Archive for fevereiro, 2018

Luz: Evidencia de que ela carrega informacao

quarta-feira, fevereiro 28th, 2018



Fotos de fantasmas (orbs) e a investigação da Matrix/DNA

quarta-feira, fevereiro 28th, 2018


Nova foto de “orbes” por Rich Kane que utiliza tecnologia avancada e tem uma teoria intrigante sobre elas: seriam seres vivos, remanescentes de antigos alienigenas que habitaram a Terra,  ( me interesso porque as minhas interpretacoes das formulas e modelos teoricos da Matrix/DNA Theory sugerem e predizem que deve existir neste planeta formas compostas por fotons oriundos da radiacao cosmica que seriam os precursores da vida terrestre, portanto, apesar de ser uma teoria bem diferente da de Rich Kane, as fotos e o continuo trabalho investigativo do Rich merecem nossa atencao…



E meus comentarios postados abaixo da foto no site do Rich Lane, em 2/28/18:

I am investigating the hypothesis that these things are what my theoretical models and formula are suggesting: groups, packets of photons half-astronomic/half-biological from waves of light that are emitted by cosmic radiation, stars, Earth’s nucleus, etc. The Matrix/DNA Theory suggests an evolutionary link between this galaxy and the first living being, a complete and working cell system. and the evolutionary link has a kind of DNA ( a universal matrix) which is fragmented due entropy into bits-information and when these bits meets here they try to compose the prior system by entering inside electrons of terrestrial atoms for driven them to compose the system, but, mutations due difference of environments results in biological systems. These orbs would be photons-bits joined before entering atoms. If so, they are elemental beings, not concious. Maybe they search in living beings the another bits that can ad to their composition; if so, they are feeding on us, our energy. They are aliens in the sense that they came from the whole galaxy, but they are terrestrials because the packet was built here. They are slices, peaces, of the universal natural formula for systems, sometimes almost complete systems. They are our link to the Cosmos and our ancestors astronomic systems, so, they are tye real creator of life here. Ok, this is merely the results suggested by my way of interpreting the models and formulas, I have n o proof about it, I do not believe in it since I am a careful skeptical, but, I keep the investigation because it makes a lot of sense. What do you think, Rich? Cheers… I hope you continuing yours very important investigation, I am watching it..

Segundo comentario:

+Rick Kane – Only for adding something: If these orbs are what my calculus are suggesting, they must have the human face’s shape. The universal formula that nature applies for organizing matter into working systems can be designed as a software diagram and when I did it, the final figure had the human face shape, with functions representing two eyes, mouth, ears, etc. It must be in this way because the human face also was built by that formula.

It is not merely coincidence because the building blolcks of DNA is made by the same formula and if you look to them, you will see the humans face. Of course, the DNA designed our faces.

And when we connect the seven known astronomical bodies as if they are formed by the process of light propagation which is the same process of life’s cycles, again we get the same working system, a figure ressembling the human face.

If they are real packets of bits of our ancient astronomic ancestors, when they penetrates rocks, they must design faces in the rocks because they are shaped as faces.

Why? iI is because all these things are based on the same natural formula – the Matrix/DNA, which is at my website. So, these faces in the orbs are keeping me very busy looking to them and making comparisons with that formula, those natural systems and those building blocks. My problem is that I have no more good vision, so it is difficult to see the faces. Very interesting, ahn?
Another idea occurring me now would be the explanation for why the bubbles are coloured? It is a rational composition between light and membranes. How membranes emerged from living cells has been a big mistery, not for those that know the Matrix/DNA formula and how it generated biological systems here. The building blocks of galactic systems – which evolved into cell systems – already had a kind of membrane surrounding their nucleus, to which hawkings has mistakenly called ” the event horizon surrounding black holes. Membranes or event horizont are merely more a natural construction of a systemic function ( in Matrix/DNA formula it is a mixing between F1 and F8).
So, every time that bits of photons with informations for building a system emerges, the membrane or the cover of the bubble emerges automatically. But, if the internal content are those photons we have a packet of light and when the light reaches the membrane is like when light reaches crystals – they are decomposed into colours. It makes sense for you?
Nesta foto, Rich sugere estar vendo o “espirito” de uma garota india nativa. Por estranho que pareca, para nos que nao acreditamos em espiritos e existindo dessa maneira, de repente resolvi reconsiderar o assunto porque ao consultar a formula da Matrix/DNA e ver se a foto faria algum sentido logico, ela sugeriu que isto e’ possivel! Mas entao… bem, so lendo o comentario abaixo que postei no site do Rich para ter uma ideia do alcance da coisa…
louis Morelli – 3/1/18
Ok, now another strange idea is occurring. You said “spirit”. Generally I would not believe that there are spirits in this way, but… looking to Matrix/DNA, it suggested that it is possible. I wil, try to explain:
As I said before, these “orbs” could be pohtons-bits-information of systems that were our ancestors and creators of life here, they would be the slices of seeds of life. If so, it is not wrong saying that they are the “spirits” of our ancestors – which are the building blocks of this galaxy. When all bits meets and are connected they composes a kind of cell system which substance is photons, then, light.
When evolution made human beings, these light composition grows and remains inside our body whith is called ” aura” by orientals. So, we can suppose that when a person dies, this aura lives the body. We can call them, again, “spirit”. By some unknown reason, some ” spirits” remains at Earth or our observable dimension in the primordial state like a orb. To me it makes sense, althought it is a very strange idea.
Please, if you never noticed it, go to look to the pictures of auras as designed by orientals. Try to see how the two “kundalines” is like the two streams of DNA. Now look the “chacras” between the kundalines and remember of the nitrogenuous bases between the DNA’s streams. They are same figure. Why? Because orbs, auras and DNA are the same unique thing in different evolutionary states. Always spirits down, from human to galaxies to waves of light emitted at the Big Bang. Well, my almight lord Pink Unicorn, I think we are going too much far here, what do you think?
If this theory is right, the difference of age between the indian girl and those rounded bubbles is merely 4 billion years, and maybe the girl plays with them as her pets…
Comentario de um leitor:
+Louis Charles Morelli The ancients believed that if you held on to a thought strongly enough it would gain and existence of it’s own.
Minha resposta: 3/2/18
+Robert Walden –  It is not my case because I was born skeptical and I know that my brain has its limits, so, my thoughs also. It happens that after studying all known world views I didn’t choose one, no none was satisfactory. Then I knew this Matrix/DNA thing and found it the best for explaining my exprience of life and all known natural facts in this observable universe. But I know that it is not complete and as all theories will be changed and is says nothing beyond the observable world, no metaphysics. What I am studying about Rich works and orbs in general will not be added to my world view because this issue goes beyond my observable universe and Matrix/DNA has this limit, it arrives to Big Bang and stop there, never going a step into metaphysics. What is interesting in this issue is the possibility that it is not metaphysics, all assertions I am investigating has foundation on solid natural facts, like photons, light, energetic templates of real systems. By the way, thanks for remembering that.
Meu comentario no novo post de RICH dia 3/2/18:
Two new information here and I will explain what Matrix/DNA suggests about them:
1) The atraction for light is predicted for Matrix/DNA definition of orbs. They are composed by photons, each photon carrying on one information from the system they came from. Like all humans are atracted by Humanity because each individual is part of Humanity, all photons are atracted to light because they are part of it. When these photons/genes penetrates matter, they do it by penetrating electrons, which emits light. The other reason orbs are atracted to light is their alimentation: since they are not complete packet of informations of a system, they search the photons that has those informations for incorporating them. That’s why it is possible that they also feeds on us, because our bodies has all photons/information.
2) UFOS. This is the weird part that Matrix/DNA does not agree. It suggests that orbs are elemental, like irracional, they would not be able to develop technology. I will review all yours photos where you see UFOS. Are you sure it is not another thing? Has you seen other situation where they show some suggestion of technology? I am not saying that there are no UFOS, what I am suggesting is that UFOS must be other species of aliens from different places. Cheers… 

