Nos USA, Mais um Desafio dos Cientificistas-Materialistas Contra Religiosos

Não haverá as mudanças no Brasil para melhor enquanto não se fazer tremer e dilapidar a atual visão da vida e do mundo dos brasileiros, pois esta é a causa fundamental dos diferentes comportamentos. Portanto este novo livro lançado nos USA pelo mais conhecido propagador televisivo de Ciências à juventude americana – Bill Nye – e esta entrevista com link abaixo, mais os comentários vindos da cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA, deve ser material indigesto num final de semana mas obrigatório a quem não suporta mais o que está aí e deseja mudanças reais.

Bill Nye: ‘Science is true, whether or not you believe it

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/bill-nye-science-is-true-whether-or-not-you-believe-it/article21834040/

Bill Nye hopes to change the world with his book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. (Dylan Lovan/Associated Press)

1 – You would think that the number would be declining. But the problem is that it’s going up. In the United States, there’s been a tremendous resurgence of conservatism, and along with that is fundamentalism or evangelical proselytizing. Whatever you want to call it, it’s serious business

2- What I don’t want is to have a generation of science students brought up without an understanding of science or critical thinking or how we know what we know about the universe and our place in it.

3- It’s just hard to believe that all of that goes away when you die. And even if you believe it, as I do, it’s very troubling. It’s horrible. But nevertheless, it seems to be the way of the world.

4- The inevitably of death, that’s the reason why people are resistant to the science of evolution?

That’s the best idea I have come up with, yes.

( Nye’s reasoning – the idea that people reject evolution because of a fear of death – is much too narrow. He seems to be saying that the need to believe in an afterlife fuels the need to believe in God, which leads to a rejection of science) .

A String Theory está sugerindo que existem ao menos 11 diferentes mas interligadas dimensões ou “estados da matéria”. E nós não conhecemos nem somos capazes de detectar a metade delas. Então em puro racional estado da mente não existe conhecimento cientifico de fato sobre a realidade total destas 11 dimensões. A maioria das possibilidades imaginadas são ainda possiveis, até que cada uma vá sendo derrubada ou aprimorada por mais informações reais obtidas. Enquanto a mente estiver nesta situação, não é racional acreditar em teoria alguma sobre o todo, em nada que parece evidente do mundo visivel, pois não se sabe o que existe de maior, o que vem antes e o que virá depois sobre esta evidencia. Assim é com a morte do ser humano. parece evidente que a existência de um humano começa a acabar no momento da morte e depois continua na fragmentação do cadaver. Mas não conhecemos as outras dimensões que subjazem ou se superpõem à existencia do corpo humano. A neurologia nem sequer sabe ainda como os neuronios estão relacionados com os pensamentos, como aqueles produzem estes.  Uma cobra troca de pele mas continua a eexistir, uma boroleta muda repentinamente de larva a adulto mas continua a existir, então porque o todo dimensional das 11 dimensões tambem não pode mudar de “pele” nas suas dimensões a nós visiveis mas continuar a existir na sua totalidade dimensional? As evidencia estão aí dizendo que sim, isto é possivel. As ciencias não tem fatos e poder para desbancar esta possibilidade. Portanto qualquer afirmação de qualquer teoria a respeito é crença, não “razão”. Este é o problema que impede a qualquer elemento puramente racional ser “materialista”: pretender ter certeza do que é e como funciona o todo material se não pode ver, conhecer, nem a metade desse todo. O mesmo se aplica a qualquer outra religião, a qualquer outro estado da mente, menos ao agnosticismo que é o estado de quem não tem crença alguma e se mantem com  a mente aberta, buscando o todo.

5 – I wanted to change the world

Esta é uma nobre missão se o mundo que se tem em mente será melhor que o mundo que aí está. E não acredito que esta melhora venha penas se trocando uma doutrina de crenças metafisicas por outra doutrina de crenças metafisicas que mais apreciamos em particular. Suspeito que esta melhoria tambem não viria transformando os atuais humanos em pura e estritamente cientificistas, pois até as Ciências são dirigidas por uma tendencia, uma ideologia, a qual escolhe e determina em qual dimensão material a Ciência evolui, portanto descartando a possibilidade de conhecimento de outras dimensões intocadas. Não é possível ao humano praticar Ciências sem uma ideologia e debaixo de um corpo de crenças temporárias, as quais se denominam “teorias”. para evitar este irresponsável problema, os fatos devem serem separados de suas humanas interpretações e sempre avisando os estudantes o que ainda é teoria, a ser devidamente testada.

Comentarios:


shaunnarine1 24 hours ago

 

Nye’s reasoning – the idea that people reject evolution because of a fear of death – is much too narrow. He seems to be saying that the need to believe in an afterlife fuels the need to believe in God, which leads to a rejection of science. However, it is only a small subset of Christians who don’t accept evolution. The Catholics do; the Hindus do; as far as I know, the Muslims do. So do most other world religions, such as the Ba’hai. So, it’s clear that a belief in the afterlife does not require, at all, a rejection of evolution. Most people in the world adhere to a concept of God that easily accommodates evolution and science in general. I realize that Nye is not necessarily rejecting this point, but I think that his argument must be made much clearer, since it can be read as a needless attack on religion.

