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

(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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,