Website: Importante relacao de 200 links para meu site

terça-feira, fevereiro 27th, 2018

xxxxx ExternalLinks SampleLinks

in My Drive

Os modelos da teoria da Matrix/DNA preenche estes requisitos para ser “cientifica”?

terça-feira, fevereiro 27th, 2018


Neste artigo o senhor Hans van Leunem postou um comentario que tem muito interesse `a Matrix/DNA Theory. Ele diz o que precisa uma teoria cientifica para ser valida, quando nao pode ser verificada por experimentos. Entao postei uma serie de questoes a ele, registradas abaixo ( verificar se havera resposta):

Is fundamental physics opening the door to pseudoscience?

A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation. In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge. This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.… explores this possibility. “Structure in Physical Reality”; highlights some aspects of this project.

Most new theories start without a proper foundation. They usually result in non-verifiable conclusions.

 E minha questao:

Your post is very helpful to those that elaborated their own theory, like me. But, questions arises here. 1) What is a solid and trusted foundation for theoretical models? For example, I have a new model suggesting the formation of seven known astronomic bodies, like planets, stars, quasars, etc. There are no proved fact about any formation, only another theoretical models, so, what is trusted foundation? 2) I have a model of the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolutions. There are no proved link and the trusted idea today is that there is no link, since that the trusted foundation is that life arose by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. it makes no sense, but, what we can do? How to suggest the obligatory existence of a link, and a model of it? 3) I have a model of the fundamental unit of DNA as a complete working system. If my theory is true, there is no genetic code, because the units of DNA are merely different copies of a unique initial system. Genetic code is nonsense since that matter can not creating codes, but it creates systems, working systems. How a theory that makes sense can prevail upon one that does not if the trusted foundation is a nonsense? if you could answer these questions I will appreciate. Thanks.

A resposta de Hans a minha questao:

A foundation must emerge in a full and self-consistent theory. It must be simple and easily comprehensible. A trustworthy interpretation must exist for the foundation and for everything that emerges from it. The evolution of the foundation into a full blown theory must restrict such that a theory grows that experiments can verify.

This means that you cannot start a theory at a high level where not every subject that is applied follows from the axioms that constitute the foundation of the theory.

Classical logic is well founded but does not evolve into a much wider theory. The orthomodular lattice is a relational structure that is quite similar to classical logic. However, it evolves in a theory that after a series of extensions becomes a structure in which aspects can be recognized that we know from observing physical reality.

Minha resposta/pergunta a Hans:

Thanks for the an answer. But, what to do when the academic official staff considers as the trustworthy foundation is clearly wrong, like they did with the geocentric model during 2.000 years?

The foundations now for any theory about life’s origins must obey to the current magical thinking, called abiogenesis. it is supposed the existence of magical randomness able to transform non-organic matter into life. It arises due missing the knowledge about astronomy that elaborates astronomic theoretical models without the forces and elements necessary for evolving into biological systems. The universal evolution is one, unique lineage, but arbitrary division into cosmological and biological evolution creates a gap, an abysm, between the two blocks, and the evolutionary link is missed and never searched. So, the necessity to fulfil this gap with something magical, like any religion.

Ok. Any theory that develops another astronomic model from which emerges the evolutionary link and explains rationally the origens of life will be discarded because it will go against the theories which are believed to be trustworthy. In the way you are asking the basic foundations, neither Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin would be considered a valid theory. Do you agree?