Evolution is clearly true. The fact that some people still won’t accept its reality is unfortunate. On the other hand, however, it is important to realize that there are many areas of human endeavor and spirituality where science has nothing to say. It is critical for the science-minded to recognize the limitations of science and the real limits of human knowledge and capacity.

Matrix/DNA Theory: There is another possibility explaining why people does not want to accept evolution. It is the natural inherited structure of the brain. The brain – as a biological system – is product of evolution coming from prior non-biological natural systems and those systems has as supreme goal the accommodation at thermodynamic equilibrium. This is an ecstatic eternal state that can not accept any changes. And evolution means changes. So, unconsciously, the humans that are established in comfortable life will fight any threat to its actual state, which means, fighting the self-recognition of the natural evolutionary process. This theory explains how gods are modelled by humans to fit the conservation of a privileged social status of thermodynamic equilibrium. The inherited structure from ancestors animals brains still is the dominant of human behaviors, like all social systems that we have invented are based on the rules of the salvage jungle, shared into big predators ( high class), medium predators ( class media) and preys ( the passive workers).

xxxx

Nathan W 12 hours ago

I think sometimes Bill Nye will take a simplistic position so that other people can feel smart for a change, and also takes positions which are slightly facetious, but in a well meaning way which will lead people through a process of discovery. 

I believe he would be very happy to think of thousands of people saying to themselves “he may be good at science, but he’s sure not very good at religion. I already have two better explanations …” and then starting a discussion, thinking through some interesting things, and all the while getting to know that they are smarter than the science guy :)

xxxx

MrJeeves 22 hours ago

Science is a method. Evolution is a theory. The two are NOT equal. I can’t stand it when people “unintelligentl­y” (or maybe on purpose?) equate the two. 

As if one cannot believe in science unless they also believe in evolution. That’s preposterous!

Macro-evolution fails an important test of the scientific method – it cannot be observed. Does there “appear” to be fossil evidence for it? Sure. But that doesn’t make something a fact. Gravity is a fact. You can test and observe it right now. How can I test something that takes millions of years? I can’t. I must believe based on evidence (which, ironically, is called… faith!) 

I love it when people criticize religious people for believing in a God they can’t see, then turn around and ignorantly believe in the evolution which they can’t see. 

And let me get this straight – Bill Nye has a problem with those “irrational religious people” because they might cause an economic problem!? Are you kidding me? Atheistic/anti-­religious U.S.S.R ring a bell? I was totally unaware that atheism and evolution are the answer to all of life’s economic woes! 

Hard to take this guy/article seriously.

xxxx

Nathan W 1 hour ago

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means that we can measure that infrared trapping of heat is higher in the presence of C02 than when it is absent. 

In theory, if some C02 is a greenhouse gas, then more C02 is more potent than less C02, and so doubling the level of C02 will result in a warmer atmosphere, even if other climatic factors outweigh this effect and lead to cooling. 

There is ZERO debate among anyone who actually has knowledge of these things on whether C02 or methane are greenhouse gases. There is more debate on whether the scale is sufficient to have caused observed warming or cause major warming in the future, and the debate is generally about “how much warming?”, not “will there be warming?”. 

Primarily, I would argue that you communicate ignorance bordering on unquestioning quasi-brainwash­ed opinion, and my genuine apologies if you simply have not had the opportunity or time to internalize the requisite background in science to comment intelligently on the matter. I suggest picking up a first year book on organic chemistry and something a little more advanced in physics so you can understand how infrared radiation and greenhouse effects work.

xxx

Nathan W 12 hours ago

Your first statement is true, and the rarity with which you see it is proof that middle school science teachers ‘round the country aren’t doing half good enough of a job of leading children through processes of discovery which enable them to understand what science is. Science is credible because it is a process designed to enable people to call BS any time there is the least possibility of a hole or any inconsistency in an argument. Kind of like transparent government, good science leads to superior outcomes in technological and social advance.


John_Canada
 11 hours ago

“Macro-evolutio­n fails an important test of the scientific method – it cannot be observed.” First of all, there is no “macro” or “micro” evolution. Just evolution.

Secondly, evolution can be very easily observed. Take something like a bacteria, let it grow in the presence of low-level penicillin, and it will become resistant to penicillin. Take an RNA virus like HIV, let it replicate for a few days in cell culture, and you will have many mutations appearing in response to the particular environmental pressures encountered by the viruses in those cells. (I literally did that this week, I do know what I’m talking about). That, my friend, is evolution.

  xxxx


Pifco
 3 hours ago

Furthermore MrJeeves, what do you think David Suzuki was doing with all those generations of fruit flies in his UBC lab, before he became a star? Observing genetic mutation/evolut­ion in an organism more complex than a bacterium, chosen for its high generational turnover rate.

xxx

Nathan W 1 hour ago

Indeed, a scientist without understanding and knowledge of the determinants of evolution at the molecular level would basically be guaranteed to fail to get anywhere in efforts to develop any sort of vaccine.

Tags: ,