
What? I don’t understand your first comment. I can, however, say that cognitive rehabilitation is a very specific therapy that has not been around for centuries and is a valid form of therapy. We are looking at a specific implementation of cognitive rehabilitation. Cognitive rehabilitation works based on the idea that the brain is plastic, which wasn’t known centuries ago.
I appreciate your wikipedia search for my sake, but I am well aware that of what cognitive rehabilitation is and in what ways it has been shown effective. We will be the first to test the effectiveness of cognitive therapy in epileptics. I am aware that the Dept. of Defense will not cover cognitive rehabilitation, but I’m unaware of what relevance any of this has. Our lab’s work is our lab’s work and you are welcome to read the paper when it is published. I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
What is my point? Cognitive therapy is actually fairly difficult and challenging due wrong approach due wrong interpretation of the brain due wrong interpretation of origins and meanings of brains. If we don’t know this Nature here and now we don’t know if the unusual behavior is illness of the individual or of the society.
I am grateful for you keeping this conversation because it is constructive for my job.But I understand why you never have thought outside the box.
XXX
That is what I said right here
“What you are citing is a program that only checks for the version of that particular os to make sure that it has not corrupted during the transfer process.”
Nature does not permit to systems that she creates to be eternally perfect closed operating system. It is because the very foundation of this material Universe: he is assented upon the expansionist light-wave triggered by the Big Bang.This light-wave produces fragments, photons, which go out from direction of the wave. Same way, the unique perfect closed system reached by matter had fragments of mass/energy going out of the systemic circuity. With time = there is whole corruption/mutation
XXX
try to stay consistent. You said their is no evidence for spontaneous life. In fact there is evidence and some of that is that 1 – RNA and lipids arise naturally and 2 – RNA and lipids together perform all the functions of life. Also you should be concerned about Prion’s. They arise naturally and can replicate themselves. That is more evidence that life can arise naturally.
No. The fact that RNA and lipids arise naturally is not proof for spontaneous life. They arise by the same process a new human baby arise inside the womb. Should we say our bodies arose spontaneously, by chance? What is missing for you is to see and understand the larger big picture, the state and shape of the world where the first RNA arose. If you try do it you could be more helpful for Humanity. Just now you remembered me that I need go back to study prions-diseases and Matrix/DNA models
You fail to understand both the conversation and the point you are trying to make. 1st, RNA and lipids arising naturally is not “proof” – only an idiot would say that. It is however evidence. RNA and lipids do not arise in nature through the same process as they arise in our body. For example, if you freeze a solution of amino acids, they will form RNA. Hint: your body does not freeze amino acid solutions to form RNA. There are other ways they form in nature as well.
I think I can understand your point because I know your world view, but, you can’t understand my point because you don’t know mine.The emergence of RNA at abiogenesis could be an evidence for spontaneous generation only if one does not know the informations inside atoms, molecules and aminoacids. Same way, the emergence of an embryo inside a womb being watched by a microbe living in that womb should be for him evidence of spontaneous generation. He does not know DNA. You don’t know Matrix
You do not understand my point because you do not know what you are talking about. You are using the terms completely wrong and nothing you are saying makes any sense. Its like you are saying the “rabbit ran fast unicorn eats soup” (WTF?). Additionally, your idea of a world view is nonsense, we live in the same world that follows the same rules of logic and evidence, this “world view” idea is simply a dishonest way to avoid your own ignorance.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Why a long post totally off the topic that initiated our debate? It is about yours beliefs in spontaneous generation of RNA and lipids. Let’s check yours evidences? First: why carbon atom was chosen for to be the basic atom for organic matter? Second: Why carbon choose to link to N and O for building aminoacids?
Ok, you are talking something that I don’t know and I need know it. I will search the paper/articles about freeze aminoacids making RNA, but if you could advance the best paper, I will be grateful.The Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that it is impossible inside a lab to built naturally those 20 aminoacidos and naturally they will compose as RNA. If it is possible, I must throw Matrix models into the garbage. But I want to see it
“First: why carbon atom was chosen for to be the basic atom for organic matter?”
Chosen? Why choose that very slanted word? That seems careless or prejudicial.
Why not ask, *why is carbon so well suited as the basis for life*?
“Why carbon choose to link to N and O for building aminoacids? ”
It didn’t choose, like all elements, it’s a mater of complimentary valences. There is no self awareness involved.
I am not worried with semantics, but about facts. So, *why is carbon so well suited as the basis for life?*. What is your explanation? It is not enough to say that carbon is able for several connections, etc. It does not works at other different planets. Why Earth is the right catalyst for carbon making the right compositions for life? Of course there is no self awareness involved, but why linking to N and O results into aminoacids fitted for biological systems?