Apenas depois que postei o Segundo comentario notei que Hans e eu estamos sendo redundante, ou seja, estamos repetindo nossos postulados as infinitum sem cruza-los com os postulados do outro para estabelecer um dialogo inteligivel que leve a algum resultado. Entao imediatamente postei o proximo comentario:

Sorry my persistence but after my second post and reading the prior posts I noticed that we are repeating ours statements without answering the another arguments. So, let’s go by parts:

You said: ” A theory that uses aspects that cannot be verified by experiments must apply a modeling platform that is based on a solid and trusted foundation.”

The theory of abiogenesis cannot be verified by experiments because we cannot repeat an event that occurred by chance. If we could do it, means that is a normal occurrence, not chance. Do you agree?You said: “In fact it must be based on the belief that physical reality possesses structure and this structure owns a simple foundation from which higher, more complicated levels emerge.”Ok. The supposed primordial soup, or the thermal deep oceanic vents, considered the simple foundations from where the more complicated levels of life emerged is not a solid foundation, because among the supposed ingredients in that soup there was no one replicating itself, no one transmitting hereditary a genetic code, no one doing metabolism, etc. It is observable that later these properties emerged from complex structures derived from the supposed soup. This is naturally impossible, something cannot comes from nothing, I mean, the academic theory supposes that those properties has no prior causes. Do you agree?You said: “This hierarchy must evolve in the structure of physical reality that we can observe. In this configuration the lower levels can only be deduced from deeper levels. Also the foundation itself must be available. Thus scientists must already have discovered the founding structure.”For abiogenesis theory the scientists believes they have available the foundation – the soup. They believe that they are reproducing it at lab. But how to prove that a soup intelligently designed at lab is the same soup produced in a unique event by chance 3,5 billion years ago? As I said, if it was product of chance there is no way to reproduce it. In fact, they have no discovered the founding structure. The synthetic soup made in labs trying to reproduce the reduced initial conditions has produced some amino acids and even simple polypeptides, but they never get the next step, these simple building blocks evolving into proteins and RNA. So, these lower levels of life – proteins, RNA, and even membranes cannot be deduced from the deeper level – the soup, or thermal vents.So, I think that the supposition of a primordial soup is rational, since that nobody can rationalize another naturally occurring foundation for life’s origins. But the big gap between the supposed ingredients and processes between non-organic and organic matter means, literally, that is missing important ingredients doing important processes in the theorized soup. Do you agree?I am the unique person making the questions in this way because my personal humble investigations with the most simplest method – comparative anatomy between the prior cosmological systems and the resulting biological systems – suggested the existence of more ingredients in that soup, which came from astronomical systems but, for seeing it, we need to do new theoretical models of those systems, where we get the elements and forces that already were expressing those life’s properties. What do you think?


Meu website: Google nao favorece buscas por mobile devices devido falhas no site

terça-feira, fevereiro 27th, 2018


Having a mobile-friendly website is a critical part of your online presence. In many countries, smartphone traffic now exceeds desktop traffic. If you haven’t made your website mobile-friendly, you should. Search Console’s Mobile-Friendly Test Tool is a quick, easy way to test whether a page on your site is mobile-friendly.


(aparece primeiro a pagina simples Azul apenas com as duas bandeiras e letrinhas ilegiveis. porque?)

Tested on: Feb 24, 2018 at 4:22 PM

Page is not mobile friendly

This page can be difficult to use on a mobile device

Fix the following 2 issues: Como resolver, ver em:

 – Text too small to read ( tem que mexer no programa HTML)

 – Viewport not set (que e isso?) 

Hitler ressuscita em video ontem para avisar que nao existe evolucao…

domingo, fevereiro 25th, 2018


Engracado video feito por criacionistas…

Porque Evolucao nao existe – Extenso e completo relatorio por criacionistas

domingo, fevereiro 25th, 2018


A teoria da Matrix/DNA tem sugerindo que a teoria da evolucao e’ mais correta do que a teoria religiosa da biblia, apesar de que a Matrix faz uma complete reformulacao da teoria da evolucao sugerindo que a teoria de Darwin e mesmo o modern darwininismo esta muito incompleto. Aqui vai um texto escrito por pastores criacionistas para mostrar o que pensam da evolucao. Bom sera ver os comentarios a seguir que sao um alerta contra a impressao causada pelo artigo.

E-bbok na Amazon:

Friday, February 7, 2014

The wasted career of Charles Darwin

 Update by Peter Cornswalled:

Pursuant to the wishes of my late brother, Alexander, his extensive body of writing will be published. This article is now available for your Kindle in both English and Spanish

The original author of this article has granted me permission to publish it, but has asked that his name not be connected to it, do to left leaning ideologies that have subsequently infected his thinking.

In the late 1800’s Charles Darwin introduced his now infamous book, The Origin of Species. This work introduced what is now known as Darwinian evolution. Evolution however was nothing new, “The Greeks believed in a form of evolution,” centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. (Ham, 100) The Origin of Species was destined to change the course of history and cause the re-evaluation of Victorian morality. It would be said that the evolutionary model “Helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) The assumptions necessary to support the evolutionary model would weaken science and result in the bias of a scientist and not the facts determining the results of experiments and field research. It would compel Cesare Lombroso to form a criteria for the identification of the criminal element based upon physical characteristics such as the subject’s brow ridge and eye shape. Darwin’s model would be applied to the business world to justify ruthless business tactics and excuse, even glorify, maltreatment of the lower classes. It would penetrate the religious community and result in the formation of the theocratic evolutionists. Finally, it would allow society to remove God and his moral absolutes. This final result would cause the persecution of Christian values and beliefs and the formation of numerous misconceptions about Christianity. The resulting removal of moral absolutes would legitimize abortion and prompt so-called “mercy killings” and provide a new basis for racial prejudice. The Evolutionary model of origins would impact not only science, but criminology, business, religion, and basic morality.

