Posts Tagged ‘Bill Nye’

Vídeo de Bill Nye debatendo com Ken Ham na Arca

quarta-feira, outubro 31st, 2018

xxxxx

Este vídeo e` bom para quem tem curiosidade sobre os porquês da nossa existência e da existência deste mundo. Um conhecido ateu que ficou famoso nas gerações de 70 a 90 nos Estados Unidos porque apresentava um programa de tv – Bill Nye, the Science guy – e atualmente anda combatendo o ensino de religião que nega a teoria da evolução, percorre a grande construção construída pelos cristãos, chamada The Ark que pretende ser um museu da criacao pela Bíblia dentro de um edifício que imita a arca de Noé. O anfitrião e conhecido também homem de shows e palestras defendendo o criacionismo, Ken Ham, acompanha Bill Nye numa interessante discussão entre ateísmo e deísmo tendo por foco os fenômenos naturais, enquanto mostram a arca e o povo visitante. Por meu lado, assistindo o debate, fico pensando em como e porque estão configurados dois cérebros assim de maneira errada Pois para mim ambos estão vendo o mundo de forma errada. Sou obrigado a concordar uns 70% no que se refere ao conhecimento e interpretação das evidencias para as teorias que nasceram dentro do tipo de ciência aplicada ate agora pela humanidade cientistas. Mas penso que os ateus extrapolam os limites racionais com teorias que beiram a um estado de fé, e são infelizes nisso como podemos ver no vídeo. Bill Nye se vê obrigado, para reafirmar o que disse antes, perante uma linda menina de seis anos, a dizer que ela e’ um animal. Em outra situação, ele cai na apatia do publico quando diz que ao morrermos acaba-se tudo. E não sabe responder porque então ele esta preocupado com o futuro da America, das mudanças climáticas, etc, se tudo isso vai acontecer quando ele não existir mais. Usando os mesmos fatos científicos que o Bill Nye usa, mas conectando-os de uma maneira diferente, também logica e racional, eu jamais diria que o humano e` um simples produto da evolução do animal, porque a teoria esta sugerindo um processo evolutivo pelo qual, sobre o homem, e expressou na forma de consciência uma velha formula natural que vem desde o Bib Bang, e isto diferencia o homem de todos os animais que lhe emprestaram corpo biológico. E a mesma teoria esta sugerindo que esta formula não morre junto com o corpo biológico. Quanto ao criacionismo de Ken Ham discordo das poucas evidencias, e interpretações delas, em quase todas. Tambem não entendo como pode um ocidental americano acreditar num livro escrito a 3.000 anos atras por pessoas que não sabiam 10% do que sabemos hoje sobre a natureza e se ele me vem perguntar se acredito no Deus dele eu responderia algo como: ” Se existir um pai espiritual dos humanos, e ele só veio falar com judeus, não vindo falar comigo, que também sou filho, eu saio de casa e renego esse pai. Então deixe os judeus com o Deus deles, não e’ o meu Deus.” Mas o longo vídeo, alem de ser um belo passeio dentro do museu, a vista das pessoas que lotam suas dependências, e o interessante debate, eu recomendo. Para quem não entende o inglês ainda pode entender algo do debate.
Bill Nye deveria ser repreendido pela academia cientifica quando se dirige a crianças dizendo que elas são animais, pois a Ciência não tem provas disso. Enquanto a neurologia não resolver a questão de como os neurônios estão ligados ao pensamento, `a mente, ou a consciência, a Ciência não pode afirmar que a consciência seja um produto a evolução do cérebro, portanto, biológica. E possível que Bill Nye esteja correto, mas por enquanto e` a sua teoria, ele não pode acenar com os livros da Ciência quando afirma isso.Mas e se ele estiver errado? Como reparar o mal que fez a estas crianças, das quais, quando perdem a biológica habitual fantasia infantil muito precocemente, pode ser dispor ao niilismo que conduz facilmente as drogas? não vejo diferença entre o mal que esta religião esta fazendo com as crianças e o que ele esta também fazendo, ambos baseados em teorias sem provas concretas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLRhVdNp5M

Entre os Intelectuais dos Paises Ricos Continua o Acirrado Debate Entre Religiao x Evolucao. Veja Onde e Como

domingo, outubro 9th, 2016

xxxx

E’ incrível, mas um video postado no Youtube já alcançou 470.000 posts! Quase 8 milhões de visitantes! Trata-se de uma mensagem televisiva feita pelo conhecido ” Science guy”, Bill Nye, que influenciou a geração dos anos 70-90 com um programa diário instruindo sobre temas científicos. Neste video ele diz que o ensino da religião aos jovens e’ prejudicial aos estados Unidos porque desvia a mente criativa que faz evoluir a ciência e tecnologia, e por isso, os USA estaria perdendo a corrida cientifica e tecnológica a países que não ensinam religiões, principalmente nas escolas. Ele afirma que a teoria da evolução esta cientificamente comprovada e e’ extremamente necessária para a mente cientifica desenvolver seu trabalho.

Como eu descobri uma teoria da evolução mais complexa do que a acadêmica, Darwiniana, e a qual me sugere que a mensagem do Bill Nye tambem contem elementos perniciosos `a educação dos jovens – os quais não existem na minha teoria – tento entrar no debate e deixar ali registrado meus dois centavos. Mas e’ claro, a minha teoria esta sugerindo que o mundo e’ algo muito diferente do que todos os bilhões de humanos jamais imaginaram, portanto, ao menos as velhas mentes já enraizadas nas crenças de visões de mundo diferentes nunca vão entender sequer uma palavra do que diz este alienígena. mesmo assim tenho que praticar e atuar a minha missão, jogando sementes ao ar na esperança de que alguma germine. Ja’ postei muitos posts nos anos passados neste video e inclusive aguentei longos debates com vários participantes, e de vez em quando volto ao video para ver como andam os comentários, e como sempre, não resisto a postar mais. Hoje me deparei com o ultimo comentário postado e logo publiquei minha resposta, copiada aqui a seguir:

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Nicholas Christie-Blick – post at Out/09/2016
Reality check: All of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. All of it. And that is why actual scientists are persuaded that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life and fossil record. Both statements – the reality of evolution and the universal support for this idea among those best positioned to hold an opinion – are easy to check. Read any of several summaries of evolution by reputable scientists at major institutions. Go to any search engine of the scientific literature. Consult any of the statements published by major scientific organizations in support of evolution. Now that we have established that evolution has nothing to do with atheism, attacks on atheists as the source of all that is perceived to be wrong with the world can be seen as nothing more than a rearguard action to preserve religious beliefs that are demonstrably not true. What is the value of beliefs that can be maintained only by lying, wild claims, demonization and bigotry? How is such behavior consistent with the promotion of Christian spirit?
Then, please, how the theory of evolution explains that a could blood machine for kill, called reptile, was transformed into a mammal? An animal that eats its own babies, why suddenly decided to make the strong and painful effort to keep the eggs in – instead quick putting the eggs out – till developing the pregnancy process?! Of course, such a female would be weakened and would not be selected by natural selection. Second: if hermaphroditism is thousands times more naturally and rationally good process for creatures, how and why some of them decided to divide its own body into two distant parts?! There are many questions alike that are not rationally answered by theory of evolution. I think it is non rational denying natural evolution, because evidences are everywhere. The problem, then, is with ” the human theory about natural evolution”. Of course, something very deep is wrong with this theory. The theory is not complete. So, teaching religion to children is wrong, but teaching a wrong or not complete theory as being the absolute truth and scientific, is wrong also. I have made a giant job of about 50 years, including 7 years isolated at Amazon jungle, only for the sake of searching the meaning of the existences of this world and life. Applying a different rational and logical method – comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems – and as final result, I got a different theory of evolution, which explains those questions above. But I never forget that it is still merely a “theory” under testing, so, I don’t believe in it, I will not say that it is “scientific”.because there is the risk that I should guiding children to a wrong way, prejudicing the evolution of their minds. The Darwinian modern theory of evolution is far away off the beam. It is about micro-biological evolution, while natural evolution is a universal, a macro process. So, the Darwinian three mechanisms VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance – says almost nothing about real universal evolution. I discovered it is missing at least four variables, which are forces acting just here, over biological systems. And these four missing variables changes completely the understanding and ideology produced by the academic theory. . I think it is a necessary and good effort to exorcise the fantasy of religions out from the human reasoning. But we do not have the knowledge of the real and ultimate truth, since we still does not know the whole natural universe. The academic theory of evolution is producing a bad world view because it is conservative of humans instincts inherited from animals, instead driving humans to its own transcendence out from human species. So, keep remembering that the theory of evolution is the modern way of humans seeing the universal natural process of evolution, which must be thousand times more complex than we what we know about it.
It’s too late for you Louis and you’ll never convince anyone that you know more than the worlds 3+ million biologists without a single credential in any field of science, you’ll never convince anybody that you know more than all palaeontologists because you don’t.  Be a good chap and keep your ancient magical beliefs to yourself.

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli – 1 second ago

3+ million of biologists today means a unique world view in a unique moment of time of human history – a world view that will be seeing as an ancient magical belief. All past world views are dead and this one will be also, so, 3+ million biologists will be cause of smiles for next generations. Usually do you forget it or you does not know the past human history, or, still, do you believe that the future will be different?! As I said above, I have no beliefs, neither in my actual provisory world view. But, I know that it is more logical and rational than yours theory.
Louis: My advice is unchanged. Start with a summary of evolution by someone with credentials. The theory of evolution doesn’t depend on whether those who know nothing about it understand it. Making ad hoc arguments in a vacuum, as you are, has no bearing on the actual science. And no. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with promoting anti-social behavior
Yes, Nicholas, the theory of evolution – and not the real natural phenomenon called evolution – is promoting anti-humanistic behavior. I think the biggest problem we have today against the ideal humanist social system is the genetic inheritance from animals related to the division of powers. In the jungle the whole animal system is shared into big predators, medium predators and preys. All human social systems created till now mimics the same animal wild rules: there is the aristocratic high class (big predators), the medium class ( medium predators) and the mass of people as the prey. The theory of evolution observed in the past and in the wild world is a true motive for continuing these animals instincts. And we need exorcize these instincts out from human genetics and psychology, before the planet exorcise itself from us. As we need exorcise religions from human reason. The problem is with the ideological values arising from this theory of evolution. It is used by big predators for justifying their behavior. And the problem is that this Darwinian turned on Modern Synthesis theory of evolution is wrong about the real meanings of natural evolution. I have observed several mechanisms, variables, that are missing in this theory, which change the final meaning and provides new kind of values, which is better for human species getting its transcendence, before being too later.
You said: Start with a summary of evolution by someone with credentials. The theory of evolution doesn’t depend on whether those who know nothing about it understand it.” But,… there is no human being with credentials as expert in natural evolution. The 10 billion years about the embryogenesis of biological evolution is totally unknown by biologists and humans in general. An alien can not know what is a biological system, or a human being if you don’t explains to him the 9 months of its embryogenesis and the prior causes that produced this embryogenesis. Evolution is a universal natural cosmological phenomena, Biological evolution is merely micro-evolution, a part of the whole.Or do you believe that the stupid matter of this lost planet created by magics evolution, first time in this universe?! Biological evolution, since the first organic organization of terrestrial atoms, is merely continuing cosmological evolution of a universal system that was a single atom, a single galaxy and a single biological cell. Galaxies are yours ancestors like reptiles and bacteria are. Darwin studied micro biological evolution. Modern Synthesis is about micro biological evolution. Then, there are lots of mechanisms, processes, acting over biological evolution, coming from cosmological evolution that no human being has grasped them. Maybe in Matrix/DNA Theory we had grasped some of them, and they change a lots what “the humans with credentials” does not know. One example. Maybe most of genes mutations that were selected were not produced by chance as they believe. At Matrix/DNA we are discovering that the new trait produced by lots of mutation already were existent in atomic and galactic systems. So, they were not mutation by chance, they were naturally produced as it happens in the reproduction process.
xxxxx
E meu comentario postado independente:
Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – Out/09/2016
“Something living can’t come from something non-living”.
Yes, it did.
Yours mistake is about the word “living”. Since we are discovering that all life’s properties has their principles in atoms and galactic systems, it makes non sense saying that one is alive and the other is not. Universal evolution is under the same process of life’s cycle that produces the transformations of shapes of your body. You had the shapes of blastulae, fetus, embryo, child, etc. There is a universal natural system that began like a fecundation event at the Big Bang and it is evolving changing its shapes, as atomic system, astronomic system, cell system, plant and animal system, and the last one, conscious system. All them are the same unique system. So, galaxies are yours ancestors like reptiles and bacteria. So, in this Universe is occurring evolution which is the process applied for getting reproduction of the unknown thing that produced it. In this sense, evolution is an illusion; what matters is the final process – reproduction.
xxxxx
Outro post independent em Out/10/2016
Evotard Exterminator: ” … every last iota of science demonstrates that creatures ever reproduce their own kind.”
The very fact that among 8 billion humans there is no one exactly equal another, science demonstrates that creatures ever reproduce their own kind, but with a novelty bit of difference. It is the sum of these bits of difference at millions or billions years that results in new creatures species. Can’t you calculate the final results of a sum of new bits at long times?! If you say that the transformation of one species into another can not be result of mutations by chance (as the theory of evolution is saying it), then, we could agree. One sample: the building blocks of galactic systems contains the process of “eggs out” and “egs in”. Then, the theory of evolution believes that the transformation of reptiles (eggs out) into mammals (eggs in) began with a genetic mutation by chance, which was selected by adaptation, etc. But this transformation already was existing in this universe 10 billion years ago. So, the biological mutation was not by chance, it is a mechanism of all natural systems. But, if you say that the two species – reptiles and mammals – were previous intelligently designed, we can not agree. Because I know the building blocks of galaxies and I am seeing it as the cause of production of these two species, and there is no intelligence, applied in this creation. it was everything natural. If you say that the building blocks of galaxies were intelligent designed, we will not agree, because we are seeing who designed them: atoms systems. Galactic systems are merely evolution from the shape and properties of atoms systems. If you say that the atoms systems were intelligent designed, we will not agree. because we are seeing that atoms systems are the result of natural light waves spreading into dark matter. The seven frequencies/vibrations of a light wave became the seven electronic layers of atoms. If you say that the light wave produced at the Big Bang was the tool containing the code for life, we will agree. We can see all life’s properties resumed into those frequencies of a light wave. Bit if you say that the first light wave was the tool applied by God – so, everything here should be product of intelligent design – we will not agree because our calculations are suggesting that those light waves came from a ex-machine natural conscious systems without the use of intelligence. Everything was a natural process. Show to us yours calculations suggesting the opposite, that we will change our world view..
xxxxx