“At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it’s virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm…”
TALKORIGINS
The modern academic worldview have no idea how probable life is because this worldview is denying that every son must have a father with same genetic code. This worldview is suggesting that the first cell came with a genetic code built spontaneously at abiogenesis, but they do not show where and how this genetic code was in the state of the world during abiogenesis. Do you need to apply probability calculus for to know how a female womb is suitable for creating a new life?
Do you need to pretend like you know the answer to this impossible question?
Join us in trying to find the truth instead of pontificating all over my new shirt.
Impossible question?! Are you talking about the question: “Which were the natural forces and elements that contributed for building the first biological system? Where were them? How and why those forces and elements converged to this planet surface at same time?”
These is the unique most rational questions we can do. And the method for finding the answers is: “Go looking them at the ancestral existing natural systems: atoms, galaxies, etc.” Yes I did it because I am not denying our ancestors.
“How and why those forces and elements converged to this planet surface at same time?”‘
Again with the loaded verbiage.
Every mote of stardust contains three things, silica, water and hydrocarbons.
It is impossible to avoid the basic materials for life – they are pervasive in the universe!
Earth just happens to be in the habitable zone of our sun. There are potentially millions if not billions of planets where these conditions exist.
Hummm…Yours argument is irrefutable. Really, it is impossible to avoid the basic materials for life – they are pervasive in the universe! Yours problem will begins when you take a little bit of those ingredients, mixing them for getting the right 20 aminoacidos, only the left handed molecules, and leaving them by themselves continuing the process towards the first cell system. Since they will not do that, you will go back, to the Universe – as the designer – for asking the same question.
We are semantic creatures so words matter, especially loaded ones.
Because of its structure, carbon easily forms long chain polymers and these are essential for organic life.
“It is not enough to say that carbon is able for several connections, etc. It does not works at other different planets.”
What more can you say about it? And you are wrong – carbon has the same qualities anywhere in the universe, just like every other element.
Earth chemistry is the same as chemistry everywhere else.
Yes, but why the carbon structure easily forms long chain polymers for organic life? Why the oxygen or Nitrogen structures are not such suitable? I think academic establishment never did these questions, so, they have no explanations. I will advance the explanation from matrix/DNA models: carbon has number atomic 6, which is the exactly copy of Matrix natural formula for composing natural systems. Each particle is a tool performing a specific universal systemic function. And goes on…
XXXXXXXXXX
They can’t see what’s under the photosphere of the sun.
No one knows what’s there.
I say iron.
Do I know?
Nope.
Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago
The sun is going to dye because he is eating himself, Goo. The lesson of his existence, the big mistake of being supreme selfish, composing his own body as his own Paradise as a closed system, is spread to the external world in shape of light, a lesson for his offspring don’t do the same mistake.Creationists did not learned the lesson. They don’t love Humanity and Nature, they makes an alliance with a powerful god and lives their selfish life. Your light is our darkness. We’ll do different
XXX
ok then, again I say, they believe the universe only existed that long. where did the universe COME FROM?
· in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment)
Every time you have a question about Nature (the Universe is Nature) search the answer in nature.nature does not play dice with us. So, you will see that all elements and substances inside a cell system came from outside, through holes at the membrane.Now, try to make yours theoretical model about “where the Universe came from” based upon what you see. It is better than appeal to imaginations going far out away from Nature. That’s was the method used by Matrix/DNA models
TheOneTheOwnLak 21 minutes ago
Funny how when I mentioned that fractal patterns are in this universe from the atom to the solar system to the galaxy…..you all said i was mad
funny goats.
I never said that. But…natural fractal patterns are in need of analyse from a different approach, other than Math. The universal pattern that Matrix/DNA models are suggesting seems a living thing that evolves, creates different appendices, changes time from micro to macro, etc. It is the universal formula that nature uses as template for organizing matter into systems. It is better seeing as a bi-lateral pair of nucleotide, the unit of information of DNA.
XXX
Technically, science is a product of your brain. and then if there were no organisms on the planet during the Big Bang, how did they come from nothing? Macro evolution also doesn’t make sense, in the terms that everyone came from a single cell that multiplied and already had the function to multiply if it was the first one
DarkHoundNero, our known data were rationally connected and the result is the Big Bang Theory. It requires that something came “through” “nothing” and not that something came from nothing. It means that the Universe is surrounded by a kind of membrane remembering nothing, with holes. And the first cell was not the first natural system able to self-replicate: our ancestors, galaxies and stars already does that.These theories are very pretty rationals under the light of what we see here and now.
I believe in God, but Matrix, I give you props.
You’re the first person to actually make some sense and answer me.