When The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was not the only incident of importance. Japan had unwillingly ended it’s self imposed isolation only five years earlier. A war between Great Britain and Persia Had been over for three years. France went to war against Austria, and won that war the same year. The construction of the Suez Canal began, and the first American oil wells were drilled. The American Civil War was a mere two years away. It was far from being an inactive period in world history.

To truly comprehend the consequences of the evolutionary model one must first see the misinformation and false trails that lead Darwin to construct this model of origins. Darwin’s education included study in the department of Theology at Cambridge University, from which he graduated in 1831. The dogma taught at this university included several erroneous interpretations of Biblical data and concepts contrary to both the Bible and science. One fallacy Darwin was taught as fact was the idea that the Genesis account of Creation stated that reproduction within the created types, or baramins, was comparable to “Pennies from a mint.” (Marsh, 136) This theory was discarded around 1400 AD., when the more accurate variation within created types was realized from both science and the Biblical record. Despite the dethroned status of this theory it was taught as fact to Darwin. Needless to say, he would find it to be inaccurate as he proceeded to examine the scientific data. Frank Marsh records the second fallacy in his paper, The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. “At Cambridge, Darwin was also taught that all modern forms of plants and animals had been created and set down in the very pattern of geographical distribution in which we find them today. Actually there is no scriptural ground for this latter teaching.” (Marsh, 138) Not only does this concept find no support in scripture, but it is in direct opposition to the story of Noah’s flood. Darwin found nature to completely disprove the theories he had been taught at Cambridge regarding the origin of the Earth and thought the Bible disproven as well. This led him to conclude that life had arisen by natural processes without the aid of God. He then constructed a model of the most likely way this could of occurred, a model he recorded in The Origin of Species. The great tragedy of this is Darwin’s failure to examine the Bible for himself. Not until his declining years did he study the Bible he had thought disproven. Not until then did he realize the delusions that he had disproven were not in the Bible at all. For more information on Darwin’s later rejection of his own model see “Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian?” by John W. Klotz, and Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. Volume 29, Number 2 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ in Bibliography) contains updated information.

The flawed origin of the evolutionary model gives rise to difficulties. Anyone who attempts to account for the numerous flaws present in the model must realize that Darwin himself later recanted of his own accord. One must also realize these flaws are presented only in the highest levels of the current education system, and information on them is made available only to those who go to great lengths to find literature dealing with these flaws. This brings us to the first flaw of the model. Modern educators present the Evolutionary model as a proven fact, as a law of nature. This is both misleading and inaccurate. The two current models of the Earth’s origin are Creationism and Evolutionism, neither of which is directly subject to the scientific method. In order for something to become a “fact” or a “Law of nature” it must be subjected to the scientific method. This requires the formation of a hypothesis that is tested. As both origin models are belief systems about past events they cannot be tested, and thus can be neither proven or disproven. They are models, a system of beliefs from which predictions can be made and tested. These predictions can then be used to determine which model fits the observed data better. They are both models, not facts or laws.

Another one of the flaws involved in the evolutionary model entails the mechanism of evolution, the driving force behind this “onward and upward” process. Darwin originally attributed this function to use and disuse. The idea was simple, a man exercises, building up his muscles. These enlarged muscles would be passed on to that man’s children. The problem with this is easy to see in the light of modern genetics. No mater how much he could bench press, the man could not change his DNA. “Traits acquired by use and disuse just don’t affect heredity.” (Morris and Parker, 94) Those who still clung to this outmoded concept were subsequently dubbed Darwinists, and those who accepted the next proposed mechanism of evolution were called Neo-Darwinists. Under use and disuse natural selection served only to weed out the weak and maintain the status quo, the same position assigned natural selection since Creationists first described it fifty years before Darwin; use and disuse were relied upon to provide the upgrades.

The mechanism proposed by Neo-Darwinists upgraded natural selection to a more prominent role. Random mutations in the germ cells provided the raw material for evolution and natural selection chose the most beneficial ones. However this provides no true method of betterment. Random chance was the only way to produce an upgrade and provided the only material natural selection had to work with. The major flaw with this is the lack of time. Even the billions of years postulated by evolutionists is not enough time to evolve a Hydra, let alone a human being. This allowed the formation of the Post-Neo-Darwinists. This group accepts the basic arguments of the Neo-Darwinists with a few changes. Essentially, as this new group postulates, evolution is not the slow, painstaking process that was previously thought, but a rapid process taking place in isolated populations. The accelerated pace of this most recent development explains the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and allows an age in accordance with Creationist’s research. Numerous Post-Neo-Darwinists are also young-earth evolutionists, individuals that accept Earth ages as young as 10,000 years, while supporting evolution. This level of fluctuation is sadly typical of proponents of the evolution model.

To further illustrate the negative effect of Darwin’s model on science witness the example of the Monera classification. In order for evolution to take place there must be an organism to evolve. One of the major problems of the evolution model is, and will remain, the origin of the first living organism. Such an organism must come from non-living mater, a process known as abiogenesis that was disproven by Louis Pasteur. In 1868 one of Darwin’s strongest supporters, Ernest Haeckel wrote a lengthy paper about organisms he classified under the family name Monera, these organisms were later reclassified as Protisa. The Monera classification was originally created to bridge the gap between living and non-living matter. In 1868 Thomas Henry Huxley wrote an extensive paper entitled On Some Organisms Living at Great Depths in the North Atlantic Ocean the paper was as long-winded as the title. These “Organisms” consisted of mud dredged from the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean and preserved in alcohol. Huxley classified the protoplasm-like substance as two distinct species and declared them the “missing link” between living and non-living matter. This status for Huxley’s organisms continued to be accepted as the first solid proof of evolution until 1872, when a scientific expedition revealed the material Huxley and numerous supporters had hailed as living to be lifeless mud. The appearance of protoplasm had arisen from a chemical reaction that occurred when the dredged mud was placed in a strong alcohol solution. The gelatinous mass was a precipitate of lime. The first conclusive evidence of this was provided by J. Y. Buchanan and is recorded in volume 24 of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1876. (Rupke, 182) It does not take much knowledge or wisdom to see the incredible error that takes place when lime is mistaken for a living organism. The involvement of the evolutionary model can be clearly seen upon the examination of Huxley’s goals. He was nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog” because of the extreme methods he used when supporting the evolutionary model. The organisms described in Huxley’s paper was the end result of a long and torturous search for the missing link the Monera classification would of provided.