Gary BellGary Bell – 10/11/2016

A god that unforgivingly murders everything on the planet because of its own failures and then rebreeds the exact same flawed Homo sapiens through another round of family incest instead of beginning with dirt like it did the first time.  This is a profoundly stupid god that repeats its own mistakes and expects a different outcome, then it demands our love or it’ll burn and torture us forever and ever.
Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 10/11/2016
Obviously, the Bible narrative is a kind of Harry Potter’s world for infant minds. But you have a point, which was forgotten by Bill Nye’s theory of evolution. In this Universe, every new evolved system, develops under two phases. The first phase is when the eggs are put out and the offspring abandoned under predators, natural tragedies, etc. The second phase is when the system keeps the egg in and nurture the offspring till maturation. So, every natural system repeats the same mistakes, cycle by cycle, evolution is like the stupid god of that stupid book called bible. I discovered it when observing that it happened with biological system: from LUCA to reptiles there was the phase of egg out; with biological systems called mammals, began the phase of eggs in. But it happened with our ” non-living” ancestor also – the astronomical systems. We can see, clearly, in the model of the building blocks of galaxies the first phase of eggs out, and the second phase of eggs in. This cycle is a universal constant, then, it must happened with our oldest ancestors – the atomic systems. Now, at Earth, is arising a new shape of the universal system, called “consciousness”. So, consciousness is in the phase of eggs out. That’s the explanation why we humans – the carriers and genes of this new shape – are under tragedies, predators, etc. The good news is that the first phase is merely an “illusion”. We can see clearly at the evolution of astronomical systems and biological systems that, in reality, the eggs never were put out. This event of biological evolution is merely steps of a bigger process: reproduction And in the reproductive process is initially determined that eggs will generate a new being, so, at the end, we see that the eggs never left the system. So, evolution is not such stupid as I said in the beginning. Which means that, if there was a god applying the same process, he was not stupid also… It would be a god without the humans felling about love, suffering, etc
xxxxx
Nicholas Christie-Blick – out/14/2016
My #1 objection to religion is that it is so pernicious: the early indoctrination, the lying, manipulation, preying upon insecurities, bigotry, misogyny, sexual predation by clergy, financial scams, and lust for power. The entire edifice fails so thoroughly and in so many ways that it is inconceivable to me that there is any core reality worth preserving

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – Out/14/2016

My curiosity about religion is how changed the strategy of non-rational predators by the strategy of preys’ mental manipulation by religion by humans predators. At the jungle – and I know it because I live in Amazon jungle by seven years – the big predator – like lions – wait at the hill while the preys are working, transforming grass into meat. The unique job of lions is keeping their territory from other predators. Now, the humans predators stands in the house of the church, drinking wine, air conditioning, waiting the preys working for a minimum wage, and at the Sunday morning the preys goes to church giving a slice of their earnings. But, for getting it, religion needs to teaching that slavery is approved by God, as it is written five times in the Bible. So, I try to imagine the first tribal big humans predators ( the most brute and strongest) around the fire in the cave talking histories to the smaller men, women, children. Of, course, they changed the real explanation for observed natural phenomena, lying while including elements in their explanations. And there are about 15.000 years that this ” culture” is being developed till today for keeping this social systems (communism, capitalism, monarchy, etc.) that mimics the rules of the jungle. So, the big predators, like lions at the land, sharks at the water, eagles at the air, are today the aristocratic “high” class; the medium predators, wolves, fox, etc., has their animal instincts encrypted at the genetic make up pf medium human class; and the preys became the bi mass of minimum wage. The supreme target of evolution here – I don’t believe it, but, my systemic models and investigation are suggesting it – is to develop a new shape of a universal natural system that was born with the Big Bang and today is consciousness. We, humans, are like genes building the fetus, or already embryo of consciousness. But, since that there is no supernatural power watching us, we can go to the wrong way, and the fetus can be aborted, of the transformations of this planet will destroy life here before. This animal inherited instinct of predators and preys are our threat and prejudice. We need fight for humans to exorcize this animalism out from our genetics and psychology. But religions ( and their predators, the churches as the modern cave) is a big problem against this exorcism. That’s is the world view called Matrix/DNA Theory and this is the cause we are against religions..
xxxx
Hi Nicholas Christie-Blick! If the evidence for evolution is so simple, can you please give me a specific example of macro evolution instead of just referring me to a book? By the same line of thinking, I could ask you to read the Bible to understand my point of view. So can I please have a specific example? Also, variation within a species is mistaken often for intermediate forms from one animal kind to another by scientists to try to prove the theory of evolution. It is genetically impossible for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal, no matter how much time you give it. The reason why I adopted this view is because the complexities of DNA are so abundant that it couldn’t have possible sprung up without the design from a highly intelligent Designer. Also, whenever scientists try to describe an open system when taking about the second law of thermodynamics, they usually refer to the sun. But the entire idea of an open or closed system when referring to entropy is flawed in reason anyways, so a closed system discussion would be irrelevant. So I agree that the sun has nothing to do with the fact that entropy effects everything. A closed system argument doesn’t make sense no matter what way you look at it. Additionally, mutations, by definition, are corrupting or destroying of information. Mutations cannot cause one species to evolve into another, and you cannot find one example of that in nature, or even in a lab. So, if you want me to read your book, I could just as well ask you to read scripture in the Bible. However, if you want to be specific, I can be specific as well, if you want to get into that debate. I would be glad to share with you why I believe the Bible, and only the Bible, is God’s word to mankind. I have done my research and am very well read on what you believe, but I still absolutely disagree with it.
Louis Charles Morelli – out/14/2016
It is not only Darwinian evolutionists, it is not only atheists, that think the bible and its world view is an absurd fair-tale for infant minds. There are dozens of others world view like The Matrix/DNA Theory which will criticize yours beliefs here:
You said:  “… can you please give me a specific example of macro evolution…”
Matrix/DNA: Macro-evolution is not you said before – the change of a biological specie into another. This still is micro-evolution, ot is merely biological evolution. But, the natural process of evolution was not created or invented by the stupid matter of this lost planet. There was evolution coming from the beginnings of this Universe, evolution is 13,8 billions years old, evolution is universal and this is macro-evolution. The gaps in Darwinian theory of evolution is due Darwin studied only micro-evolution, and about biological systems at Earth.
If you want to believe in Jesus Christ he said something that you are forgetting. At the New Testament I never read Jesus saying the word God, instead he said “the father” ( ok, I read it at my 10 years old maybe I don’t remember well). He look to the sky and said “father” then he look to the soil and said “sun”. Father creating a son does not needs magics neither supernatural beings, it is pure a genetic process. And this is what our theoretical models of atoms, galaxies, cells, consciousness, etc., are suggesting: this Universe is merely like a placenta, a cosmic egg, inside it is occurring a process of genetic reproduction. A process that began about 13,8 billions years ago, and the universal baby was atom system, than evolved to stellar system, to galaxies, to human beings and now is acquiring the shape of a pire conscious being. Everything natural, genetic process as should be the link between father and son.
So, there is no evolution inside this Universe. The evolution occurs, but it is illusion of the observer standing inside the Universe, like a microbe inside the embrionary sack would believe watching the embryogenesis of a baby. Evolution here is merely a sequence of steps inside a bigger process: reproduction. Maybe there are evolution ( something more simplest becoming more complex) outside the Universe, not here. This universal embrionary development we are watching from inside is evolution, only from a human perspective.
Second ( cont.):
Louis Charles Morelli – out/14/2016
 You said: “I could ask you to read the Bible”
Matrix/DNA: I read the Bible as teenager, as I read lots of other cultures’ mythology. Of course I couldn’t believe when the historic narrative of a people was mixed with fair-tale about supernatural beings. Why teenagers today reading the magic world of Harry Potter does not believe it is real? Because the collective unconscious has been matured and there are no adults saying it is real.
But, after 30 years of investigation about natural systems ( included seven years at Amazon jungle) my calculations suggested a new naturalist world view. My big surprise is when I saw that my theoretical picture of the state of the world before the origins of life here is just equal the picture designed as ” Adam and Even in the Paradise”, and the process by witch life began here is just equal the Fall in the Bible. My picture was about a building block of astronomical systems, which would becoming the building block of biological systems. This astronomical building block is a kind of machine described by Newtonian mechanics plus General relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but the machine has a soft cover of biological process. It is designed at my website. It is a natural, materialistic picture, but if you want to see it as metaphors, you see, clearly, the Genesis symbols, like a serpent swalling its own tail, the tree as an espiral, the apple as the external image, and the male and female functions, which you can call Adam and Eve. Since the system is a perfect machine, almost a perpetuum motor, it was the system “paradise”m Then, this “paradise” was attacked by entropy and its fragments are falling internally over planets surface, where they are lifting up as “biological systems”. It is the Fall.
I was very surprised because I knew the Bible is mythos, so, why the extreme coincidence? Later I discovered the reason: the astronomical building block is the building block of DNA which are at the center of humans’ neurons. Altered state of mind gets flashes of memory fro that old times when our ancestor was this galaxy and since those ancient visionaries did not know about galaxies and DNA, they thought about supernatural events.
That’s what yours bible is about. Delusion about the natural world interpreting obscure visions as supernatural elements.
As I said above, this Universe is merely a process of reproduction of the unknown natural thing that triggered the Big Bang. That thing is conscious because there are a fetus of consciousness here. Its relations with us are the same relations of a pregnant mother with the genes building her baby, which means, none. If you want to call the unknown thing as God, I have no problem with it, but it is natural, not magical. Like genes does not think like humans, humans does not think like the generator of this Universe. And there are no talks between genes and the pregnant mother. But… the narrative pf Genesis at the bible is ok, it is a metaphor for natural. It began with a visionary called Schimeon Ben Jochay, 5.000 years ago, long before the Jewish religion, as you can read at the Secret Doctrine.
xxxxx
Third answer to Hannah:
Louis Charles Morelli – Out/14/2016
” It is genetically impossible for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal, no matter how much time you give it” Matrix/DNA: Atoms had evolved into another. Galaxies has evolved into another. There was two process for formation of galaxies, like there was two process for formation of cells. The first originals was formed by symbiosis, the later by self-reproduction, or division. So, biological systems can evolve into another biological system. Yours problem is that you does not know the ancestor of the DNA and the biological genetics. Go to my website and you will see it. The last non-biological ancestor was am electromagnetic/mechanic system which anatomy would be completely biological in the shape of a chimpanzee. So, like in human embryogenesis a initial blastula gets the shape of a fetus, the fetus a shape of embryo, the embryo a shape of a baby, at the biological embryogenesis the initial Archean, bacteria, gets the shapes of insets, reptiles, mammals, till arriving to the monkey ( or its cousin). But humans added this astronomical evolution with an ex-machine element which is consciousness. So, in a certain way, humans did not came from monkeys only. It is possible that yours “soul” is safe…. and will become like the generator of this Universe. So, a religion is not so bad. Bad is the bible, the Al Korhan, the Talmude, etc., religions. The human brain has no sensors and ability to grasp the right religion yet. Matrix/DNA has no metaphysics, everything must be natural.

