The Universal Matrix/DNA – Artigos

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

My question:

Saying that God creates Universes and man that seems like him inside it is not problem because humans also creates eggs and men inside it. Saying that Universes becomes a hot and concentrated small dot and explodes becoming again Universe is not problem because a big adult human becomes small egg and after the sperm “explosion” becomes adult again. But saying God lives inside Universes and Universes evolves without purpose are problems because I can’t see these things in Nature. What’s up?

Alan Clarke: “What’s more amazing is that if Genesis was derived by a dream, it was a dream like no other”

The same “dream” occurred to the creators of I Ching, as to the visionaries of chakras, as to those black holes like vortex related in Secret Doctrine, and they can occur today to natives of Amazon jungle. All of them are flashes of a single pair of nucleotides, which are DNA’s bits, because these units are bits of information for galaxies and atoms also. Kekule’s ring was the same dream

***NOTE***

If anyone here wishes to debate me, learn from Louis Charles Morelli or Kenith Adam and see how we debate. The rest of you, four-letter-word lightweights (deemed below my pay grade) whom I’ve asked to GO WAY, please can continue to do so.

If you wish to re-insert yourself in my debate, say something constructive with no profanity!

XXXXXXX

“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Wolf King (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

It is not an assertion fallacy, you just failed to reflect on it deeply enough. If we break down everything we know to exist into the smallest form of matter possible, physicists still cannot explain its origin. This is a very basic principle, or the law of conservation of mass. Assuming that our scientific understanding applies universally, it is evident that we cannot find an explanation for our existence in its entirety. The same concept applies also for time, space, etc.

But we can elaborate falsiable theories that makes sense. it is enough that you has the right knowledge of universal evolution and projects its logics upon the existence before the origins. Because these origins must be a natural and logic effect of that chain of causes and effects that must happened before the origins. That’s what Matrix/DNA Theory did for finding a natural system existing before Big Bang and finding a half-biological/half-mechanica­l system before life origins.

What you are saying is reasonable, and I agree with you. I am just addressing the basic premise that something cannot not originate from absolutely nothing.

The curious thing here is that the law of conservation of mass seems be applied also as “the law of conservation of knowledge”. Remembering Godel’s theorem ( nobody can know the thru of a system – which in this issue is the universe – standing inside this system). That’s why I suspect that the human shape will be transformed into new shape/substances for to be able to extrapolate the universe and able to know the thru about it.

“Because our brain can not process the information of this world as having a beginning, neither the information of this world as having no beginning.”

That is just reasserting your assertion fallacy, all you are doing is doubling down on the same flawed premise. The human brain processes information that much we know, you have yet to show information it can not process. Your premise is an illogical paradox since you are limited to a human brain yourself.

My brain knew the information coming from some theorists (as Hawking, etc.) that the universe could self-assembling from itself. There are several theorists talking about vibrations arisen from absolute vacuum. All these things suggests a beginning from nothing and my brain could not process it. By other hand theism has spreaded the information that has gods and worlds with no beginning, infinite. My brain could not process this information also. An I can’t see a third alternative. Not fallacies

Billions of women give birth yes, but they don’t have virgin births…lol

There is no evidence that a rib can make a person, nor that a snake could talk. I don’t make the claim the bible does.. Whether that’s through speech or mind control..

Yes, there are evidences, metaphorically. But explanations requires a deeper understanding of universe’s pastimes and cosmological evolution. The metaphor of “woman made off man rib” comes from the ancestor mechanism of this process we see here today called “DNA replication”. Imagine the right strand of DNA alone and it appears a vertebrate column with two ribs. That’s the man. For making the left side (woman) need reproduce the first rib. This happened with LUCA billion years ago. Snake also..

was there, inside the body of LUCA. If you look to the photo of LUCA it seems a snake swallowing its own tail. So, the snake is the systemic circuit, which means that it has the identity, the personality of the system. LUCA was a perfect closed system in itself, the extreme expression of selfishness, from who we inherited the selfish gene. And the Fall was due Eve built the system/snake and occupied the place of queen, which is mimicked by any insect society today. Unconscious remembering…

@Terncote “[Darwin] let the cat out of the bad and it’s never going back in”

1) That’s a little overstated since natural selection was described by creationist Edward Blythe in two papers (1835 & 1837), years before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.

2) Portions of creation theory overlap with Darwin, namely information loss by mutations & natural selection, genetic variation, and changes within species, but not common descent were bacteria can turn into people given 3-4 billion years.

“not common descent were bacteria can turn into people given 3-4 billion years.”

You are saying that a blastula can’t turn into a human baby given 9 months because his parents are blastulas! Bacterias were merely a reproductive shape intermediary step between the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), which was not biological and not living at earth surface. If you see the picture of LUCA model from Matrix/DNA Theory you will see the human face previously designed in the sky.

FROM THE LATEST EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGED FUSION SITE IT’S CLEAR THAT THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT A HEAD TO HEAT TELOMERE FUSION OCCURRED WITH EVOLUTION GRADUALLY ELIMINATING THE RECORD OF THE FUSION BY N.S. SINCE TELOMERES WHICH ARE DESIGNED AS TERMINATION POINTS WOULD MITIGATE THE EVENT. THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT 2 CENTROMERE CO-EXISTED WITH N.S. NULLIFYING THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF A SECOND CENTROMERE THAT WOULD MAKE THE CHROMOSOME UNSTABLE.

Don’t worry with this rationally acceptable theoretical event because it does not denies your theoretical ID. The final result we see at chrom 2 is just the way Nature records mechanisms and process into matter for this material structure works. A sample of this process is the case when nature discarded the top of reptile evolution – dinosaurs- and went back in time catching the smaller cynodont for continuing evolution to mammals. The ape was discarded as the dinosaur. Previous design.

LMAO. You just told a fairy tale story. The scientific method of the evil lying atheists/evolutionists is to tell “Lamarckistic” stories. Sorry evil lying deluded atheist, the Real Scientific Method doesn’t use just-so Lamarckistic stories it uses empirical methods. The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation. Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution. Information can only come from a mind i.e. of God; Mindless and lifeless elements can’t.

“The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation.”

Ok, I am going back to Amazon jungle next month for developing my researches, you are invited. I will introduce you to Marilyn, a female orangutan that’s my friend, you can leave with her for two weeks because, for sure, you will die (if not by a snake, at least by malaria) and she will continue alive. Than, from the hell, you will phone to me saying: “Yes, you were right…”

LMAO. You just told a fairy tale story. The scientific method of the evil lying atheists/evolutionists is to tell “Lamarckistic” stories. Sorry evil lying deluded atheist, the Real Scientific Method doesn’t use just-so Lamarckistic stories it uses empirical methods. The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation. Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution. Information can only come from a mind i.e. of God; Mindless and lifeless elements can’t.

Ok, now we can change our ideas. Maybe you are right saying that information can only come from a mind. The Matrix/DNA Theory has calculated Universal History in the reverse way, from here and now towards the Big Bang. At the Big Bang I stopped because I know my little brain can not go ahead, rationally. But wasting time, projecting the natural logistic saw here for calculating what’s was going on before the Big Bang, the results suggests a natural system with consciousness. Is it yours God?!

“Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution”

The Maxwell Demon is a discovery that it is easier to get new good information than lose the bad ones. DNA is full of repetitive not useful information inserted by retrovirus and inserted by wrong pathways of ancestors that were discarded by evolution. Cleaning these bad informations is not devolution, is the way for the best use of its energy.

“The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation.”

Ok, I am going back to Amazon jungle next month for developing my researches, you are invited. I will introduce you to Marilyn, a female orangutan that’s my friend, you can leave with her for two weeks because, for sure, you will die (if not by a snake, at least by malaria) and she will continue alive. Than, from the hell, you will phone to me saying: “Yes, you were right…”

You mention research in the Amazon but have you ever been published in a peer reviewed journal? Has your research ever been able to withstand scrutiny?

How is an animal being better adapted to it’s habitat than a human evidence for overall health? Health is not a measure of ones ability to survive a foreign and hostile environment. Contrasting the Orangutang with local tribes of humans that have also adapted to those surroundings is a much fairer comparison but still doesn’t address health.

“You mention research in the Amazon but have you ever been published in a peer reviewed journal?”

My website says at the first page an advice: this job does not pretend to be scientific. Because, the method of comparative anatomy was practiced by Greeks before the emergency of scientific reductionist method and modern Science has rejected my systemic method initialized by Bertalanffy “General Theory of Systems” and the works of Capra, Margullis, etc. It is my right to tell about any theory.

“than a human evidence for overall health?”

My friend, the most healthier does not need medicine and evidence for overall health. It is a product of the environment, well synchronized, that’s it. But my saying that the ape’s bodies is most perfect machine than human body is based also on my models of LUCA, which is the creator of this biosphere and apes. I am seeing in the models that evolution was driven till apes for reproducing LUCA which is the most perfect machine. Humans are out.

IT SURE IS LAMARCKISM. IF YOU LISTEN TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY EVIL EVOLUTIONIST IT IS LAMARCKISM I.E. THE IDEA THE TRAITS WILL PASS ON TO THE OFFSPRING DUE TO USE OR EXPOSURE I.E. THE GIRAFFE HAS A LONG NECK FROM PAST ANCESTOR STRETCHING TO REACH THE LEAVES HIGHER IN THE TREE AND THE LONGER NECK WAS A SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE THAT ALLOWED MORE OFFSPRING THAT THOSE WITH SHORTER NECKS. THIS WAS NICELY FALSIFIED BUT IT IS STILL USED TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.

My friend, giraffes has long necks because Nature ( created by your God or other way) permits it.There is a mechanism at light waves electromagnetic spectrum level, which we can see also at systemic astronomical formation level, that is a circuit through which flows information. Any natural system can use this mechanism, can cut it for becoming shorter, or expand it for to be longer. I am telling you: while we can’t go outside this Universe, don’t worry with evolution, ID is safe, Bible not.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You are indoctrinated with all the atheistic pseudoscience of evolution.

Evolutionist falsely claim a chromosome fusion to make it appear that a human chromosome fusion lead to and is evidence of evolution. “[There’re] Millions of differences between human and chimpanzee DNA”. In the Y chromosome, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa”.

That’s the way evolution works. The chimp’s body is healthier than human body, it is almost a perfect biological machine for facing the real virgin Nature that’s the jungle. So, from the phenotypic aspect it is going “degeneration” which means “losing DNA material”. But we know that from apes to humans DNA has increased its material. Why the paradox? Because since first humans evolution is working at brains and its sensory levels. So, it lacks alignable counterpart and vice versa

@parsivalshorse “There simply is no competing theory”

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse 1 hour ago

This is food for tought and remembers the same great Teilhard that you mentioned in other post. I noticed that suddenly, at the generation of 1970/2000, lots of people were talking the word “matrix”. That’s never had before. Why? There was anything new discovered about matrixes. I required copyrights of my book “Matrix/DNA” at 1980 and 20 years later they did the movie with almost similar idea. It seems that a collective consciousness (Teilhard) wake up for a new fact. People around the world.

It seems that this unconscious collective mind of Chardin meets the “meme”of Dawkins with the punctuated equilibrium of Gould at same time. Very curious, don’t you think so?

Secondly, (this is crucial) we must assume that everything has an origin, including our reality as a whole. Once we accept the premise that our existence cannot explain itself or account for its own origin, it follows rationally that something outside our scientific realm of understanding must account for its creation. Hopefully I explained this well enough, I apologize if its not clear.

Unfortunately, your assumptions don’t fit observed reality.

Self-organization is a a fact of nature at all levels.

Emergent phenomenon are all around us.

You are arguing from ignorance.

No. Let’s see a sample of self-organization: Chinatown. People arriving from all different places of China to a same point in spacetime trends to meet, to stands next, to organizes and transforming the environment into a new shape remembering China. So, Chinatown was not self-organization of Chinatown, it was re-organization of informations coming from a past organized system. That’s the way that informations coming from an astronomical organized system has organized the first cell system

You are right, see my post as rebuttal to Marksmith that had criticized you post. There is no self-organization triggering origins of anything.

“The existence of our reality cannot be explained through human thought. ”

That is an assertion fallacy with no basis in reality. Why can’t we understand the existence of our reality?

“Rationally, it seems more reasonable to believe that something outside of our realm of understanding is accountable for the origin of reality. ”

That is the exact opposite of rationale and reasoning. The rational stance is to not accept extraordinary claims with absolutely no evidence.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams 1 hour ago

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 second ago

I am not infering any such thing.

I am stating that ENCODE is jumping the gun on thier claims and that, based on what we already do know, thier claims of that much DNA being functional vs simply interactive is premature and I highly doubt it will pan out being correct.

Why are there long chains of repetitive “letters”? Considering that DNA is the chemical counterface of biological architectures, every letter must be a chemical record corresponding to a real architeture. So, why the long repetitions? Answer: it means extended evolutionary periods of stasis, without significant evolution. So, billions of years can run without any significant change but time does not stop because at any place something is moving and added to time. That’s cosmological evolution.

No, that is just you spewing garbage.

Why the long repetitions?

Because there is only so many ways you can you 4 letters in a 3,200,000,000 character genome, idiot.

You are saying that 3.200,000,000 character genome is a building made with iron, cement, cheese and marmalade, idiot.

You called DNA a “building block”.

Idiot.

Never I said that. DNA is not a building block. It is the biological counterpart of a universal Matrix that we can see using our intelligence at every natural system, from atoms to galaxies. You misunderstood it, idiot.

No, I am saying the sequenced part of it, the bases, are composed of guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine (G,A,T,C)..Idiot

I ammmmm sssssayiiiiiing thhhhhhe sammmmmmmmmmme thiiiiiiing. Excuse-me, these repetitions of letters is because I am written relativistically in cosmological evolutionary time which is ways more longer than your time. Do you understand, idiot?

Heck no. He meant guanine, thymine, cytosine, and adenine (G,A,T,C)

And I mean the something. These molecules at nucleotides are material tools made by natural forces called “universal functions” because these forces are the motions that organizes inertial matter into systems. What he is suggesting is that the building of 3.200.000.000 letters represents things, substances, that were out of the long universal chain of causes and effects ( aka “evolution”) He is saying that this building is made of iron and cheese.because probability does not forbidden it.

