Archive for outubro, 2012

Acertar website no ALEXA e outros buscadores, Resolver Feed Link, WordPress

sexta-feira, outubro 12th, 2012

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theuniversalmatrix.com

xxx

Ler este artigo para mudar URL

WWW vs. Non-WWW, The PageRank, The Effect And The Solution

http://www.tutorialsroom.com/tutorials/details/www_vs_non_www.html

xxx

Ver isto para arrumar

http://www.aboutus.org/TheUniversalMatrix.com#home-page-analysis-

TheUniversalMatrix.com Home Page Analysis Summary

Titles & HeadingsThe title and headings on the home page tell people and search engines what a website is about.
Analyze the title & headings of the home page for free or the entire site.
Problem

Links & ImagesRelevant links to other sites are good for people and search engines. Images on a web page should be described for visually impaired visitors and search engines.
Analyze the links & images of the home page for free or the entire site.
Problem

Search Engine FriendlinessA few simple technical fixes can make any site show up better in search results.

This website can live at www.TheUniversalMatrix.com or TheUniversalMatrix.com. It’s best for your site’s visibility to live at just one URL, or web address. You’ll want to create a 301 redirect to the URL you choose from the other URL. Learn more …

Sôbre Feed Link

Opa! Parece que o meu feed link é:  http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?feed=rss2

What’s my feed link?

http://help.networkedblogs.com/entries/20869532-what-s-my-feed-link

Tara
posted this on Jan 16 16:54

Your feed link may also be called a feed url – these are synonymns.Generally, if you don’t know your feed link, you should contact your blog host provider for assistance. However, we do try to detect the feed link automatically when you register your blog the first time. It works most of the time, but not always. To see if we have your feed link on record, go to your blog profile on NetworkedBlogs and click on “feed tester”. If there is a Feed Link listed there, then that’s your feed link. Otherwise, you’ll need to ask your blog host for assistance.

xxx

Falha no WordPress ( mas ver que aqui é wordpress.com)

http://dashboard.wordpress.com/wp-admin/index.php?page=stats

Nenhum blog… ainda. Porque meu blog não sai aí?

Problem

Astronomia – Os Dínamos de Planetas; Causas, Nuclear Conteúdo e Magnetização

quinta-feira, outubro 11th, 2012

Um nucleo girando em maior velocidade produz um forte campo magnético que magnetiza as rochas na superficie do corpo. ( Para a Teoria da Matrix/DNA isto estava previsto, porem como não se sabe se a Via Láctea é galáxia de primeira ou posterior geração, se  foi formada pelo processo simbiontico ou replicador… No entanto é boa informação para desenvolver a teoria dos sistemas estelares por replicação).  Ver mais:

First evidence of dynamo generation on an asteroid found

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-evidence-dynamo-asteroid.html

October 11, 2012 by Jennifer Chu

Asteróide Vesta

Asteróide Vesta

About 4.6 billion years ago, the solar system was little more than a tenuous disk of gas and dust. In the span of merely 10 million years, this soup evolved to form today’s massive, complex planets. In the intervening period, however, the solar system contained a mixture of intermediary bodies—small chunks of rock, the remnants of which today are known as asteroids.

Now a new study published this week in Science has found evidence that Vesta, the second-most-massive asteroid in the solar system, once harbored a dynamo—a molten, swirling mass of conducting fluid generating a magnetic field—resembling that in much larger planets like Earth. Researchers at MIT say the findings suggest that asteroids like Vesta may have been more than icy chunks of space debris.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-evidence-dynamo-asteroid.html#jCp

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-evidence-dynamo-asteroid.html#jCp

Brasileiros tem que serem Ativos Militantes no sentido do Brasil imitar a Dinamarca sôbre Energia Solar. Veja Isso:

quinta-feira, outubro 11th, 2012

Denmark achieves solar energy goal eight years in advance

Dinamarca já adiantou em oito anos a sua meta para ampliação da energia solar

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/10/11/denmark-achieves-solar-energy-goal-eight-years-in-advance/

Energia Solar na Dinamarca

Energia Solar na Dinamarca

Não existe vida sem a energia do Sol, ela estêve aqui na época da abiogenese com sua luz prenetrando átomos terrestres, forçando reações quimicas a elaborarem a formação das primeiras células vivas. Apesar de que o tempo daquêles primordiais sistemas celulares já vai longe, o processo natural da formação de sistemas naturais agora volta a atuar, desta vez para formar o ideal sistema ecológico humano, o nosso habitat, adequado à nossa sociedade moderna. O que está ocorrendo é uma projeção no macronivel do que ocorreu no micronivel, portanto, nada mais racional que o sistema social humano seja movido pela mesma luz solar. Limpíssima, gratuíta e em abundancia! A Mãe Terra  sorrirá orgulhosa de seus filhos e agradecerá com climas mais controlados. Cada brasileiro tem que procurar informação como trocar suas telhas por placas como a da foto e devem imediatamente procurar saber dos politicos que elegeram o que é  ” net metering “, uma espécie de incentivo governamental implantado na Dinamarca para utilizadores the energia solar, cobrar d6estes politicos como anda a legislação nêsse sentido. A Dinamarca já substituiu 35% das fontes de energia poluidoras e caras por energia solar e pretende substituir 100%! A saúde e riqueza do Brasil depende tambem que isso seja feito aqui e o mais rápido possível.

A primeira vez que um humano cantará em pessoa no espaço sideral!A Humanidade Avisando aos Deuses que Ela Existe!

quarta-feira, outubro 10th, 2012

Sarah Brightman will sing in space

Veja vídeo e noticia em:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/

Sarah me fêz pensar na teoria explicando porque existe esta divisão de umas poucas pessoas que apreciam musicas classicas ou com mensagens mais transcendentais como Pink Floyd e a grande massa que aprecia apenas musica que fala de sexo, com temas de cantores que parecem estarem com a libido aflorando à pele.  Sarah desde a infancia revela ter um cérebro hard-wired com alguma diferença em relação ao seu genero feminino e à grande massa: desde pequena ela é fascinada pelo espaço sideral e ao assistir o desembarque do homem na Lua em 1969 ela sentiu imensa vontade de cantar as maravilhas imaginadas nêsse distante horizonte, seus fascinantes mistérios. Suas musicas, seus sentimentos ao cantar, revelam êsse íntimo deslumbramento. Para a teoria da Matrix/DNA fica mais um campo a pesquisar: como e porque acontece o “hard-wirement” em cérebros que insere o distante fenomeno do espaço sideral?! Como o espaço sideral desce e desembarca nos neuronios de um cérebro? Talvez a subita expressão de genes adormecidos no “DNA-lixo” que eram predominantemente ativos quando nossa matrix/dna existia como dna das galaxias?… Se sim, de onde vem o estimulo para que despertem e voltem a atuar?

Em todo caso… muito obrigado Sarah! Que os deuses desaparecidos, as possíveis inteligencias extra-terrestres, a ouçam e se voltem para nós.

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (5)

segunda-feira, outubro 8th, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a quarta parte dêste artigo, vide as três anteriores, numeros 3, 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08). Neus posts estão em dois nomes: TheMatrixDNA e Austriak1)

( Deletar PC Cleaner Urgente! Perdí Todos os posts entre 11 e 13)

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA: (perdidos posts de 04, thuesday, devido PC cleaner)

XXX

Posts modêlos para entrada todos os dias:

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?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

As an agnostic and defending a new and unknown evolutionary theory different than ToE, I want for my kids ToE in science classrooms and ID obligatory in social/philosophical class. Evolution is not understood if only based on biological history, so, ToE is non complete “theory” and is necessary that it be criticized and checked by ID. ToE has no intellectual support for a meaning of our existence as religions does for avoiding kids falling on drugs, and ToE alone will not keep free thought.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 8:56 PM – Tue – 09 – Oct.

I think Bill Nye is the expression of a second wave of Enlightenment, as happened at 18th century, due human Reason reaching a new shape in its vital cycle. Philosophers joining to scientists and atheists against those fantasies of Reason’s baby times, promoting science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and some abuses by church and state. If the first wave was based in Newton ( after Copernicus and Galileo), now it is largely based in Darwin and Astronomy.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 7:14 PM – Oct – 12

Creationist “faith” can not be explained rationally based on current scientific view of the world. But, at same time this faith is an aberration produced by Nature, this aberration can not be explained because the scientific current world view does not translate the real world. This faith is product of expression of data storaged in the wrong called junk/DNA, real data about real world of times beyond 4 billion years. People with this faith has hard-wired brain confused by these memories.

XXX – PERDÍ OS POSTS ENTRE 11 E 13.  RECOPIA-LOS.

TrueVerdicts: You haven’t criticized my post: “Science does not explain what does not exists. Time-Space are not entities “per se”, they are human imaginary creations. Think the Universe as a ball. Beyond the ball is nothing, infinite. There is no space in nothing. Now, take any object from the ball and put it outside. Now you have a distance for measurement. You created space. Something for time. Imagine everything stopping moving and coming back moving again. How much time in between? Zero…

Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago – 7:00 PM – Oct – 13

XXX

Here are creationists and immediate naturalists debating. They want to model the formation of children’s minds of the world. But, there are a minority – the cosmic naturalists agnostics – that also has its own model. We want our voice be heard here also. As said “illegalconspiracy”, a child with mind structured upon lots of evidences of a natural process of biological evolution interpreted by modern Darwinism will be a believer in an almost magical blind God acting without any guidance (cont.).

For us, biological evolution, the change into news species over long time, is obvious. In another hand, although we consider the indoctrination of children by a doctrine expressed in Bible is a prejudices to their healthy, we try to see the world from a cosmological point of view, and our suspection is that this process is not blind, what leaves opened to possibilities, included a non-biblical kind of “god”. So, although evolution must be a fact, the Darwinian interpretation must be a theory.

XXX

OT, huh? Well…

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” Ephesians 6:5

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.” 1 Timothy 6:1

So much for that.

That’s why earthly masters are the fundies of Christianism and appreciate that book – the Bible. And why you see the high authorities of the church always hand by hand with earthly masters. The very group of predators, mimicking the rules of the salvage system of the jungle for building social systems for humans. That’s why I hate that book since everybody treats me all my life as slave because I was born without family and homeless. I don’t understand why the preys are so indoctrinated.

XXX

since many times creationists are accused of inhibiting science because of their presuppositions (the God-did-it-so-there’s-nothing-­more-to-study idea; but in reality, it’s just the opposite—“God did it” so we have every reason to study it!). Creationists for many years have argued that non-coding DNA is not junk (see “Junk” DNA Is Not Junk)

And now the scientific thought is acting as a science-stopper again. Due some success explaining evolution by Darwinian mechanisms and due our Astronomy still beginning and doing wrong cosmological models (as the wrong model of spontaneous generation of astronomic bodies), modern scientists don’t are stimulated to search the links between cosmological and biological evolution. The result is that changing in species are not understood because there are mechanisms coming from cosmology.

XXX

Ohno stated, “The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?”1 Due to his evolutionary presupposition, he assumed that non-coding DNA was merely a “genetic fossil” that may have been useful somewhere in our evolutionary past but had been discarded as we evolved into more complex, higher organisms. Since this “junk” DNA was no longer needed,

Ohno had great intuition, he is in the right track. But he is touching something deeper, he can’t imagine that. Since we discovered that the fundamental unit of information of DNA – a horizontal base-pair of nucleotides – is just a copy of the fundamental building block of old galaxies, we have everything for supposing that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix evolving since the Big Bang. If so, junk-DNA is memory of 13,7 billions years of evolution!

XXX

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Not in relation to a closed system. Entropy attacks these systems beginning at periphery and advancing internally towards the center. There are no loss of energy/mass but degradation. From periphery goes the bits-information of that system, but if these bits reaches a platform, like a planet surface, a neuron in the brain, they have two alternatives: mixing with locals elements, reorganizing themselves as mutants end lift up as a new system. Or, as in Alzheimer’s, they does not re-organizes.

XXX

I’m pretty sure you know the Bible isn’t written in English, close enough is what we get, as long as the meaning is exactly what it is supposed to be expressed as, the Bible is surely more perfect than any other book available today. You should tell a judge that eye witness is INCREDIBLY FLAWED and there are no truthful people in the world, not even if God’s inspiration is flowing, OH WELL you wouldn’t ever get that. Besides they have no gain in writing a biased testimony, doing it to die.

I have my own theory about the Bible. Some events and places described in Genesis ( the Garden Paradise, Adam/Even, the selfish serpent, the fall to Earth) are real metaphorical but exactly descriptions of the state of the world and the event occurred before abiogenesis. They describes the body and process of LUCA – the Last Universal Non-Biological Ancestor. But I Ching, The Secret Doctrine, also describes the same LUCA. Explanation? Memory of past times registered into junk/DNA.

XXX

1GODISNOWHERE1: “Nothing in the periodic table of elements needs Darwin’s theories”

They need. The elements are different, diversified, because their origins was under the laws of evolution. Mendeleev discovered that each element of positions derived from 7 have the same properties. And Matrix/DNA discovered that different shapes of those elements corresponds to the different shapes of living beings under vital cycle. So, lithium and neon are babies, beryllium and magnesium are kids, etc. Louis Charles Morelli 1:56 PM – Wed -17

XXX

I wonder what the more believable theory is: that everything was created from nothing during the big bang or that matter was already here and was just re-organized by a higher intelligence into what we now call the universe. Higher intelligence or nothing that is our choices.

BigWater59 1 hour ago

I think there is a problem about the scientific community interpretation of Big Bang and this problem is that the Universe is being studied by Physics and its theories are elaborated with mathematical intellectual exercises. One sample? Physics arrived to “maximal amount of entropy” causing the Big Bang. But, a biocentric view see universes produced by Big Bangs as spermatozoon explosions and zygotes being formed due entropy attacking a human body system. Which method is the best? I don’t know.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

1) Creationism is the beleif that a diety created everythign out of nothing…it is the ONLY concept put forth that says From Nothing

2) Big Bang says from a singularity..an expansion from condensed matter.NOT from nothing

This will natural lead to “Well then where did the singularity come from?” which is an argument from ignorance.

Personally, I tend towards the veiw that the universe is eternal and cyclic and that eventually it will colapse back into a singularity and repeat

whiteowl1415 in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 33 minutes ago

All things that are cyclic replicates the last shape automatically, does not need repeats internal evolution again and again. Sample: the first cell system was organized by symbioses, but after that it does not do it anymore, it merely replicates. There is other argument for a theory of recycling universes?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 21 minutes ago

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

Things that are cyclic repeat stages, they need not do so the same way.

Seaons are cyclic, this does not mean it is going to rain on the exact same days every spring or that the snow will fall in the exact same amount.

The cycles can contain internal variation.

Note I said I beleive, not proven, but…

Stars convert lighter elements to heavier ones, logicaly we will eventually end up with only the heaviest which through gravity of thier mass should recolapse

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

Ok… I think we are based in two different things: I am based in systems and you in processes. That’s why I appeal to a system (a cell) and you to a process ( seasons). The weird question is: the universe is a system or a process? If it is a process, you earned, the universe is self-recycling. But, I am not sure. Stars makes heavier elements. But I always search parameter in Nature here. Womb’s cells makes dense placenta for discarding it in name of embryonic evolution, not re-cycles.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

Nothing in nature isn’t recycled.

Amoung other animals, the placental is often reconsumed by the parents.

When it isn’t it nourishes the soil for plants.

People waste, nature never does.

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 8 minutes ago

Again, our problem is “process or system?” You said that your preferred theory is a self-recycling universe. I prefer an universe under evolution reproducing an old universe but increasing a little bit of complexity. Reconsumed placenta is a process among a lots of them that composes a whole system. In relation to embryonic evolution and its womb, placenta is discarded forever. In relation to Universes, matter will be discarded in name of an embryo of counciousness. You are part of that embryo.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neoDarwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation

–Professor Jerome Lejeune, Lecture in Paris

JoelMckay69 2 minutes ago

There are other theories than neoDarwinian theory that has found as existent the natural process of evolution, working with different mechanisms and suggesting new worldviews. Then, why you don’t know them? Because they can’t be published, the established mindset does not permit it. For instance, I will talk about Matrix/DNA Theory, which arose applying the method of comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems – trying to find a link. But, the found link is not ideologic accepted

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to JoelMckay69 – 12:38 AM – Tue – 16

That is not an argument against evolution it is an argument against abiogenesis. I take it you’re a Matrix student?