Incrível! Vídeo de Bill Nye Atacando Religiosos e Sugerindo Revolução na Educação Alcança Meio Milhão de Comentários!

quarta-feira, outubro 8th, 2014

Incrível! Um vídeo publicado em 2012 já conta quase sete milhões de visitantes e o debate que se segue parece ser o mais longo da história do Youtube, pois já conta com quase meio milhão de comentários !!!

Mas o assunto do vídeo realmente é importante e faz parte da responsabilidade de todos os seres humanos conhecerem e tomarem posições participando do tema, pois disso depende o nosso e o futuro das gerações: qual a visão de mundo estamos pondo na cabeça dos estudantes, formando suas mentes.

É um combate ferrenho entre a recem-nascida mentalidade materialista e a velha mentalidade mistica que ainda governa a maioria das decisões sociais mundiais. São duas posições extremas, dois lados de uma mesma moeda, e no meio surge agora mais uma diferente e inédita posição, tentando tambem entrar na briga. Veja o vídeo, veja o comentário abaixo postado por essa nova visão do mundo, e reflita buscando sua posição, pois disso depende se nossos herdeiros irão cantar nosso sucesso ou chorar nosso fracasso.  Pois é a maneira como interpretamos a existência do mundo e nele, nossa própria existência, que determina nossos comportamentos e portanto, nosso destino.

xxxxx

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU xxxxxx E o ultimo comentário postado pela nova cosmovisão “do meio”: 

Louis Charles Morelli – October 08, 2014

Darwinism is not equal the real observed natural phenomena of evolution. And Creationism is far away off the natural real world. The Universal Natural History can not be reached and understood by any human brain with these limited sensors in time/space. One need to see a system standing outside the system for understanding it, and nobody went outside this Universe… yet. Natural evolution is a observed phenomena when we see a simplest thing ( a morula, a blastula) transforming shapes and increasing complexity in 9 month. And it is easy to accept that Nature can amplify this individual phenomena, projecting it into populations transformations. But… we know that the force causing those individual transformations is something “invisible” inside the blastula, the fetus, etc.: DNA. So, why not the transformations from atoms systems to stellar systems to galactic systems to biological systems could not have a invisible force doing it?! Yes there is one, a natural universal formula for all natural systems, called “Matrix/DNA”, which is showed at “The Universal Matrix for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” ( Google it). It is not possible to understand in full, biological evolution ( which is merely another cycle of universal evolution) if not knowing cosmological evolution. And darwinism knows nothing about it. There are more four variables coming from the Cosmological Evolution, acting over biological evolution here – it is not merely the three variables considered now by Modern Synthesis ( VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance), which fill the gaps. They are natural laws and mechanisms coming from the electromagnetic dimensions, some of them described by thermodynamic systems theory. Our problem just now is that our official astronomic and atomic theoretical models are not complete, far away off the beam, so, the scientific community can not detect the evolutionary lings between cosmological and biological evolution, while Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting a model of LUCA that fits the gaps. You can see the Matrix formula working into the shape of yours hands, as any natural systems, sub-systems and accessories, like the hands. You can see as elemental structure of atoms, galaxies and now, this new shape of system called ‘consciousness”. You can see the formula inside a lateral pair of nucleotides, the fundamental unit of information of DNA. That’s due DNA is merely the biological shape of something coming from since the Universe’s origins – the Universal Matrix. The first shape of this Matrix we see at the spectrum of natural light waves, so, the original light already had the code for Life. We see evolution here, but it is not the whole history. The phases of evolution are steps of a bigger universal process: reproduction. Inside this universe as a kind of big cosmic egg, is occurring a genetic process of reproduction. Reproduction of what?! Obvious: the Unknown system that generated this Universe. We can not know it.So, while this discussion among theories ( Darwinism, Creationism, Matrix/DNA, etc.) is necessary and good for stimulating the search for more knowledge towards the final thru, it is not rational the offenses, fundamentalisms. Never forget it: our little brain is not equipped for grasping the thru about the system we are inside it. The most rational method for inquiring this mystery is observing what Nature shows here and now, and then, calculating what must be where and when we can not reach. I myself don’t believe on my elaborated theory – The Matrix/DNA – because I bet that it is not complete, it can not be completed by my little brain. My fellows at this mission, the search for our existential meanings: “Try to understand that beliefs are products of Nature and personal specific experiences hard-wiring the connections among neurons and providing informations, some of them false, others real – and only bringing on to the table real natural approved facts and events, can help the Humanity inits evolution. E outro comentario postado: 

Louis Charles Morelli – October 08, 2014

“…if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)” Have been normal that human’s goes first to the two extremes of any issue, and finally reaching the middle term, where relies the final thru. Like Nature goes from the extreme hot to the extreme could for reaching the middle state good for life. Here, about the universal meanings of existence, humans have going from extreme infant phantasies ( creationism) to extreme materialism ( Modern Synthesis for Natural Evolution). Sir Fred Hoyle is dancing between these two extremes, so, if it is not randomness, must be divine intelligence. The third hidden alternative, the real thru, must be in between and lots more complex. My suggestion is that when we have a big unsolved mystery, and the known theories are extremists, we need ask it directly to Nature. And Nature shows to us that the life of a baby giraffe has not beginings at random, but… it is not product of mother’s giraffe intelligence either. It is merely a long chain of causes and effects known as genetic process.So, tell us the pure rational thinking, that we must search this genetic process as responsible for emergence of life at any planet of the Cosmos. The long chain of causes and effects has coming from the simplest to gradual more complexity (it happens here, facing our eyes: the embryonary morphogenetic event), so, the genetic process must be under evolution too. It must be coming from cosmological evolution, non-living world. Here relies the third hidden alternative, which must be the final thru. No randomness, no intelligent designers. Nature does not plays dice with her creatures.Ask her, She will tell you the thru, showing to you her production here, and revealing that how She does things here, is how She did things at the origins of this Universe and life here. See what you can discover, yourself, doing that, as I did. See the solution that I discovered after seven years asking the last remained life’s origins witnesses that still are alive at the heart of Amazon jungle, and published at my website: The Universal Matrix/DNA Formula for natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. But, be advised, my findings are not the final real thru also. I have watched only the half-face of Nature, which  is the chaotic face that produced this salvage biosphere.We know that there is another half-facem the ordered state, when we lift our eyes and see this solar system and galaxy working as a watch.And even if we get the real theoretical model of the ordered Cosmos, we know that we don’t get the final thru yet. Chaotic and ordered states are the two extremes again, the final thru must relies on a third hidden more complex alternative. Today we can build theoretical models about the structure and evolutionary history of the Cosmos, as the scientific astronomers community are doing. They must be not complete, even wrong, since we have our brains hard-wired by the chaotic state, never experimenting the ordered state of Nature. So, the astronomers are projecting the laws and mechanisms of chaotic states when building their astronomical models. There is only a unique way for getting a little bit closer to the final thru: making comparisons between the ordered state and the chaotic state, extracting a third theoretical model. I did it, after 30 years of calculations, but… the final results are suggesting that it is not materialism, it is not randomness and it is not intelligent design: it is something never imagined before. Remembering that this model is not complete, it must have lots of errors, so, we must no believe on it. xxxx E como resposta a este post do Fallible Fiend:

Fallible Fiend – 4 weeks ago (edited)

When I taught at university, I warned students against cheating, but some would do it anyway.  They were always shocked that someone who understood the subject could detect their cheating, even though it was obvious.  They changed variable names and other things to mask their copying, but to no avail!  When you lie to somebody who understands, the lying is obvious!  Creatioinsts use quote mines and thereby misrepresent the scientists without caring that they are misrepresenting them!   Being caught in their intellectual incompetence is what’s making them so frothing in fraudulent Arjunasquirtz these days!  

   

Louis Charles Morelli – Octuber 09, 2014

To Fallible Fiend: “They were always shocked that someone who understood the subject could detect their cheating, even though it was obvious.”

Are you conscious about the virtual cultural matrix 10.000 or more years old built by human inheritance of animals’ instinct? I am talking about this culture that rules ours social systems, shared into big predators (the high class), medium predators (  medium class) and preys ( the slaves workers), mimicking the rules of the salvage jungle? The invention of religions is a good support for this culture due being good strategy for predators keeping slaves.  If yours students were shocked when facing reality it means they believed in it and came from middle class ( conditioned minds) because the high class knows that they are cheating. I will suggest a fantastic discovery from Matrix/DNA Theory for explaining how this virtual matrix works: I watched natives “shamans”  of Amazon jungle when taking their hallucinogenic beverages describing the same picture that very ancient people from Asia used as foundations for their mythos. The big surprise and question for me was: how could it be?! Ok, the first answer is that those people from such different places and time drunk same drugs. But, why this “altered visions” could be the foundations for religions? How they entered a brain dominated by animals instincts and survive together inside the brain?! One possible but surprising answer came when I arrived to Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems… like brains. The formula is suggesting a picture of LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor), which should be the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolution. This “luca” never stood at Earth’s surface, because it is the building block of astronomical systems, like this one that earth belongs to it. Another big surprise is that LUCA was described in full by those mythos. LUCA is a thermodynamic system working as perfect machine described by Physics, ( Newtonian mechanics plus general relativity) using a kind of words, metaphors, symbols, but, The Eden Paradise is the same thing described by another kind of metaphors, words, symbols! Same thing for the world view based on the symbols of I Ching. How could it be?! The explanation is rational, pure natural logistic. Systems as atoms, stellars, galaxies, are species and as such they are our evolutionary ancestors, like the species as bacterias, amoebas, reptiles. All these species are registered into our DNA’s memory. There is DNA for biological systems, but it came from another kind of “DNA” existing as building blocks for non-biological systems, which name I prefer “universal matrix”. ( The inanimate systems are registered at the junk DNA). So, when someone have altered states of brain, like those produced by drugs, this memory comes as flashes, scenes, and each people try to interpret it by its own way. You can see the seven symbols used for building the fable of Adam and Eve at the Eternal Paradise, inside a building block for any natural system, a perfect natural machine, described also by thermodynamic theory. Since that this astronomical building block is reproduced as the fundamental unit of  information called “a lateral pair of nucleotides”, you can now understand why these memories are inside our neurons. Look to LUCA at my website, and you can identify there, the serpent, the apple, the tree, the perfect paradise for Adam and Eve – which were the astronomical evolutionary state of X and Y chromosomes about 4 billion years ago! You will still understand what really was the Fall, and why the entropic force produces biological systems like me and you here. I think that once time this whole theory will be approved, it will destroy those mythos that are the foundations of all religions, forever. But… be aware: the world vision that you are teaching could be another kind of cheating the reality also. And it is, if this new theory will be proved right. So, like you can not see the virtual cultural matrix acting over you, don’t be surprised that yours students are shocked facing reality.

Vídeos Youtube Sôbre Controvérsia Deístas-Ateístas: Mais uma participação da Matrix/DNA

sábado, fevereiro 2nd, 2013

Bill Nye: Teaching Evolution? Think Thriller. (legendado)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXdUTJqI7u8

Comentário postado por nós em Sat – Feb – 02 – 2013

TheMatrixDNA

TheMatrixDNASat – Feb – 02 – 2013

There are bad things for kids in Bill’s beliefs also. Non-human moral values like “the good design is justified when eats the bad ones”. And salvage competition. In Nature evolution does not works bottom-up only.There is a hierarchic systems superposition, every system is composed by minor system and is inside bigger systems. Then, every evolutionary steps seems bottom-up from a local observer viewpoint, but it reveals being up-down for a bigger observer that is seeing the whole. Nanotechnology.

Aviso: O limite de 500 caracteres no Youtube impede um post de uma cosmovisão estranha, desconhecida, que teria de descer a muitos detalhes para explicar suas conclusões. Portanto tais posts parecem virem de lunáticos, ao observador/julgador imediatista. Aqui nos sentimos agradecidos pelos bons efeitos do discurso de Bill Nye porem tem maus efeitos tambem. Defeitos em seu discurso:

1) Condiciona a mente de crianças com a crença de que a Natureza caminha cegamente, pois sistemas emergeriam por chance nos niveis menores, microscópicos, e a partir daí estariam sujeitos a forças competitivas para sobrevivencia, sendo que aqueles melhores desenhados no momento que emergem comem os piores desenhados. Isto passa à criança a crença num mundo onde competir seria a regra imposta e a aplicação da astucia, da força bruta seria justificada. Isto leva a racismos, idéias de genética superior, e fornece aos que querem poder sem fazer seu trabalho justificativas para seus atos contra os mais fracos. Etc.

Acontece que a interpretação de Bill Nye sôbre como a natureza funciona pode estar errada por ser imediatista, lilmitada a um pequeno observador situado num infimo ponto do espaço-tempo, sem ter a visão de horizontes mais amplos e portanto um maior entendimento de como a natureza funciona. Para se interpretar os resultados biológicos aqui é preciso sentar=se em algum ponto alem da galaxia e dos 4 bilhões de anos da origem e evolução biológica, pois as razões estão nas mãos do criador e não da criatura. Foi a galaxia que criou os sistemas biológicos dentro dela, ou ao menos ela é o molde que dirige as formas que a ela se adaptam. E a galaxia é uma má criadora, sdua ideologia, suas regras não convem à espécies inteligentes.