Its a chemical chain that when fed though the right cellular systems tell the body how and when to make everything it needs.

Very good, I agree. It makes something that your computer do when you are writing a text in Word. But chemical chain alone as the computer’s hardware alone couldn’t do it. Both needs a software. See the diagram of this natural software at Matrix/DNA Theory.

“Never I said that. DNA is not a building block” TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 17 minutes ago

…..

” DNA is merely a pile of building blocks”

— TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 6 days ago

…..

Liar?

Or just STUPID?

I say BOTH.

That’s not DNA as building block, stupid! Horizontals laterals pairs of nucleotides are biological building blocks as unit of informations because they are the same configuration of those seven astronomical bodies organized as systems by the vital cycles process which is triggered by any electromagnetic spectrum of light wave…, my brother so stupid like I am because we, both, don’t know the Truth. Piles, like DNA, are mass of systems, not systems itself. And biological information are packets

Yeah….

1) You draw a bad annalogy that DNA is like a Building

2) You draw a bad anaology to language… 2a) Because the 4 letters in DNA are not the same as using the 26 letters in the english alphabet 2b) Because it isn’t actualy a language, it is chemical reactions that some idiot compared to a language in the same type of bad analogy you just did

1) Not if you see the human body as a building; 2a) it is not the same when you are talking metaphysical ideas. Those chemical basis are real tools performing real actions; 2b) It is not a language as the misunderstanding that DNA should be a code expressing a message. Each nucleotide-pair derives from a universal perfect closed system formula as fractals that are diversified for composing new larger fractal.

Birney was right about the scepticism. Gregory says, “80 percent is the figure only if your definition is so loose as to be all but meaningless.” Larry Moran from the University of Toronto adds, “Functional” simply means a little bit of DNA that’s been identified in an assay of some sort or another. That’s a remarkably silly definition of function and if you’re using it to discount junk DNA it’s downright disingenuous.”

That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don’t contribute to a protein’s manufacture. “The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn’t true,” says Birney.

So, that 80 percent figure… Let’s build up to it.

We know that 1.5 percent of the genome codes for proteins. That much is clearly functional and we’ve known that for a while. ENCODE also looked for places in the genome where proteins stick to DNA – sites where, most likely, the proteins are switching a gene on or off. They found 4 million such switches, which together account for 8.5 percent of the genome.* (

(Birney: “You can’t move for switches.”) That’s already higher than anyone was expecting, and it sets a pretty conservative lower bound for the part of the genome that definitively does something.

In fact, because ENCODE hasn’t looked at every possible type of cell or every possible protein that sticks to DNA, this figure is almost certainly too low. Birney’s estimate is that it’s out by half. This means that the total proportion of the genome that either creates a protein or sticks to one, is around 20 percent.

To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, “[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.” [Update 5/9/12 23:00: For Birney’s own, very measured, take on this, check out his post. ]

I think that scientists of ENCODE and elsewhere are not thinking rationally about DNA and Nature as a whole. That’s the reason that is keeping very slow those researches and experiments. Matrix/DNA Theory is a new and novel naturalistic thinking that suggests a different picture. What’s DNA? Merely a pile of a simple system (nucleotide-horizontal-pair) diversified into millions of different shapes connected into separated groups (genes) that resembles the same system-formula, that are

aligned as two helix because they are assembled over a template: a simple wave of light. This “pile” is the record of events that were the experiences of this systemic formula through time and space. But this history did not began here and biologically, it began at the Big Bang. So, the atomic and cosmological evolution are recorded in that region we call “junk-DNA” in a time that DNA was not biological but a kind of physical Matrix. Here we see why proteins stick to genes also.

Evolution is both a fact and a theoryThe fact is that it has happened. See the fossil record and also see Stephen J Gould’s paper, Evolution as a Fact and a Theory.The fact is that it has happened as per the fossil record.The theory is the mechanism for how it has happened. That is natural selection, sexual selection, etc.Creationists like to mix these two points up..The scientific community considers evolution a fact.The only people who reject evolution do so for reasons that are not scientific

Great post! The difference between the real and observed natural process of evolution and the theory called “Darwinian”, or even the Modern Synthesis. Congratulations you have written in good English what I was trying to say. The real mechanisms seen today here and now that constitutes the interpretation of Evolution are not the whole mechanisms that acts over evolution. So, there is a distance between evolution and modern interpretation of it ( called “theory’). Astronomy will solve it.

Astronomy has nothing to do with the mechanisms of heritable traits in living organisms.

You are right in relation to shorter times. But Astronomy has alterations that are altering our astronomical systems that are altering our environmental biosphere that are causing mutations at genomes by a kind of punctuated jumps See the mechanisms of alterations at matrix/DNA cosmological models) . So, you are wrong at longer times, that’s why modern evolution theory is not complete and can not shut up the arguments from creationists that are bringing on gaps seen in this theory.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

GOD DID NOT CLAIM TO “WRITE” THE BIBLE.

GOD INSTRUCTED HIS PROPHETS TO WRITE WHAT HE SAID IN A BOOK, OR MEN WROTE WHAT THEY SAW, HEAR, AND EXPERIENCED IN A BOOK WITH THE INSPIRATION FROM GOD.

So, is God inspiring salvage natives of the jungle till today? Because the scenes and symbols that were the sources for genesis narrative are talked by those natives as were talked by orientals thousands years ago when they elaborated the narratives of I Ching, chakras, etc. These sources are images end events about the software aspect of matter/energy that pops up as fast flashes into primordial minds remembering their ancestry when we were non biological system. See sources Matrix/DNA models

Everyone believes in God, but not everyone believes in the His Free Gift. Everything is clearly seen… “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…” (Romans 1:20) People that claim to not believe in God actually do believe, but they try to persuade themselves that He doesn’t exist. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” Rom 1:22

Maybe you are right, all of us should appreciate that should be a God, souls, we should be eternal, etc. “Yours “Romans” citation is very smart and appropriated here. It is an advice against the creationism expressed by texts in the Bible. Why? For the invisible things of him are clearly seen… but…where are they seen? In the reign of imaginations of those Bible’s writers? No. It is clearly seen in Nature. Genesis is a not honesty try to jump the observation of Nature as Science do it.

” Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:25) Nature is not God. God is a Spirit.

If God wanted that you – human creature – know him as spirit, he should not create you as fresh meat and this material world for you to discover him. He did you and nature in this way for you studying here, learning here. Trying to escape from here and going straight to the spiritual realm is escaping from the classroom. Scientists are more god sons of God than creationists.

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

John was wrong and God showed it when not attending his prayers for to save the women and childrens at Cezar’s arena by being eaten by lions.

And Jesus Christ, like John, learned that it is not good deviating humans minds towards spirituals imaginations through the hard and painful way. This is phrase at the crux: “Yahveh, Yahweh, why had you abandoned me?” Answer from Yahveh should be: “Humans’ brains are not made and not able to grasp the infinite dimensions. You were lying and prejudicing their evolution. As are you doing now when teaching creationism to children that will face evolution at school. Just my humble opinion.

““We talk about the ‘march from monad to man’ (old-style language again) as though evolution followed continuous pathways to progress along unbroken lineages. Nothing could be further from reality…..Moreover life shows no trend to complexity in the usual sense — only an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point constrained to be simple.”