So science says that an organism was not present on the earth when the Big Bang happened and it was formed? So where exactly did an organism come from?
Organism is the name that we call any natural biological organized system. Then you have the same question I had 40 years ago and since nobody had the answer, I went to Amazon jungle - the still living world that witnessed the origins of life – searching the answer. There the jungle sent me to ask to the sky, because at the sky was the answer. Then, I saw the Matrix/DNA in shape of astronomical system, working exactly as an ancestral organism. Maybe my answer is wrong, but it is interesting…
The Matrix/DNA does not have seen supernatural interference upon the long chain of causes and effects that began with the Big Bang and is coming to our days.But absence of evidence is not proof for non existence. I will not destroy yours faith and hope in the existence of a lovely God, but only I will debate the events and real facts of this world that my little brain can grasp
I agree, sounds interesting.
LQG on CNN
Was just found like yesterday
might be intriguing
“LQG on CNN: might be intriguing”
I am not well informed about LQG, which means I need to dedicate more time studying. But…theoretical Physics seems that are going away off the beam. I don’t appreciate the idea of existing ghosts black holes as theorized by Hawking, I think that it is result of deviation of Maths from the natural world due the excess of Maths and computer simulations. Matrix/DNA is suggesting that at galactic nucleus there are merely vortexes formed by dust of died stars
XXX
Edmond Goo – 3:00PM – Sat – Jan – 12 – 2013
Genes do mutate.
75% of mutations on a typical gene are bad, 24% are neutral (waiting to go bad) and less than 1% give an arguable benefit.
No life form can survive those numbers and the more time you add, the worse it gets.
I know it seems simple and logical to you.
HERE is your problem.
Your Philosophy of “No God, Nature did it” creates a perception problem for you.
You become incapable of discerning what is real because a Philosophy has replaced objective reality.
It’s reasonable that any natural system 75% bad mutations goes worse and the 1% good, by logics, never should get fixed. But the macro-evidences of this world, the analyses of whole Natural History, shows that the long natural chain of causation is not linear as wish our logics. The carriage makes a curve and so, there is an evolutionary movement from simple to complex that is curve also.Have you heard about white light and dark light? It does that a system must became worst for becoming better
xxx
TheFallibleFiend 28 seconds ago
“I don’t know that humans are apes, but I do ‘know’ that life is a kind of energy. Despite my science illiteracy, I KNOW that all the actual scientists are liars or idiots.” –TheOneTheOwnLak
Life is a kind of energy?! So, this guy has no Higgs bosons at his body?! Shouldn’t… since he says life is no mass…
TheOneTheOwnLak 38 minutes ago
life is energy…I stand behind it as matter is energy…you dont know how physics works?…go see einstein.M=E/c2…
No Higgs boson…itll never be found
electromagnetism.
you guys hate to look stupid dont you…and then you make shit up like I said it…HAHAHAHAH
what will you guys make up next?
Unicorns? haha
My definition of “life” is: “The shape of the universal natural system that began simplest as a vortex at the Big Bang, but containing all seven brutes natural forces that became the seven life’s properties. This shape correspond to our shape as “fetus” when our body is changing shapes due the action of vital cycle process. So, this Universe is a genetic reproduction process of something ex-machine, performed by steps known as Evolution, but, which, really, is the Universe under a vital cycle
If my definition will be proved the right one, life is not merely “energy”. Energy is merely a natural state got by accelerated mass and mass is the state of low energy. Both, mass and energy are not essence DE per SE, but derivations of a deepest essence: information. Informations are those quantum vortexes that appeared at Big Bang working like genes and composing quarks, leptons, etc.Reproduction of Universes…or Gods? I don’t know.
I’ve seen AI programs that make more sense then you do.
Really? Thanks by this information, I will go back for repeating my research about AI, maybe is there something new that I don’t know.Any suggestions for correcting my mistakes are welcome.
how did light sensitive pigments become light sensitive?
cupera1- how did light sensitive…?
Every material body that still belongs to any natural system is light sensitive. All matter is supported by an ocean of light that produces wavelengths with different intensities of vibrations.All seven vibrations are shapes of a single vital cycle process. So, the shape of “green”color always are sensitive to “yellow” and “blue” colors due the same cause that a baby is the shape that links to embryo and child. There is symbiosis among material bodies
When a kid lose his parents and becomes homeless, his inner tendency forgets parents and turn on as hate against the hell in the streets and the world, becoming a criminal. But, if the kid is kept by relatives and grows on the same land, he keeps the memory of parents, like Uudam did, and the missing parents’ love becomes great potential tendency in some kind of arts. Usually he does nothing in relation to the whole Humanity, this species abandoned here without spiritual protectors parents. But.