A evolução avança “de baixo para cima”? Existe um processo natural observavel aqui e agora onde se observa a evolução fazendo o caminho contrario, avançando de cima para baixo, mas que para todo observador assistindo o processo localizado ao mesmo nivel do processo parecerá um movimento “de baixo para cima”. me refiro ao processo da embriogenese humana. Imagine uma espécie de micróbios inteligentes vivendo dentro da barriga de uma mulher grávida. Desde que eles vivem apenas alguns dias, muitas gerações passarão durante os nove meses de gravidez. Eles assistirão “emergir” do liquido amniótico sistemas como genes, verão uma massa disforme como a blastula, dela emergirá formas, estas se transformarão em órgãos, etc. Cada órgão vivo parecerá um ser vivo gigante como dinossauros, ou melhor, estrêlas-do-mar, medulas, polvos, que não se movem mas comem o que existe nas redondezas e crescem. ACREDITARÃO PIAMENTE QUE ESSE PROCESSO EVOLUCIONARIO QUE ASSISTEM AVANÇA A PARTIR DA BASE, DA BLASTULA, NA DIREÇÃO DE FORMAS CADA VEZ MAIORES E MAIS COMPLEXAS. Mas para um observador situado fora do ambiente onde se dá o processo, tudo será ao contrário. Êle está vendo a espécie humana, o pai distante, o corpo da mãe alem daquele universo dos micróbios, sabe que aquela espécie humana foi miniaturizada, comprimida, dentro de microscópicos squinhos cromossomicos, invisiveis aos microbios, mas que estão ali no meio da blastula, e eles são os instrumentos do verdadeiro criador e diretor daquele processo evolucionario. Assim acontece em relação à galaxia Via Láctea e os sistemas biológicos que emergiram e evoluem na superficie da Terra. A falta da consideração e do entendimento da galaxia leva Bill Nye a incutir errados e perigosos valores morais nas crianças, pois paras a humanidade não convem reproduzir aqui uma maquina estupida como a galaxia e se tornar mais uma mera peça funcional estupida dela. Se o ensino religioso deísta-criaciocionista está evidentemente errado, tambem o está o ensino religioso ateísta-evolucionista. A Matrix/DNA é a opção do meio-têrmo, a mais inteligente e a que melhor convem à Humanidade.

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (6)

segunda-feira, outubro 22nd, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a sexta parte dêste artigo, vide as cinco anteriores, numeros 5,4,3, 2 e 1 tôdas aqui nêste blog com o mesmo titulo) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08). Meus posts estão em três nomes devido problemas na conta do Youtube:  Louis Charles Morelli, TheMatrixDNA e Austriak1)

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

XXX

Posts modêlos para entrada todos os dias:

All posts here by Matrix/DNA seems “away off the beam”, it makes no sense, the words are out of order, phrases are not connected in comprehensible way. It “seems” because Matrix/DNA is a narrative of this world by a never knew before way for connecting all real natural facts and events observed here and now. Is not the words out of order, it is your way of connecting real facts that is out of order. We need give to our children more power than we had, which is the right naturalistic knowledge

TheMatrixDNA8:05 PM – Mon – Nov – 12

The fundamental problem with the observable universal history of evolution is that evolution is product of matter, and matter, we know, has the supreme tendency to get eternal thermodynamic equilibrium. So, must have a force among matter that is odd to matter. How to find it ? Nature must answer this question. And I see the matter inside a fecundated ovule not going to inertia, but moving under evolution. DNA contains this force here. And now we discovered the DNA of Universe: the Matrix/DNA.

TheMatrixDNA4:16 PM wed 07

Louis Charles Morelli12;48 PM – Sat. – Nov – 03

Question: If the supreme tendency of matter is to accommodate at eternal thermodynamic equilibrium state, which non-material force could exist against this tendency, forcing matter towards complexity and evolution? If there was a God creating this world, why he made matter with this tendency for being the structural substance of this world and the substance of bodies of living beings with the opposite tendency- the tendency for eternal dynamic movement? Atheism and creationism makes no sense?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I know the answers. Atheism will say that the Big Bang produced chaos, after that matter is searching its ordered state, and that’s why we see evolution just now. And creationist will say that God created the world in perfect state ( this was not the tendency of matter or living beings) but the sin of Adam/Eve broken the perfection. But, I think that an infinitelly perfect and not mutable world, at ordered state, is the same of “nothing”. It should be a closed system, the supreme selfishness.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Why not asking these supremes questions to Nature? Who else could be more faithful professor? That’s what we did. We spent 7 years at the heart of Amazon jungle asking nature, because there is the last untouchable land that still has the witness of life’s origins. And we got a third alternative, not atheist, neither creationist, but 50% of each one. This Universe is a kind of cosmic egg, the galaxies are the fossils of our ancestors, and the History is “from the Big Bang towards a Big Birth”.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Inside this Universe is occurring a kind of genetic/computational reproduction of that unknown system existing before and beyond this Universe. It is all about the embryogenesis/evolution of a unique natural system, which has a Matrix/DNA. We, human beings ( and maybe a lots of another extra-terrestrial lifeforms), are the genes being expressed just now for building the brain and consciousness of this universal system. We need loving and helping each other, because we will be one.

My question:

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago 9:55 PM – Wed 17

( PERDÍ OS POSTS ENTRE 11 E 13.  RECOPIA-LOS.)

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli – 1:21 PM – Friday, 19

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Louis Charles Morelli1:21 PM – Friday, 19

The monstrous, sanguinary, enemy number one of human specie, terrorist, god of the Bible, was merely projection of human ancient almost salvage personality to the common humans’ dream of ideal supermen. But, every human is different from all others, then, the ancient debate about the ideal god was worked by writers. It was a projection of this earlier fetal evolution in shape of blastula, where billions of diversified cells should converge and be resumed into the first initial cell. Irony!

Louis Charles Morelli8:50 PM – Tue – 23

From Matrix/DNA Evolutionary Theory: “Natural Selection is the immediate environmental selection acting by stress guided by natural designers which are non-immediate natural systems, occupying the systems’ hierarchy at sequential inferior and superior levels.” This process goes back and before the Big Bang, triggered by an ex-machine natural system that contains consciousness. If you are a theist and want to call this natural system “God” know that it creates as do humans’ father and mother.

Louis Charles Morelli –  1:56 PM – Fri – 26

It is not rational that people does not accept the visible process of embryogenesis and the whole life cycle of a human being as the exactly mirror of universal evolution. One motive of this deviation of Reason is the missing knowledge that universal evolution is all about the evolution of a unique system that began as merely vortex/matrix, evolved to atom, star system, galaxy, cell system, human, mind, and next… These are different shapes of any natural system under the process of lifecycle.

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

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

TheMatrixDNA5:30 PM – Thu – 08

Não Publicado:

I was thinking about it just now: teaching kids that a supernatural assassin of human beings, causing wars and killing whole tribes, causing floods and killing even the lovely squirrels and butterflies; approving slavery, etc, as a humans’ hero, is just the kind of doctrine that produced the Inquisition, the killings of september 11. If this being exists, he is enemy Number One of human kind and all life, he should be bring on to Justice as terrorist. That’s a bad moral education. Or not?

And posted by: TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

***NOTE***

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

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

XXXXXXX

I’m sorry and do not mean to offend you – but you do not write english welll enough for your comments and statements to actually mean anything. parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

Ok, Parsival. Please, see this: “I found the number 1,618 when searching for a number for the point in time/space occupied by the piece of the perfect closed system circuitry – the Matrix – that has the function of systems’ reproduction. But, then, this number remembered that is very known and famous as “the number Phi”. Sacred geometry, bi-lateral symmetry are some of its names. Why? Then I discovered that the left face of Matrix is reproduced by Phi making the right face. That’s bi-lateral

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

symmetry! Since that Matrix is a kind of universal fractal, repeated everywhere, was explained why people see beautiful and wonder about this number.” This piece with this number is spermatozoon at sexual level, RNAm at cellular level, the base Uracil at DNA level, comets at astronomical level, and particle pion at atomic level. But Phi must be also the force that trigger DNA replication and now I am searching what is this force” I know you will see no meaning here. Due an unknown worldvision

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

I have to agree with parsivals horse. Your use of the language appears to be no more than a collection of words without any meaning. Certain sentences do make sense by themselves but they appear to be floating without a context.

Peter van der Meer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 36 minutes ago

No, that’s happen also with people that talks my native language but does not know the Universe I am describing. But I am sure that all words and all sentences are perfect connected and located and at the right sequence for any kind of apresentation. And I know how to express ideas, since that at my childhood I got the first place at scholar concourses for writing. I think this strange odd effect that everybody feels would happen when listening the author of I Ching explaining the symbols.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXXXXX

Beginning of Debates

XXX

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

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

Brooks was right. There is no creative force, in the meaning that this Universe could have forces able to creating new information from nothing. But, still, speciation is merely reproduction of natural mechanisms, systemic functions, geometric shapes, existents since the beginnings of this world, that were expressed by natural systems unknown to us, and since these systems are hidden from our understanding, the mechanisms were unknown also. We’re discovering them by Matrix/DNA methods

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

XXX

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

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville 16 hours ago

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

Silas Rainville in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 8 minutes

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

Alan Clarke in reply to Terncote (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

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

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

“Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 12 minutes ago

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

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

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

“than a human evidence for overall health?”

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 22 minutes ago

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

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

PART 2 OF 2

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; 1984 edition ), p. 184.

WILL YOU RETRACT YOUR EVIL LIES?

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

I can see no difficult either. One problem of yours is about not thinking in relativistic way. Why the emphasis in the word “montruous”? It is due its size. But it is considered big in relation to what parameter? In relation to a galaxy, whales are microscopic. Perfect suitable for existing as not “monstrous”. So, wales are not montruous bears. And this “Natural Selection” working here is the agent of an environment that was produced by a monster system produced by Eve before the Fall. Right?

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

XXX

You are indoctrinated with all the atheistic pseudoscience of evolution.

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Steve Malkony (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

@parsivalshorse “There simply is no competing theory”

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

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse 1 hour ago

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Unfortunately, your assumptions don’t fit observed reality.

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

Emergent phenomenon are all around us.

You are arguing from ignorance.

marksmith1117 in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenith Adams in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 11 hours ago

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

Because our brain can not process the information of this world as having a beginning, neither the information of this world as having no beginning. And our brain can not grasp a third alternative. So, we need wait the evolution of our brain.

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

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

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

I am not infering any such thing.

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

whiteowl1415 in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 1 hour ago

No, that is just you spewing garbage.

Why the long repetitions?

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

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 39 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

You called DNA a “building block”.

Idiot.

marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 28 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 5 minutes ago

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

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 19 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

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

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 14 minutes ago

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

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

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

ActuatedGear in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 29 minutes ago in playlistNew Releases

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

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

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

…..

” DNA is merely a pile of building blocks”

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

…..

Liar?

Or just STUPID?

I say BOTH.

marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 24 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Yeah….

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

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

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

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

Carrie Coco 3 hours ago

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

Carrie Coco 3 hours ago

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

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

Carrie Coco 4 hours ago

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

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

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

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

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

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to epicnegroable (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

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

marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

GOD DID NOT CLAIM TO “WRITE” THE BIBLE.

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to arthurjeremypearson (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 hours ago

XXX

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

caycug1 in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 37 minutes ago

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

caycug1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 28 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 (Show the comment) 14 minutes ago

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

caycug1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 27 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

–Stephen Jay Gould

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

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

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

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

Gibberish.

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

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

–Stephen Jay Gould

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

ShunkawakanOkawingha 15 minutes ago

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

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

@”starting point of a Big Bang in a Cartesian Graphic having times and space as”

Stop this word salad nonsense!

How the fuck does SPACE get represented as a CARTESIAN graphic?

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 27 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

brownian motion?

citation?

I’m tired of tracking down irrelevance here…

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 51 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

why do you lie to yourself, anyways?

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 48 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

Peter van der Meer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 18 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

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

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

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

Evolution is a Theory.

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

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

NASA refutes HTBK.

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

NuggetKazooie 35 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

FAILED PROPHETS OF EVOLUTION

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

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

Alan Clarke 5 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 10 hours ago

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

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

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 10 hours ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 10 hours ago

So the Matrix/DNA is just a metaphorical theory?

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 minutes ago

What exactly is the matrix/DNA theory?

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

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

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

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

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

( êste debate foi o mais interessante e perdí todas as cópias quando caiu a luz. voltar a copiar)

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

Answering for myself, you’d be right.