–Stephen Jay Gould

Gould was very smarter discoverying puntuacted equillibrium, but he had no knowledge of data for understanding how and why evolution makes biological system to progress towards complexity. In fact there is a parameter for approving Gould: division of DNA. When the left side builts the right side. The new right molecule seems an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point, simple, as is the chemical soup. But, as science can change pigments and making pink babies, Nature does it.

“If there is no increase in complexity, you have no genetic increase or evolutionary assention,..”

Gibberish.

Stephen Jay Gould notes that MOST evolution is not in a direction of “increased complexity”.

Gould was right referring to biological systems if they were the drivers of their evolution. The complexity is in the environment, the informations for complexity are in the air, coming from the Newtonian cosmological mechanics. Everything here are forced to mimicks the sky, the larger system that Earths belongs to. That’s why organisms works as machines, insects societies works as machines, and we are building the mechanical social system of “The Brave New World”. But “mind” is a mutation.

““There is no progress in evolution. The fact of evolutionary change through time doesn’t represent progress as we know it. Progress is not inevitable. Much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. We’re not marching toward some greater thing. The actual history of life is awfully damn curious in the light of our usual expectation that there’s some predictable drive toward a generally increasing complexity in time.”

–Stephen Jay Gould

Gould was analyzing biological evolution as a biological observer located at this biological biosphere. No such observer will grasp the final results of evolutionary process, because, as established by Godel’s theorem, nobody can understand a system or process standing inside it. And this is just the biggest mistake of all evolutionists, when separating biological from cosmological evolution. You see progress in evolution if you go out from here as observer, as did Matrix/DNA Theory

“Your world gets complicated when you don’t believe in evolution” Ok, “science” is observation. We never observed dinosaurs, so we have to take REAL science and use it to support our faith, whether it be in a big bang or a big flood. But mr Nye, you would accept math as a nearly immovable science. It is a constant; equasions don’t lie. Look at the probability of a big bang jumpstarting life, and then you shall have your answer. Your belief is just as much a faith-based relief as us “ignorants”

Mr. Shunk, you are right saying that Math is linear, constant. But Evolution is not, it is curve. The line of Evolution of matter organizing systems since the starting point of a Big Bang in a Cartesian Graphic having times and space as coordinates draw a final design. just the image of DNA. At short spaces it seems straight (phosphorus strands), but at larger spaces you see the whole being curved, till reversing, as the strands of DNA do it with its sugars. Math does not interpret evolution.

“Look at the probability of a big bang jumpstarting life”

Mr. Shunk, please, look at the probability of that microscopic lump at the middle of a “giant”ovule, which lump explodes like a big bang, genes are free and begins the works for producing a new life. The probability should be zero, but you know it happens. If Nature is showing here that it happens ( and if you believes that this Nature was created by a God, it means that God is showing it) why don’t you believe in Nature?!

Ok, my conrade emfederin, brother in the faith of the lovely, tiny, lord PinkUnicorn. Try this:

Draw a single cartesian graphic where a vertical line is transversed by a horizontal line. At the vertical put the name “time” and other will be space. At the exact point of the axis, writes “Big Bang”. Now, begins a third line starting at the point of the axis and applies everything you know about quantum, relativistic, genetic, etc, aspects of matter. You will discover big secrets.Pink bless you

brownian motion?

citation?

I’m tired of tracking down irrelevance here…

The movements of animals are interpreted as random by those that does not know the movements and forces of particles of atoms that composes the body of animals. Different from random Brownian motions. Brownian motions is part of particles theory which will be, also, known not be random when Science will know better the quantum dimension. But it is not enough to know atomic theory for understanding animals at Amazon jungle: You need know the shower of new laws that these atoms take from Milk Way

whatever science you have is derived from the Holy Scriptures which fostered truth rather than lies…

why do you lie to yourself, anyways?

The truth fostered by the Holly Scriptures has produced the monstrous Christians crusades and Inquisition, the maintaining of social systems based on slavery because those scriptures, for five times, says that slavery is God approved, etc. No, my friend, I love my brothers of my species and I want the best for all without any racist discrimination, so, I need another source of truth that fits humans conditions. This source is Nature, but not the chaotic and salvage face of Nature here.

Are you suggesting the ‘everything’ follows the same patterns? Patterns revolving around Phi? Like flowers on a plant that can be reduced to an intricate repeating pattern? Like the face of the Matrix!

That’s why the method of comparative anatomy among living and non-living systems are suggesting to me. As merely a theory, I could be on the wrong way. If the Matrix formula I had showed at my website is right and really existent ( I am testing against facts) DNA is merely the biological shape of a more deeper universal system (Matrix) that has organized matter into systems applying electromagnetic spectrum of light waves. The problem of these patterns – this formula is under evolution, mutating

@”There is another approach for trying to understand the connections, interactions and variations between magnetic fields of planets and stars – projecting what we know about interactions between nucleus and electrons of atoms, but calculating the interferences from Milk Way”

WTF does that even MEAN??? It’s nothing but gibberish. Are you an author who has a book to sell by any chance?

You can’t understand a talk about Orion’s lifeform and civilization without seeing pictures and graphics for clarifying the concepts. It is so different, never imagined before. So, why I am here talking about Matrix/DNA worldvision if I can’t bring the pictures and graphics? Because, like one day you will be obligated to survive with the Orion’s lifeform, and it is better staying prepared for, also at the next corner of paradigms shift, you will be obligated to survive in this Matrix/DNA world

“Here is the place that every one brings his theoretical worldvision…”

For something to be a theory it has to have evidenciary suport.

Evolution is a Theory.

Everything else being spouted here are as-hoc arguments that remain unsupported

That’s funny! Creationists says that atheists must bring on evidences. Atheists shows millions of evidences and creationists repeats that atheists must bring on evidences. But atheists does the same thing about others theories. They repeats at nauseum asking for evidences, Matrix/DNA Theory brings on thousands of evidences, and they says it is as-hoc arguments without rationally debunking these evidences. War of worldvisions! Beautiful!

NASA refutes HTBK.

“NASA has renamed twin satellites, originally known as the Radiation Storm Belt Probes, to the Van Allen Probes in honor of James Van Allen, the scientist who helped launch the field of magnetospheric science. The Van Allen Probes have turned on and tested all instruments and are beginning their prime science mission: observing the giant belts of radiation around Earth in order to understand what causes them to swell and shrink in response to incoming radiation from the sun.”

There is another approach for trying to understand the connections, interactions and variations between magnetic fields of planets and stars – projecting what we know about interactions between nucleus and electrons of atoms, but calculating the interferences from Milk Way. The problem for Science now is that they does not know the Matrix/DNA theoretical model of this galaxy for grasping those influences.

FAILED PROPHETS OF EVOLUTION

“evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex” – T. Dobzhansky

500 MILLION YEAR OLD BUG BRAIN FOSSIL — “the 3in long fossil shows that insects evolved to have complex brains much earlier than previously thought… The discovery, which is reported in the October edition of the journal Nature, suggests insect brains evolved from a previously complex structure to a more simple one, rather than the other way round, researchers said.”