A more modern, and more disheartening example of the model’s influence on science can be seen in the hunt for the ancestor of man. Note Nebraska man, built from one solitary tooth. When the jawbone that fit the tooth was discovered, the jawbone and the tooth were revealed to of come from an extinct species of pig. (Gish, 187-188) Piltdown man was a hoax, there is no existing fossils of Peking man, and Nethanderal man was re-classified as fully human in the mid-1960’s. As J. Hawkes stated in volume 204 of Nature magazine, “It still comes as a shock to discover how often preconceived notions have affected the investigation of human origins.” (Gish, 189) Not only does it effect the “investigation of human origins” but all aspects of science, no matter if the harmful bias is admitted or if it is concealed. The integrity of the scientific community has also been weakened by the irrational assumptions made by scientists in support of the evolutionary model. Varves, for example, are generally used as a method of determining the ages of the rocks containing them. “A varve is generally defined as a sedimentary lamina or sequence of lamina deposited in a still body of water in one year’s time.” (Oard, 72) In other words, the layers of sediment that form at the bottom of a lake or pond. These layers are alternately light and dark in color. The light layer is supposedly put down in summer, and the dark layer in Winter. One set of layers equals one varve. The assumption made is that one varve has been put down in one year, and there are no gaps in the record. The error in this conjecture becomes apparent when we see examples of multiple varve deposition per year. 360 varves were deposited in a 160 year time span in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and 42 were deposited in a 30 year time span in a Norwegian Glacial lake. (Oard, 76) This is illustrative of the type of difficulties faced by this method. Floods, droughts, and temporary isolation of still bodies of water can also play havoc with varve chronology.

Another example of unreasonable assumptions made by evolutionists is the various methods of determining the age of rocks. The most common method is determining the ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms in radioactive decay. “The use of radioactive decay as a basis for absolute age determination involves the premise that a parent element decays at a known rate, which remains constant, into a daughter element.” (Acrey, 73) Scientists also assume the sample contained no atoms of the daughter element at formation, or at least a known ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms. The various methods of ratio measurement are generally identified by the elements measured. The Lead:Thorium and Lead:Uranium methods (Both Uranium and Thorium decay to form lead) are invalidated by “Selective uranium leaching by acid waters” and the fact that “Most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they formed.” (Acrey, 73) The Lead:Alpfa method is unreliable because “So many of the Earth’s minerals have unknown proportions of thorium and uranium.” (Acrey, 73) This pattern holds true for all the lead, uranium, Carbon-14, and Fluorine methods that exist today. It is worthy of note however that the Fluorine method is useful in determining the order in which fossils were deposited at individual sights. The Carbon-14 method is considered accurate to a maximum age of 10,000 years when used on organic material. This is a theoretical maximum that arises from the fact that the amount of Carbon-14 that would be present in older samples would be so minute that the test’s margin of error would exceed the remaining sample.

Efforts to support evolution have been the source of numerous problems. For example the theory of atavism. According to this theory “some individual animals, including humans, at times revert back to an earlier evolutionary type”. (Bergman, 33) This theory is known as the human atavism theory when applied to H. Sapiens. “A tragic example of the use of evolution by another field was its uncritical acceptance into the field of criminology.” because of its “tragic consequences for multi-thousands of persons.” (Bergman, 33) The human atavism theory was applied to criminology by Cesare Lombroso, the first person to apply science to the field of criminology. Lombroso was conducting an autopsy on a famous criminal when he decided the subject bore a striking resemblance to an ape. In 1878, two years after experimentation put the Monera fallacy to rest, he published an interesting theory in a book he entitled The Criminal Man. The theory was simple, Lombroso postulated that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks to the savage state. This concept would have been relatively harmless if it were not for the manner in which Lombroso had it implemented. He encouraged a modification of the legal system that would dispense punishment based not upon the severity of the crime, but the “advanced” or “primitive” status of the criminal. Lombroso’s theories were used to create the descriptions of the basic criminal type. An enlarged brow for example, or pointed as opposed to curved earlobes designated an individual as savage and unreliable. Lombroso proudly relates instances where his analysis and testimony determined the verdict of trials, and laments the instances in which he failed to make a difference. He wanted those who had no characteristics that could be traced to atavism to be spared punishment for crimes as severe as murder because of their innately good nature, while those who displayed evidence of being throwbacks should be disposed of for the most trivial offenses. In essence, Lombroso would have a “modern” man who murdered his wife fined and released; while a “primitive” man would be executed for shoplifting. This is not an exaggeration, this is the kind of reform Lombroso and his supporters wanted. The connection between physical and behavioral characteristics was central to Lombroso’s theories, yet this assumption was contradictory to basic genetics. The concept of atavism has since been discarded, as an atavism could occur only if the mutations that supposedly cause evolution replicated genetic data previously purged from the gene pool by natural selection, as there is not enough DNA to encode discarded traits. Such a mutation, were it to occur, would subsequently be classified as a harmful mutation, and not an atavism. Despite the demise of the atavism theory Lombroso’s concepts live on. Whenever one hears about “The criminal face” or a defense lawyer asks a jury if “That is the face of a murderer”, Lombroso, and his disproven concepts, are being glorified.