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

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

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

emfederin in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

Alan Clarke in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 17 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

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

BigWater59 in reply to Usul573 (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

“lack of genetic lineage”

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

i was asking for why are commets still here

how can diseases evolve if they are not on there host

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

jony2jack1 in reply to narco73 21 hours ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to jony2jack1 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Speed of Light:

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

DarwinsFriend 6 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

ergonomover 26 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

Godskid7642 3 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Godskid7642 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

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

TheRealRussG 12 minutes ago

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

Really? Is that living?

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

Now when he approaches – I send him immediately on his way to his next victim. He never works out – he just talks, and talks and talks. That’s what his belief system has given him.

(This old bastard says “Fuck That.”)

Is that what true Communism is all about? Being totally obsessive about saying hi to everybody like a Wal-Mart greeter, asking them how their doing, how their dog’s toenail problem is coming along and sharing every thought (like I’m doing now?) that comes into tour scull? WTF?

DarwinsFriend in reply to DarwinsFriend 3 hours ago

My sorry, you are in bad situation at your gym with such guy. I can’t support them, either. So, since I am reduced to live outside academic environment, I went losing all friends. And I arrive to a point that I can’t support friendship with women also, because they never talks an issue that I am interested. That’s bad, I went to a wrong way. The human intellect has two first ways: extreme expansion or extreme introspection. The right one for surviving better should be a middle term. Right?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 hour ago

Yes – that is right.

My bitch is that some religious folks have zero boundaries.

Even common wolves have boundaries. They’re conscious of borders they don’t cross – territory that’s forbidden. Step across a certain line – get bit. I was raised to respect others space.

I’m not promoting being anti-social, but walking up on me with your gigantic bullshit line is just fucking rude.

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

So, it seems we have a new theory: Every person has the tendency to expands towards two extremes. If one does not control the expansion of an imaginary supernatural worldview ( like creationism, bible) it can not control the belief that he knows the truth about each factual detail, which means no control of introspective tendency. If one ( my wrong experience) can not control the expansion towards macro and micro dimensions of Nature, he can’t control the escape from factual immediate details(?)

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

XXX

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

Is it the Double Helix?

IS it that it contains genetic information?

Is it that it is inherited?

What?

marksmith1117 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

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

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

Alan Clarke in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

DOGMA EXAMPLES:

@XGralgrathor “There is only one scientific theory”

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

Alan Clarke in reply to XGralgrathor (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

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

Kenith Adams in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

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

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

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

tsub0dai in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“There is now the Matrix/DNA Theory”

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

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 12 minutes ago

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

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

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

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 24 minutes ago

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

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

*pat pat*

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

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

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

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

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

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

Come back when you have an actual argument.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

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

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

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

I would have never imagined it!

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 29 seconds ago

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

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

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

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 38 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

Ok. What do you think about this news at:

Science Daily – Avalanche of Reactions at the Origin of Life

The scientists says:

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

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

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1:53 AM – Tue – 06 – Nov

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

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

illegalconspiracy in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

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

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

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

illegalconspiracy in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

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

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

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

illegalconspiracy in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

falling behind?

such extremism!

please document your mythology

creation will always be an option

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

the deadly rsn…

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

signals which could trigger radiation that could cause genetic mutations…

see!

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

Tom Adams in reply to herschalshep (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

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

Where did you get this idea from, Tom?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 6:19 Pm – mon – 05

XXX

Amphibians are Proof of evolution.

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

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

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

MrButtlettuce 22 seconds ago

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrButtlettuce 5:58 Pm – Mon – 05

XXX

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

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

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

4. Evolution is a very intrinsic yet impossible idea.

quest4reason in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 3 days ago

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

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

TheMatrixDNA in reply to 5:57 PM, Mon, 05,

XXX

RogerS4JC 3 days ago

@XGralgrathor “Gould was wrong about that. His understanding of the evolutionary model was less complete than that of an evolutionary biologist today.”

Then let’s look at a more up-to-date understanding:

‘The Movies in Our Eyes’, Scientific American, Mar 2007

“For decades, scientists have likened our visual-processing machinery to a television camera: the eye’s lens focuses incoming light onto an array of photoreceptors in the retina.

Pg 1. Continued>

·in reply to XGralgrathor(Show the comment)

RogerS4JC 3 days ago

Pg 2 continued>

These light detectors magically convert those photons into electrical signals that are sent along the optic nerve to the brain for processing. But recent experiments by the two of us and others indicate that this analogy is inadequate. The retina actually performs a significant amount of preprocessing right inside the eye and then sends a series of partial representations to the brain for interpretation…

continued>

·in reply to RogerS4JC

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Preprocessing! That’s just the prevision suggested by Matrix/DNA formula 30 years ago, before this paper. But, the preprocessing process does not sends different interpretations of wholes, only partials (like 44 chromos?). So why reprocessing if there is no variations? Because the whole process uses the same mechanism of recycling and embryogenesis used in that formula. ( See the systemic circuit between F7 and F2). The image may have the same distortion between parents and a new baby

·in reply to RogerS4JC(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

The image “dies”at the retina, due entropy attacking the light wave carrying the image. These are the processes at the retina. Then its “cadaver fragments” are transported as electrical signals to the brain. At the brain occurs the process of recycling, when the image borns again. It is the same process by which stars and babies are born from previous similar templates.

XXX

Alan Clarke 3 days ago

@whiteowl1415 “We have an evolutionary path for the eyes”

I noticed you used “path” in the singular. Wikipedia says, “complex image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times.” Nature can build crystals but the idea of non-directed, non-intelligent processes (following physical laws) building an eye from scratch out of earth’s elements seems unlikely. To say it happened 50 – 100 times strains the limits of credulity.

CREDULITY – a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Alan, the evolution of biological eyes becomes clear and acceptable if you know the evolution of a universal natural system since the Big Bang. Aren’t you a builder of electronic sensory systems? If you know the universal formula for natural systems (see it at Matrix/DNA Theory) you can have good ideas for innovation. 10 billions years ago there were astronomical “bodies”performing the function of primitive eyes or vision: all information and images of a system pass inside the big eye at F1.

·in reply to Alan Clarke(Show the comment)
XXX

fowzie777 3 hours ago

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

“randomness produces increasing order and complexity.”

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

in reply to fowzie777(Show the comment)

Vote Down

XXX

MrButtlettuce 3 hours ago

Polar bears, arctic foxes, all have white fur.

Why are kangaroos only found in australia?

Why if you introduce a foreign species from Asia it’ll totally screw up the Eco system in America.

Awnser: Because different adaptions are needed for particular environments and animals took off in different branches due to isolation.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Ok. Is this answer a proof that had no previous design for different shapes? Still not because there is a most real evidence suggesting previous design. Embryogenesis is an accepted natural real parameter happening in short time that could be the copy of a process happening at longer time. At blastula we see different elements ( proteins, chemicals reactions, etc.) emerging from particular environments (cells diversifications). It is due a previous design hidden in the genome. Why not?

XXX

OldaurGold 27 minutes ago

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Go to Wikipedia and type “Miller–Urey experiment”. But don’t worry if you prefer the idea of previous and non visible design driven the experiment, still it is possible. And the real scientific facts leaves open the possibility that this design is coming from before the Big Bang from an unknown source. The problem is for biblical creationists and for Intelligent Designer, because evidences suggests it has been a natural process of cosmological evolution, no evidences of intelligence and magics.

XXX

Nullifidian 1 day ago

All right. In that case, what is your refutation of *all* the evidence that has been adduced to demonstrate evolution and common descent? In order to demonstrate that evolution is a “fallacy”, it seems like this is a necessary prerequisite.

I’ll give you a head start: how do you explain the 100,000 base translocation from chromosome 1 to chromosome Y that is shared between chimps and humans, but not gorillas, macaques, monkeys, orangs, etc. (who only have the sequence on chromosome 1)?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Great, Mr. Nullifidian! Yours question produced another question and I did again a quick view in those chromosomes and elaborated more one hypothesis inside Matrix/DNA Theory, about the emergence of human consciousness: this fusion means that, first time in all universal evolution, the aspects of software and hardware presents at any natural system were most fused, most closely mixed, and this event made that the software became almost material like the hardware, being strong expressed. Great!

Nooohhh… if this hypothesis is real fact, it means that the aspect of software was “sleeping” all past time in those primates with 24 chromosomes. Just at the 24th. Comparison with our computers, the 24th chromosome should be the piece of hardware where the diagram of softwares are projected. And suddenly, this computer’s software piece splits among all pieces, It does not needs any more the mind of Bill Gates for evolving. If this event is possible, will be here the starting of AI? Hells…

XXX

TrueVerdicts 2 hours ago

Evolution understands life in a whole different way; and in an effort to legitimize the original mistake, scientists continue to make claims that are extremely nonsensical. There is not ONE WAY of understanding the Universe, and science’s original evolutionistic approach to it is not THE uncontested truth of The Universe told us by s/he/that/those who made The Universe (if any) — Evolution is quite flawed.

parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

You said. Evolution understands life in a whole different way? Different than what?

Science is a roll up your sleeves endeavour. That’s why religion and philosophy have been so inadequate at explaining the true nature of reality. You can’t understand reality just by sitting in your comfy chair and imagine it all into existence.

Eventually your going to have to get up of your arse and go and search for the answers.

Arguments from ignorance are for the lazy and the weak minded.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You said: “Evolution understands life in a whole different way?” And a user asked – ” Different than what?”

My answer would be: Different from the real life, which is not different from the Cosmos that produced it. ToE has shared Universal History in two separated blocks without any evolutionary links between two blocks. The abyss between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution that ToE created has been fulfilled with mystic, like absolute randomness and blind evolution.

XXX

Kenith Adams 2 hours ago

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

in reply to artem991

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

That’s funny! Are you suggesting that this Nature we see here is not the job of God? And that the job of God was the perfect garden of Eden? And you conclude that I will never understand god ( if he exist) studying Nature here? You are almost right because Nature here is half-Nature, his face’s side of chaos> There is another half face – the state of order – we can’t see here. Maybe this hidden face is the garden, why not? If you read Matrix/DNA models you will see the garden and what it means.

XXX

TrueVerdicts 14 minutes ago

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

Louis Charles Morelli 3 seconds ago

Yes, and thanks because I have learned with you. When you say “I do not subscribe to evolution” we disagree. I subscribe to the process of natural evolution, but does not in relation to neo-Darwinian theory about this process because I think that my personal investigation studying natural systems in Amazon jungle for 7 years with the modern scientific knowledge about genetics, cosmology,etc. that Darwin did not have when in Galapagos, suggested a more complex theory and deserves be tested.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You said: “My premise is that Humans are beyond just biological”

It is just what are suggesting my theoretical models and results. But when a new human being is developing inside a womb, the shape of embryo shows properties and elements( as brain and wishes) that its own shape as blastula did not showed. From where the fetus got the ability of intelligence? From a superior ex-machine system that is not visible inside the womb, but is encrypted into fetus’ DNA, which has evolved from a matrix.

XXX

TrueVerdicts 21 minutes ago

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

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

in reply to Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

“If all things are physics/biological, then why do all things NOT display these attributes but Humans?”

When I have a question like that, my best and faithful professor is Nature. Ask it to Nature. I did it and saw new attributes being displayed facing my eyes, inside the womb of a pregnant woman. Who else I could believe if not on Nature? In the fetus emerges consciousness, but the parents are not inside the womb doing interventions, neither used intelligence for making babies. Wombs=Universes

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Once time I read a phrase, I think that it is in the Bible: “If you want know Me, study my job because the personality of an artist is projected over his creation”. I am seeing Science studying Nature and my creationists friends neglecting Nature because they have all answers. If is there a God and if this Nature is his product, scientists are obeying God and going straight to real understanding about how he thinks than those that think are smart and can jump to conclusions with no homework.

XXX

TrueVerdicts 8 minutes ago

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

in reply to Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I think you are projecting your specific position as observer which is bio-intelligent centrism over the Universe for the sake of seeing beyond the Universe a metaphysical intelligence creating those universal laws and hence humans life and intelligence. If I am right, you need know that I am not against your worldview, I have no knowledge of real scientific proved facts denying yours world view. But my worldview suggests an ex-machine system acting naturally.

XXX

TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

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

in reply to Onithyr

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Nope. Non-intelligent and even non-living systems shows their pieces, elements, parts, killing other pieces/substances for the good of that system. Samples? The liver cleaning the organism, the lysosomes cleaning the cell system, a black hole cleaning the galaxy. Lions are the biosphere’s system function ( cleaning the system) that produced livers, lysosomes, black holes at another naturals systems. In the Matrix/DNA universal formula for systems this is the Function number 7.

Onithyr 1 week ago

“you would not have instinctively known this law”

Wow, so you just completely ignore one of humanities greatest evolutionary advantages, that is the ability to work in cohesive groups. I mentioned the very biological source of empathy, we have a name for people who are born without it, they’re called psychopaths.