This is more one evidence for Matrix/DNA Theory. In fact, insects had evolved brains due grasping more bits-informations from environmental photons coming from LUCA, the whole astronomical system here. Why the reversed evolution? Because insects went the wrong way, repeating the sin of Adam/Eve at the Garden Paradise. They became a closed system, the extreme expression of selfishness, and we can see it at the automated social systems of bees and ants, which are exactly copies of LUCA.

Wiki; In western Classical Antiquity, theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the state (Polis, later the Roman Empire). Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being ‘atheos’ (“refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state”).

Yeah, probably not a good idea to write anything down lol.

Yes, but then, creationists uses this history for argument that religion from Gods words and rules expressed in the commandments were the source for that morality applied by kings that socialized salvage people into social systems. But how the salvage kings and illiterates bible’s authors had the intelligence for elaborating systems’ rules? Matrix/DNA found an explanation when discovering that salvages natives in jungle ” see” flows of natural systems organizations and applies them socially.

That’s a valid point, Nugget, against the creationist theory. But this broad array of not enough conditions for starting and maintaining/catalysing the primordial processes required for starting life needs a lot of calculations for “how Earth’s primordial soup got all of them”.

But, the rational way is observing how Nature works. Every time she produces a new life she produces an egg inside a womb and inserts seeds. For abiogenesis is missing the knowledge about the seed… the Matrix/DNA

What really is the Matrix/DNA theory? Far as I’ve heard it doesn’t sound coherent at all.

My point is valid, since it helps disprove creation because, if the Nebula Theory is true, then it would make sense that there are other worlds that can be hospitable. If the seven days theory is true, then we should see signs we were created, like: We’re the only hospitable place here, Saturn’s rings should be be the same age, etc etc.

I am suggesting that the egg could be Earth, the womb could be the solar system. If so, what’s and where is the system, the species, the father/mother, that furnished the seed, where the solar system ( the womb) is located? These questions makes us lifting our eyes and see beyond: the galactic system. But how and why this astronomical system, this hypothetical last non-living ancestor could be similar to the first living being ( a cell system) and how it was transmitted to here? That’s Matrix.

So the Matrix/DNA is just a metaphorical theory?

What exactly is the matrix/DNA theory?

The first living being was a complete system with certain properties, as genetic code, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, etc. What has produced this system? Since that this system makes news systems using himself as template, he must be produced by the same process. Then, which was the template that produced this first living system? The template needs to show all those properties, everything less evolved. Then I designed the template: it is a new cosmological theoretical model.

Really? Well given that there is no such thing as the ‘Neo Darwinian Theory of Evolution’ – how can that possibly be true?

This is not a honesty tactic. You know what I am talking about. Names does not matter, facts, yes. If you are supposing that I am not actually informed about every aspect of this scientific theory today you are wrong. Included I have noticed that the interpretations of this natural process called evolution was broken into two parts: cosmological and biological evolution. That’s very wrong because you can’t explains biological evolution without the mechanisms and effects coming from the whole.

DO YOU EVEN TRACK WHAT HE HAS DONE? DO YOU SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, ABORTION FOR ANY REASON, OR HOMO UNIONS? ONLY THE SPERM OF THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THE EGG OF THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER CAN BE MARRIED AS GOD DESIGNED. ONLY THIS MARRIAGE IF NOT KILLED IN THE WOMB PRODUCES/MAINTAINS THE HUMANKIND/SPECIES.

TWO OR MORE MALES SHARING BODY CAVITIES, GENTLES AND FLUIDS WILL NOT PRODUCE A HUMAN AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR WOMEN.

NO CHILD SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THIS IN THE WORLD OR SUCH AS PARENTS.

Nope. Yours “God” has designed hermaphrodites too, where there are no biological fathers/mothers and still can produces/maintain the species. But this is an interesting issue. The creators of biological systems at Earth had a hermaphroditic configuration and working mechanism that self-recycles them, which mechanism is the ancestor of sexual reproduction. See Matrix/DNA “photo” of that creators.

@”My guess is you didn’t read any of the 61 arguments”

Answering for myself, you’d be right.

Creationist sites offering evidences against various scientific establishments is about as believable a source as “free energy” websites offering evidences against thermodynamics.

When these articles hit the pages of Nature or Scientific American, then they would be worthy of investigation.

Until then, if there’s any real evidences revealed, they’re buried under timewasting crap.

That’s very bad! What is happening today with the dictatorship of scholar worldvision. This modern mindset that took the controls of human scientific enterprise will leads Humanity to the repugnant “Brave New World under the rules of Big Mother”, like the ants and bees societies, because the scholar staff does not know the natural system that is still driven evolution here, which is like the Newtonian cosmological machine. Creationism makes no sense today but our brain can’t grasp the Truth yet

@TheMatrixDNA “core of Genesis has the same source of Kekulé inspiration”

What’s more amazing is that if Genesis was derived by a dream, it was a dream like no other:

GENESIS BASED ON A DREAM? (1 of 3) — These are the names of Esau’s sons; Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau.And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons

Alan, that’s non sequitur. The humans interpretations based in that “dream” were the source for the imaginative effort trying to understand the mysteries of past times, like the creation of the world and men.Since that the flashes flowing in their minds were about ancestry registered in DNA memories, and relative to past dimensions (astronomical, atomic, etc) this stranger worlds leads to magical thinking. You are sharing genesis into two: talking about real people at Earth, not initial Genesis

Adam/Eve were the illiterate interpretations of ancient men still with fresh brains that can bring to memories the ancient times of ours non-living ancestors ( astronomical systems, atoms systems, etc.) Natives in Amazon jungle has the same visions today, as had the hindus/chineses with the same images used for to elaborate the symbols of I Ching. Go read the Secret Doctrine, about Schion ben Jochai, thousands years before the Bible, and see the models of Matrix/DNA, who were Adam/Eve.

I understand that you are not arguing for creationism or ID, but why is it that your posts always seem to confuse and conflate cosmological notions with biology?

Because the teachers of Biology and Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution didn’t have answers for my questions. One does not need be a creationist for not agree or not see sense in those explanations. So, I went searching better answers for myself. And I found then at the level where Biology was created: the astronomical level. You never will understand Biology, DNA, life and evolution if you ignores their creator. And with this fault, you never will be able to convince creationists.

Well you could argue that there should be millions of transitional species in the fossil record but we see none. Of course evo/bios claim there are and put up a few dozen examples but they don’t hold up as proof because of the lack of genetic lineage. The greats facts evo’s use to support their views is the one you’re using and that is “it is fact” and there is no disputing it which is laughable at best.

“lack of genetic lineage”

Is that true? Are you saying that the transitional fossils are enough for believing in evolution, but at genetic level it is proved that there is no genetic sequence? If so, the explanation is clear: there is no genetic lineage in relation to biological systems because they are related to LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, as described in Matrix/DNA models. Mutations are caused by insertion of new shapes of nucleotides which are LUCA’s related and punctuated.

i was asking for why are commets still here

how can diseases evolve if they are not on there host

patuer disprove the theory of spontaneous generation because darwin thought putting a piece of raw meat into a container and he thought that was proof for spontanius generation.darwin thought insects evolve from bits of food.