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

Yes, the theory is not argument against evolution, as I said: “it found as existent, the natural process of evolution”. The problem is about the differences between the final results between the two theories. 1) The link of Matrix/DNA is the same LUCA – the last common ancestor of all biological systems – hypothesized by Darwin, but Matrix/DNA found LUCA to be an astronomical system and not a microscope organism; 2) Matrix/DNA suggests 7 variables instead 3 of ToE. This changes the whole view.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

I am sorry Louis but that is still a biogenesis argument not genesis argument. I understand the basics of matrix but it still doesn’t fit into this debate.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Yes it is a genesis argument also. What is the first moment of your body? The “”big bang”of a spermatozoon inside an egg. Now, try to project this real event here over the Big Bang theory and see the Universe as an cosmic egg. But then, the event here suggests that was there, before the Big Bang, a previous design for evolution here, inside the parents (system) that produced the Big Bang. It is genesis by a natural being without using intelligence and magics, but with consciousness. Makes sense.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Actually you have a good point and that is what really exist without consciousness to understand it. Is there an universe without conscience life. Good question which I would say no. Nice point.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 26 minutes ago

The problem arises when we try to develop this theory, trying to go deeper into the final mystery..The models suggests that any wave of natural light is the code for imprinting life into inertial mass. You can see why in the theory website. So, it suggests that the ex-machine system that triggered the Big Bang made it using only light. But the source of this light seems to be a kind of vortex (based in QM). Is it “the natural god” a kind of vortex? A vortex with consciousness?! I am lost now

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You’re a little over the top now and I am not a matrix student so bring it down a little so we can understand your point.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

The theory is based in a formula made like a computer’s software diagram but at same time is a unit of genetic information. The surprisingly thing is that all known natural systems fits exactly when superposed upon the formula, suggesting that the formula is the way nature organizes matter into systems, from atoms to galaxies to human bodies. Later, we noticed that the functions of that formula can be expressed as the seven different frequencies of light waves and it explains the vital cycles.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

To say that Humans evolved is to say that intelligence/science saw birth with Humans — that science was at stage zero prior to Humans — as humans are the most intelligent entities — this is conflicting, because there existed things beyond human understanding prior to humans. <= Do grasp your mind very well around this. This only concludes that there was intelligence prior to humans which engineered them.

TrueVerdicts 3 days ago

I don’t understand. It is not what Nature is showing here and now. The nowadays bodies of human beings are made by parents through natural genetic process without parents applying intelligence and although it happens, these bodies evolves and reveals intelligence. That is the real way nature works facing our eyes. So, a rational mind must apply the same process when inquiring the origins of first human beings. The non-living matter must have the forces for intelligence, but doesn’t applied it.

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

XXX

Only one problem(if Bill is honest) with his narrow-minded assertions. The fossil record. As every paleontologist knows, the fossil record displays a consistent pattern of sudden appearance followed by stasis, that life’s history reflects variation around a set of basic models rather than one of accumulating improvement and finally that mass extinction has been predominantly by catastrophe rather than gradual obsolescence.

Jonathan Michaels 3 hours ago

These three questions are solved by Matrix/DNA Theory, unifying cosmological and biological evolution. The most complex non living system must be direct ancestor of the less complex biological system – of course. Since this ancestor is astronomical – it is the building block of galaxies, a system that works as perfect natural machine and shows all life’s properties – and the first living is microscope, Nature used the same process we see here when miniaturizes a human body inside chromosomes.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Jonathan Michaels – 7:47 ÃM – Mon – 15

XXX

First there was simple single celled life. Then suddenly, about 530 million years ago, most major animal phyla were here. The fossil evidence is missing showing how life went from the single cells to the major complex divisions of animal life we have today. After the early Cambria era explosion of life there is fossil evidence that that life was now here. But no fossil evidence beforehand showing how simple single celled organisms suddenly became very, very, very complex.

EphraimManasseh in reply to narco73 (Show the comment) 35 minutes ago

No. The Big Bang of “your life” can be watched here and now, every time is exploded the envelope of a spermatozoon inside an ovule. The Universe only can create things like itself was created. Abiogenese is not going from single soup to single cell, it is about the almost perfect closed system that works like a machine called “galaxy” and nanotechnologically going to a single biological cell. Mother Nature does not play dice with us. She is showing here how she works. Why are you cheating her?!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to EphraimManasseh (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

XXX

(Fill in the blank, whatever your blank is) bless Bill Nye. My childhood, for what little of it you were a part of, was that much more awesome while you were in it. Let’s hope you’re right. Let’s hope in the future, the outdated ways of thinking which rule today are gone. Replaced by education and knowledge rather than fear and overreaction. The only saving We All Need is from ignorance.

homewherehorrorlives 18 minutes ago

“The only saving We All Need is from ignorance.” That’s the most beautiful phrase I like and I would ad my bit: “and saved from our selfish gene”. This selfishness expresses in everybody. The result is forgetting that our little brain facing this immense mystery can not grasp the final Truth. So, we watch evolution here, but is it blind without purpose? I watch evolution inside a womb, a shape of blastula becoming unrecognizable in the next shape as fetus. But, then…there is purpose. So?!

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

XXX

These debates are mostly useless. I never try and “win”, I just interject verses from the Bible and let God work on your hearts when you read them.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The1Indignitary 10 minutes ago

It does not works with me. The History of America, my ancestors, its fairy tiles, folklore and traditions in first place, that’s what I want for my kids, not those of foreign origins. And there are no mentions of interventions of God in our History. So, if the god of foreign people is real, he has not talking with us, then, he is not real for us and not our friend. You are practicing mental terrorism on my kids. Let’s the people of America alone for discovering the meaning of our existence.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to The1Indignitary7:43 – PM – Oct – 13

XXX

Why do so many Christians pretend that science and/or evolution are religions? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many possibilities. Perhaps religion so controls their lives that they can’t think outside of religious categories. Perhaps they can’t imagine that anything which makes strong claims isn’t religious.

IDisnotscience 42 minutes ago

They have something (a fault on modern scientific thought) for hold on: 1) Darwin should never talk this: the diversification of life shows that species were not created one by one ( by God). Because Darwin was not prepared for explaining the origins of species; 2) Scientific worldview resists to link cosmological evolution with biological evolution and had inserted, in this big abism, the magical thinking of randomness. Scientists need avoiding to extrapolate to worldviews for avoiding enemies

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to IDisnotscience 7:24 PM – OCt – 13

XXX

1) Your science is simply an extremely negligible STUDY of an existing, indescribably sophisticated science/intelligence. Nothing simply ‘be’ be it not Time-Space. The engineering of the tree is the utmost science; the making of the star is the utmost science, the systematic, purposeful, flawlessly timed, synchronizing of cosmological entities is the utmost science; the engineering of the brain is the utmost science…

TrueVerdicts 48 minutes ago

Search the natural matrix formula that organizes matter into systems and discover from where is coming all this “engineering”. If after that you will say loud that this is the formula created by God for creating things in these Universe without magics, I will show for you that this formula is coming from something natural, extra-universe. But you still will say that the extra-universal was created by God… and here I will stop. I don’t know.

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

XXX

1)Do you realize that your science, as a subject of Time-Space, is lesser than Time-Space, making Time-Space greater (than all) — as such, your science CANNOT explain Time-Space. And, it certainly not with physical approach. Your science is very negligible. It’s no hot stuff! It’s sad that you believe that Time-Space can explain by physics alone. You ought to be begin to understand that Time-Space simply ‘be’; that, in itself is illogical, metaphysical, it cannot be explained with physics.

TrueVerdicts 38 minutes ago

Science does not explain what does not exists. Time-Space are not entities the per se, they are human imaginary creations. Think the Universal as a ball. Beyond the ball is nothing, infinite. There is no space in nothing. Now, take any object from the ball and put it outside. Now you have a distance for measurement. You created the space. Something for time. Imagine everything stopping moving and coming back moving again. How much time was there? Zero.There is measurement of a chain of events.

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

XXX

Your science will erroneously claim that intelligence dwells within biology, as it seeks to deny all possibilities of anything outside of physics. Intelligence does not reside in the body. “Thoughts” may, allegedly, be influenced in the manner you mentioned as a result of the mechanism/the biology being affected by the drug; i.e, when you alter/impact a vehicle’s part, the vehicle may perform differently; this does not mean the operator/driver/intelligence of the vehicle is ONE with it!

TrueVerdicts 32 minutes ago

Alzheimer’s is proof that intelligence/consciousness resides in our bodies. As the brain decays so does the intelligence and personality. Your ‘soul’ assertion dissolved with a single physical decay.

mechanicmike69 in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 25 minutes ago

I will suggest an argument for your theory. Think about a computer decay like Alzheimer, but, die fire. The hardware goes destroyed, but what happens with the software? As said mechanicmike69, the scientific theory uses Alzheimer as evidence that consciousness reside in our body. I think that computers are evidence that consciousness is separated. The software resident in computer is destroyed but the same software is in other places, like the mind of his creator, other computers. Do you agree?

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

The “software” in humans is the interconnection of billions of nerve cells, that die when you die and have no duplicate copies. Your argument is rediculous.

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

Hold on. Bits in a computer does not organizes themselves for running a software and does not creates their own software. And for clues that my argument is ridiculous you need bring on the paper peer-reviewed that reveals the mechanisms by which neurons are related to thought. There is no one. My theoretical models suggests that a natural software composed by photons is transmitted by galaxies over primordial soups driven abiogenesis. This software, later, becomes human consciousness. Weird,but

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

xxx

EVOLUTION DOESN’T MAKE FOSSILS; FOSSILS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. STOP HIJACKING THE EVIDENCE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH FOR YOUR EVIL ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

That’s funny! You say that one real natural phenomena – the amount of collected fossils – are being used by evil evolutionism as evidence for evolution, and at the same time, you point out one real natural evidence that sometimes in that place in the past had some flood and uses it by yours evil religionism as evidence for your imaginary fairy tales. If you think this behavior is a sin, why you do it?!!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 hour ago

Because he is mentally ill.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

What should mean that his brain is hard-wired in a non natural way? And maybe due indoctrination? I think that my brain is not hard-wired correctly also and I explain it by the fact that I am product of a chaotical biosphere that has tortured me mentally. But, if he have problems we need try to help him going back to the right track. My theory suggests that the supreme goal of evolution here and now is evolution of human brains and that we need all human brains evolving for our collective future

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

I have waisted enough of my time trying to explain things to religious people. They do not get it and I think never will. I now try to humiliate them with their beliefs. But you go for it. I enjoy reading your post.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

I understand that you are upset due religious prejudicing yours goals. I was just reading Cosmic Log where comments criticizing NASA for spending money with Curiosity for finding pieces of metals. I will give my last dollar for NASA doing it because I need cosmic expansion, and religious does not help. But I don’t agree with humiliation, I think it does not work either. They are our brothers, we need find a kind of method for bringing them to our team, but, it needs be good for them also.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

XXX

EVOLUTION DOESN’T MAKE FOSSILS; FOSSILS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. STOP HIJACKING THE EVIDENCE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH FOR YOUR EVIL ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

That’s funny! You say that one real natural phenomena – the amount of collected fossils – are being used by evil evolutionism as evidence for evolution, and at the same time, you point out one real natural evidence that sometimes in that place in the past had some flood and uses it by yours evil religionism as evidence for your imaginary fairy tales. If you think this behavior is a sin, why you do it?!!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

XXX

This argument looks like it’s gonna go on forever….

VitalSubtlety 15 minutes ago

Not forever. The reliance on evidence for making decisions, for understanding what is true, for establishing one’s position with regard to everything else – is growing. Religions rely on non-evidence , are based on faith, and fail as means to find truth. With the internet, more people see this and abandon the old ways.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to VitalSubtlety (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

Congratulations! You wrote what is happening with the right words. I think that religion has been propagating inside churches/schools by that authoritarian strategy of one-direction-dialogue. Nobody in a mass can stop the priest for asking questions when don’t understand/don’t accept something. Now, with Internet, everybody can see  doctrine questions enunciated and has the courage for doing what has been afraid to do. God Bless the Internet…oh…I mean… PinkUnicorn bless the Internet…

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

XXX

Part 1 of 2

You can’t deny God from ignorance as you aren’t all knowing. What you don’t know is infinitely more than what you believe you know but is mostly wrong. Only a superior intelligence could and did create all that exists that humans didn’t and can’t reproduce in the world nor could or does mindless & lifeless chemical elements by chance. This leaves only God, a superior intelligence/being, as a reasonable and intellectually honest option.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 18 minutes

Please, tell me how and which method have you used when connecting the real and natural amount of proved data we have today and show me the final picture did you got? I did my own search for knowledge of those data, I choose a method (comparative anatomy between all known natural systems) for connecting all that data, I got a final picture, which is not suggesting any magic intervention of gods, from since before the origins of this Universe to nowadays. I am very curious to know your picture.

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

One cannot have knowledge/science of things presumed/imagined, which do not happen, and have hot happened and which cannot be reproduced. Pond scum to you evolution never happened or happens.

EVOLUTIONISM IS A LIE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE AND SCIENCE FICTION ATHEISTIC STYLE. IT HAS BECOME THE RELIGION OF THE ATHEISTIC SORT.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY DOESN’T SUBSTANTIATE YOUR IMAGINED NOTIONS THAT A BEAR BECAME A WHALE; A MONKEY BECAME A HUMAN, THAT BIRDS CAME FROM DINOSAURS. THIS IS INSANE & UNSCIENTIFIC.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes

You are right…lol! One cannot get the final Truth (if have one) based solely in all data we know today. Any methodical exercise of connecting the known data shows blank spaces where is missing data. But we need some guide, meanings that makes sense, then we do the connection and hypothesizes how should be that missing data and get a final picture. This is called “theory”. Sample? The Higgs bosom. It is a guide for next search, experiments. Still waiting your picture.

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

Comparative anatomy is the most ancient and authentic method for rational theories about the unknown. Opening the bodies of animals instead the body of humans was the method for inferring what was inside the human body, which substantiates ancient medicine. We don’t know the natural forces that drove abiogenesis, then, take the state of the world of that time, put the existent systems, atoms and galaxies, over the table, and do comparisons with the first cells systems. Get theories of forces.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds

YOU’RE SO STUPID AND CAN’T THINK FOR YOURSELF.

WHO SAW A BEAR BECOME A WHALE, OR DINOSAUR BECOME A BIRD, OR AN APELIKE CREATURE BECOME A HUMAN, OR CHEMICAL ELEMENTS IN WARM POOLS OR WATER SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE THE ALLEGED COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL AND THEN ITS TRANSMUTATION INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED? EVOLUTION FROM POND SCUM TO ALL THAT EVER LIVED WAS AND IS NEVER SEEN FOR REPEATED TESTING AS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES. THEREFORE, EVOLUTIONISM IS ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE/SCIENCE

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

You are right. The great transformations of, to say, reptiles into mammals, are not well explained solely by the three mechanisms of ToE: Variation, Selection, Inheritance. Then, what a rational mind should do? Go back re-observing everything. Put the galaxy over the table, put the reptile inside the galaxy, stands above the galaxy and think. One day, one year, or 30 years like I did, no matter, think. I got an answer: there are more four mechanisms added to those three. I got my mammal. Theory

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

Are you saying that I can’t think by myself and you can, then, I should accept like a ewe your conclusions? You are insulting my intelligence. Ne pas jamais. But I like to learn and changing real information. If you go straight to the data…

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

COMPARING ALL CARS AND THEIR ENGINES DOESN’T MEAN THAT THIS COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION CONFIRMS THAT CARS EVOLVED BY ACCIDENTAL COLLABORATION OF MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS. DID YOU WAIT FOR YOUR CAR AND HOME TO MAKE ITSELF?

WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL CRITICAL THINKING? WHY DO YOU LOVE THE LIE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM? WHAT SIN DO YOU LOVE OVER THE TRUTH OF GOD?

YOUR IDEA OF THEORIES IS ACTUALLY VILE FOOLISH HUMAN IMAGINATION.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Comparative anatomy does not work in this way, it works only applied over real natural wholes systems. But the comparison of cars, since the carriage pulled by horses to a BMW suggests evidences for a process of evolution and suggests the existence of an external agent driven this evolution. Since it is not a living thing, the evolution happens in the agent, not in the cars. If a future car gets artificial intelligence, it should evolve by itself. That’s what happens since origins of life.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

GOD DOESN’T LIE. MAN DOES. WHY ARE YOU LYING FOR EVIL EVOLUTIONISM?

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION OF LIFE FALSIFIES EVOLUTIONISM, AS DOES THE FOSSILIFEROUS SEDIMENTARY WITH BILLIONS OF DEAD FLORA & FAUNA AS GOD PLANNED TO DESTROY, AS DOES INFORMATION IN THE GENOME OF ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE AND THE DNA CODE THAT CAN ONLY COME FROM AN INTELLIGENT MIND, AS DOES ALL THE KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAWS THAT EVOLUTIONISM DEFIES.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes

You are right, accordingly with my theory, which does not agree with the idea of a meteorite causing it. Dinosaurs disappeared due same cause disappears all species that super-specializes as closed systems and closes the door to its own evolution. But is not falsifies evolutionism. Nature applied the old astronomical mechanism of entropy producing chaos for dinosaurs and went backwards, finding the small cyanodont for continuing evolution and getting a mammal. And then, new order arose.

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

There’re many idiotic stories for the extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are found in graveyards with many different animals together. This information is kept from the public because it falsifies the alleged order of evolution which the fossil record doesn’t help as with the Cambrian Explosion of life containing more than 100 phyla that suddenly appear without links to the bacteria, spores, algae in the adjacent layer, the Precambrian, just below the Cambrian. Evolutionism is a cosmic lie.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

Sorry, I have not studied completely the Cambrian explosion as you seems to be well informed. But I said that I am waiting your information about the method you been using and the final picture you got. You have found intervention of a God producing a flood at that time? Is it 60 millions years ago? My method has suggested that – if had no evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and after-Cambrian, there was intervention of solar flares due atomic reactions reaching internal new layers.

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

YOUR COMPARATIVE ANATOMY IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS MY CAR/ENGINE ANALOGY. STOP LYING. DID YOU READ ROMANS 1:18-32?