Oh, and humans aren’t the only social animals of this type. Even piranha’s know not to kill each other.

in reply to TrueVerdicts

Exactly. Cohesive groups. These groups are the merely natural graduated steps for formation of a new system, in this case, human social system, family system, etc. TrueVerdicts is advocating the idea that only humans have intelligence because intelligence has a metaphysical source, then, we are not apes. I am not against this hypothesis, I have no proof against it, but he does not know that biological instincts are merely evolution from physical forces responsible for matter into systems.

in reply to Onithyr(Show the comment)

TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

2) Lastly, the fact that piranhas don’t kill each other is an instance of another universal law. There are many universals laws decreed by Time-Space. The 3 main ones being: Self-nourishment, Self-protection, Procreation — which all living beings do instinctively.

in reply to Onithyr

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Universal laws are natural physical forces. And you can see the origins of the seven natural forces popping up from any natural vortex, included those appearing at yours yard. I already said why time and space are not “entities” per se, they are units of measurement created by human beings. Time and Space does not decreed anything. Brute natural forces are the counterpart of tribal primitive agreements and universal complex laws are the counterpart of modern social complex legislations.

Kenith Adams 44 minutes ago

There are four natural “forces”

Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You are right and you must do not change what had learned in school. Here we are talking about theories. My theoretical models are suggesting at least seven forces, not proved yet. For example, the process that fragments a closed system, creating internal chaos, re-arrangements of its bits-information, mutation, and lifting up order from chaos with a new system employs other forces than the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. Theories…

XXX

TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

They are an act of Physics. Morals, altruism, selfishness, what’s right or what’s wrong, all of these things are visible in natural systems existents prior of life, practiced by atoms or stars. For understanding why and how they are physics forces you need know the universal template upon which all shapes of natural systems are naturally built ( the matrix diagram/software showed in Matrix/DNA website). If is there something metaphysical, ex-machine, it is beyond this Universe.

XXX

BigWater59 1 hour ago

I am not against evolution but every argument leads back to intelligence. For example if environmental stress is forcing a change on a species how does natural selection know what direction to change or what to change? It could be that a species needs fins or doesn’t legs then we have to assume NS is going to make the correct change which only leads to intelligence driving NS. If it was totally random then NS could devolve any species it wanted causing continues mass extinctions.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

From Matrix/DNA Evolutionary Theory: “Natural Selection is the immediate environmental selection acting by stress guided by natural designers which are non-immediate natural systems, occupying the systems’ hierarchy at sequential inferior and superior levels.” This process goes back and before the Big Bang, triggered by an ex-machine natural system that contains consciousness. If you are a theist and want to call this natural system “God” know that it creates as do humans’ father and mother.

XXX

TrueVerdicts 12 minutes ago

A user here named whiteowl1415 whom I’ve deemed below me, to whom I will not respond, suggested that he has come to know of other animals that innovate — meaning they’ve engineered something, and have subsequently made it better over time for their societies — such as the way humans have turned chariots into sophisticated automobiles. I’d like to know if others here support that and can give examples. Please don’t say monkeys use tools, as this is invalid

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

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

Atharkas 19 minutes ago

Do you mean, per instance, the fact that ants actually use agriculture to grow mushrooms for their consumptions?

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

They’ve always done that since ants were ants. Try again!

Humans used to use shovels and picks, now we use robotic machinery.

in reply to Atharkas(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Yes but any other species less complex (I will not say “less evolved”, if you are a creationist) than ants were not applying less complex agriculture. If you are creationist you will say that God created ants with knowledge of agriculture, and then, I am out from debate. I see ants as the first to discover this “technology” ( of course, we can see something in bacterias, corals, but let’s us keeping here)

TrueVerdicts 19 minutes ago

They’ve always done that since ants were ants. Try again!

Humans used to use shovels and picks, now we use robotic machinery.

in reply to Atharkas(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

And maybe humans will stop at robotic machinery with artificial intelligence for agriculture. But it is possible that other most evolved specie can making arrangements of atoms from a chair into arrangements of lettuce, only using mind’s forces and light waves. Why not? This most evolved specie can be a transcendent shape of an evolutionary lineage that had human specie as ancestor. So, humans sensors have technological limits, which explains the technological limits of ants also. Or not?

XXX

OldaurGold 6 minutes ago

Mind is an abstract, immaterialish thing. these things can’t evolve, but physical features can to a certain extent

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Wrong. Mind is the natural counterpart of biological system correspondent to what’s software in artificial computational system. And softwares are evolving. Just my opinion. By the way, if mind was abstract, immaterialish thing, how could you making affirmations about its properties, as “it can’t evolve”?

XXX

PinkUnicornIsLord 2 minutes ago

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

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

Since you mentioned CMB ( I was thinking that this background sound was due our Lord falling in love with Tom and saying “ooooooommmm…”) what if we change thoughts about meanings of human existence? Is it in topic here? My theory: Our scientific tools (optical telescope) are grasping the microwave region of the radio spectrum and not all regions because this tools are projections of our natural limited sensors. Universal evolution will go from BIg Bang (red) towards Big Birth (Y ray). No?

XXX

LAW OF BIOGENESIS [LIFE FROM NONLIVING IS IMPOSSIBLE I.E. ABIOGENESIS]

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 2 days ago

All such chemical elements are already found IN biological evolution, we’re composed of molecules. Everything in this planet came from star formation. Common knowledge in physics.To deny that is simple idiocy. There is no reason to think chemicals have to be “mindful” and “think” in order for biochemistry to take effect. Biochemistry is simple chemical reactions. There is no law of biogeneisis that says life can’t come from increasing complex molecules. Enough with your ignorance.

T8fgzz in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 hour ago

Question: Since everything in this planet came from star formation, why would be not possible that the observed chemical processes in abiogenesis were just the same process that Nature had applied before for getting formation of stars? Why would not be possible that those chemical reactions contained hidden variables driven the process towards cell’s formation? Chemical reactions are based atoms, which purpose is getting eternal thermodynamic equilibrium, so aren’t they a chemistry-stopper?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

stars are not chemical processes, they are nuclear ones.

ExtantFrodo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 54 minutes ago

You are right, I should be clear that I am talking about physical processes, which can be chemical and nuclear. The evolution from pure physical nuclear reactions to the novelty of physical organic chemical reactions was based merely over the fact that astronomical bodies were made with only two states of matter (solid and gaseous) and organic molecules/systems were made with a new state, the liquid. At least it is what is suggesting the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

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

XXX

Hey everyone! Bill needs brainwashed children who can’t think for themselves. He needs children to conform and “accept” that there is no God and they are part of an everlasting “evolution” which has never been proven. The evolution Bill is talking about is in fact a fantasy theory, no one has ever observed a plant turning into an animal, no one has ever observed a star being born, there are no fossils that have ever been found of a species turning into another species. Bill needs a slap!

thekiwicloud 5 hours ago

I don’t think Bill said “there is no God”. He is against biblical creationism, but it does not means that is not possible a great intelligence creating universes with computer/genetic programs included for these universes developing forms of life and intelligence. You are right: somewhere in evolution theory suggests that first came plants and from them came animals but did not explain how. Matrix/DNA Theory explains it very well. It is about the origins of animal and vegetal cells.

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

“no one has ever observed a star being born”

You are right, and never Humanity will see it, since that these cosmological processes takes millions years. Then, the maximum that we can do is elaborating theories with gaps, holes, but under a unique logics that suggests what shapes must be the missing links. Modern Nebulae Theory suggests the processes of stars formation from nebulae of dust under rotation, but this is spontaneous generation. Matrix/DNA Theory suggestion is more rational.

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

“there are no fossils that have ever been found of a species turning into another species”

Ok, let’s suppose that the millions of similar fossils are not enough for proving a jump from one shape into other. We will abandon the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution? There is no known rational acceptable alternative. There is Matrix/DNA Theory that brings “punctuation jumps”+ mechanisms of cosmological evolution that produces mutations/muscles/cartilages and a new fossil. This is an alternative.

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

XXX

Red Herring.

Nice attempt to divert from the presented fact that Life becomes tuned to its enviroment through natural selection not the enviroment is tuned to life.

Earth’s early atmosphere was nihospitable to most life we see today.

Plant life developed ad did just fine for a LONG time bfore animals were even possible.

Photosynthesis alterd the atmosphere and animal emerged in the NEW enviroment

Enviroment isn’t fine tuned it is in constant flux

whiteowl1415 in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago

That’s funny! What’s truth? Life becomes tuned to its environment or the environment us tuned to life? My wise grandfather always said: “You must suspect of any two extremes alternatives. The right one is a third, hidden, equilibrium alternative”.That’s just the case here. Plants’ life becomes tuned to earlier reduced environment, plants changed this environment in the way for this environment to be tuned to animals life. Plants were copies of astronomical closed system, animals are opened ones

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

Some day when you have evidence of this copy of the system crap let us know.

As to what is truth…

In some cases you grandfather’s advise holds true, but not others.

If I say the sky is blue and another says it is yellow that doesn not equate to it being green.

Life tunes to enviroment: FACT

Enviroment is altered by amany factors including the impact of Life: FACT

Life adapts to the new enviroment: FACT

These are as demonstrably true as the sky being blue.

It is non-negotiable

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

You said: “If I say the sky is blue and another says it is yellow that doesn’t not equate to it being green.”

But…but… the sky is not blue neither yellow, the color is in the eyes of the observer. This Universe obeys evolution by the same process your body changes shapes ruled by the process of life’s cycle. This process comes from the life’s cycle of a light wave, having seven colors, but as observer you see only from the perspective of one wave’s frequency. The sky is white, my friend.

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

You said: ” 1) Life tunes to environment: FACT”. 2)Enviroment is altered by many factors including the impact of Life: FACT; 3) Life adapts to the new enviroment: FACT.

That’s just what I said. The problem is with yours first proposition. What kind of pre-existent life tuned to environment? At abiogenesis? If the theory says that life came from non-life? But, still you are right. There was no life coming from non-life, but biological systems coming from Newtonian system machine. No miracles.

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

XXX

RogerS4JC: “Information quantity & density? in a single cell is TOO MUCH DATA, beyond the possibility for abiogenesis apart from a source of intelligence.”

So, while atheists are seeing evidence for blind evolution you are seeing evidence for supernatural intelligence? I can understand these reasoned deviations far away of Nature due human consciousness is still a baby that was born minutes ago in relation to universal nature’s time, like any baby transforms every object in tolls/phantasies.

Louis Charles Morelli8:10 PM – Tue – 23

XXX

Do not tell me that my beliefs are wrong and I’ll do the same…whether you think the Bible is a big book of stories put not…its your opinion and that’s great but don’t tell me what I believe is wrong:)

tiffani ross-bean 52 minutes ago

Resposta em 5 posts não publicada

Tiffani, these people here inquiring you does not understand yours healthy mind, I am sorry. I will tell a history about the writers of the Bible. A long time ago, humans were more naturals than we are today, their minds was like an empty book ( I know this because I lived 7 years in Amazon jungle among apes and natives studying their instints and psychology). They had a special sensitivity for grasping things we have lost. Then, monges from China, India, Hebrews, were having flashes of (cont.)

… memory from our past, long, long time ago, when our ancestor was a kind of spirit and his body was a whole galaxy. These flashes comes to mind due a strong event that happened with that ancestors, called “The Fall”.  But, the shapes of our ancestors and their world were totally different ( I have the pictures at my website), and the non continuous flashes were like symbols, they made those writers thinking a lot, trying to identificate what their dreams were about. They told the dreams to students, disciples, and they tried also to solve the dreams.

Now I was designing those revelations from natives and I got the real picture showed by those flashes. About 4 billions ago, there was the Garden Paradise. It was a selfish astronomical closed system, the original galaxy. There were two beings in shape of flows of information (softwares? spirits?), one male, other female –  Adam and Eve. They built the selfish Paradise suggested by a “Serpent”. Now, look to the pictures.  The Serpent swalling its own tail is a shape of that system’s circuitry, but if you see the Paradise from other angle (cont)

it seems a Tree, like any spiral vortex galaxy. But if you see from above it seems an Apple, despite it is just the world in shape of that Serpent and also a tree.  The center of that system was a quasar containing a black hole, which is the astronomical symbol for hardware as female and her anatomy. Like the beam queen, the female ruled that system while Adam had as anatomical hardware in shape of a Pulsar containing giants volcanos (male sexual organ) emitting magma (his genome) that flyies in space like comets (spermatozoons) towards the female quasar.

The garden paradise was built by Eve who convinced Adam it was the best world. But it was the extreme selfsness, a closed system, that broaken comunication with everything else, and closed the doors to their evolution. Then, entropy attacked the system, the Garden Paradise. It began to be fragmented in its surfaces bits of information, running towards the center. The system was collapsing into itself. These bits fail over planets surfaces and worked like genes, re-organizing themselves luke the shape of the old paradise, but the new enviroment was hard, made mutations, they lift up as opened systems. The time wasted from the Fall of that ancestor till the time of life’s origins was known as “abiogenesis”

And the thing that lifted up was the first living cell system. Now, why the scenes saw by sparsest non continuous flashes of memory were transformed in the genesis account? wrong interpretations of what we see but can not understand, they are things from other worlds and times. The disciples of Schimeon Ben Jochai, the hebrew that told his visions were the founders of judaism, esoterism, cabalism, etc.