Comets are not created as the Modern Astronomic model suggest, by the oort cloud. They are produced by any old planet becoming a pulsar that has giant volcanoes and no gravity for hold on the magma expelled. Diseases by viruses: virus are a bit of Matrix/DNA genome, corresponding to Function 5, the function of reproduction, they emerge due sun’s energy and if pulled from their environment they attacks cells. Pasteur killed the photons of life in his experiment. ( Answers from Matrix/DNA models

Speed of Light:

An article in Nature talks about the possibility of the speed of light changing over the history of the universe. Where this stems from is observational evidence that the “fine structure constant” has changed. The fine structure constant determines the exact wavelength of fine structure lines in the spectra of atoms, and measurements of the spectra of quasars suggest that it many have decreased by 0.00072 +/- 0.00018 % over the past 6-10 billion years (ref the Nature article)

That was suggested by Matrix/DNA Theory 30 years ago and the explanation is very clear. Any wave of light has seven different frequencies. When a wave is absorbed by a inertial portion of matter (like this universe), each part of that matter moves and dance accordingly to its local frequency. But, the whole wave spectrum is just a life’s cycle, so, light brings movement and life to matter. Universe is evolving under the rules of a life’s cycle. The velocity of frequencies decreases over time.

Pigliucci, Gould, Long and Eldredge are on a list compiled for ICR by Henry Morris PhD (in hydraulic engineering and he pumps the BS out!). A quick search into talkorigins gives refutations of all these tired creationists talking points.

Gould said the equilibrium was more punctuated than Darwin supposed, so creationist scream “Evolutionists at war!” and “Gould discounted the fossil record” and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. Gould was justifiably pissed off at all the laughable quotemining.

For understanding why evolution shows long times of equilibrium and sometimes sharp changes is necessary to know that:1) There is the hierarchy of systems; 2) This hierarchy makes that invisibles systems are interfering upon biological evolution ; 3) The terrestrial biosphere evolves designed by a template, which is an astronomical system ancestor of biological systems; 4) This invisible system is a closed, perfect machine. If does not happen beneficial mutations by chance, the template do it.

Couple of questions… 1. Do you seriously think that teaching Kids that they are simply a trillion year old lab experiment and have no purpose in being alive is somehow going to keep them paying attention in school and give they a desire to learn more??? 2. If evolution is true… Shouldn’t there be thousands of transitional fossils all over the world?? Not just one or two apes with human teeth here and there?! I’m just saying you might want to look at this a little more fairly 😉

You are right, we can not agree our kids being exposed to such “science class”. But the hypothesis of we being 13,7 billions years old and the purpose of life is not the purpose suggested in the Bible are well substantiated by factual evidences. Then, what we should chose to our kids? The right teaching: “we don’t know how this Universe began ( it it began one day), and we don’t know what kind of forces leads aminoacids to develop the first living being. I will talk about several theories…”

question … they say God just is, and some laugh, and I’ve listened about the Big Bang, and wonder where did the hot and dense state which expanded come from? or was it just there? Much like some feel God is?  What if, there is a whole other level of being and our God is just one of many in his realm,and we are just his ant farm and this universe is just his school project? I’m going to go with following Christ just to be safe, because forbid it that man made an error in their thinking

“I’ve listened about the Big Bang, and wonder where did the hot and dense state which expanded come from? or was it just there?”

The unique faithful and best teacher we have is Nature. Ask this question to Her. I did it and She showed a hot and dense state of a genome coming from my parents and initializing the construction of my body. What it would mean? That’s this universe is like an ova, the Big Bang is like the explosion of envelope spermatozoon at the center of this ovule… No need gods.

Just my opinion on the religious dying to express themselves without being asked:

There’s a little guy at the gym I go to every morning that’s the official greeter. He professes to be a devout Catholic and must know everything about everyone – all the time – every time. Inane questions for everyone. If you get new socks – nobody else will notice, but Pepe’ is right on the story. He tells you about the socks he’s purchased in his life, prices, stores he’s shopped for socks in, and every single one of the people that he’s encountered going there, while there, and everyone he saw and talked to on the way home.

Really? Is that living?

It’s just a question, but Pepe’s routine is alien to my species (coherent – productive – time conscious human being) and I view him as an emotional vampire.over-emphasizes little things that happen to them all the time, but some folks, like my little gym buddy, make a science out of it.

Name the “imaginary model” of DNA that you reject.

Is it the Double Helix?

IS it that it contains genetic information?

Is it that it is inherited?

What?

DNA is not a code, in the sense that genes should be operating symbols of a living message. DNA is merely a pile of building blocks (horizontal par of nucleotides) which is merely the material configuration of a universal formula for natural systems. Each nucleotide-pair has something different, derived from the first, like happened in cell’s diversification starting with a single cell. The first came from Earth and the system it belongs to. And there is lots more wrong concepts about DNA.

@whiteowl “[Genesis should not be taught] in a science class”

I don’t disagree with that. However, if a person gets a scientific idea from the Bible, or a dream (Friedrich Kekulé, principal founder of the theory of chemical structure, discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a dream of a snake seizing its own tail), he should be allowed to present & test his hypothesis in a science forum without having his source of inspiration ridiculed.

You got a point. The fundamental ideas-core of Genesis has the same source of Kekulé inspiration and I discovered it after watching natives in Amazon. Kekulé had not a dream: the formula came as flash of images to his consciousness produced by DNA at his brain after extreme effort searching it. Benzene is a ring with 6 carbons that is just the configuration of a nucleotide which is the configuration of the world before life’s origins. Jochai, the Bible’s inspirator, had the same experience.

SECULAR RELIGION — “ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include DOGMA, a system of indoctrination…designated enemies… The secular religion [fills] a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.” – Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

DOGMA EXAMPLES:

@XGralgrathor “There is only one scientific theory”

@jjukil “there is only the one theory, and no competing explanations”

Stating facts is not dogma, ignoring facts is. Both your examples are just plain truth not dogma. Is 1 + 1 = 2 dogma to you?

Stating facts saw here and now by human beings as observers as foundations for general theories, natural laws, creates dogmas. For instance, we know here the chaotic state of Nature, its production is this salvage, bad-designed biosphere. But, Reason suggests that this is only 33% of the final Truth, because must have the state of order and the third state, which is the result of interactions between the two extremes. And we can see only from the perspective of two frequencies of light.

how nice you cut out the middle portion. but like we keep saying by all means. jjukil say there is the one theory and no competing explanations. but there COULD be. please provide evidence for one!

Any new theory that will revolutionize the worldview suggested by Modern Darwinism will be rejected by you and all scholar staff. It will take one hundred years accumulating evidences and will wait a big discovery that will make to notice the theory. There is now the Matrix/DNA Theory: “The configuration model of the building block of primordial galaxies, considering astronomic bodies under life’s cycles, is just the ancestor of the configuration of nucleotides, so, DNA is a universal Matrix.”

“There is now the Matrix/DNA Theory”

Since there is no such thing as a Matrix/DNA theory but a mere hypothesis that no one takes seriously and has no evidence to back it up, why are you making a false claim?

That’s just what I am saying: a new theory, without accurate analysis, will be rejected by the academic staff. Example? There is a website for this theory with hundreds of deeper insights as evidences and hundreds more for being added, every day a new scientific paper or a Hubble’s photo is revealed as new evidence. The indoctrination by the reductionist method is such that you forgot that the word “theory” outside this method has other definition: keep the original Greek definition.