The theory of human atavism is not the only portion of evolutionary thought to escape the confines of science. “Application of the principal of ‘survival of the fittest’ to human affairs came to be known as social Darwinism.” (Davidheiser, 338) Essentially the poor were regarded as weak and deserving of death. This was also used as the justification for unfair and cruel business practices. The stronger businessman would have a job when it was over, and the unfit one would be unemployed. James J. Hill in an explanation of his motives said, “The fortunes of the railroad companies is determined by the law of survival of the fittest.” (Hofstadter, 45) Robert E. D. Clark was speaking of Social Darwinism when he said, “Evolution, in short, gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience. The most unscrupulous behavior towards a competitor could now be rationalized; evil could be called good.” (Davidheiser, 339) Therein lies the true evil of Social Darwinism, not only did it excuse evil, but glorified it.

The application of pseudo-science had other repercussions in society. It provided a new excuse for racism. Terms such as “White man’s burden”, pan-Slavism, and pan-Germanism came into being, each one praising the superiority evolved status of the respective races. Pan-Germanism was used by Hitler to build support for his political agenda. It has been rumored that Hitler died claiming the Slavic peoples had proven themselves stronger in World War Two, nearly a century after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, and its removal of God was one of the major supports for Marx and Stalin in their removal of God from their communist nation. The final mockery of Social Darwinism was Darwin’s apparent rejection of it. Social Darwinists were further mortified by the embarrassment they caused to responsible scientists. (Davisheiser, 338 and 342)

The force with which evolution was touted as truth with the weight of men such as Lombroso and Huxley behind it soon forced the population to conclude that evolution was true, and blinded them to it’s status as an alternate interpretation of the existing data. This resulted in an attempt by religious leaders to mesh the science of God with the science of atheism, to conform to secular ideals. This is akin to mixing oil with water. As a result non-theistic Christians and theistic evolutionists developed from the Creationists. Non-theistic Christians reject the divinity of Christ and the existence of God, regarding the Bible as a quaint collection of advice. Jesus Christ is called a “good teacher”. The problem with this is Jesus claims to be God. A reading of the Gospels will reveal Jesus is one of three things. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or he is exactly who he claims to be. There are no other options. Theistic evolutionists attempt to blend evolution and the Bible by claiming God used evolution to Create the Earth, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are regarded as poetry. This group eventually finds itself unable to trust the Bible. The final group are the Creationists, of which the author is a member. We recognize that evolution is an attempt to explain the universe from an atheistic viewpoint. It is not “Religion vs. Science” as some would have us believe, but “The science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.” These definitions are independent of other denominational separations. All three groups are represented in each of the subdivisions that make up the Christian faith. Remember, evolution is the science of atheism, and atheism is a religion that denies the existence of God.

Earlier on I mentioned that “Evolution helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) This is an accurate statement. Not only did it make evolution respectable, but it made theism detestable. The separation of Church and state, originally intended to prevent the government from regulating religion, has since been twisted to ban the teaching of the Christian values upon which this nation was founded. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Biblical values are not tolerated, they are despised and ridiculed. The Church has come under fire for refusing to permit gays to become ministers, despite the fact that the Bible strictly forbids homosexuality. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22. Chapter 20, verse 18 of the same book orders all homosexuals be put to death! Remember, in the early days of the government, when the founding fathers were still alive, and for decades after their deaths, the supreme court cited the Bible as a precedent in court decisions! The debasement of the Bible was the direct result of the evolutionary model of origins. Once people believed there was no God, the Bible lost its authority. When the Bible lost its authority, the moral absolutes it contains lost relevance. The removal of Christianity and the values it represents from schools has resulted in entire generations growing up knowing nothing about Christianity. This has resulted in the formation of numerous misconceptions about the Christian faith. Not only does the school system arrogantly, and inaccurately proclaim the Bible disproven, but has reduced the Christian to a “goody two shoes” trying to earn salvation. Christians do not earn salvation. No amount of good works can save a human soul. “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” Romans 3:23. Salvation is a gift from God. We are saved by grace, not our actions. It is not what you do, but what you believe.

There have of course been repercussions in the secular society. The removal of God and his moral absolutes has resulted in an increase in numerous social ills. Evolution regards humans as nothing more that animals, and as we kill an unwanted animal, and put suffering animals to death, why not do the same to humans? If there is no Creation to be the pinnacle of, then we are not the pinnacle of God’s Creation. This has resulted in the debasement of human life. Life is no longer considered sacred by society, and this has resulted in two great evils, abortion and assisted suicide. Before Darwin the only moral issue that arose when someone considered an abortion was what the Bible says. The Bible makes it very clear that a fetus is not potential life or a non-viable tissue mass, but a living human being with a soul. “If the fetus is human life, that trumps any argument you can make about the individual rights of the mother.” (Limbaugh, 55) Once the status of the fetus was up for grabs, the result of the rejection of Biblical law, such asinine arguments as “freedom of privacy” were used to allow this wholesale slaughter to take place. The same thought processes apply to those with painful illnesses. If we are no more than animals, and we put animals to sleep, then why not put people to sleep? Jack Kevorkian, AKA “Jack the Dripper” (Limbaugh, 60), has applied this logic to humanity. It may be against the values of the majority, but it is in perfect harmony with the evolutionary model. Another result of Darwin’s coup has been a new foundation for racism. Before Darwin those intent upon discrimination read questionable justification into Biblical text. After Darwin the claim was made that whites were the most evolved race and all others were seen as inferior, lower on the evolutionary scale. It was Lombroso’s discrimination all over again, and was strongly influenced by Social Darwinism. Non-whites are now described as lower life forms, not yet evolved to the point of being fully human. The problem with this logic is, if we are all animals anyway, how can we say that one group is more evolved then the other? Moreover, what special treatment does being human earn us in the animal world? The implications of such logic are staggering.