FIM

XXX

In a scientific study just released by the University of Copenhagen, and funded by the Templeton Foundation. A 150 year sampling of devoutly creationist brains has yielded some surprising results. Observations and analysis have concluded that creationist’s brains are diminishing both in interconnections and cognitive function. The findings have been attributed to a loss of mass, and predictions indicate that within 300 years creationist’s brains will become vestigial.

parallelsdumaurier10:31 PM – Mon – 22

Be evolution totally blind or obeying some ex-biological purpose, what we see here and now is that all Nature’s efforts are being applied to the development of human brains. And through human brains is developing consciousness. The models of Matrix/DNA Theory suggests an explanation. Biological systems are product from the entropic decay of something called “Newtonian machine”, a closed system, spreaded in bits-informations and delivered to new environment (planets’ surfaces). These (cont.)

bits are diversified, each one having a unit of the ancestor’s selfishness. 7 billions of  bits of a big selfishness = human beings today.  Facing one another, conflicting, will cure this sin and all of us will be one, an opened system. Then, my first purpose in this life is helping Nature’s efforts to develop brain and its product, consciousness. Yours news is the worst. We need doing all efforts for the freedom and welfare of humans, because all of them are indispensable for our own success.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to parallelsdumaurier1:34 am – 23 – Tue

Not at all – there are millions of other organisms evolving along with us. We are by no means the focus of Nature’s efforts – if anything micro-organisms dominate the biosphere.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 52 minutes ago

Good point. We need making comparisons between micro-organisms development and apes/humans DNA development. My last informations is that human species DNA is evolving faster. Maybe the DNA’s micro-organisms are merely arriving to a final limit permitted by this modern environment/atmosphere. Or maybe at any planets where life emerged, all micro-organism will evolve into humans and when they gets consciousness, all leaves the planet… finding better places in the Universe. What do you think?

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

Yes they do and that is why we ask where do we see any of them “evolving” UP??? we do not. they all continue to remain basically the same.

we can witness this with amber we find that contains mosquitos and many other forms of life. They look no different from todays, although, some were larger but nonetheless the same.

living fossils that have not changed.

JoelMckay69 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

the fact you think that evolution has anything to do with up is beyond me.There’s no such thing as up in evolutionary terms you think insects have remained the same? by all means find me dragonflies with a 2ft wingspan. just because a mosquito looks the same?…really? are you gonna tell me we’re gonna find t-rexes and smilidon’s roaming around? and giant sloths?

tsub0dai in reply to JoelMckay69 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Well we do see other organisms evolving, scientists have observed speciation events (macro-evolution) many many times. Organisms evolve according to selective pressures, some slowly and some quickly – but there is no end point to evolution, and no reason to think that it is a process that has stopped.

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

The domination is not measured by quantities, and yes, by increased complexity. Matrix/DNA explains it. The diversification of stars are like the diversification of cells in a blastula. Each star has a bit differential, which is responsible by its unique function in this Universe’s system. When a star radiates its bits-information for evolution of biological systems, which accounts is their small differential bits, the resting are merely mass. The Sun is like anion, each time radiates a layer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you explain THAT? The implications are undeniable.

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

What do you mean by ‘the diversification of stars’ – do you mean fusion shifting elements further up the periodic table? Stars don’t ‘radiate information’, information is something that you learn from something – not a physical property. For example – you can get information by examining tree rings, but tree rings are not information.

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

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

Information appeared in this Universe in shape of half-material vortexes containing 7 brutes forces that evolved to natural forces known today and after that to the seven life’s properties. Each vortex has a specific number resulting from the mixing of expression, intensity of those forces. So, information are bits, real and concrete physical bits that gives forms to particles, matter, systems. Stars transmits its own body and history through radiation, so their emitted bits are informations.

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

Sure it is information on the age of the tree and what environments it has gone through in the past.

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

@”Sure it is information on the age of the tree and what environments it has gone through in the past”

He’s referring to the technical definition of the word “information”, you illiterate dickwad. All you just did was prove parsi’s point that you can extract information from informationless elements.

emfederin in reply to BigWater59 3 hours ago

To me makes no sense saying that star is “information less elements”. By the way, the problem maybe is about different definitions of “information”as I suggested in the post above. For instance, how we know a star’s age and is lights- years away? Who is sending that information? And what is the substance of this information? Symbols? Code? No, it is physical bit belonging to the star’s body. Or not? By the way, Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting that stars are more alive than we think.

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

What do you mean “nature efforts”?

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

You need to ask Louis, it was his term.

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

Maybe the words “Nature’s efforts” are wrong here. I should say “the last Nature’s evolutionary bias” has been observed lately. My readings have saying that human DNA has increased its size faster than apes, lately. If it is right, what is being registered in this DNA? I think that apes as working functional bodies are better developed than humans bodies. What’s being evolved is sensors systems and psychology, all about brain and consciousness. Wrong?

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

What a crock. If this was true creationist would have diminished their brain capacity a long time ago by these standards. Creationism has been around much longer than modern science and yet we still move forward in all areas of development.

BigWater59 in reply to parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

What on earth has the size of DNA got to do with anything? DNA is a polymer – there are sponges with longer DNA strands than us. Please tell me why DNA size is in any way relevant?

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

Let me think myself. DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system. If any specie keeps the size of its DNA, in any way it is evolving, because it means no new information are being added. It this specie is changing, it is not evolving, only mixing existent informations by fuzzy logics. If any species has increased the size of DNA it could mean that the added information is not new information but only more bits of same junk mass. But, there is no evolution if not increased non-junk DNA

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

“in shape of half-material vortexes containing 7 brutes forces that evolved to natural forces known today”

Incorrect. To the best of our knowledge, all of the fundamental forces of nature derive from one single force. This has been demonstrated experimentally for all three forces except gravity.

“the seven life’s properties”

Define please.

“Stars transmits its own body and history through radiation”

Stars don’t “transmit” anything through radiation except energy. False analogy.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 47 minutes ago

You said: “Stars don’t transmit anything through radiation except energy.” Ok, let’s see that. We have different theoretical cosmological models, and my models suggests that initial astronomical bodies had life’s cycles and a star contains all information of those different seven shapes of astronomical bodies. The whole galactic system is encrypted inside a star and radiation due entropy makes those informations being emitted as photons. That’s what creates life at planetaries surfaces.Theories

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

You said: “the seven life’s properties, define please.” The initial quantum vortex at the Big Bang were divided in two big groups: those spin right and those left. This is about phenotype. besides that division there were the diversification of all them, due each one having a final number resulting from the mixing of that properties. One was curved motion, the other was rectilinear motion: one was fast, the other slow, and so on. This is genotype. Digestion, sex, metabolism all life’s properties

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

You said: “all of the fundamental forces of nature derive from one single force”. That’s what I said. But the unique force can be a quantum vortex. Only when you try to analyse deeper what’s a quantum vortex you find, theoretically but rationally, that all natural forces are encrypted into that unique force. Matrix/DNA models suggests that the production of these vortexes are waves/rays of light. Any spectrum shows seven different frequencies – which are the projection of vortex’s forces.

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

No, not at all – I completely and utterly reject your claim that scientific terms and their meanings should be dispensed with – this thread is about science education.

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

Bill Nye is saying: “fathers/mothers don’t tell creationism to yours kids”. It is about general education, at home and at school. And most fathers/mothers does not speak scientific definitions. It is not the case for dispensing scientific definitions, it is the opposite: this is an opportunity for scientific education included scientific meanings. But does not try to dispense the common traditional definitions because science had appropriated these terms. Science is not the owner of these words.

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

“My readings had saying that human DNA has increased its size faster than apes, lately.”

Citation please.

If human DNA was to change substantially the result would no longer be human. Period.

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

Then… what? Are you saying that human shape are/will not change?! Are you suggesting that human is the last shape possible for evolution? You don’t know the E.T. I have hidden at home. He is almost pure energy, he is like a ball, almost only “head”. And he said that thousands years ago their ancestors, in their planet, were humans like we are today. Of course, we are a provisional shape… and so, our DNA. DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal no-biological Matrix, my friend…

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

you are wrong. Human generations span decades whereas micro-organisms reproduce every 20 minutes. Greater populations means much more diversity which ultimately means bacteria have faster evolution.

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

The environment causing mutations, natural selection and finally evolution of human beings is different from the environment of micro-organisms. And thanks God…(ooops, my fault, sorry) – thanks Nature that it is in this way. Have you thought what would happens with our bodies if those millions of microorganisms inside our bodies evolved fast? Spaceships crossing the space among our cells, species acquiring the size of dinosaurs? My God…(ops…excuse-me again). We don’t know this issue yet.

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

“Let me think myself. DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system.” – No Louis, it is not.

“If any specie keeps the size of its DNA, in any way it is evolving, because it means no new information are being added.” – No Louis, DNA is not information, information is not a property of matter.

No offence Louis, but a few basic biology lessons and then you will at least know what DNA is and understand the basic principles behind evolution.

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

You said: “DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system.” – No Louis, it is not.”

Parsi, we are debating theories, not real knowledge. You are based in abiogenesis theory, where nucleotides should be product of long evolution of chemicals reactions and DNA the result of nucleotides replications. Am I right? I am based in Matrix/DNA Theory which suggests a model of building blocks of non-living systems (atoms, galaxies) driving those chemicals, exactly like nucleotides. Who knows?

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

You said: “No Louis, DNA is not information, information is not a property of matter.”

Again. difference between theories and definitions of words. My theory is suggesting that the process by which the half-mechanical/half-biologica­l system productor of biological systems at planetaries surfaces is a genetic process where a kind of systems’ software is transmitted to models the new biological hardware. DNA as hardware is not information but the genetics instructions are physical information

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

You said: “No offence Louis, but a few basic biology lessons and then you will at least know what DNA is and understand the basic principles behind evolution.”

Thanks by no offense, I know it is hard to heard these weirds things. I had studied Biology, Evolution, Physics, Geology, Astronomy, all scientific fields and reading thousands of papers for 30 years, every day. I know I am not debating real scientific proved facts, only different interpretations of those facts. Maybe my theory is wrong.

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

Please define “quantum vortex”, because what you’re describing is definitely not a quantum vortex as understood in contemporary physics. Without that, I cannot address the rest of your post.

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

What’s “quantum vortex”? Two things: 1) all matter is reduced to particles, all particles are reduced to ghost vortexes; 2) The processes of atomic’s nuclei between protons and neutrons, as interpreted by the Nobel Hideki Yukawa, if such processes are projected over those ghost vortex, watching the results of vortexes interactions and development towards quarks, leptons, light, etc, we got all life’s principles, all natural forces and the universal formula of natural systems. They are “genes”

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

1. Quantum spin is a solely quantum mechanical property and is not “left” or “right”. It has no analogous counterpart in classical physics.

2. You again bring up quantum vortices, and demonstrate that you don’t understand what a quantum vortex is.

3. Your use of the terms “genotype”, “phenotype”, “digestion”, “sex”, and “metabolism” in this context all belie your purported understanding of cosmology and quantum physics.

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

You: 1. Quantum spin is a solely quantum mechanical property and is not “left” or “right”.

In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be “quantized,”. Maybe in QM it has other meaning, but QM is not the owner of the word “quantum”. The last non-matter unit are vortex, they have physical forces, they rotates and produces waves of light in two reversal directions…

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

You: “2. You again bring up quantum vortices, and demonstrate that you don’t understand what a quantum vortex is.”

Please, separates the words “quantum” and “vortex” because I think you are very literate in quantum mechanics and forgot the origins and common usage of those words. Now you can go Wikipedia and read the chapters of those two words. I know I am wrong, but there is no way when connecting data with new method if not using existent words. Think about vortices forming in dark matter…

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

You: “3. Your use of the terms “genotype”, “phenotype”, “digestion”, “sex”, and “metabolism” in this context all belie your purported understanding of cosmology and quantum physics.”

Exactly and thanks by wasting yours time with me. It is a hard testing for my models also. Those words are biological centered. I have projected “biocentrism” over cosmology and Physics’ phenomena instead modern scientific method of projecting Physics, Mathematics, Cosmology, over biological phenomena. Two theories

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

Citation please.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

Ok, Joshua, the topic here is what we think is the best for teaching to our kids. I think first of all we need teaching the real scientific proved facts and i know you agree with that. But then the kids makes deeper questions about the whole existence, we have no facts known yet, we have theories. I make sure they know the scientific theories but I also talk about my own theory which has one citation: The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles (if you Google it )

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

There is no life force within a star, let alone a conscious one. And no Stars do not fucking create life on planet surface. There is no theory as we know it does not happen.