ALL THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS IN YOUR BODY AS IN THE CAR ARE NOT ALIVE I.E. HYDROGEN, OXYGEN, CALCIUM, NITROGEN, CARBON ETC. ARE NOT ALIVE AND CAN’T CONTRIVE ENGINES, CARS OR BIOLOGICAL LIFE.

THE “EVOLUTION OF THE CAR” IS YOUR DECEPTIVE USE OF THE WORD. IN THIS CASE IT’S THE PROGRESS IMPROVEMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE AND TECHNOLOGY BY HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, NOT WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

You are right, is the same analogy, and that’s why we arrived to same conclusion: there is an external agent doing it. The difference between us is about who is the external agent acting over biological evolution. You have seen a magical god I have seen a new cosmological model. The elements in our bodies are not alive, but they were connected by photons coming from sun light and cosmic radiation bringing on informations about a system that is half-mechanical/half-biologica­l. That’s a theory.

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

XXX

ANYONE THAT ACCEPTS EVOLUTIONISM IS A MORON.

NOBODY SAW MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS POPPING INTO EXISTENCE FROM THE ALLEGED BIG BANG OF NOTHING AT ALL, THAT THEN COLLABORATED TO CONTRIVE THE ALLEGED COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL WHICH THEN TRANSMUTED INTO EVERYTHING THAT EVER LIVED?

BILLY NYE THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GUY IS SUGGESTING THE OPPOSITE WHICH IS A PUT-DOWN AND AN INSULT TO BELIEVERS OF GOD.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Who are you in Internet calling me a “moron”? What evidence/proof have you found for bringing on the table and proving that?

Natural evolution was the rational conclusion of any healthy mind in my teenager times. There was no enough data about abiogenesis and Big Bang, so, any affirmative conclusion would be not rational, it were opened questions. About History, myths, the one of my nation has the first place, and there is no mention of interventions of supernatural beings. What do you want?!!

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

XXX

I did not say DNA cannot “divide or reproduce”. It cannot change into another (entity’s) DNA.

TrueVerdicts in reply to TheHigherVoltage (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

I think you are based on the information that scientists have trying to ad information into DNA and never got an improvement – an information that fits your world view. I read it 20 years ago, and I don’t know if still is valid. But, since you are advocating the idea that humans are special because you believe they have “soul”, I ask you: “why not a soul under evolution that can change DNA when the body is a hardware that does not works?” Have you thought in this possibility?

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

XXX

I agree. Though, dolphins are not intelligent, as they CANNOT engineer and innovate. I submit to all following this debate that only Humans are intelligent.

TrueVerdicts in reply to ExtantFrodo2 31 minutes ago

I think you need change the word “intelligent” in this debate and not using the words “engineer, innovation” for advocating an idea of human “soul”. Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, retaining, planning, and problem solving. People here understand it as it derives from the Latin verb intelligere which derives from inter-legere meaning to “pick out” or discern.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts 2:21 AM – Thu – 11

XXX

Thankyou but there is a God and he is the the one and only holy GOD and that is the only one you should believe in!

Chloe Woodward 14 minutes ago

If you feel happy with your belief, good for you. But, please, don’t tell it to my kids neither through their school because I want the mind of my kids free of private fantasies for better learning so many things about the nature of this world and be prepared for survival facing the ferocious competition. Fantasies are defined as private world views without public evidences.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Chloe Woodward 9:36 – PM – Wed – 10

XXX

One does not convert to atheism because atheism is nothing. It is a neutral stance on the claims about god. One just wakes up one day and says ” shit I’ve wasted my life on bullshit!!!”

allanhill1 1 minute ago

But…attacking the name “god” is wrong, I think. My life’s experience and little knowledge are suggesting that this mind inside each human head and probable in many other lifeforms are like bubbles of dense substance called “consciousness” floating in an infinite ocean of slight consciousness, like a photon floating in light waves. Particles of photons with high quantum of light can be wave, also. Each one can call this “ocean” by the name he/she wants. If “god”, no problem.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to allanhill1 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Life is so complex, that just a few proteins coming about by chance …even if the whole universe was an organic soup, is 10 with 40,000 zero’s after it to 1. Note that 10 with 50 zero’s after it, is a number greater than the atoms in the universe. So the chance is 0

iaml3642494 2 hours ago

An ovum is so simple and an embryo is so complex! Any hypothetical microscope being located inside an ovum, seeing only yolk, should say that the chance of something like genes coming about… even if that little universe was an organic soup, is 10 with 40.000 zero’s after it to 1. he should concludes the chance is 0.

But.. it happens. Nature has some forces in it that makes it happens. This microscope being that can’t see those forces would believe in magical gods or magical randomness. You?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to iaml3642494 – 8:47 PM – Wed – 10

Yes for a few proteins to randomly pop up in thin air is damn near impossible. That’s not what scientists think happened btw. please do some research on abiogenesis. and it’s not evolution anyway.

tsub0dai in reply to iaml3642494 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Yes, iaml3642494 appealing to magical gods for explaining what happened in that primordial soup is not rational. But, scientists appealing to chemical reactions for explaining it is not rational too. My post above to iaml3642494 appealing to observed process happening in Nature is more rational, but… then, the same observation reveals that the events in that soup are driven by instructions coming from external source. Those scientists are suffering from myopia.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

XXX

Oh, friend, I thank FATHER for you this day! I, too, come from hard knocks, I can thus praise HIM for it’s not of me that you are seeing such a “good life” & “living a rich life” but of HIM & HIS love by HIS grace & mercies that I can share my testimony today with you & others. There’s nothing too impossible for FATHER to correct, nothing too bad/monstrous HE can not heal with in your hurting heart, friend, I assure you. Place your trust in HIM & HE’ll make a way for you. Feel free to PM me, OK?

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

“Feel free to PM me, OK?”

No it should not be good for you. If you are happy with your faith and respect the space of my kids, good for you. I am not the kind that go to church because when the priest says the first phrase and I think it is wrong, I stop him or I go out. No talks one direction alone. Debates only are useful if starts with real facts on the table. For instance: why your God permitted that me and other 1 million Americans that worked hard all life loose our homes?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

We have been seeking beings like us through the cosmos for decades with no success, that’s because our kind is unique. It’s not just biological. And we are mistakenly looking for intelligence of a difference creed than us. We are likely to encounter our same creed first in the cosmos, and they won’t necessarily  be more intelligent than us, but they could be more or less ‘advanced’ than us. And when/if we do find our kind, rest assured, that they will resemble us from top to bottom.

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

Again you are only half-right. Seeds of “life” are produced and spreaded by galaxies in different time/space and they can germinate and grow if a convergence point is appropriate. That’s due the building blocks of galactic systems are half-alive and has the same configuration of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. Entropy attacking galaxies produces the transmission as in genetics and nanotechnology do the rest. But then is possible that we find a lifeform made-up of iron or plastic

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

XXX

There are diverse, transferable degrees of intelligence. Humans’ degree of intelligence was transferred, not evolved. In fact, biology CANNOT evolve; it is universally decreed impossible. Because all bodies within Time-Space, whether (inert or alive, including Humans) have a constant, identifiable structure, pre-determined mechanism, and purpose.

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

We don’t know yet. There is the new theory of Universe, called biocentrism. It makes sense also. Opposing Physics-centrism, if this Universe is the place where is occurring a process of genetic or computational reproduction of what was before the Big Bang, from Biology will come the Theory of Everything. All you said fits with evolution of a universal embryo: intelligence is transferred and evolves, all bodies has a Matrix/DNA structure, purpose, pre-determined mechanism, etc.

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

XXX

Science’s narrowed biology-alone approach to intelligence simply diminishes the magnitude of what we’re part of; thus, has conducted studies on the wrong platform. Which is why we remain largely incapable of conquering the cosmos. The degree of intelligence needed to be fully fluid within Time-Space is metaphysical, not just biological or physical. It MUST be metaphysical as the state of being of Time-Space, itself, is metaphysical; i.e.Time-Space simply be; this fact is biologically unexplained

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

You are only half right, but if your goal is conquering the cosmos, we are together. Mathematical theorems has indicated that matter alone could not jump to self-consciousness and neurology has not found how neurons are related to mind. It means that biology producing consciousness is largely theoretical. I said before how “metaphysical intelligence” seems merely natural ex-machine software. Time is measure of chains of events and space arises only if have two objects. They aren’t entities.

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

XXX

Another reason why intelligence does not reside in biology/genes is.. take robots/computers for example.. they can only showcase a mechanism. This is the plague that has stopped Artificial Intelligence dead on its track. AI will NEVER be self-innovative no matter the amount of physical intelligence inserted in a robotic entity; it can only showcase a limited, programed mechanism — even when it records new things on its own by means of repeated patterns, it cannot engineer and make things better

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

You don’t know the work of those two Physicists that earned the Nobel-2012. They got the isolation and observation of photons waves which is one step before quantum computation, which will be one step before artificial intelligence. If you add this discovery with what we had get in Matrix/DNA models, you will see the relation biology+intelligence+light. See our model: any wave of natural light seems the arm and hand of “the father’s source” that brings the code for imprinting life on matter.

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

XXX

INNOVATION is UNIQUELY what intelligence is! The reason that, thus far, only Humans, as a subject of Time-Space, can innovate (not the stars, nor gravity, nor dolphins, nor monkeys, etc), is because only Humans are direct progenies of gods. Only gods can innovate. Therefore you are a god, not just biological matter, not EVOLVED. Because biology CANNOT evolve. You were engineered/created with the same properties/intelligence of “that” which engineered you (As it says: “In his image”)! Read below.

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

Human intelligence produces real innovation only when observing Nature, discovering its mechanisms/process and mimicking them. But you are right: only who has consciousness which are direct progenies of that “generator of universes” ( some fish, apes, already has flashes of it) can do it. But since you are mirroring in humans for inferring what is our “father” why you forget that we are not magicians, only natural? For avoiding rational evidence that the ex-machine “father” is too natural?

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

XXX

Biology can exist without intelligence (as all physical entities, including matter, are biological); and intelligence can exist without biology in a metaphysical form. However, biology cannot exist in a metaphysical form – which is where science remains stuck until it changes course.

Humans have inherited and can tap into the metaphysical source: innovation, dreaming, imagining, weeping, meditation, etc. Other forms of biologies, that we know of, cannot. [some say ‘spiritual’ for “metaphysical”]

TrueVerdicts 54 minutes ago

What you call “metaphysical intelligence” we call “universal software”, and biology is the hardware. We get the software when extracting out the energetic circuit of any natural system, included human brain and DNA. We have tracked backwards the evolution of this software and seen its origins at the Big Bang (quantum vortex and fluctuations of light waves). Only humans have dreams, consciousnesses, etc, because this software was sleeping in atoms, dreaming in galaxies and is waking up in humans

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

1) You are wrong, and you know it. Because you would have to explain the origin of the Big Bang. Secondly, if you’ve “extracted” it, you ought to be able to integrate it into other physical/biological entities. You folks should start with AI for instance, why not? Not gonna happen!

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Nope. And I can explain the origin of the Big Bang. Reason suggests that when you feels that there is a natural phenomena but you can not see it, collect its effects and search in nature the same manifestations. The phenomena producing these manifestations that you can see is the best source for a theory about what you can’t see. There is another “Big Bang” initializing a natural system and producing expansion, etc: the fecundation starting your own body. Nature does not play dice with us.

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

2) Had Humans been solely biological, we would’ve digressed to the level of intelligence of the other biological species; or, it would be natural that other biological species progress/evolve to the level of intelligence of Humans. Biology, being found throughout Earth, could not have singled out just Humans be to intelligent, leaving behind all other species.

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

My post agree with you that humans are not solely material biology, as only hardware, I told about the software. The cause that among all primates and other biological species only ancestors of humans got a brain that could wake up this universal living software was that only they went to leave in a cave, feeding the younger and older, which was the root of the human family, where arose feelings and emotions, the impulse for this awakening. If any ape give food to his father, he can get it too.

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

XXX

if your god is the father then who was the mother? You should have symmetry in your anthropomorphism in order for your mythology to make some sense..

Mike Johns in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Well…glup…in certain meaning, the last universal common ancestor was the father of all living beings, and he was hermaphrodite… Oh…no…is God gay?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Mike Johns 2 hours ago

Noah is our common ancestor, and having 3 sons doesn’t make him a hermaphrodite. As for FATHER being gay, I do think HE is a very happy and joyful CREATOR after all look at all HE’s created … such beauty through all that our senses marvel in! What an awesome CREATOR we serve! Hallelujah, FATHER! Amen! Won’t you please learn of HIM & that of HIS love? HE truly is wonderful. HE loves you & us all so very much. Peace & HIS abundantly blessings to you, friend. <(^8

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Este post abaixo devia ir para TrueVerdicts e errei:

Sorry, it is not possible an intelligent conversation between us. It seems that you had a good life with lots of money and living in a rich place for explaining why you have seen only the half part of this world, the beautiful one, which could explain the way your brain was hard-wired and your faith in a intelligent designer. Unfortunately I have seen the other half, the bad and monstrous design, which had effects in my hard-wiring and explains why I can’t believe in gods watching this here.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 1 second ago

Every living thing through out the universe exists to evolve on some level, however, with out GOD, creationism & evolution would cease to exist. Therefore the human race who the FATHER of the Universe created, along with all seen & unseen things, need to teach our offspring about HIM & all that HE’s created especially of HIS mercy, forgiveness, grace, & unconditional love. I can only hope HE draws you, & us all, closer to HIM. May YESHUA/JESUS bless & fortify you, & us all, everyone. Peace. <(^8

netta2158 25 minutes ago

You are right, accordingly to last results of Matrix/DNA evolutionary cosmology, “theory”. Human race have as father who created the Universe. The problem is who created the Universe. Physics suggests it was a small atom. This theory suggests that this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a process of genetic or computational reproduction of who was existing before the Big Bang. But, parents outside the womb/egg does not go there creating shapes of fetus, embryos, etc. All Nature.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Yes, of course it’s nature … GOD, our FATHER in Heaven, created the very essence of nature and that of its’ components and cosmos. With out HIM there would be nothing, and nothing from nothing equals nothing … no womb, no egg, nor creation, no “big bang theory” and no “us” to debate HIS existence. I thank GOD the FATHER for HIS mercy, patience, forgiveness, grace, and love for we are a stubborn and rebellious creation. JESUS bless you, friend. Peace. <(^8

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

XXX

1) Ask yourself, if the essence of Earth was to harbor Humans, as we so arrogantly think, then why is it that Earth must have been in existence some 4 billion years prior to Humans insignificant few thousand lousy years on it. We can all agree that humans is the best thing to happen to Earth; then why must Earth have existed such length prior to the main Event?? That’s because, the Earth is, assuredly, NOT billions of years old; and science as a whole is in error.

TrueVerdicts 3 minutes ago

Nope. The shape of humans are result from evolution coming since abiogenesis, and abiogenesis took some billion years which is natural when a shape is coming from systems belonging to cosmological evolution. Think abiogenesis as process of macro-universal embryogenesis which takes billions years. Why should humans to be the best thing to happen to Earth?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts4:36 AM – Wed – 10

Your science has gotten you so lost. Nothing, absolutely nothing, lasts such length within Time-Space. You cannot even truly begin to wrap your mind around ONE million years of past events, much less billions of years. Your science is tedious, very suppository and speculative. Yes, Humans, are the best thing to happen to Earth.

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 22 minutes ago

Nature is tedious for a microscopic observer but it runs fast for an universal observer. Look to Solar System just now, it seems eternal, never changing, the moon always around Earth, the Sun always there… What then if observing the galaxy, 10 billion years, same shape? This vision impregnates us with tedious… but only those that think microscopically. Stars dies, becomes dust and resuscitates from its own gray, everything is moving. Abiogenesis is for universal observers understanding.

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

XXX

Não Publicado

There is a method for training a person to evolves from a microscopic observer to an universal observer and you can learn it. But then, you need understanding universal macro evolution (13,7 billions years) and not only biological evolution (3,5 billion). And you need learn that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix that began as simplest quantum vortexes emitting light at the Big Bang, has organized matter into atoms, galaxies and now is living inside cells systems.

XXX


louie says – ToE alone will not keep free thought.

Religious brainwashing is the antithesis of free thought…

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

You should say “creationism brainwashing is the antithesis of free thought”. Because there are religions more like philosophies different than creationism, which believes in ex-machine consciousness not interfering with human existence. But, the surprising and aggressive reaction of atheists (denialism of some form of superior consciousness) against a religion suggests that atheism is the other side of a coin, and if so, it seems also the antithesis of free thought. Why not ID also?

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

So let’s hear your argument for ID

tsub0dai in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

I think nobody will accept my deep reasons for ID not in science classroom but in philosophical studies. Because for understanding my arguments, one needs leave out this planet, going above the galaxy, and from there, observe biological evolution here. I don’t know nobody did it besides myself. Doing it, ToE is revealed as a very poor theory that needs be improved. Then forget this argument and keep only the following: ID has been a tool for evolutionists rethinking evolution, improving it.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Why not admit that God is the slow force behind evolutionary processes and cut out the middle man?

unclethermo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

Why not admit that God is the slow force behind evolutionary processes and cut out the middle man?

unclethermo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

I think that if one accepts evolutionary process by evidences seen in biological evolution, can not relates it with the idea of magic and omnipresent gods. Rationally, the two ideas are self-exclusive. But, universal evolution leaves an open door to the possibility that this evolution we are observing could be merely steps of an ex-machine process of reproduction (till of consciousness) like a virus inside an egg see evolution of an embryo. We are microscope beings in relation to the universe.