Evolution, the most influential concept in the modern world truly has influenced us far beyond the realm of science. Darwin’s atheistic model of origins has had serious repercussions. The methods used to guess the age of the Earth, and the very formation of the model itself display the negative effect it has had on science. Lombroso and his work show the damage the model has done to criminology. The fruits of Social Darwinism were truly bitter, including communism, nazism, and monstrous business tactics. Religion has been ridiculed and defamed by the misconceptions its isolation has produced. Abortion is evidence of the feel-good attitudes spawned by Darwin’s model, and Dr. Death displays the disregard with which human life is held. Finally, Darwin has produced a new basis for racial hatred.

To all those who still think Darwin’s great coup has been a force for good, there is one final quote: “Well, if you are a product of chance, your brain is a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also the products of chance. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly. You can’t trust your own logic.” (Ham, 26) Remember, one of the most basic tenants of evolution is that all life it the product of chance.


Acrey, D. O. Problems in Absolute Age Determination. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Bergman, Jerry. The Biological Theory of Atavism: A History and Evaluation. CRSQ. June 1992, vol.29 No. 1 Pages 33-44.

Darwin, Charles. The Darwin Reader. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1956

Farb, Peter. Humankind. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston Mass. 1978

Farrington, Benjamin. What Darwin Really Said. Schocken Books, New York. 1982

Gish, Duane T. Ph.D. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. Master Books, El Cajon. 1985

God. The Holy Bible. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis MO. 1984

Ham, Ken The Lie: Evolution. Master Books, El Cajon CA. 1987

Hardin, Garrett. Science, Conflict, and Society. W. H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco. 1969

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. George Braziller inc. 1969

Klotz, John W. and Rusch, Wilbert H. Sr. Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian? Creation Research Society Books, Norcross. 1988.

Lammerts, Walter E. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Creation Research Society Quarterly Books. Kansas City. 1990

Limbaugh, Rush. The Way Things Ought to Be. Pocket Books, New York. 1992

Marsh, Frank Lewis. The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E.. What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, CA. 1987

Newman, Robert C. The Darwin Conversion Story. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 70-72

Oard, Michael J. Varves-The First “Absolute” Chronology. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 72-80

Roth, Charles E. The Most Dangerous Animal in the World. Addison Press, Reading Mass. 1971

Rupke, N. A. A Summary of the Monera Fallacy. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

von Fange, Erich A. Ph.D. Genesis and the Dinosaur. Living World Services, Syracuse, IN. 1990

Webster, Noah LL.D. New Concise Webster’s Dictionary. Unisystems Inc. New York. 1984

Zimmerman, Paul A. The Spontaneous Generation of Life. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990


Corny’s biggest fan said…
good post but one thing…

where’s the continued venom about Distorted View and TIm Henson ?

me thinks you’d get more exposure by taking on DV again

C.B. Walker said…
“Evolution helped make atheism respectable”?

This is just my opinion, but I believe that most Christians would respect a “saved” child molester more than a harmless atheist. Atheists seem have very little respect in general, and in my experience, touting evolution hurts that even more. Wouldn’t evolution make God more respectable? The notion that He set events in motion billions of years ago, in such a way as to achieve the universe as it is now, is beyond incredible. To simply “create” the final product would be like playing a video game with all of the cheat codes on hand.

Aside from that, the evolution versus creation debate just seems to distract us from a bigger problem anyway—government schools. Everybody who pays property tax funds the government school system. Creationists dislike evolution because they would rather not fund the teaching of evolution and vice versa. As a creationist, you should not be forced to fund a system that would teach your children evolution. Just as someone without children should not be forced to pay for another’s child’s education.

Anonymous said…
Wow, I can not believe how well he completely disproved evolution using science based in the 1800’s and without listing a reference written in the last 10 years. That quite a feat sir. I tip my white cone hat to you.

lolcornswalled said…
I just lost brain cells!!!!! T-T!!!! Reading this made me feel mental! I…I…I can’t even say anything!!! Except, ZOMG! It’s C.B.! Keep at it bud! “I’m a mummy! Raar!” -C.B. Walker

ObesityKing said…
Darwin’s career was NOT a wasted one. Contributing possibly the most important scientific ideas ever deduced does NOT make the origin of species INFAMOUS.
Darwin did NOT recount his claims.
Science is NOT a belief system, and the theory of evolution is NOT about EARTH’S origin!
Building up muscles to pass to your offspring is NOT darwinian evolution, that is LAMARCKIAN and is known by science to be ridiculous.
Punctuated equilibrium occurs ALONGSIDE phyletic gradualism over BILLIONS of years.
What creationist research?
Atavisms have NOT been discarded
HITLER!?!? We are not talking about biology anymore?
Abortion has NOTHING to do with evolution
Darwin did NOT produce a new basis for racism
Evolution is NOT an ‘onward and upward process’
Evolution is NOT about chance
40KEndgame said…
Why did Darwin waste his career? I could see evolution being God’s method of creating every living thing, since the big bang seems to coincide with God saying “Let there be light!”. God may not experience the same speed of which time flows as we do. His 7 days could be our 13.7 billion years. 

Peter Cornswalled said…
The Wasted Career of Charles Darwin is now available for your Kindle in both English and Spanish

Teoria do Caos: O Nosso Misterioso Criador e Suporte

sábado, fevereiro 24th, 2018


Quem tem no cerebro as sinapses em estado caotico, e’ mentalmente saudavel. Quem tem as sinapses em estado de ordem, e’ mentalmente doente, como Parkinson, esquizofrenia, etc. Este e’ um misterioso paradoxo, contra-intuitivo, que precisa ser elucidado. Caos produz saude e ordem produz doenca!

Seria intuitive quando lem bramos que num estado de caos, se houver algo em ordem estara folra de seu habitat e o caos tentara expulsa-lo. Mas o corpo humano, e principalmente o cerebro e suas sinapses, e’ um principio tendente `a ordem ja bem sedimentado. E como nosso supremo objetivo e’ aniquilar com essas doencas… vamos ter que nos enfiar neste desgostoso prato de problemas.