Your whole comment is nothing but a giant assertion fallacy with no foundation in reality. None of your claims are backed by evidence ergo reason does not suggest any of it.

This is just a “creationist religious response”. It is not different the way Tom Adams are here criticizing the worldview created by Darwinism. Our “reality”is merely a fraction of the whole and if you can not see it, that’s indicative some fantasy is working your mind. This chaos around “human reality”is just what is being projected by people like Hawking upon Nature in the ordered cosmological state and theorizing ghosts black holes, cannibal galaxies, explosive Big Bangs, etc. Wrong way…

*pat pat*

Look, your hypothesis has no relevance to reality, it’s alright.

A website do not constitute a peer review basis. Hypothesis are shred all the time in science when they cannot stand the scientific method. It’s alright, it was an idea, but it failed, that is all.

The “peer review system” is based upon the reductionist method, which reaches only 33% of real Nature. For instance, the “systemic method” was killed after Bertalanffy “General Theory of Systems” by theoretical Mathematics. The staff of medieval Church was applying the same peer review biased system over Science. But the Matrix/DNA idea is also theoretical, so it could fail. Not while it is becoming stronger every day based upon peer reviewed papers, despite they are limited to reductionism

Thank you for showing you don’t know what peer review is.

Come back when you have an actual argument.

At my website there is a lot of articles of scientists and students against the peer review system. Come back when you get knowledge about them.

Wow, people who failed to have their study pass the peer review being against peer review…

I would have never imagined it!

Nope. It is several examples of approved peer-review that later was proved to be false, and lots of rejected peer review of studies that later was proved to be correct…Don’t you know that?!

So? It’s still the best way to test the different hypothesis. Sorry, but no one takes seriously your idea due to it’s lack of evidence and explanatory power of observable phenomenon, get over it.

So that the peer review scholar system is not the parameter for analyzing new theories and those occurrences prove it. I am waiting in the last 30 years any observable natural phenomenon that could not be explained by Matrix/DNA models. Bring on one, please… and then, no problem, I will trow them to the garbage.

So ID failed before it established a single example of irreducible complexity, or even got as far as formulating a testable hypothesis. There is no ID theory, there never was an ID theory.

Ok. What do you think about this news at:

Science Daily – Avalanche of Reactions at the Origin of Life

The scientists says:

“Life arises when, subsequently, a whole cascade of further couplings takes place.

As opposed to the notion of a cool prebiotic broth, the first metabolism was not dependent on accidental events or an accumulation of essential components over thousands of years.”

Ins’t it irreducible complexity? Vulcanic flow + minerals + organic elements. Reduced to Earth?

No that isn’t irreducible complexity. Nor did scientists ever argue that organic chemicals form by accident in the first place. Neither chemistry nor evolution are random processes. Most of those reactions in the cascade you refer to have been observed to occur naturally.

At earth, for life begins was need: vulcanic flow, water for producing minerals from rocks, the exactly mineral catalyst, carbon… A star at the right age, a planet at the right distance and orbit… Several details coming convergent to the same point at time/space. And maybe the right location of solar system in relation to the galaxy. So, it is reducible to what? The Universe?

To be blunt – I can’t even imagine why you would think that that article is in any way relevant to irreducible complexity.

For getting the final result ( aminoacids and ability to replicate and diversifying) you need a cosmological configuration. That’s why Oparin elaborated the theory of reduced environment and Miller tried to compose it. But the pieces that composes this configuration comes from different parts, so far away as terrestrial vulcanic flows and stable/old solar system, which is determined by galaxies. If there is no ID you need to show the element beyond the galaxy that can produce this configuration

That’s not irreducible complexity – that’s the ‘fine tuning’ argument. And given the size of the universe the probability of all of those conditions being met at some point over the last 13 billion years is very, very high indeed.

I have not understood the difference between ID and fine tuning argument (FTA) . FTA is the supposition that all those conditions are derived from elements that were present one minute after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was an event that separated everything condensed in a dense point. If those conditions developed separated and converged here for production of life, and you try to reduce those aminoacids to ancestors, everything is irreducible. Or not?

Parsival, this is not a creationist argument, neither I belief in ID. I am only trying to justify that my theory, which suggests a LUCA as being the building block of astronomical systems, makes sense. Thanks by this kind of testing the rationalization of this theory.

Jesus was Jewish, all of the apostles were Jewish. The bible is a Jewish book. People have always had false notions that are not in the bible. Christianity can not take responsibility for false assumptions. No man could take Jesus life he laid it down willingly. That is why he came, to die for mans sins. That being said, evolution is still just a false religion, and not a science.

If you have power, could you permit the drug dealers around the school of yours children? God permitted the serpent around his sons, so, he has no power. Would you have the courage for sending your son to be tortured and killed by salvage tribes? God did it, so he is a monstrous. That’s why a book written by hewish and from salvage times does not can be accepted by western mindset: its different moral, ethics, culture.

God allows free will, just like he allows you to believe the farce of evolution… He will not force you to believe anything. It is your choice, and mans choices that we will be judged for. That is what scares evolutionist they don’t want any kind of accountability.

It is the same saying that you permit the drug dealers around the school of yours children because you allows free will… I don’t. That’s why you believe in the bible and I will never be able to accept it.

You accept that NOTHING CREATED everything you should be able to accept just about anything, but the truth. That is your right. God will not force you to believe anything. That is your choice. Notice how you choose to believe what you will.

No, I am agnostic, I don’t believe, I have no believes. My brain can not process a world that had a begin or a world that had no begin. Same for gods. And there is no third alternative. So, I am convinced that I will die without know the thru, if there is one. Now, that someone comes to me saying that talked and saw gods… that’s absurd!

falling behind?

such extremism!

please document your mythology

creation will always be an option

because we can’t even prove primordial stew (or snot) to any real standard other than it might work real soon now

the deadly rsn…

imagine the unverse as a network capable of transmitting signals from star to star…

signals which could trigger radiation that could cause genetic mutations…

see!

there is a scenario that is equivalent (actually superior) to the primordial stew superstition…

My Dog! Tom has enunciated a deeper secret of Nature, which neither Science knows yet! How Tom got it?! That’s revelation? God is talking here through Tom Adams? Really, in the Universe there is an astronomical system with a network that is the ancestor of the first cell system. And that network is irradiated towards planets’ surface from stars. At least is what are suggesting the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

Where did you get this idea from, Tom?

Amphibians are Proof of evolution.

As the world started to oxygenate plant life took hold on land. Since there were no predators life started to branch out to exploit the plants on land. Dew to stronger effects of gravity animals evolved vertebrate and lungs.

People are made of mostly water, and water is the most vital source of life, not to mention all the diversity in the oceans.

Animals are’t made from stone, they are made of soft tissues that can acclimate to the forces at work on

That’s a theory. Since there were no vertebrates neither fossil of those primordial plants in the ocean, there are no scientific statement, yet. Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that life began somewhere at the beach, just upon the frontiers of rocks/water. Some kinds went to land, others to water, others. like amphibians stood at the same point. For life begins is necessary the convergence of all physics/chemistries forces of the Universe to a unique spatial/temporal neutral point.

1. Mutations happen (as well as natural variation) but this is not evolution. Mutations cannot cause a creature to gain new genetic information that wasn’t already in the overall genome to begin with.