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

XXX

single cell organism’s from chemical reactions, research the theories instead of asking people on youtube…

kegstar4mma in reply to DarkHoundNero (Show the comment) 9 minutes ago

Certainly he knows the theory about “single cell organism’s from chemical reactions”from high school. If he is asking how life began is because he does not accept this theory. Why hydrogen cyanide separated from the Prussian blue and linked to ammonia for resulting in adenine if it never happens and any other situation? The theory suggests it was due pure chance, which is a hypothesis not falsiable. He is in his right.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to kegstar4mma (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Alma 14:124 “Yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name.”

One of my favorites. Makes me feel happy. :)

bigjoegamer09 10 minutes ago

So you will educate your kids saying to them they are sinner and needs repent? Ok, we must respect the way you want to educate yours children, but, please, never tell this thing to my kids and does not force it into schools, because I am sure this is very prejudicial to the self-esteem of my kids.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to bigjoegamer09 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

ok, well, answer this qustion, if we came from life, and they say we came after the big bang theory, how did life start?

from whatever beginning of time they claim the big bang happened

how does life come from nothing?

if the first organism was brouht into existence and started repopulating

how could it be alive?

life just doesnt start from nothing, it had to be given it

DarkHoundNero in reply to parsivalshorse 2 minutes ago

When we have no enough data for provide an answer about any natural phenomena the logic is searching in Nature parameters, patterns. Because nature has its laws for doing natural things, and maybe there are patterns from where we can learn those laws. So, a good parameter for yours questions: Nature did your own body starting by an “explosion” ( abrupt opening of spermatozoon membrane), your life came from yours parents existing before that explosion. And they are “natural”. Any question?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to DarkHoundNero1:55 AM – Wed – 10

XXX

And today we have separated the two fields of study into clearly defined “abiogenesis” and “evolution.” There is even an informal and outdated “law” in the study of evolution called “biogenesis” in which it is given that life is only formed from other life.

As you have been informed twice now that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate fields of study, you will begin to be a liar yourself should you choose to repeat the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are the same field of study.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Lol… thanks! That’s why I am following this debate: every minute you learn something new. The difference between abiogenesis, biogenesis and evolution, very well explained.

There is a tentative for searching how those ancestors non-living systems could produce – directly and evolutionary – the first living cell system. The Matrix/DNA Theory found a theoretical solution: a model of the building block of ancient galaxies that’s half-mechanical/half-biologica­l. Maybe ToE will be cosmological.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to arthurjeremypearson (Show the comment) –  1:36 AM – Wed- 10

XXX

indicating outward velocity as if, say, from an explosion.

we beleive that god is eternal and there for exists outside of time

its an explanation and realy better than nothing

why answers are better than nothing

boldburrito, you believe in the Bible’s god,  and I must respect the freedom of beliefs.  But why are  you here? I have collected your writtens: “every scientist now agrees that time started at somewhere”, “what made the big bang how did something come from nothing?”, “we believe that god is eternal and there for exists outside of time”, ” its an explanation and really better than nothing”, “why answers are better than nothing”.  All of this is debatable. Are you trying to extrapolate it to public education?

XXX

YOUR COMMENT IS THE NON SEQUITUR FALLACY. ATHEISTS DID NOT INVENT GRAVITY, GEOMETRY, OR ANY OTHER FIELD OF STUDY. ANYONE CAN STUDY GOD’S CREATION TO REALIZE GOD USED SYMMETRY, PROPORTION, PURPOSEFUL DESIGN ETC. WHEN HUMANS DISCOVER THE THINGS GOD MADE AND GET SOME SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING IT NO MORE SUPPORTS THE RIDICULOUS NOTION OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM THAN ONE STUDYING THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WOULD. MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS DON’T AND CAN’T CONTRIVE LIFE OR ENGINES.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

“ANYONE CAN STUDY GOD’S CREATION TO REALIZE GOD USED SYMMETRY”

So, symmetry is used by creationists as argument for magical creation? Sorry, it is not. Symmetry is result of a natural force that had been always present when Nature developed a new specie of systems. So, this force has been a systemic function and its mathematical number is phi, considered the golden ratio. Go to see the Matrix/DNA formula for systems, you will see there is no magical action for producing symmetry.

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

YOU’RE A ROYAL BUFFOON. YOU JUST TOLD A FANCIFUL STORY. HAVE YOU SEEN NATURAL FORCES I.E. WIND, RAIN, THUNDER & LIGHTENING MAKE LIFE? MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS CAN’T AND DON’T CONTRIVE LIFE OR CARS, BOATS, HOMES ETC.

DID YOU WAIT FOR NATURAL FORCES TO MAKE YOU A COMPUTER?

WHY DO YOU TALK ABOUT AND SAY THINGS THAT ARE IDIOTIC WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING?

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

But you have not search the Matrix/DNA formula as I suggested for you learn how I based my arguments about where bi-lateral symmetry seen here is coming from. You have jumped to the conclusion that mine is “a fanciful history”, without knowing the foundations of that argument. This is the way you are dealing with origins of life, universe. etc.? Jumping to conclusions without searching the data collected by Science and/or empiricism? Sorry, in this way is not possible an educated debate.

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

A computer is not a living creature…Completely wrong comparison..

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

By the way, computer are made by humans, and if humans are not a natural force, I don’t know what else they are…

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

And he says: “ALL THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR BODY AREN’T ALIVE LIKE THOSE IN A COMPUTER” . Is he suggesting something like the vital force as suggested by Pasteur – but is he suggesting this vital force coming from a magical god? If so, he does not know the strong evidence that the “vital force” was existing before life’s origins, animating the ancestors systems and there are strong evidences that it is encoded in a single wave of natural light. Ah..ah…now you are saying: this guy is also crazy!

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

XXX

what makes you atheist so sure that there is no God. science says nothing on the subject.

itsoriginalme 3 days ago

That’s right. Science doesn’t prove a thing. It only disproves.

Disproves stuff like talking snakes and “stopping the sun in the sky” and a worldwide flood.

Science is a knife that cuts away falsehoods, leaving something that’s the closest we can get to the truth.

God, spirits, and the supernatural might exist, but science says nothing about them. It all comes down to if you accept unfounded claims of magic, or not.

And if you do accept magic, I got a bridge I want to sell you.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to itsoriginalme 48 minutes ago

They are not unfounded claims most are founded on personal evidence granted that it is not testable but, it does not mean the claims are not valid. It just seems unlikely. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory even though there are some who believe in it literal interpretation. Mass Christianity however recognizes that the story is an allegory

itsoriginalme in reply to arthurjeremypearson 1 minute ago

If it is allegory, must have a real event/fact that support the message in that allegory. What’s the real event/fact related to the narrative about Adam and Eve?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to itsoriginalme 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

It is a story of how original sin came in to play and mankind gain free will independently of God. There also moral to the story that making something forbidden only makes people want all the more.

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 46 seconds ago

No, it is not “a story of how original sin came in to play”. The discipline of History in school there is anything related with this story. If you have discovered some real event/fact that in the past there was a ordered/perfect world, there was human beings or other lifeforms, these beings did something wrong and had a fall …. you need send it for peer-review. I elaborated a testable theory of a real event/fact for that allegory, it seems related to real event, do you want know it?

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

i’m listening

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Ok. There was a real world as described allegorically. In this world were living our ancestors, they did a “sin”, and they felt towards planets and they drove abiogenesis, still driving our evolution. This world is rational, scientifically testable, and I have its pictured model. It is the result of a method: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. Since Science has not got all data about that space/time, still is a naturalistic philosophical theory. Do want know more?

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

XXXX

You see I’m going to have to disagree with Bill’s biased opinions, I think that all children should know things so that they can make there own informed decisions about life rather than being forced into one thing or another. They choose religion one must accept that, if one follows science then so be it.

MrDevin712

You are right accordingly with my personal viewpoint, which must be no totally right accordingly to the final Truth. This debate is between two extreme opposite world views – theists and atheists – and your suggestion means you are in the middle, like me. The question of this video is too much important, it is about the chose of the destiny of human kind. We in the middle need our voice be heard also, but all that came here suddenly disappears. We need here a list for subscribers. Or not?

Austriak1 in reply to MrDevin712 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

XXX

@DarwinsFriend Yes, let’s everyone rebel and become kings. There would be no inhabitants in our own personal kingdoms though since everyone one is king of their own inhabitantless kingdom as well. We will turn the universe into a hell. Or did you think you would deny one single individual the rebellion you enjoy? Party on, alone.

John Brown 21 minutes ago

Wrong. We, evolutionists don’t want to be kings. We want to rebel against any gods as described on the Bible, against humans’ gangs that gets money and power based on the rules of predators/prey observed in this chaotic and salvage biosphere, we want the universal human family as dreamed by a man, Jesus Christ. Everybody is our brooder with equal rights and obligations, every mother is our mother, every child is our child… This is the great cause of Humanity, going to its own transcendence.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago – 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

All this without authority right?

John Brown in reply to Austriak1 51 minutes ago

I don’t want be authority, I don’t want followers, employees, nobody below me, I want partners. If someone or a group want different, think different, no problem, keep their space and respect our space. Any social system that needs nucleus and periphery, predator and prey, any kind of authority, is based in the formula of closed systems, or dispersion opened system, which is a non-complete and related to past times of evolution shape of the ideal natural universal formula. Yes, no authority.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 19 minutes ago

@Louis Charles Morelli Sounds ideal but what do we do with those who refuse to play along? They say they don’t want partnership but war. What do we do and by who’s authority?

John Brown 3 minutes ago

Of course, first of all we need a cohesive group. Second we need to choose: let’s stay here among them or chose a separated place for living? Third: we need work hard for to be prepared for our self-defense. Fourth: while developing ourselves – materially and intellectually – we begins to ignore them – no business with them. And so on… While we don’t do nothing about this “dream” we need participate in this kinds of debate for not permitting any group getting the power. Snakes swelling snakes.

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

@Louis Charles Morelli So unresolved disagreement means separation, like in a marriage. How long, unless disagreements cease, before we’re all separated? And, a military without a chain of command? Also, it’s death for those who don’t want partnership? Guess they weren’t free to rebel.

John Brown 4 minutes ago

Needs separation because the two groups, certainly, if one gets power, will make life here insupportable and self-destroyed. Atheism would leads to a kind of “Brave new World”ruled by a Big Brother, cutting our dreams about “to be something else more than apes” which is a mind-stopper. Theism would permit that the normal evolution of Nature with its normal changes caught us non prepared by Science, because they lives based in the “supernatural”. We need evolving but keeping our mind free.

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

We will be separated – living at the same or different places – only temporary. We will joining together because we will develop the right Science and the right technology, we will have better society while they will be in trouble.Today technology is not for humans welfare because technology arises every time we discover new natural process/mechanism and Science is selecting some data and discriminating others due be driven by profit. They are our brothers in species, we will save them.

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

@Louis Charles Morelli I’m having a hard time understanding you, are you translating from another language? Anyway, I don’t completely disagree with your utopian idea but you haven’t given me any realistic method to accomplish it. How will men ‘get along’?

John Brown 4 minutes ago

Sorry, English is not my native language, I am still learning. I think you have not read my two last posts to you. I think there is a possibility for human kind solving these actual problems that are leading us to out of control. A new big discovery about real Nature, about the meaning of our existence. This discovery would be the right drive towards a new worldview with new moral, where each human being will be part of solution. There is a scientific method that can leads us to this discovery:

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

@Louis Charles Morelli Oashpe? Scientology? Too naive and vague for today’s problems. So enlightening it’s blind.

John Brown 17 seconds ago

Nope, I don’t approve Oashpe and scientology. The worldview that I think is more rational and explains better our existence is TheMatrix/DNA Theory, but I don’t believe in it also. I need a world view now for driven my behavior but I cant believe in anything created by this little human brain when I remember the size and age of this Universe. I am still searching…

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

@Louis Charles Morelli I take that to mean that humankind doesn’t have the answer right now and I agree. Salvation won’t come from the mind of men and science. It came from above this world and Christians like me are saying “comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ) and take hold while you have the chance to choose life”.

John Brown 1 minute ago

Sorry, I can’t agree with this organized religion called “Christianism” because the real world I have seen in my life’s experience is suggesting to me that this religion is wrong. Christians are not real Christians I think and Jesus Christ said lots of wrong things and I don’t believe he was a son of God’s Bible.But Jesus said the most beautiful and lovely phrase: The universal sacred family is not this nuclear family but one where all brothers are my brothers, etc. Science is the unique hope.

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

@Louis Charles Morelli I take that to mean that humankind doesn’t have the answer right now and I agree. Salvation won’t come from the mind of men and science. It came from above this world and Christians like me are saying “comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ) and take hold while you have the chance to choose life”.

John Brown 1 minute ago

I have post a comment answering this one. But let’s take this good example you said:”comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ)”. Yes, since light seems to be a universal constant, it should be the treasure keeping the secrets of universe and human existence. Comprehend what is light and finding all existent sources of light is the supreme goal. But you stop doing it when you think you know the mystery: you said “Christ”. Meanwhile my research of light is suggesting it has the code for life.

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

Mark 3:35 “For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother .” We don’t get to decide which parts of God’s word works us while we reject the rest. It’s either all valid and important or none of it is . You wouldn’t have it any other way would you ?

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

God never said direct to me or to my parents or to my grandparents, to nobody that I know, what is his will. Why not? I am not a son of God equal others human beings? Why he talks with one son and not with other? My understanding about good fathers is that they does not discriminates their sons. So, it is most probable that my brother who said that god talked to him is lying. What will work for us, for our next generations? I have my opinion based in my life’s experience, anything else.

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

@Louis Charles Morelli Searching? There is nothing else but Jesus.

John Brown 3 minutes ago

So Jesus is a searching-stopper. Who accepted Jesus and follow Jesus has arrived to the ultimate Truth. Does not need searching anymore. It means this being arrives to the ultimate shape and from now it will be eternal. I would not support eternity in this weak and stupid shape of human species. I know, you will say that the eternal is not human shape, but, the soul(spirit) shape. It is not rational to believe that we have soul and humans can ending the evolution of souls. No evidences.

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

So you don’t believe because you don’t understand or accept His actions in a matter? Are you your father’s judge or authority?

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

I never will accept that a father talks to one son and not with other. If my father do that, I go out of that house and never will see him again. It means he does not love me. That’s was my position when I began concluding that the Bible (the book of the Christian community where I grew up) is merely fiction. Then, I did my own search about the meaning of universe’s and human existence. Today I keep the possibility of having a superior kind of consciousness and why it does not talks to humans.

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

The bible indicates that people will reject the truth in favor of appealing doctrines of malevolent beings. I can’t stress how important it is to be careful and pray for guidance. Your eternal destiny depends on it. Please.

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

A book does not indicates anything, the author does. The intention of this author is clear: he was advocating a doctrine, he want more people following the doctrine and is trying to keep the people that is already indoctrinated. He believes in that doctrine? Maybe yes but certainly nod guided by Reason. He is guided by natural instinct of survival and selfishness which approves privileged status for him, approves authority of ones over others, and avoids his obligation for doing the hard work..

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

My will ?! First of all, since I was born I never had an opportunity to apply my will. I was born in the wrong place, in the wrong time, and earned a body that seems merely an ape, less able to survive. The most bad design. And a human civilization that mimics the rules of the jungle, shared into predators and preys.That is why I choose early not reproduce me, I made myself the job of evolution, discarding what must be discarded.

Course I will select what I think operates better as you does.

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

I lean completely on the bible . You rely on your own wisdom which is limited by it’s comparative lack of knowledge.

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

No, you not lean in the Bible, you lean on what the authors of a book wrote. Who were those authors? 3.000 years ago? Yes, of course, I prefer lean on my poor and faulting knowledge than on the thousands minor knowledge of that authors. That’s why I am still searching knowledge, but the unique source for knowledge I believe is Mother Nature. I don’t approve the fact that Jesus worked as a searching-stopper for you, because you will not helping me to fix what I think is wrong.

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

Adendos Começam Aqui:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Excelente Esclarecimento da Diferença Entre Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, e Evolução:

And today we have separated the two fields of study into clearly defined “abiogenesis” and “evolution.” There is even an informal and outdated “law” in the study of evolution called “biogenesis” in which it is given that life is only formed from other life.

As you have been informed twice now that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate fields of study, you will begin to be a liar yourself should you choose to repeat the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are the same field of study.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Against Creationism/ID

What’s malevolent, evil, & vile about the biblical god? Where shall I start? Maybe drowning a planet, sending fire bombs on a couple of cities, murdering the firstborn of Egypt for his own glorification, considering burning his chosen people & needing a mere man (Moses) to set him straight, sending his son down to be murdered so that he could forgive people their transgressions instead of just forgiving them. God is a total douche bag who despite his omniscience couldn’t teach a dog to bark.

ExtantFrodo2 14 seconds ago

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” Ephesians 6:5

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.” 1 Timothy 6:1

So much for that.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SÔBRE EDUCAÇÃO DAS CRIANÇAS, NAS ESCOLA E FAMILIAS

Public school teachers and administrators shouldn’t allow creationism, which is a religious ideology, to be presented in classes or other officially sponsored school activities (assemblies, field trips, etc.). Unfortunately, we can’t always trust school administrators to do the right thing. Whether through ignorance or malice, creationism slips in and complaints from parents come too late.