O melhor video sobre Chaos Theory com muitos insights:

(continuar pesquisa revendo o video)

Porque a Terra e’ diferente, e tao adequada `a vida biologica

sexta-feira, fevereiro 23rd, 2018

Porque a formula natural que formou o planeta e’ a mesma que forma os sistemas biológicos e a superfície da Terra foi mais bombardeada pela formula, alem do fato de que tanto o planeta como os sistemas biológicos estarem no mesmo nível do espectro eletromagnético.

Explosão de Supernovas: existe apenas uma foto discutível sobre este suposto evento

sexta-feira, fevereiro 23rd, 2018


Apesar do problema das “duas gerações de galaxias”, meu modelo astronomico difere do modelo oficial acadêmico sobre as origens de supernovas. Nunca ninguém assistiu tal evento mostrando que eles também tem apenas teoria e não fato comprovado. Agora aparece esta foto, mas como os próprios cientistas dizem ” trata-se da explosão de luz no nascimento de uma supernova”. Ora, foi visto uma explosão de luz, e meus modelos sugerem que esta explosão de luz acontece, porem emitida pelo que era um astro escuro que se colapsa sobre seu luminoso energético núcleo liberando a sua luz ao espaço. meus comentários postados no artigo e copiados abaixo dizem mais.

Segundo, a teroia academica desconhece os mecanismos que levam a estas explosoes, como diz o paper da folto na Nature:

” However, the unpredictable nature of supernova events hinders the detection of this brief initial phase7,8,9. Here we report the serendipitous discovery of a newly born, normal type IIb supernova (SN 2016gkg)10, which reveals a rapid brightening at optical wavelengths of about 40 magnitudes per day. The very frequent sampling of the observations allowed us to study in detail the outermost structure of the progenitor of the supernova and the physics of the emergence of the shock. We develop hydrodynamical models of the explosion that naturally account for the complete evolution of the supernova over distinct phases regulated by different physical processes. This result suggests that it is appropriate to decouple the treatment of the shock propagation from the unknown mechanism that triggers the explosion.”

A foto obtida pelo astronomo amador argentino:
Neste video tem uma animacao artistica montada com fotos pelo Kepler, de uma red giant tornando-se supernova:
Aqui esta a descricao da teoria academica pela NASA a resp;eito do video:
The brilliant flash of an exploding star’s shockwave—what astronomers call the “shock breakout” — is illustrated in this video animation. The cartoon video begins with a view of a red supergiant star that is 500 hundred times bigger and 20,000 brighter than our sun. When the star’s internal furnace can no longer sustain nuclear fusion its core collapses under the force of gravity. A shockwave from the implosion rushes outward through the star’s layers. The shockwave initially breaks through the star’s visible surface as a series of finger-like plasma jets. Only 20 minute later the full fury of the shockwave reaches the surface and the doomed star blasts apart as a supernova explosion. This animation is based on photometric observations made by NASA’s Kepler space telescope. By closely monitoring the star KSN 2011d, located 1.2 billion light-years away, Kepler caught the onset of the early flash and subsequent explosion.
A pergunta que fica e’: Se supernova emerge de red giants 20.000 vezes mais luminosa que o Sol, como nada constava antes no local da foto?
First ever photo of exploding star, UC Berkeley confirms

E meu comentário postado no artigo:

Austriak727 – em 2/23/18

” It is not an explosion, but a implosion, the structure collapses inward into itself”Well,… this is what is suggesting the astronomical models from Matrix/DNA Theory. I think that nobody can prove who is right and wrong, because the suggestion that it is an explosion is based on theory also, there are no enough data for saying it is a proved fact. I prefer Matrix/DNA Theory because its models suggests a better explanation: the astro’s nucleus is growing by “eating” the external geologic layers and when arrives to the last one, it collapses and the luminous nucleus florishes as a star….

Resposta de alguem:

ololo3 –  em 2/23/18 

@austriak727 Well, his photo is definitely something exploding.

Austriak727 em 2/23/18

@ololo3 Yes, it could be, in theory. As says the article: “… to scientists at UC Berkeley, who confirmed he was the only known person to ever take a photo of the flash of light produced by an exploding star.”It is an explosion of light, not seen if it was an explosion of a dark astro. The model from Matrix/DNA suggests that a non visible dark astro has a luminous nucleus that is growing by “eating” the external rock layers and when arrives to the last external one, everything collapses internally (implosion) and the light from the nucleus flourishes in a flash. So, the very known fact we see here when a corn seed has a germ eating the yellow external placenta and when the germe meets the star light it flourishes… is merely a sequitur of a mechanism that happens to our astronomic systems ancestors. If not, you need a big exercise for explaining how the stupid matter of this planet invented the extraordinary engeneery for the birth of a flower… But, I could be wrong..

Entao ololo3 fez o comentario seguinte sobre o qual tenho uma observacao: Ele comete um erro muito suspeito, trocando astronomia por astrologia. Isto pode sugerir que e’ mais um cientificista fundamentalista que reage na Internet a tudo que ele considera “pseudociencia”, e reage com malicia. Nao acredito que ele nada entende de astronomia, p;ois nao estaria lendo este artigo sobre uma futil noticia de astronomia.

ololo3 em 2/23/18

@austriak727 Well, you definitely seem to know WAY more about astrology than me, so I certainly can’t argue with you. You talk the talk, that’s for sure. I wish I would have learned about astrology when I was younger. For some reason, the universe didn’t interest me as much as stuff that ended up becoming TOTALLY pointless when I grew up. I suppose it’s never too late, though. I should look into some college classes on this kind of stuff.

E minha imediata resposta para esclarecer as coisas:

Austriak727 em 2/23/18   –  (pending approval)