2. You can prove scientific theories by experiment and observation. ideas alone are not science.

3. Donkeys and horses are different species but they’re still the same kind. no experiment has ever shown one creature turning into a new kind.

4. Evolution is a very intrinsic yet impossible idea.

1. Mutations happen (as well as natural variation) but this is not evolution. Mutations cannot cause a creature to gain new genetic information that wasn’t already in the overall genome to begin with.”

You are right, this Universe can not create information from nothing. But the biological genome is not the complete universal genome, then, still there are informations disponible in the air, for new beneficial mutations. See the univ. genome at Matrix/DNA Theory.

RogerS4JC 3 days ago

Alan Clarke 3 days ago

fowzie777 3 hours ago

here’s why evolution is false. its simple. ready?

at the heart of evolution is this basic, irrational claim.

“randomness produces increasing order and complexity.” in order to prove this statement true, intelligent people set up very structured, (non-random), experiments to show that it required no intelligence in the first place. I’d say that at the best that is circular reasoning and at worst its pretty close to the definition of insanity.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

“randomness produces increasing order and complexity.”

If someone said that based in neo-Darwinian theory I agree with you: it seems highly improbable when facing evidences here and now. But it does not mean that the natural process of evolution does not occurs, it suggests flaws in those theoretical mechanisms. The Matrix/DNA evolutionary theory is suggesting others mechanisms that shows, when a random mutation occurs it is selected or discarded accordingly to cosmological reproductive purpose

Replyin reply to fowzie777(Show the comment)

MrButtlettuce 3 hours ago

Could someone clarify the miller experiment? did the miller experiment produce only a few amino acids or all 20 amino acids and nucleotides?

Replyin reply to OldaurGold(Show the comment)

Nullifidian 1 day ago

parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

LOL so now you know where the garden of eden was?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You and I have been able to genuinely debate, and agree to disagree. Which is great. My premise is that Humans are beyond just biological; and evolution does not begin to explain the intangible capabilities of Humans. Thus, one is within his/her right to entertain different possibilities. And, I reject the notion that one who does not subscribe to Evolution is an imbecile; because it’s quite imbecilic to say that ‘atom’ causes one to ‘envy’? <=That’s just one example.

Louis Charles Morelli 3 seconds ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I unequivocally disagree. It is simple reasoning… and any study which attempts to prove that they are, is bias and in error. ‘Atom’ has no bear on ‘morals’ or ‘greed’ or ‘hatred’ or ‘laughter’. Absolutely none!

It’s a simple equation: If all things are physics/biological, then why do all things NOT display these attributes but Humans? Do you see the discourse? There is an intervention which took place allowing for these abilities in Humans.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

First, what you are witnessing in your examples are the results of certain Universal Laws.For example, the ‘killing of other pieces/substances for the good of that system’ you talk about is a result of either Self-Protect or Self-Nourishment which all living entities follow. These are Universal Laws.They don’t do it because they know that it’s “bad vs good”.Lions don’t kill for the good of life; they kill under the law of Self-Nourishment. & black hole cleaning galaxies is an unproven hypothesis

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

2) If you’re looking for something PROFOUND about what I’ve been saying, it is that: if you were just biological/evolved, you would not have instinctively known this law. It would’ve been foreign to you as it is to a tree or a lion or any other entity you can think of.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

2) What tree do you know of that knows that those things are bad, or what rock, or what dolphin, or what star? Yet, they, and everything, are all physics/biological, right? To conclude: These laws that you NOW take for granted are not an act of physics. Someone will be thinking in bed tonight, when this will hit him!

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

What do you think about bees and ants social systems? They are not social systems? And were there any kind of social systems before living beings, even before bees? If not, do you agree that they engineered the first social system, or, at least, they made better a system that is subsequent advancement from symbioses of cells’ organelles?

Atharkas 19 minutes ago

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

TrueVerdicts 19 minutes ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I won’t worry. I know our lord is just and wise. Praised be his Neighs. They ring through the heavens, and are the actual cause of background red shift.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 10:23 PM – Wed -24

Well where did you get that ‘latest information’ from? It sounds like it came from a layperson who thinks that there is some kind of imaginary limit to how much DNA can evolve?

I said “human DNA is evolving faster than micro-organisms DNA”, and thinking about the increased size of DNA since the apes DNA. Not said that microorganisms stopped evolving, I don’t have information about that. You don’t need an imaginary limit to how much DNA can evolve, only think about this: micro-organisms evolved at early atmosphere and environment, these things has changed, so, it is probable that their speed of evolution has changed also. Human increases in DNA is about brains. Or not?

For chrissake! You STILL don’t get it!!!

Things don’t HAVE to evolve. And just because a mosquito today looks exactly like a mosquito eons ago doesn’t mean that some mosquitoes in a different environment didn’t evolve into something completely different.

The fact remains: Today we have mosquitoes, humans and rabbits, when eons ago there is no record of ANYTHING but single-celled creatures.

How do you explain THAT? The implications are undeniable.

emfederin in reply to JoelMckay69 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

You need remember that this is not a debate among scientists, it is between Bill Nye and us, common fathers/mothers. So, the definition of words like “theory”, “information” that you were trained in scientific fields need be forgot and looking for the definition that the common person are using. Good see Wikipedia here. To me, information still is the old Latin definition in its turn derived from the verb “informare” (to inform) in the sense of “to give form to the mind” which is physical (cont

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 6:02 – AM – Tue – 23

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

emfederin in reply to BigWater59 3 hours ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to emfederin (Show the comment) 1 second ago

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

parsivalshorse in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

BigWater59 in reply to parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 47 minutes ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Joshua White (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Joshua White (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Joshua White (Show the comment) 1 second ago

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 50 seconds ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Joshua White (Show the comment) 1 second ago

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Because there is obvious evidence around us. I’m not too good at explaining it at the moment. If you want to know more, go to wwwDOTreasonsDOTorg

Unless you haven’t noticed, evolution can easily be disproved, way easier then they try to disprove Creationism.

God put it there… And isn’t it kind of amazing how our Earth is JUST the right distance from the Sun to support life and have water?

You said: “And isn’t it kind of amazing how our Earth is JUST the right distance from the Sun to support life and have water?”

Sorry but there is other website than reason.org suggesting that the reverse is the right one: a pre-life put the Earth at the right distance from the Sun for walking free here, like humans beings makes roads for better walking. The problem of reason.org is that they does not know the real pre-biological system that the Sun and Earth belongs to.

No Louis – as I have repeated;ly explained to you, information is not a property of matter at all. We get information from examining things, but the things we examine are not information. I realise that you are not using english as your first language, so please let me assure you that you are just using the word ‘information’ innappropriately.

No Louis – as I have repeated;ly explained to you, information is not a property of matter at all. We get information from examining things, but the things we examine are not information. I realise that you are not using english as your first language, so please let me assure you that you are just using the word ‘information’ innappropriately.

You are based in string theory or any modern theory, then, you could be right. But… all these theories are projection of Physics-centrism, where the Universe is forced to be modeled and explained by Physics alone. My theory was elaborated doing the reverse way over the same evidences/facts: biocentrism forcing the model of this Universe. Here the final results suggests that “information is not a property of matter” as you said, but matter is a property of ex-machine “natural” information