IDisnotscience 21 minutes ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Informações Valiosas

Ohno stated, “The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?”1 Due to his evolutionary presupposition, he assumed that non-coding DNA was merely a “genetic fossil” that may have been useful somewhere in our evolutionary past but had been discarded as we evolved into more complex, higher organisms. Since this “junk” DNA was no longer needed,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra Evolução/Ciência

Hmmmm, science is the gathering of evidence and basing conclusions on that evidence. So technically evolution can’t be at the core of science because it would bend the scientists thoughts on a subject towards it. And that’s bad science. Just a thought.

Origens dos Nucleotideos e pista para “Mutações Dirigidas Pela Matrix/DNA”

domingo, outubro 7th, 2012

Baseado no video:

3 — 淺談生命的起源 (The origins of life made easy)

The origins of life made easy

Deparo-me aqui com uma importante descoberta. Veja a formula de adenine:

adenine

adenine

Fixe a vista na dupla ponte que é link entre os dois grupos, feita de C. Agora repare como a face esquerda se copiou igual na face direita. São exatamente duas v6ezes a formula da Matrix, superpostas. Mas repare que durante a cópia houve uma mutação. Se na face esquerda havia apenas uma sequencia N>HC>N and um link saindo de N para um H1, na segunda face foi copiada a mesma sequencia N>CH>N mas apareceu mais um C, lá em cima, o qual se apossou do link para H porem foi acrescentado mais im H e mais um N. Isto pode ser interpretado como êrro de cópia ou leitura, as quais produzem as mutações. Mas pode ser que não seja um êrro acidental, pode ser que o processo estava sendo dirigido pela Matrix. Isto tenho que pesquisar, na sequencia da evolução, a que propósito ou final resultado se destinava esta mutação.  Mas por enquanto voi estudar o fato visto no video a pergunta: De onde vieram os nucleotideos? onde hidrogen cyanide ( HCN) mais amonia (NH3) expelidos por vulcões formaram a adenina.

Minha questão postada no debate do Bill Nye: Certainly he knows the theory about “single cell organism’s from chemical reactions” from high school. If he is asking how life began is because he does not accept this theory. Why hydrogen cyanide separated from the Prussian blue and linked to ammonia for resulting in adenine if it never happens and any other situation? The theory suggests it was due pure chance, which is a hypothesis not falsiable. He is in his right.

Hydrogen cyanide (with the alternate archaic name of prussic acid) is an inorganic compound[6] with chemical formula HCN. It is a colorless, extremely poisonous liquid that boils slightly above room temperature at 26 °C (79 °F). Hydrogen cyanide is a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen. A minor tautomer of HCN is HNC, hydrogen isocyanide.

History of discovery

Hydrogen cyanide was first isolated from a blue pigment (Prussian blue) which had been known from 1704 but whose structure was unknown. It is now known to be a coordination polymer with a complex structure and an empirical formula of hydrated ferric ferrocyanide. In 1752, the French chemist Pierre Macquer made the important step of showing that Prussian blue could be converted to iron oxide plus a volatile component and that these could be used to reconstitute it. The new component was what we now know as hydrogen cyanide. Following Macquer’s lead, it was first isolated from Prussian blue in pure form and characterized about 1783 by the Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele, and was eventually given the German name Blausäure (lit. “Blue acid”) because of its acidic nature in water and its derivation from Prussian blue. In English it became known popularly as Prussic acid.

In 1787 the French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet showed that Prussic acid did not contain oxygen, an important contribution to acid theory, which had hitherto postulated that acids must contain oxygen[8] (hence the name of oxygen itself, which is derived from Greek elements that mean “acid-former” and are likewisecalqued into German as Sauerstoff). In 1815 Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac deduced Prussic acid’s chemical formula. The radical cyanide in hydrogen cyanide was given its name from the Greek word for blue, again owing to its derivation from Prussian blue.

Notar o  HCN como um H retirado de Fe ( o traço-ponte) e que HCN é o componente volatil, gasoso.

Cometas: Com Nucleos Elétricamente Carregados? Confirmando os Modêlos da Matrix/DNA?

quinta-feira, outubro 4th, 2012

Ví isto rapidamente e copio aqui para posterior investigação. Será verdade?

http://endgametime.wordpress.com/about/

UPDATE JUNE 25, 2011

THE DATES ARE NOW KNOWN.

Nasa’s facts are wrong.  Here are the facts that Nasa doesn’t want you to know.  COMET ELENIN is an extinction level event coming out of constellation LEO.   Discovered by Leo Elenin?

Elenin is a very dangerous comet because it is a long period comet whose tail the Earth will pass through. Comets are not balls of ice and dust like Nasa states, but are charred metal electrical super-capacitors that recharge a star. Nasa will not release this information because there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except panic.

Comets are electromagnetically connected to the sun and planets by EM ropes (JPL, 2005). Extreme EM can cause earthquakes. This is what HAARP research is based upon. EM energy lubricates fault lines. The reason Elenin is causing quakes when others comets do not is because Elenin has been in deep space a long time gathering electrons to energize the sun by discharging its capacitance.

Comets pick up electrons as they fly through space. The more massive the comet nucleus and the longer in space without discharging, the more electricity is stored in the comet. When the comet approaches the sun, it begins to glow because the electric circuit is energized by the sun’s proton wind. When we see a comet suddenly brighten, this is because the comet is discharging electricity to the sun through EM ropes which produces an extraordinary burst in brightness. The sun provides the positive charge and the stored electrons surrounding the comet provide the negative charge to complete and electric circuit and fire up the photon tail. The metal comet nucleus behaves similar to the filament on a lightbulb when positive and negative wires are attached. The bulb glows. The brightness is proportional to current flow.

Comets do the same thing. They start off far away with just the solar wind causing a faint glow until the comet gets close enough to the sun for the comet to discharge its stored capacitance to the sun. The infrared signature for comet Elenin suggests the charge Elenin is carrying is so large that when the comet dumps its capacitance, the resulting photon eruption (comet tail) will engulf the Earth as the Earth passes through the tail around September 26th and then through the EM ropes on November 22nd.

When Elenin was 14 AUs away on June 14, 2007, Nasa photographed the comet when they took the infrared image for google sky. The infrared image indicates Elenin’s infrared electrical signature is 17 million miles across with xray jets extending over 100 million miles from Elenin. When Elenin flares and dumps its electron load (electricity), the photon flash will be so great that it will instantly turn the earth’s surface into light energy.

The reasons other comets do not present the same threat is that most comets do not pass between the earth and the sun putting the earth in the tail. Also, comets with periods of a hundred years or so are able to dump their charge more frequently which keeps the IR signature low.

Elenin is different. There is no other object is space that humans have identified that has an electric signature in infrared like Elenin. God is light and He is coming for you. See you all on the other side.

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (4)

segunda-feira, outubro 1st, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a quarta parte dêste artigo, vide as três anteriores, numeros 3, 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08). Neus posts estão em dois nomes: TheMatrixDNA e Austriak1

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA: (perdidos posts de 04, thu, devido PC cleaner)

XXX

You see I’m going to have to disagree with Bill’s biased opinions, I think that all children should know things so that they can make there own informed decisions about life rather than being forced into one thing or another. They choose religion one must accept that, if one follows science then so be it.

You are right accordingly with my personal viewpoint, which must be no totally right accordingly to the final Truth. This debate is between two extreme opposite world views – theists and atheists – and your suggestion means you are in the middle, like me. The question of this video is too much important, it is about the chose of the destiny of human kind. We in the middle need our voice be heard also, but all that came here suddenly disappears. We need here a list for subscribers. Or not?

XXX

@DarwinsFriend Yes, let’s everyone rebel and become kings. There would be no inhabitants in our own personal kingdoms though since everyone one is king of their own inhabitantless kingdom as well. We will turn the universe into a hell. Or did you think you would deny one single individual the rebellion you enjoy? Party on, alone.

Wrong. We, evolutionists don’t want to be kings. We want to rebel against any gods as described on the Bible, against humans’ gangs that gets money and power based on the rules of predators/prey observed in this chaotic and salvage biosphere, we want the universal human family as dreamed by a man, Jesus Christ. Everybody is our brooder with equal rights and obligations, every mother is our mother, every child is our child… This is the great cause of Humanity, going to its own transcendence.

XXX

Someone give me proof that creation is wrong WITHOUT using evolutionary theories

That’s easy. The mental transformations of any individual human being due the process of life’s cycle is projected as mental transformation of the whole specie and vice-versa. While a baby yet the individual impregnates objects with fantasies because has no notion of the real world. This Universe has a natural system growing under a process of life’s cycle. Atom, galaxy, cell system are shapes as blastula, fetus, embryo. Mind is new shape that was born a minute ago, believe in Santa Claus.

That doesn’t work.

The pertubations emanating from the transcendental dimesionless void fluctuate a priori via the superposition quantum entangled mass density, with an impulse inversely proportional to the time flux patternized through electrostatic equilibrium.

And finally that impulse takes several units of DNA for to make a unique being appropriately called “DNAunion”. Which is funny because spreads only love because is our brother in the mithy, tiny. lovely lord PinkUnicorn. Thanks, bro…

XXX

Consider this. God created a perfect world, man sinned so he had to destroy what he made but not completely because there was a righteous man alive and he saved the animals. The flood completely altered the state of the world and the ongoing natural disasters are actually considered a sign of the 2nd coming of Christ as they get closer and closer together. These are my beliefs. I’m not stating them as fact because I know people wouldn’t like that.

Hummm… let’s see the logic here. Suppose you are a rich man, owner of a beautiful farm and have 20 sons. Suddenly yours 19 sons make something wrong that causes perturbation in the farm’s harmony. You kill your 19 son, keep one, destroy the farm and begins building the farm again. Please… this is the most stupid history I have seen. First, if you are a father able to kill yours sons – be their fault what could be – you are a monster. Destroying the whole for reassuring harmony?!

Read Genesis?

Yes. But I also went in Amazon jungle searching the origins of anything, included how salvages creates their mythologies. Under their beverages they described same thing that Orientals said 7.000 years ago and called chakras, etc. I draw the description: is the same description of the shape of DNA. Then I went further about origins of biological systems and got a model of the shape of the world in that time: it is the same described in Genesis. Is the voice of our memory, not the voice of gods.

When I said state I meant that it changed how the ground lays, formed mountains and such-like altering the seasons. Besides, wouldn’t anything made by the same being have a similar pattern?

It seems that Noah’s event is a repetition of Adams event brought from the sky to Earth. There is a sin, the fall, etc. But the state of the world that felt at Earths surface and was reduced to a microscope cell system happened 4 billion years ago when a closed thermodynamic system, astronomical ( I have its theoretical model) was attacked by a natural force measured as entropy, a flood of free radicals, not by a flood of water. That system shows the symbols of serpent, Adam/Eve, etc. Design.

You are a liar

1) Chakras have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING remotely connected to DNA

2) I don’t buy for a second that you went to the Amazon based on your reference to people there as “Salvages” (Savages btw)

3) We don’t have any records of anyone sayign anything 7,000 years ago, writting has only been around abotu 5,000

5) Genesis doesn’t cover it either

You are a closed mind which makes you blind. See the rude artistic image drawn as two serpents involved in a spiral having 7 stars among then ( kundaline and its chakras). Now see the rude artistic image of two strains of sugar+phosphate involved in a spiral having the nitrogenous bases between them. They are bot images far away from the reality due difficult of visions. Yes a lived in Amazon 7 years, exactly dates does not matter here and genesis cover it but with wrong interpretations.

King’s Lomatia is unusual because because it has three sets of chromosomes (a triploid) and is therefore sterile, reproduction occurs only vegetatively: when a branch falls, that branch grows new roots, establishing a new plant that is genetically identical to its parent. Although all the plants are technically separate in that each has its own root system, they are collectively considered to be one of the oldest living plant clones the plant has been cloning itself for at least 43,600 years.

That’s easy to understand for those who knows the universal formula for natural systems. Organisms with two chromosomes means that one is the left side and other is the right side of that formula, which can be seen as a face ( this is evolution from the primordial double particles with spins left and right). What would happen if the organism has two same sides of a face? The two original sides never could be linked into new face. When a chromosome falls he does not reproduces but self-recycles.

XXX

Guys, these debates in the comment section are ridiculous. Just let the ignorant creationists think what they want. I know it’s hard not to tell them they’re wrong constantly, but most of them are stubborn and won’t listen to fact. Just let them think what they want, and hopefully one day they will open there eyes.

They will open their eyes when NASA will discover the true cosmological model and all of us will discover that the narrative of Adam/Even in the Paradise is a narrative of a real event happened 4 billions years ago. But then, they will discover that the event was distorted due human interpretation of things that were not known in the time Bible was written. The event is registered in our memory, encrypted in our DNA and ancient authors of Bible got obscures flashes of a thermodynamic system.

XXX

A spirit which was planted into mankind like a seed. Mankind was given the option of freewill “the knowledge of good and evil” knowing that we would take it and be condemned. What we do with this freewill is the test. Will we use it to bring “life” into the world and bear fruit or will we use it for personal gain and take life from the world becoming a weed. When the harvest comes it is the fruit that will be taken because they have proven they are sons of God. This is the christian Idea of God

My life’s experience in this world and the world I have seen does not support the christian theory. The suffering and torture I have seen upon my loved people of my species makes me hate any kind of god. If I meet any god I go immediately to war trying to destroy it because if exists a god he is responsible for torturing me and my brothers. My method of investigation has suggested the existence of a ex-machine consciousness but totally natural, and absent here.

XXX

God is the witness to the creation and claims so in the Bible. Adam is an eyewitness to the animals God made for him to name; Adam is the eyewitness to the first operation on a human to remove the compatible genetic material used to make Eve his perfect human companion. Adam and Eve are witnesses to the dialog with God and warning, and expulsion from the Garden of Eden for rebellion etc. as recorded in the Bible.

My biggest intellectual problem is that I never will understand how the contents of this stupid fiction book called “Bible” works like a viral meme that penetrates a human brain destroying the hard-wired configuration built by Nature and builds a new totally silly hard-wired configuration! My great lord PinkUnicorn, please, resuscitate Freud, Jung or someone else able to investigate and finding the cure for this disgrace that has caused such prejudice to Humanity.

XXX

Evolution is the belief that everything came from nothing for no reason at all. Furthermore, the so-called “scientific theory” of evolution is worhtless on a couple of counts. First, it can make no predictions about the future. Consequently, it can’t be evaluated like other scienticfic theories, which do make predictions about the future. Real scientific theories actually take a stance on the future, and thus, are subject to being modified. No so with evolution.

Evolution can make prediction about the future and Nature supports this prediction. In a Cartesian graphic having as coordinates time and space and the point of intersection being considered the starting point (the Big Bang), we see a system evolving till arriving here and now as conscious system. The line makes a curve and returns to the initial point but matter/energy are discarded likely is the placenta and we see a Big Birth, of a conscious being. Everything equal embryogenese. Need more?

XXX

If we deny evolution, or don’t evolve at all, our entire civilization would fall apart, and lead to a self destructive humanity.

But… if you accept Darwinian Theory of Evolution in such manner like think the most healthy and right-wing people today, as the unique Truth, you will build a social system mimicking the rules of what is seeing in Nature here and now. The salvage world shared between predator and prey, justifying your privileged status. This will be the world of Big Brother ruling the Brave New World. You need improve ToE, by leading it to see the rules of an ordered Nature in Cosmos. That’s Matrix/DNA Theory

you mean the world that murders 259,000,000 inconvenient people and 453,000,000 inconvenient babies

I know that religions taking the power and building social systems have only tortured human beings with slavery and is backwards in relation to human progress. I think that the two worldviews, when becomes fundamentalism, when a person think that this little human brain of this microscopic living being walking over the surface of this lost planetary point in this immense world full of universes should be able to know the final Truth, are both dangerous. Improve ToE.

I think the fossils we have are enough to prove biological evolution. But I don’t see logic in the idea that evolution was invented by the stupid matter of this lost planet. So, I went search if evolution was not existing before Biology here. The method used is comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. The results ( which has the possibility of being wrong) leave me to see the same evolution at cosmological level, arising at the Big Bang. Then I think that ToE can be improved.

“improve ToE”

When a fossil is found, we do.

I think the fossils we have are enough to prove biological evolution. But I don’t see logic in the idea that evolution was invented by the stupid matter of this lost planet. So, I went search if evolution was not existing before Biology here. The method used is comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. The results ( which has the possibility of being wrong) leave me to see the same evolution at cosmological level, arising at the Big Bang. Then I think that ToE can be improved.

do galaxies replicate with inheritance? Are they subject to natural selection

Hummm…the cosmological model of Matrix/DNA reveals the history of evolution of replication’s mechanism. Before any natural system reached the technology for self-replication there was the mechanism of self-recycling. In this mechanism, a system needs to die for its copy arise. It is easy to see it: a stellar system dies decomposed into dust, the dust is a nebulae and from this nebulae new stellar system arises, equal the anterior. We can improve ToE, if we go to our ancestor stars…and beyond

Maybe life requires “the stupid matter of this lost planet.” for life to emerge. A necessary step from a Galaxy, through a planet, to living organisms.

I’m a semi-retired artist.

The problem is with the word “life”. The cosmological models of Matrix/DNA shows that makes no sense to say that a cell is alive and a galaxy or an atom is not. Of sure, there are the difference of complexity, like the difference of a living cell and a living ape. All properties observed here in organisms we can see its principles – expressed or not – in those ancestors systems. A portion of matter of planets can not build a biological system, mas the system to which Earths belongs, can do.

Evolution didn’t need to be invented. It has to occur whenever you have variant replicators that are non-randomly culled. This happens in biology hence evolution occurs in biology.

That’s what we conclude rationally from Biology learned in school. I thought in this way too. But I made my own research, the research suggests new things that makes sense, and points to things that I was believing to be true and today makes no sense. One is that this Universe can not created new information beyond those that were here at the Big Bang. Evolution is a natural process composed by mechanisms and my results shows these mechanisms arisen at the Big Bang. It was not invented nowhere.

XXX

Question to atheists: What is wrong with the following affirmation?:

A chicken is the “ex-machine previous natural genetic design” of the embryo inside her egg that will be a chicken tomorrow”.

If nothing wrong, why should be wrong the following affirmation: ” God is the previous design like a conscious and intelligent chicken ex-machine existing outside this universe which is a cosmic egg and we, human beings, are the genes building his conscious son”. (???)

XXX

Plz enlighten me. How can 2 people start a race of 7 billion? lol

You know their kids wouldn’t be inbred but they’d have to fuck with each other so the second gen would start to be inbred and the 3rd would start to have various diseases. The 4th and 5th gen would start to produce mutated kids not capable of life and by the 6th everyone would die.

Either god made more Adam and Eves with different genomes to fuck with the original Adam and Eves kids or humanity wouldn’t exist today. lol

XXX

Austriak1 -Do you understand a semantics argument? Are you claiming a “god” designed life? For some reason I can’t post directly to you…

Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is what the source or sender expresses, communicates, or conveys in their message to the observer or receiver, and what the receiver infers from the current context. I think I understand. No, I am not claiming a god designed life. And you are going to the same pathway of others persons that has English as native language. Why the word “design” leads you straight to the idea of intelligent design by God? Don’t you accept “genetic previous natural design?

“Where is the scientific bases?”

You mean when you compare anatomy, when you compare the genomes, the circulatory system, the common ERVs?

XXXXXX

I don’t understand why the creationists are so afraid to admit we are animals and related to all other life on Earth. Besides all the scientific proof. It’s just obvious to me…

I read a scientific book long ago relating a symposium among scientists, mathematicians ( I think Wiener and Rosenthal was there) when they conclude that in no way matter and energy, still organized in shape of human brain, could produce consciousness. In that time I found the evidences and calculations very reasonable. Then I think, there is no doubt that our physical flesh/bone body came from primates, but consciousness was something coming from outside biological evolution. It is not obvious.

All life came from other life. Is it right? If so, the formula for making the second life was in the first life (you know, the DNA, etc)..Right? I have called this formula “design” and people that had English as native language have criticized me, saying it is not design. Looking at dictionaries I saw that English definitions only uses the sense as human intelligent design, reduced to business, job. In Italian, design also means any natural shape, as drawn. Do you know better name for formula ?

We don’t know the source of life. Some believe that is a built in feature , that energy and matter will eventually organize into life. There are more questions than answers… The point of the video is to NOT teach creationism as an answer to life, because there is NO evidence for it.

geezusispan in reply to Austriak1 1 minute ago

I agree everything. But I was not talking about the source of life, I was talking about life from life, biological evolution. I said here yesterday that a chicken is a “previous natural ex-machine design” in relation to the embryo inside her egg”. Same way is human parents in relation to an human embryo inside a womb. Do you agree? People here thrown me stones because the words “design”and “ex-machine”. Why? I think the problem is different meanings of words in different languages. Or not?

You said: “I don’t understand why the creationists are so afraid to admit we are animals”. I told about the final conclusion in that scientific symposium that matter can not extrapolates for to be conscious of itself because I don’t understand how materialists (atheists) can reduce human beings to “improved apes”. No “soul”. It is here that creationists hates atheists, all hopes of some meaning for existence goes down. Maybe we are apes, I have no problem with it. Where is the scientific bases?

“Where is the scientific bases?”

You mean when you compare anatomy, when you compare the genomes, the circulatory system, the common ERVs?

I mean: where is the scientific bases for believing that humans are merely improved apes and consciousness is produced by matter when matter became conscious of itself? I asked it based in two premises:1) modern neurology has not found how neurons are linked with the mind; 2) When and how scientists proved that the results of that scientific symposium is wrong?

What I gave you is evidence that we are apes (us, homo sapiens).

However, are you suggesting that the other species are not conscious of themselves and their surrounding?

Good point. I know what you are talking about: several scientific experiments and observations suggesting other species are conscious. But the difference between human production and apes production, the question if apes have dreams when sleeping like us, the concept of “mind”, the difference between thoughts without inter-connections and continuous thought, etc., reveals a “jump” that open the possibility of insertion of informations into human brain coming from outside biological matter.

You need look no further than the identically broken GULO gene we share in common with other apes.

I know. But this is not the most weird thing about shared genes. There is other…incredible! We share the selfish gene in common with ancient galaxies. Wait…I will explain… Selfishness is the state of closed systems. The opposite is altruism=opened systems. And in the whole universal history there is only one event were a portion of matter is organized as closed system: the building block of galaxies. Seven bodies inter-connected composing a system, isolated and self-recycling. Our ancestor

The big bang was our ancestor, in a sense. I don’t think we inherited any of our psychological traits from it though.

Good point. But the Big Bang was not our ancestor. It was an event that is the ancestor of the event that starts the first moment of our own body: fecundation. The Universe only knows to make things in the way itself was made. We can trace backwards all our psychological traits to primary instincts of animals, then to tendencies and functions of non-living systems as atoms and galaxies. And if you like the Physics of the Nobel Hideki Yukawa, you see its ancestors at matter origins.

It seems that is a contradiction between the hypothesis that consciousness could not be produced by matter alone and the hypothesis that all our psychological traits can be traced backwards towards the origins of matter. But in the whole scope of this new worldview there is no contradiction here. Psychological traits emerges from our own material brain, while consciousness is other thing, like a retrograde gene that begins acting later, but could be existing since before the Big Bang.

I think I’d have to be on acid to make sense of that.

Maybe you discover fast how make sense of that remembering that galaxies are under entropy, which causes its fragmentation into particles, these particles are irradiated by cosmic and stellar radiation, they fail upon primordial soups at planets’ surface and when those particles get together again, they try to driven atoms towards the reproduction of their antique system. In this way, from the mud, a falling galaxy lift up as a cell system… so, those particles works like genes.

‘We can trace backwards all our psychological traits to primary instincts of animals, then to tendencies and functions of non-living systems as atoms and galaxies.”

It’s fun to think about but, hard to prove. If you are leading up to a intelligent designer, please don’t.

No I have not seen intelligent design in this new version of Universal Natural History. We can use an analogy: a chicken is the “previous ex-machine natural design” in relation to the embryo that evolves inside her egg. But… chickens does not applies intelligence for making their babies. Since that those cosmological models are suggesting this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a process o genetic/computational reproduction… Nature does not needs intelligence for working.

XXX

I’m sorry, but nothing in what you said makes us different from the other apes (since we, homo sapiens, are apes).

You are right. here in Amazon jungle, everyday in the evening when I arrive at the cave from hunting, my girlfriend – a lovely orangotanga called Maryllin – is at the door waiting for me with opened arms and reading the new poem that she wrote for me.

Since other apes do display social interactions (to the point where genocides actually occurs between populations), uses tools and communicate between each other, I am afraid your sarcasm is lost.

Ok… sorry by the joke, it was not sarcasm intended. I am trying to remember that two scientific premises, two scientific indications that we don’t be stressed to believe something yet. Of course, physically, flash meat appearance, we are merely improved apes. But I have my own method of research and the theoretical models are suggesting that there are a new natural systems acting over biological evolution here, and consciousness should be product of informations coming from this system.

If you do have actual data, then why not actually do experiments, several times (don’t forge the blind testing), and, in the case the results still goes along your hypthesis, write the papers and get them peer reviewed?

My friend, only now Science has proved that some Darwin’s predictions was right. At life he only could accumulate evidences. It is because at his time had no scientific resources for experimentation, testing the theory of evolution, which was too much advanced for that time. Ok, Darwin was in the right track, he saw the right patterns an he earned. I am seeing patterns pointing to another idea too much advanced for this time. I am accumulating evidences. But maybe I am in the wrong track.

No you have Hypothetical models, not Theoretical ones

They are not Theoretical without preer reviewed experimentations.

Regardelss, we have the Fact that conciousness is the cumulative result of chemical interactions.

You are more advanced than modern neurology, which has not found how neurons relates with consciousness. You are using the word “theory, in the strict definition inside scientific community and I use the word with the definition that ancient Greeks gave to this word when they coined it and how we define it in naturalistic philosophy The Greeks philosophers were the owner of this word. My advice in my website is that my job has no scientific pretensions, I am not a scientist. it is about Nature.

XXX

It’s him. He’s not trying to hide it, really. He has “Matrix/DNA” as his profile name. According to him, Youtube spontaneously deleted his old account for some reason. Don’t know why, he seems like a rather harmless crank to me.

I don’t said Youtube deleted my account. I was trying to fusion an old lost account with the new one and I got it, but I need to fix the problem that the name kept is the old one. By the way I am trying to defending my worldview like everybody is trying to defend their here. My suggestion is teaching only ToE in science class, but we need bring back a class of philosophy, the study of evolution of human thought, where others worldview can be informed, included ID theory and Matrix/DNA Theory..

Maybe he just thinks they did. He doesn’t strike me as the most computer-savvy person, having looked at his website (which was hacked by some Turks and he’s never bothered to fix it).

But still, if you click through to his new profile, it does read “Matrix/DNA” so he’s not trying to hide his identity. Instead, he’s proud of his so-called ‘discovery’ and wants to publicize it as much as he can.

Ohhh… you said something that is the most interest for me. Actually my website was hacked, prejudicing about 15.000 people/month from whole world that was visiting, doing some research. I don’t understand nothing about websites and my time is very busy, so, my question: is it possible to fix it? Do you know how? Know someone that can do it? I am not proud and did any discovery: the theory is suggesting new approaches to diseases and technologies as automated systems. It can improve something.

If they deleted his old account, then why can I access it? Either way he’s just a nut, I ignore him as I don’t expect anyone to take him seriously anyway.

XXX

We have a complex problem here, which needs to be solved through an educated debate. Evolution is a process that we can see in embryogenesis: one initial cell is shared into a diversification of different cells, shapes are transformed into other shapes in the way that the first initial shape (cell, blastula, ) is not recognizable in the later shapes. The built body does not comes to light in shape of blastula, neither fetus, it only comes to light in shape of a final human being, this is…

result from forces coming from the surrounding environment, and we call it “natural selection”. But… this evolution is merely steps of a larger process: reproduction. So, the whole universal evolution can be a process of ex-machine reproduction. So, the scientific community needs looking for right terms to deal publicly with this issue. Theory is a word employed by scientists, but today we know it is not a theory, anymore. In the other hand, we don’t know if it is “evolution”or “reproduction”?

XXX

Evolutionists believe a talking snake is less credible than a talking gorilla/man that climbed out of a prehistoric petri dish .

Talking is not invention of gorillas. Millions years ago “genes” were “talking”among themselves and billions years ago, before DNA’s emergence here, the ancestral of DNA had its elements talking among themselves in the sky. But for transforming this “talking” into sounds waves in manner that humans can heard, the DNA need the apparatus of voice, which snakes does not have. Talking snakes is a fiction, not rational, and talking primates becoming humans is rational.

XXX

“all atrocity IS man’s fault.”

Natural disasters is just one example of atrocities that are not human’s fault.

” We have caused all the worlds problems.”

No, we haven’t. You’re just melodramatic.

Yeah…Just at this moment somewhere in Amazon jungle a beautiful, sweet, but self-indefensible capybara is running, desperate trying to escape, from a horrible beast that attacked her. The horror of the worlds, the big horrible mouth will eat her still alive in the next minute.This is human fault? If you was there, watching, and having power for stopping the massacre, would you do nothing?! If there is a God watching everything, why this God don’t do anything? There isn’t God watching.

Unless you can explain how man, a product of nature, is responsible for the atrocities of nature, you have grounds to claim it.

To the ‘God can’t be watching’ comments, pretty much the same thing : just because you can’t fathom something, that isn’t an argument against it.

Are you a creationist? Are you a believer in “devolution”? If so, you could be right, accordingly to the final results of the materialistic worldview in Matrix/DNA Theory: biosphere is a product of a fall of an ancestor living in the Paradise. But… the same models suggests that the Bible’s narratives about a god present here, talking and watching, and a god creating universes from nothing, is an absurd.

XXX

Tom Adams claims to be a genius, yet spends his time trying to debunk evolution on a youtube thread. Brilliant! This shit is entertainment. Are the evil scientist listening yet. Ha ha!

Don’t worry! The mighty, tiny, lord PinkUnicorn said that he will send a special X-ray from the solar flare at December, 12, 2012, straight upon the head of Tom Adams for illuminating his ideas. The energy then will be transformed in pure sweet honey for feed him and turning better his humor. Pink is all love. Pink bless you!

XXX

As an agnostic atheist I think no one can say for sure that a God doesn’t exist, but on the other hand I don’t think anyone can say with certainty that a God DOES exist. The only evidence is subjective hearsay and the spurious reasoning of the already indoctrinated.

If a God does indeed exist, though, it certainly isn’t the primitive, petty, jealous, genocidal, misogynistic, foreskin-hating, magical patriarchal buffoon described by the Bible. That creature reeks of human-inspired conceit.

Agnostics here, Subscribes here!

So, there are believers: theists and atheists. And no believers: agnostics. As an agnostic myself, I am watching this debate with discomfort, because there is a third option – the agnostic worldview, ethics, morals, behavior and life’s purpose – and I need this worldview be the standard education of children, but we have no voice, neither here, neither at public arena. Let’s try beginning something here? Say hello and stick straight to the facts.

No, that’s wrong, you fucking retard. Most atheists aren’t believers, and agnostics fall under both categories, agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists. Learn the definitions of the words you use before spouting your ignorance.

This kind of aggressiveness is proof of fundamentalism produced by beliefs. Agnostics has no motivation for reacting in this way. Retardation is what happens with you: your education is not complete, we can see it in your words. If you are an atheist, how hell do you understand what atheism is? Don’t know the fatality described by Godel’s theorem? Nobody can know the Truth about a system, a process, standing inside it. You are inside the process of atheism. Try to listen who is outside.

This has been flagged as spam hide

God is a myth. You haven’t typed a fucking to change that FACT. God belief is more proof of evolution and our primate origins with it’s primitive superstitions.

It is dependable what is your meaning for “god”. All meanings given by religions must be wrong since the founders did not know Nature how we know it today. All beliefs about “god” are not rational, included the non-belief in god. The very fact that inside this Universe we are seeing the existence of this unknown thing called “consciousness”, the rationalization that a Universe made with matter/energy could not create “consciousness”, leave an open possibility of “cosmic consciousness”. God?

The level of order and sophistication found in nature is unreal m-theory; evolution; quantum mechanics; right down to the strings found in atoms all working in perfect harmony. Did you know that the likely hood that the universe could cause a life permitting universe is 1/10 billion to the power of 124 its crazy. We still don’t understand all the mysteries in the universe and you want me to believe it was some cosmic fluke? I don’t know man what your say is a alot harder to believe in than God

Do you think that consciousness exists only here? Do you think that only “life”can produce consciousness?

My calculations suggests there are zillions of lifeforms and zillions of types of organized matter/energy that can support consciousness. There are lifeforms and consciousness more evolved than us and less evolved, certainly we are not at the bottom neither the top. Maybe there is a kind of consciousness at the top ( not how creationists defines their god). If you want call it God…

To you first two questions my answer is no. I agree with what you saying but hear me out. God is a divine will or consciousness which created governs and gives purpose to the universe. We are made in the image of God In that we are conscious. We have the ability to create, govern and give purpose to our surroundings. What makes us sons of God (not to confuse with The Son of God) is our connection or oneness with God through the holy spirit…………..

No, since I was born I never had free will and never could do what I think should be the right thing to do. I was born as product of chaos – from this chaotic and salvage biosphere – and condemned to be slave like I am till now. And I saw my family, my ancestors, my neighbors, everybody in the same situation. If there is god he is the god of people in Wall Street, they have some free will, not mine. The real world suggests that your tortured mind is out of control, sorry. .

A spirit which was planted into mankind like a seed. Mankind was given the option of freewill “the knowledge of good and evil” knowing that we would take it and be condemned. What we do with this freewill is the test. Will we use it to bring “life” into the world and bear fruit or will we use it for personal gain and take life from the world becoming a weed. When the harvest comes it is the fruit that will be taken because they have proven they are sons of God. This is the christian Idea of God

My life’s experience in this world and the world I have seen does not support the christian theory. The suffering and torture I have seen upon my loved people of my species makes me hate any kind of god. If I meet any god I go immediately to war trying to destroy it because if exists a god he is responsible for torturing me and my brothers. My method of investigation has suggested the existence of a ex-machine consciousness but totally natural, and absent here.

XXX

“The chemicals you describe are physical.What then is driving the chemical on its own to perform a function?”- reactions. That’s what chemistry is. Molecules are not thinking entities with a mind. They don’t have brains. They don’t think. DNA is formed by how base pairs react. What order they’re in determine what get built. If one is in a different order and a reaction occurs, then an error is formed. Basic chemistry. You are looking for something that isn’t there.

T8fgzz in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Are you a Chemist? If so, maybe you could talk about this issue of abiogenesis and the topic of this video. I am defending a theory, result of 6 years observing natural systems and biosphere in Amazon jungle searching connections and applying comparative anatomy between living and non living systems. It’s not science, is natural philosophy. My results suggests that those atoms and molecules at abiogenesis were not only acting by reactions, but driven by a previous design. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Design aims for simplicity. Life is complex and inefficient, wasteful, lacks plan, and full of decay.In design, form typically follows function yet life shows many examples of different forms with the same function, and some structures and even entire organisms without apparent function. Humans naturally look for design because we are pattern seeking mammals.Intelligent design is subjective (cont.).

form from increasingly complex molecules.Self replicators are simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry.Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin.Biochemistry inevitably produces complex products.In synthetic DNA, a different assemblage of molecules can replicate and evolve just like DNA and RNA. These different molecules can even convert to DNA and back, and has also shown stronger than regular DNA or RNA, in that they’re more resistant to degradation by biological nucleases.

But…but…it is just what I am saying: there was the perfect Paradise, the perfect Adam, they was the most simplest perfect design, but then, happened the sin and the fall, down to the worst complex design…

Sorry, I was joking…but this biblical allegory fits surprisingly with the real history: the perfect and simplest Newtonian watch ( this astronomical system) fail/evolved into the inefficient complex cell system. Or do you have doubt that it happened? Do you see continuing evolution?

The process of Abiogenesis need not be the only requirement for evolution to begin. Why is that? Because we already know from observation in 2011 that stars naturally produce complex compounds, like amino acids and even sugar molecules that don’t need to be synthesized in space. Stars naturally produce them in a matter of weeks and spew them into deep space, where they can drift onto forming planets. Its a natural occurrence.There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot

Ok, our difference is that you see evolution in prebiotic chemistry arising from the simplicity of molecules reactions and I see in the same prebiotic evolution atoms being guided by photons that works like genes towards the reproduction of a previous, astronomical design. Wait… I know my suggestion seems totally absurd ( it was for me before 30 years of thousands of natural phenomena suggesting that it, at least, makes sense). For instance, the previous prechemical design, non-living (cont)

shows the mechanical/magnetic principles that evolved into chemicals replicators. I mean, replication is a mechanism that exists before the origins of chemistry at Earth. Astronomical systems, without chemistry, are self-replicating. But their replication is shared into two phases: the original system needs dying for producing its copy. It is recycling.You can see how in “The Matrix´s Software at the Evolutionary Stage of Closed System” ( Google this name in “image”). Take time to understanding

Okay. That’s a hypothesis. Now demonstrate that it’s correct.

Expulsar este ateista fanatico

Joshua White – Expulsar in reply to Austriak1 18 minutes ago

I can’t explain 30 years of hard work in 500 letters. But there is a simple parameter: your body began with molecules called gametes which were driven by instructions of a design ex-machine in relation to your inner universe (the ovule) towards the formation of a cell system. Or do you think those molecules only did everything obeying the forces of chemical reactions? If you have here pure Nature explaining to you how she make things, why do you go after explanations that you never saw?!

Demonstrate how “astronomical systems” work “without chemistry”, and demonstrate how they are “self-replicating”. You’re making baseless assertions.

Have you seen the formula I suggested above? Go Google, images, type “The Matrix´s Software at the Evolutionary Stage of Closed System”.Then type “Humam Life’s Cycle and Astronomical Life’s Cycle”- second image. And for understanding the origins of sexual reproduction see the picture “Origin Of Sex Chromosomes”. But the explanation for photons as “life’s designers” see “Light – The Electro-Magnetic Spectrum by Matrix/DNA Theory” in Google images. Please, don’t go..

Describing a gamete as a molecule is utterly disingenuous, since gametes are a type of cell and composed of many, many, many molecules. And yes, the molecules of the cell act according to the natural laws of biochemistry, no supernatural influence needed. Would you mind translating “instructions of a design ex-machine in relation to your inner universe” into intelligible English please? Your pseudo-intellectual gibberish is tiring.

Nope. It is clear that instead searching knowledge and changing information you have a political agenda. It is not my business. That’s explain your insults, which finished forever our conversation. Only a stupid closed mind could attain to the word””gamete” without understanding the unnecessary mention of chromosomes molecules. Only a stupid could say that astronomical systems are supernatural. Only a stupid does not understand that the human specie is the ex-machine design outside the ovule.

Expulsar este ateista fanatico

Confirmed idiot

@Austriak1 Darwin went on an eight year nature walk and came home with an alternative to the truth for those won’t have a King. His ‘observations/predictions rely on the simplicity of life. If DNA had been discovered, he never would have published.

John Brown 55 minutes ago

I think I understand better what happened with Darwin than you, because I did it also, going to a seven year nature walk ( Amazon jungle) and came back with a new world view. It should happen with anyone that do same thing. Culture sometimes deviates from reality, as in religions, the suffering in these kind of travel makes the collapse of the top of this cultures and a returning to real nature with a new understanding. DNA is confirmation of evolution, but also an ex-machine reproduction.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

@Austriak1 Darwin said that savage races of men would be exterminated. What races was he talking about?

John Brown 41 minutes ago

I don’t know, never heard that. But… it is not what is suggesting my theory. The supreme and visible goal of evolution here and now is the development of human brains for supporting the birth and development of consciousness. Then I conclude that all human brains must be aided to develop and not be exterminated.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Natural Selection
While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations.

XXX

16) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.”

I am challenging any person to point out one, only one, detail in any biological system or at the cellular level that I could not locate the its ancestral mechanic/electric/magnetic shape in the universal formula of natural systems. It means that all of them are not only reducible to LUCA, but to galaxies and atoms.

XXX

15) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics over the past fifty years.”

Of course Darwin could not describe in full the natural process called “evolution” with the knowledge of 150 years ago. For explaining evolution today and filling the Darwinian gaps we are increasing more 4 variables over those three discovered by Darwin.

XXX

14) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Darwi­n conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”.

Darwin did not know the astronomical LUCA, to whom all cellular pieces are reducible.

XXX

13) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.”

Here ID uses strategy for getting the readers (common people=inferior class) against ToE. But Natural selection has not elected “superior species” when gave the reward of transcendence to be the next top evolutionary specie. Was not dinosaur, but the small cyanodont choose to be mammal.

XXX

12) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding.”

There are several differences. One is that the human breeder is visible to the specie being driven and the natural breeder of evolution from aminoacids to apples was not visible to apples. Its is about “hierarchy of systems” where informations comes from systems that we can’t see/touch. Other is.. natural selection always has the purpose of self-reproduction

Why is it that only creationists make these arguments? If something was wrong with evolution scientists in general would be objecting not just creationists. Creationists purposefully or ignorantly ignore the evidence and then make these twisted comments in regards to science that no credible scientist would.. Crazy spins on thermal dynamics that solely come from creationists for example. Rejecting fact on the basis of faith is crazy.

I think there are faults in both sides. I am seeing the current worldview among scientists is being driven by Physics/Math. Evolution is natural process that had worked at biological/cosmological systems, so, why Biology is not trying to expand the understanding of evolution to its roots, which is coming from the so called “non-living systems”? If Universe is a living thing, Physics never will grasp it The result is a non-complete view of evolution, a good opportunity for creationism.

XXX

11) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild.”

No, sometimes is not. For instance the transformation of a reptile laying egg out into a mammal keeping the egg inside was a mutation disvantage since the female became less able to hunt/escape. This mutation was expression of potential genes in junk DNA: astronomical systems already puts eggs out and keep inside.

Sorry, but it wasnt a disadvantage. A pregnant female can move from cave to cave, or go collect fruits, vegetables and what have you. If you have a nest full of eggs you need to keep warm, you can´t do all those things. You have to stay near the nest and keep the eggs warm. So this was even a pretty big advantage !!!

My friend, we, from the jungle, always are laughing with these kinds of jokes from civilized people. You are really funny, I will pay the beer. Are you talking that reptiles eat vegetables and fruits as enough diet? No, they are carnivorous. And resting over nest full of eggs? No, they leave the egg in the pathway and if they can, they eat the eggs and babies. You are invited to watch them here and smoking a Cuban “charutto” with my lord, the mithy, tiny, PinkUnicorn. Please, send more jokes…

You shouldnt just believe what some website tells you !!! Go look what the real scientists have to say, they have all the evidence on their side, and you are free to check the evidence yourself.

Those anti-evolution websites are constantly caught lying, and i bet if i visit that website i will find hundreds of propaganda lies ! HUNDREDS !

That alone proves them wrong: if you advertize the truth you don´t need any lies.That they use lies proves they don´t even believe their BS themselves !!!

Yes, I agree, and does not understand which are the advantages in lying about these topics. By the way, about evolution, Science have all evidences, but the connection among these data trying to get the final big board when there is no all enough data for, always produces non-complete theories. And evolution must be a continuing universal process, starting at Big Bang, so, biological evolution is micro and does not offers all data. That’s why I like also the efforts made by Matrix/DNA Theory.

Austriak, you are staking facts and debunking them based on the fact that your opinion differs from theirs. Natural selection is nature’s way of selecting the best traits in an organism, just because you think it isn’t won’t change it. If something were put at a major disadvantage by an evolutionary change, it would die out. No changing that.

Ok, you are right, it should be written: “opinions that debunks the opinions of ID” It is all about theories and good for our own evolution. Best traits in relation to what? I think the answer is: adaptation. But, when a blastula shows a new trait towards the future fetus, this trait is bad to the blastula in relation to the state of the womb now. It will be adapted to a state that does not exist yet. It exists, outside the womb. The mammal apparatus were selected to adapt to a future system.

XXX

10) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species.”
Any trait registered in DNA ( the biological shape of an universal matrix) is not destroyed, it does not “die out”. The inferior members were expression of universal mechanisms in less evolved biological environment, and retired to be “junk DNA” for any future return.

XXX

9) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:” …(it grew wings and learned to fly). ”

They have not invented wings and flying. Wings are evolutionary product from past limbs that are products from original cilia and flagelluns at the first cell system. Flying is a movement in space made by astros like comets that are driven by its tails. Comets tails and flow of degenerated dust from died stars are traits of ancestors expressed in cells. Look for the roots.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

8) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly).”

No, species by its own does not develops a new, never existed before, “functional advantage”. It should be “creation of new information from nothing” and in this Universe, from the Big Bang to nowadays never was created information by magics. Look to ancestors and known something about “fuzzy logics”: the roots are there.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

7) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations.”

No. Natural selection is the product of convergence of all natural forces to a same point in time/space, which express their supreme tendency for thermodynamic equillibrium. It produces and drives mutations at new environments.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

6) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal.”

That’s due the ancient people were more “natural” and since human reason is a natural product, this reason, when free and acting by its own, grasps better how nature works

Austriak1 21 minutes ago

XXX

5)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­ot)com”: “These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).”

Yes. The same way that a blastula shape is driven to become an entire different shape as fetus or embryo in which we can’t recognize the initial shapes. Shapes are driven to reproduce the creator system.

Austriak1 26 minutes ago

XXX

5) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­ot)com”: “In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.”

No. The agent behind natural selection is the environment, biosphere, product of entropy/transformation/nanotec­hnology of this vast environment called Milk Way. Mutations can happen by chance or driven by the effort of this ancestor’s reproduction.

Austriak1 32 minutes ago

XXX

4)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­ot)com”: “That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”

No. From the first cell system (aka “first living being”) to apes, all emerged complex properties that they show to us are merely development of properties in a physical/mechanical/magnetic fashion exhibited by the building block of this galactic system. So, this ancestor was/is not more simplistic as functional system.

Austriak1 38 minutes ago

XXX

3)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­ot)com”: “and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”.

No! Biological systems (aka, “life”) has been developed from aminoacids to apes driven by a natural system where biological systems emerged. The building blocks of atoms and galaxies systems are the same building blocks of RNA/DNA, which are the building blocks of biological systems, showing a process of evolution that is coming from “something” before the Big Bang.

Austriak1 48 minutes ago

XXX

2)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­ot)com”: “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life”

Darwin’s work was a theory about a real observed process called evolution without the knowledge about genetics and astronomy we have today. Evolution today was expanded from “microbiologicalevolution” to “universalmacroevolution” and the variables found by Darwin were increased by variables found at ancestors non-biological systems, which are not non-life, but “half-life”

Austriak1 56 minutes ago

XXX

1)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­ot)com”

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related.

Of course they are related since they arose in this same biosphere and both have the same building block: DNA. The common ancestor, rationally, is the Earth and the system it belongs to: the Milk Way. Or is it Orion, or, still, something non-natural?

Austriak1 1 hour ago

XXX

Life and evolution started?! Have you seen the origins of something never existed before? Where? When?! Everything I saw are results of transformation from something else existing before. Where have you travelled?

There was no origins of life and “life” has not created evolution.”Life” is the wrong name for “matter organized as biological systems” which is transformations/cosmological evolution of “electric/magnetic mechanical natural systems”, like atoms and astronomical systems.

Austriak1 in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXX

And I find it incredulous that people believe it is possible to this microscope human brain located at this lost point in this vast immense universe have found the explanation for life and matter existence! Or believing that some supernatural being told the Thru to someone else! That’s crazy!

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXX

All social systems feeded by religions are based in animalism ( Bible, for instance, accepts the existence of employers and employees, which is an extension of animalism, from the division predator/prey). That’s were due two intention of authors’ Bible and all clergies: !) to be predators, avoiding the naturalist condemnation over every human being that is to do the hard manual work; 2) and justify their ownership of more land than which one can work with his.her own hands. That’s crazy!

Austriak1 1 hour ago

XXX



If the physical properties of the constituent parts of a universe permit them to interact in such a way as to self-replicate with variation, then evolution will occur. And (big surprise) ours happens to be such a universe. If it was one of the universes where that can’t happen then there would be no one to wonder about it.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

So, are you saying that universes can create new information which never existed before? Creating with what? From what?!

Austriak1 in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Bill Nye can tell me that God and Miracles doenst exist when he can explain when the universe stops expanding. The concept of infinite is just as ridiculous as a grand architect who exists outside of the reality we question his existence in.

Roger Roach in reply to Roger Roach (Show the comment) 2 days ago

Why have you chosen to go far away off Nature, if you are a natural being? Have you or any other human being seen eternity, infinite, or some supernatural grand architect? Never. Why human minds creates these minded weird things? It is natural that we want to know the initial causes of things we see here – like the universe, life, etc. – them rationally, there is another element that could answer these questions if not Nature? Here and now Nature is showing how did it. Look around.

Austriak1 in reply to Roger Roach (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

If evolution was real why are monkeys still turning to humans

What are these monkeys Retarded monkeys They too stupid to evolve

Really You people Migth want to find God Cause you gotta to OLD to stupid stuff like evolution

apparently these monkeys are special monkeys and too stupid to evolve we have never left our solar system and we think MANKIND NOWS IT all 300 years ago they still though the world was flat MONKEY HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sonya McAlister 2 hours ago

The cause that sent some apes to extinction and rewarded one group with their transcendence towards the shape of human specie is the same cause that just now is sending some human beings to extinction and a small group to their transcendence a new evolved shape. You should be careful…learning the lessons of past evolution for to participate in that small group.

Austriak1 in reply to Sonya McAlister (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

“The chemicals you describe are physical.What then is driving the chemical on its own to perform a function?”- reactions. That’s what chemistry is. Molecules are not thinking entities with a mind. They don’t have brains. They don’t think. DNA is formed by how base pairs react. What order they’re in determine what get built. If one is in a different order and a reaction occurs, then an error is formed. Basic chemistry. You are looking for something that isn’t there.

T8fgzz in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Are you a Chemist? If so, maybe you could talk about this issue of abiogenesis and the topic of this video. I am defending a theory, result of 6 years observing natural systems and biosphere in Amazon jungle searching connections and applying comparative anatomy between living and non living systems. It’s not science, is natural philosophy. My results suggests that those atoms and molecules at abiogenesis were not only acting by reactions, but driven by a previous design. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

The better question to ask is one that neither religion nor evolution/BBT has yet properly answered. “What caused the initial event that spawned all subsequent action/reaction chains.” Basically, for Atheists, what was the causal factor of the Big Bang, for Creationists, what was the causal factor for God.

Sad thing is, both systems fall apart when put up against initial causality.

AndrewDeLong in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

It happens because either religions and the current theories based in scientific method went far away from Nature. See the explanations found by Matrix/DNA Theory, initial causality are well explained and there is a vast amount of evidences already collected as supporters of its models. But you and any other human being will not accept nether understand the explanations. Why? Thousands years of culture becoming more and more anti-natural.

Austriak1 in reply to AndrewDeLong (Show the comment) 1 second ago 6:32 – AM – OCT – 04

NON PUBLISHED: AndrewDeLong: “What caused the initial event that spawned all subsequent action/reaction chains.”

That’s is easy! Ask Nature. Where we can see such event? On… there is one everybody knows: the fecundation of ovule and subsequent new natural system. What’s  the cause of that event? An ex-machine, an outsider ( in relation to ova+spermatozoon) design inside a natural specie that was a little bit less evolved. The answer from Chemists like T8Fgzz is “reactions of atoms/molecules, because they can not see the invisible software coming from the unknown outsider system bringing the design and driving those atoms and molecules for to organize into a system. This is thru for abiogenesis and emergence of universes.

XXX

No, you can’t. You don’t know who the shoemaker is, he died years ago and his body was cremated. To top it off, no shoemaker you meet will admit to making that type of shoe. Do you still think there was a shoemaker who made that shoe? Why?

Marty Robinson in reply to emero510 1 hour ago

Because apes did not have shoe, then it is not an evolutionary product. But in relation to nature, everything known belongs to a natural system and all natural system has been caught having an ancestor. Now we are discovering that the first cell system (aka “living being”) had an ancestor system. And since lots of evidences are suggesting this Universe is product of genetic reproduction, the Universe itself had an ancestor. Ancestor = previous non-intelligent design. Any maker found…

Austriak1 in reply to Marty Robinson 1 second ago – 9:03 – AM – Oct – 03

Theory: Abstract knowledge or reasoning a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity”

There, you didn’t even have to look it up, I looked it up for you. There is nothing unscientific about theorizing that something as complex as (or vastly more complex than) a shoe was made. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. Or you are just that lacking intelligence. You are Ignored.

Marty Robinson in reply to odinata (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

The most complex natural thing we know today is a human body and it was made by genetic transmission of non-intelligent previous design. The Universe is very simple, merely an agglomerate of galaxies, it is merely mass since neither system it is. You are suggesting otherwise because instead Nature, a fiction book called Bible had hard-wired your brain. But you can fix it, if you come here with focus , first, in real natural phenomena, then, debating the different theories and interpretations.

Austriak1 in reply to Marty Robinson 1 second ago

“Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.”

–Schafersman, Steven D. “An Introduction to Science”

You have NO EXCUSE for remaining a fool.

allieron in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

The word “theory” belongs to greeks that coined it and not to scientific community. The universal definition is “Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking”. So, religions and ID are theories.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

Correct.

Science shot itself a bit in the foot with its oft confusing (for the layperson) descriptions, but when you look at the overview of the scientific method and its evolution, it’s understandable that a large percentage of the world population are simply too stupid to understand it.

“It’s hard to soar with eagles when you’re surrounded by turkeys.”

allieron in reply to Austriak1 24 minutes ago

Maybe not. That’s debatable. Human being and its “scientific tools” are still a specific observer located at a specific and tiny point in time/space. We can grasp only few light frequencies, the great universe and effects of forces from the hierarchy of systems prejudices our knowledge of any natural object. Sometimes the world population can make better theories because they are still linked to Nature through reason, which is produced by Nature. It is not the case of religions, but natives.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

That doesn’t change the fact that “theory” in a scientific setting has a very specific definition that differs from general parlance.

Joshua White in reply to Austriak1 26 minutes ago

Ok… Evolution is not an object, it is a process, composed by mechanisms. Am I wrong? Inside the Science field, it is not a theory, anymore. But we can not bring a process over the table for convincing a manual worker or a creationist. What we can do? We need a better strategy than this one we are watching here, debating if evolution, ( or religion. ID) is a theory or not.

Austriak1 in reply to Joshua White 1 second ago

I have used a natural phenomena loved by any person for convincing that evolution is real: the events that comprises the generation of a new human being. There are diversification of species of cells starting from an unique common ancestor, the first cell. There are transformation of shapes with increased complexity ( from morula to blastula, fetus,etc.) Still there is a previous design that is ex-machine in relation to the universe of that cell or embryo ( the ovule, the womb).It works, or not.

Austriak1 in reply to Austriak1 1 second ago

Scientific Theories are facts.

Lots of them.

Thousands.

Combined into the explanatory power that no single FACT has by itself.

Chemistry works because ATOMIC THEORY is FACT.

odinata in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 22 minutes ago

Atoms are facts; Atomic Theory is an interpretation, a suggestion about what is atoms.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

It’s not an “intimation”. A Scientific Theory is the HIGHEST level of knowledge we possess. It incorporate laws, facts and enough evidence to ensure ONLY a brain-dead, utterly ignorant moron could FAIL to understand its explanation.

“A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.”

allieron in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

Now you said it right: “a scientific theory is…” But, related to official and universal definition of the word “theory” religions and ID are theories. For to solve this problem ( a problem created by scientists) in Science should be used other word, such as “scitheory”.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

An interpretation made entirely of facts.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 21 minutes ago

That’s debatable. Since nobody never saw an atom and can’t show it bringing on the table, what we can do is observing its surrounding manifestations and hitting it for observing the external effects, as in CERN. Atoms are like black holes, we know there is something in that point of space, but we have only theories about,. The atomic theory is not the real fact “atom” because is a non-complete description. Proof is 8.000 new scientific papers each year.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

a problem created by scientists??? how? because words changed meaning over time? Or did scientist invent the word? That’s like blaming forest fires on the guy who invent the word fire.

tsub0dai in reply to Austriak1 20 seconds ago

My friend, when the first scientist used this word, he should look right in the dictionary what was the definition of that word. And it is what says Wikipedia, coined by Greeks. He made a depreciation of his own work when saying that it was a “contemplative and rational generalization about the fact I have been observed…”.

Austriak1 in reply to tsub0dai 1 second ago

You need understand that the scientific community needs to leave the word “theory” inside the field of Science when talking with someone outside that field ( like creationists). When creationists says that “evolution” is merely a theory how we should answer? That’s a complex issue for thinking about.

Austriak1 in reply to Austriak1 1 second ago

No, religions and ID are not scientific theories.

They make no testable hypotheses.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 (Show the comment) 8 minutes ago

You are right, they are not “scientific theories”. But Science is not the owner of the word “theory”. It still belongs to Greeks that coined it, and here, they are theories.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

Evolution is still a theory.

Just like Relativity is still a Theory, Atomic Theory is still a theory, etc.

And they are all FACT.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 3 minutes ago

Evolution, atoms, curve of space are facts. I think that Atomic Theory was the right name when the atom was first proposed by early Indian and Greek philosophers. The same way that there is no exact line showing when a human body ends its phase as child and begins the phase of adolescence, there is no a right point when a theory is transformed into the fact itself. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” Ibid., p. 141.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

But those physical properties, although suggests previous non-living design, does not shows evidences for “intelligent design” when we recapitulates natural history from here to Big Bang. This is a good point and a fault in the scientific community thought today, and the culprit is the indoctrination in the reductive method which is avoiding the scientific treatment of natural systems. Others theories are just now seeing the purposes of genes/life coming from photons and non-living systems.

Austriak1 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago – 9:50 PM Oct 02

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

XXX

“Many universities are cutting out their philosophy departments, because it’s just not needed once you have science.”

“Philosophy without Science leads to magical thinking, Science without philosophy is blind science.”- Louis Morelli …And I agree. The human sensors can’t see natural phenomena belonging to others light’s frequencies and matter/energy organized in all dimensions. So, for each given object, human science selects some data and discriminates all others. Philosophy help to fix it

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 6:12 AM Tue – Oct -02

XXX

Everybody here has defined evolution and forgotten to define “God”. Wikipedia: “God is omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, eternal, necessary existence.

This is good business: Smart Designer. First you select all good attributes seen in peoples’ dreams. Then you think some fairy tales. Instead Harry Potter, give the name God. Now go to sell it. Those dreamers people will buy..

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago 6: 49 AM – Tue – Oct – 02

XXX

Natural Selection isn’t random. Mutations are random but those that suck die and dont reproduce. This is not random.

Mike Vasquez in reply to JungleJargon (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes, but ToE does not explains in full what is natural selection (NS), given opportunity to creationists criticize it. The way ToE is introducing NS suggests that evolution is blind and a world ruled by random. ToE suggests that could have many universes where NS would not exists, then, it is product of random. But if universes are merely tools of a big process of reproduction of that unknown thing that triggered the Big bang, NS would be not random. ToE needs arrive to this larger process.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Mike Vasquez 1 second ago 6:25 PM – Oct – 01

XXX

The Great God has absolutely no need for your approval…

the strawman gods you demolish are simply the creations of your own myopia…

answer this question:

who created the laws of physics?

Tom Adams in reply to TheBloodyBlackJackal (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

“who created the laws of physics?”

That’s a child’s question. Of course it was the great god Pink Unicorn. The proof is that our ancestor, the apes, like bananas because bananas has the shape of the corn of our god. Think Pink! The Universe is PInk. We all are Pink…somewhere. Pink is all about love!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

XXX

Evolution says matter made or remade what you are for no reason.

That is irrational and illogical.

JungleJargon 1 minute ago

Nope. The “evolution” we are watching here is merely the steps of an universal process of genetic reproduction. It is showing to us that this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg ( or galaxies are the bodies of our ancient ancestors) where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction from something ex-machine, something that is existing beyond this Universe and had fecundated this egg with an initial Big Bang. So, evolution suggests the purpose is to produce the “son” of that unknown source.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago 6:03 PM – October – 01

Variation of the same kind is not the same thing as transformation into being different kinds by the reprogramming of the entire genome billions of times in succession by accident.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

You need remember that this Universe is composed by a succession of “natural systems’ hierarchy”, where those simpler systems are sub-systems of those more complex systems. Biological evolution is happening over natural systems that are inside and were produced by a system more physically evolved than any monkey. Informations from this more evolved system are free in the air and they are responsible for those transformation of species. Our problem is with our knowledge about astronomical systems

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

Nature is not able to programme or reprogramme life forms billions of times in succession.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 hour ago

Nature is doing it here under your eyes, by genetic transmission. Your problem is that you don’t know the natural program that can evolve from a simplest non-material quantum vortex, which has already all seven natural forces that evolved to the seven natural life’s properties. This “genetic program” is coming from somewhere before the Big Bang and we can not go there for knowing what is the source. There is no magical code in DNA, merely diversification of LUCA – the Last Universal Ancestor.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

XXX

Not only are the odds extremely high for 17 of the most of the most common elements to be absolutely essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us, those essentinal elements are also programmed to be many different kinds of life forms. The programming of matter into being life forms *proves* there is a Programmer not made of matter because matter is not able to make itself programmable *and* matter is very simply not ever able to programme or reprogramme itself by accident.

JungleJargon 5 minutes ago

“matter is not able to make itself programmable”

That’s evident, of course. So, what we must do? Search in Nature how matter is organized into working systems. A good method is “comparative anatomy between living and non-living system”, and calculation how the forces existing before the first natural system (atoms) acted over initial mass. For doing that the best is applying the nuclear glue of Hideki Yukawa. This will show how the programme is encoded in any light wave. This is “the creator”.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

Nature does not progrmme anythig.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

Maybe you are right, but, meanwhile, all of us have only theories. Nature is the whole Universe and nobody can know the thru about the Universe standing inside it (see Godel’s theorem). My theory is that inside this Universe is ruling the “matrix” — a kind of software diagram that I show in my website and which are under tests. But, I respect your theory: it could be the right one and mine, the wrong one. Who knows?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

XXX

Evolution is a myth that causes problems.

There *is* evidence of Creation. The programmed matter inside of you proves you have a Maker / Programmer not made of matter because matter only ever does what it is made to do. Matter is not able to programme itself.

“Scientists” are so out of it.

They need to stop teaching evolution immediately! Life does not reprogramme itself. It only does what it is made to do and proves you have a Maker.

PROOF OF GOD in less than 10 seconds

watch?v=_hLWx0cgOps

JungleJargon 8 seconds ago

You are obsessed by the word “programme” but forgetting that this world and the process behind it only exists because we discovered it working in Nature. It happens that what you think as “divine programme” is merely a set of diversification of an unique natural system which are expressed obeying the past evolutionary events. There is no “natural programme” and DNA is not a code as if some intelligence were transmitting a hidden message.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

You fail to prove that matter made or remade what you are billions of times in succession by accident.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago 6:03 PM – October – 01

So when our nearest star goes into supernova – will that be His programming too?

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 39 seconds ago

The current astronomical theory, called “Nebular Theory” is suggesting that our nearest star is going into supernova? This star is the Sun? Ok, if this theoretical model is right, my model could be wrong… or not. I am based in my model for suggesting the post above: there is a kind of universal “matrix” which appears to be a genetic or computational programme coming from somewhere ex-machine. DNA is merely the biological shape of this matrix, a evolutionary step following the last top system.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

thematrix says - ToE and ID are theories,

No, evolution is a scientific theory and ID is a hypothesis, it has never made theory status…

geezusispan in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Evolution is a natural phenomena, We can see evolution in any process of embryogenesis, where something in shape of blastula evolves to fetus, embryos, etc. If Nature does it here in 9 months, it is rational to suppose that it does in 3,7 billion related to biological history and it does in 13.7 billion years of universal history. ToE is the theory of biological evolution ( which comprises medium and micro evolution) without knowing universal evolution and its effects over biological history.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to geezusispan 1 second ago

Supernova or expanding to the diameter of the Earth’s orbit – there’s a better outcome for human beings, all the animals, and every molecule of water on our blue planet?

That’s God’s Plan? Really?

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Sorry, I don’t understand exactly your point, due language translation. My models are not suggesting any transformation of Sun going into supernova. It is suggesting that galaxies were built by the same natural formula that built our DNA. I am suggesting the software’s diagram of this formula, so, it is falsiable. But who said anything about God? Is there God, is there a plan? My models suggests there is “natural reproduction of that unknown something that triggered the Big Bang” It’s not God

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

> It’s not God <

Yes – my point exactly.

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide

What is intelligently designed/built/made/assembled has a prescribed function/purpose duty, order, form, special materials, finish, esthetics, etc. It performs its function in specialized conditions that are suitable etc.

Can you pass the test? Are these things intelligently designed/built:

Pyramids, bee, satellite, ATP Synthase motor, humans.

Humans cannot make a bee or the ATP Synthase motor. Who did that has the intelligence/ability to design/make the bee and the ATP Synthase motor?

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Joel Ward 5 minutes ago

Yes, the ATP Synthase motor was previously designed before abiogenesis and you can see where and how – Google: ” The Cellular ATP Motor came from the Galaxies’ Rotational Motor?!” And the social system of bees already was designed by the same ancestor, you can see how in that website. But they were previously designed like your body was previously designed by human species, genetically, naturally. If there is some “intelligence” acting over evolution, does not look it inside this Universe.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

XXX

This is the first youtube comment thread that I have participated in that broke 200,000 comments. Un-fucking-believable.

fangednekoyasha 1 hour ago

And I am proud of America! Here still there is diversity of minds while the rest of the world are dominated by one (certainly wrong) worldview. The diversity of minds is the field for creativity and creates the appropriate conflict for exercising and driven our supreme search for answers to our existence. ToE, Darwin, and you, atheists, makes a good job defending the concept of natural evolution, but ToE need be improved and ID is a kind of police avoiding what happened in Europe. Great America

TheMatrixDNA in reply to fangednekoyasha 1 second ago XXX

ALL of you evolutionary NUT CASES ask your leader BILLY BOY NYE how ANY & I MEAN ANY science experiment TODAY can PROVE ANYTHING about what was occurring 3.7 BILLION YEARS AGO?? If you DUMMIES would stop your LUNACY long enough to THINK for a SECOND you would ALL realize examining how LIFE functions TODAY will NEVER EVER be able to PROVE as a FACT that LIFE evolved 3.7 BILLION years ago. WAKE UP & SMELL THE BEAUTIFUL SCENT OF YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER’S FLOWERS THE ROSE IN PARTICULAR. God Bless!!!

Dan Dillon 1 hour ago

The heaven father acting over that soup 3,7 billion years ago had intelligence minor than an amoeba despite was an almost perfect half-organism. He and his female counterpart were a sinner that made the biggest mistake of our ancestors: choose to be a closed system, the extreme expression of selfishness, closing the doors to evolution. Try to expand your mind’s horizons and think about the top evolved natural system in that time. You are repeating the sin of Adam/Eve when as evolution-stopper.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Dan Dillon 1 second ago XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra ToE

Multiple “sudden” appearances of complex life clearly seen in fossil data are still unexplainable within the evolutionary model. Even the highly touted, more recent, supposed human transitional forms such as “Lucy” and the “Taung Child” have been shown by contemporary studies to be unrelated to modern humans. Mitochondrial DNA samples from our old friends the Neanderthals have also proven to have no relation to human beings. All of this defies evolutionary claims.

Keith Davis in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

SÔBRE O VíDEO/DEBATE

It seems that we landed on the moon, invented the space shuttle, and brought the world into the highest standard of living EVER, all done by people who loved and feared God. Since our culture has started denying God, we’ve lost the shuttle, we haven’t gone back to the moon, and war and poverty are as big of problems as they ever were. It seems our species and culture grew just fine when we as a nation believed in our Creator. Too bad a scientist like Billy Nye is so terribly myopic.

Stephen Nielsen 2 hours ago

“It seems our species and culture grew just fine when we as a nation believed in our Creator” *facepalm* correlation NEVER = causation dope the US bible belt is amongst the highest in violent crimes and rape. highest in abortions and teen pregnancies “haven’t gone back to the moon” no, not much to learn about the moon, what do you prepose we learn there we don’t already know? “war… as big of problems as they ever were” mostly because of religion

lennyhipp in reply to Stephen Nielsen 10 minutes ago

XXX

Expressões Inglêsas usadas aqui:

-Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

-Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says

-Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

XXX