Jack fauen in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Yes, no conscious one, of course, the future forces used for formation of consciousness were not expressed in stars, yet. “Life force” is a wrong name, the right should be “natural forces”. “Life” is a wrong word, the right is “biological systems” for separating the systems’ shapes we have here from the systems’ shapes that are our ancestors (atoms, galaxies, etc.) Stars does not create life because there is no origins of life. Everything is a continuous chain of events coming since Big Bang.

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

That sounds remarkably like garbage.

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

As said a creationist in 1872 when read “The origins of Species” first time.

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

No Louis, none of those things are information – you could gain information by studying them – but they are NOT information.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 hours ago

Maybe you are only thinking about packages of bits of information… Information, from the viewpoint of my theory, starts with those bits that triggered the Big Bang. They are the unique thing ex-machine existent inside this Universe, since they came as bits from a fragmented system that was existing before the Universe, maybe another universe. Working like genes today (which are package of zillions of bits information) they works building this Universe towards I don’t know…

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

Exactly Louis – most fathers and mothers do not understand science, and so should NOT interfere with the science curriculum. Bill Nye is right BECAUSE most parents do not understand enough about science.

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

I think should be a good idea watching this vídeo: Kent Hovind – Debate 13 – Dr. Hovind vs. Professor of Anthropology Dr. Robert Trivers (Round 1). I think yours strategy is the same of Dr. Robert Triviers, and it was a bad strategy. Dr. Triviers knows he is right about evolution but tried to impose a new and weird information quick and fast, without previous appropriate preparation, to fathers/mothers modeled by wrong information. In the eyes of those fathers/mothers, Hovind earned.

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

I have skimmed the website you indicated. All I can say is, if you have evidence to back up your assertions, submit your papers for peer review. That’s where the real test of your idea’s mettle will be.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

Thanks for doing that. If everything is wrong, at least it shows that one can explains every natural phenomena and event saw here if applies the reverse logics in relation to the logics applied by Physics when searching a theory of everything.Physic-centrism or biocentrism? The Universe is merely the result of moving physical forces or is tunelled for life and so, like a biological egg? Or like an ancestor’s body and we are the bacterias living inside its body? I will test it till my death.

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

Exactly who conflates cosmology with biology? The two disciplines have nothing to do with each other. I think you’re confused if you really believe that biologists have anything to do with cosmology. As for physics and mathematics, well, mathematics is a tool used in *every* scientific discipline, and biology and biochemistry follows the physical laws, so that argument is kind of moot.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

Joshua, cosmology and biology are words invented by humans. The separation between the natural phenomena related to Earth and the system it belongs to and natural phenomena related to those things created by Earth and its system is only a human behavior not a Nature behavior. I think that it is rational thinking that this astronomical system created the first cell system by the same process of evolution that reptiles created mammals. Biologists want understand mammals without knowing reptiles?

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

XXX

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

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

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

SpockLover27 in reply to DarwinsFriend (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to SpockLover27 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

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

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

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

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

Posts Contra Creationism:

Such transitional forms are beneficial. Without them there is too huge of a gap to leap in a single bound.

I started as a Young Earth Creationist, moved a bit to become an Old Earth Creationist, moved a bit more to become an Intelligent Design Proponent, moved a bit more to become a “quasi-directed Panspermia” proponent, moved a bit more to become an evolutionist, and finally moved a bit more to become an atheist.

DNAunion in reply to parallelsdumaurier (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

In a scientific study just released by the University of Copenhagen, and funded by the Templeton Foundation. A 150 year sampling of devoutly creationist brains has yielded some surprising results. Observations and analysis have concluded that creationist’s brains are diminishing both in interconnections and cognitive function. The findings have been attributed to a loss of mass, and predictions indicate that within 300 years creationist’s brains will become vestigial.

According to wikipedia

A 2009 poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe “the biblical account of human origins” over the Darwinian account. 42 percent of Australians believe in a “wholly scientific” explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process “guided by God”. A 2010 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found that 79% of Australians believe in evolution (71% believe it is currently occurring, 8% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 11% were not sure and 10% stated they do not believe in evolution

narco73 in reply to narco73 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

XXX

Esclarecendo a Teoria da Evolução

That is another of the Laws within The theory…Natural Selection.

The Theory is composed of….

Law of Evolution: Things change

Law of Natural selection: Things suitable to the enviroment surive while the nonviable do not

Law of Gradualism: Changes are extremely slow

Law of Multiplication of Speicies: New species develop

Law of Common Descent: Life shares ancestory.

They get grouped into the theory and creationists over look the laws often =(

whiteowl1415 in reply to XGralgrathor 8 hours ago

XXX

Aborto:

Besides the fact that women are not brood mares for other women, her’s some statistics about adoption not working NOW.

There are at least 400,000 children in foster care in the US at all times. childtrends(dot)org UNICEF estimates the number of orphans at 210 million in the world today. 86 million orphans in India 44 million orphans in Africa by 2010 10 million orphans in Mexico 35,000 children die everyday from hunger and malnutrition.

geezusispan in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 2 days ago

XXXXXX

Contra Criacionismo:

It is inevitable that the current worldview of delusional Christians will evolve until it finally ceases to exist, just as Christianity will cease to exist. Humans now have unrestricted access to knowledge and scientific facts that previous generations did not. The Christian Church became all powerful and all consuming through keeping knowledge and facts away from humans. It swelled its ranks by forcing millions to convert or be murdered. The Church can no longer control humanity in these ways.

Reality4Me 6 hours ago in playlist New Releases

XXXXXXX

Novas Informações:

@parsivalshorse “There simply is no competing theory”

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

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

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

segunda-feira, outubro 8th, 2012

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

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

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

XXX

Posts modêlos para entrada todos os dias:

My question:

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

OT, huh? Well…

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

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

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

So much for that.

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

BigWater59 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 21 minutes ago

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

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

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

The cycles can contain internal variation.

Note I said I beleive, not proven, but…

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

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

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

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

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

Nothing in nature isn’t recycled.

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

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

People waste, nature never does.

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 8 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

–Professor Jerome Lejeune, Lecture in Paris

JoelMckay69 2 minutes ago

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

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

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

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 3 days ago

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

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

XXX

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

Jonathan Michaels 3 hours ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

homewherehorrorlives 18 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

The1Indignitary 10 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

IDisnotscience 42 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 48 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 38 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 32 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxx

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 hour ago

Because he is mentally ill.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

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

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

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

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

VitalSubtlety 15 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

XXX

Part 1 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOUR IDEA OF THEORIES IS ACTUALLY VILE FOOLISH HUMAN IMAGINATION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

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

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

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

ANYONE THAT ACCEPTS EVOLUTIONISM IS A MORON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts in reply to ExtantFrodo2 31 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

Chloe Woodward 14 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

allanhill1 1 minute ago

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

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

XXX

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

iaml3642494 2 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

XXX

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

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

“Feel free to PM me, OK?”

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

TrueVerdicts 54 minutes ago

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

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

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

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

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

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

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

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Mike Johns 2 hours ago

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

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Este post abaixo devia ir para TrueVerdicts e errei:

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 1 second ago

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

netta2158 25 minutes ago

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

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

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

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

XXX

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

TrueVerdicts 3 minutes ago

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

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

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

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 22 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

Não Publicado

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

XXX


louie says – ToE alone will not keep free thought.

Religious brainwashing is the antithesis of free thought…

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

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

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

So let’s hear your argument for ID

tsub0dai in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

bigjoegamer09 10 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

from whatever beginning of time they claim the big bang happened

how does life come from nothing?

if the first organism was brouht into existence and started repopulating

how could it be alive?

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

DarkHoundNero in reply to parsivalshorse 2 minutes ago

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

its an explanation and realy better than nothing

why answers are better than nothing

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXX

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

itsoriginalme 3 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

arthurjeremypearson in reply to itsoriginalme 48 minutes ago

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

itsoriginalme in reply to arthurjeremypearson 1 minute ago

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

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

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

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 46 seconds ago

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

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

i’m listening

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

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

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

XXXX

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

MrDevin712

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

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

XXX

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

John Brown 21 minutes ago

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

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

All this without authority right?

John Brown in reply to Austriak1 51 minutes ago

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

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

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

John Brown 3 minutes ago

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

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

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

John Brown 4 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

John Brown 4 minutes ago

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

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

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

John Brown 17 seconds ago

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

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

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

John Brown 1 minute ago

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

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

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

John Brown 1 minute ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Brown 3 minutes ago

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

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

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

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adendos Começam Aqui:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Against Creationism/ID

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

ExtantFrodo2 14 seconds ago

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

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

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

So much for that.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SÔBRE EDUCAÇÃO DAS CRIANÇAS, NAS ESCOLA E FAMILIAS

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

IDisnotscience 21 minutes ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Informações Valiosas

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra Evolução/Ciência

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

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

segunda-feira, outubro 1st, 2012

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

That doesn’t work.

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

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

XXX

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

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

Read Genesis?

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

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

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

You are a liar

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

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

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

5) Genesis doesn’t cover it either

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

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

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

“improve ToE”

When a fossil is found, we do.

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

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

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

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

I’m a semi-retired artist.

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

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

XXX

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

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

“Where is the scientific bases?”

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

XXXXXX

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

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

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

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

geezusispan in reply to Austriak1 1 minute ago

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

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

“Where is the scientific bases?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s fun to think about but, hard to prove. If you are leading up to a intelligent designer, please don’t.

No I have not seen intelligent design in this new version of Universal Natural History. We can use an analogy: a chicken is the “previous ex-machine natural design” in relation to the embryo that evolves inside her egg. But… chickens does not applies intelligence for making their babies. Since that those cosmological models are suggesting this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a process o genetic/computational reproduction… Nature does not needs intelligence for working.

XXX

I’m sorry, but nothing in what you said makes us different from the other apes (since we, homo sapiens, are apes).

You are right. here in Amazon jungle, everyday in the evening when I arrive at the cave from hunting, my girlfriend – a lovely orangotanga called Maryllin – is at the door waiting for me with opened arms and reading the new poem that she wrote for me.

Since other apes do display social interactions (to the point where genocides actually occurs between populations), uses tools and communicate between each other, I am afraid your sarcasm is lost.

Ok… sorry by the joke, it was not sarcasm intended. I am trying to remember that two scientific premises, two scientific indications that we don’t be stressed to believe something yet. Of course, physically, flash meat appearance, we are merely improved apes. But I have my own method of research and the theoretical models are suggesting that there are a new natural systems acting over biological evolution here, and consciousness should be product of informations coming from this system.

If you do have actual data, then why not actually do experiments, several times (don’t forge the blind testing), and, in the case the results still goes along your hypthesis, write the papers and get them peer reviewed?

My friend, only now Science has proved that some Darwin’s predictions was right. At life he only could accumulate evidences. It is because at his time had no scientific resources for experimentation, testing the theory of evolution, which was too much advanced for that time. Ok, Darwin was in the right track, he saw the right patterns an he earned. I am seeing patterns pointing to another idea too much advanced for this time. I am accumulating evidences. But maybe I am in the wrong track.

No you have Hypothetical models, not Theoretical ones

They are not Theoretical without preer reviewed experimentations.

Regardelss, we have the Fact that conciousness is the cumulative result of chemical interactions.

You are more advanced than modern neurology, which has not found how neurons relates with consciousness. You are using the word “theory, in the strict definition inside scientific community and I use the word with the definition that ancient Greeks gave to this word when they coined it and how we define it in naturalistic philosophy The Greeks philosophers were the owner of this word. My advice in my website is that my job has no scientific pretensions, I am not a scientist. it is about Nature.

XXX

It’s him. He’s not trying to hide it, really. He has “Matrix/DNA” as his profile name. According to him, Youtube spontaneously deleted his old account for some reason. Don’t know why, he seems like a rather harmless crank to me.

I don’t said Youtube deleted my account. I was trying to fusion an old lost account with the new one and I got it, but I need to fix the problem that the name kept is the old one. By the way I am trying to defending my worldview like everybody is trying to defend their here. My suggestion is teaching only ToE in science class, but we need bring back a class of philosophy, the study of evolution of human thought, where others worldview can be informed, included ID theory and Matrix/DNA Theory..

Maybe he just thinks they did. He doesn’t strike me as the most computer-savvy person, having looked at his website (which was hacked by some Turks and he’s never bothered to fix it).

But still, if you click through to his new profile, it does read “Matrix/DNA” so he’s not trying to hide his identity. Instead, he’s proud of his so-called ‘discovery’ and wants to publicize it as much as he can.

Ohhh… you said something that is the most interest for me. Actually my website was hacked, prejudicing about 15.000 people/month from whole world that was visiting, doing some research. I don’t understand nothing about websites and my time is very busy, so, my question: is it possible to fix it? Do you know how? Know someone that can do it? I am not proud and did any discovery: the theory is suggesting new approaches to diseases and technologies as automated systems. It can improve something.

If they deleted his old account, then why can I access it? Either way he’s just a nut, I ignore him as I don’t expect anyone to take him seriously anyway.

XXX

We have a complex problem here, which needs to be solved through an educated debate. Evolution is a process that we can see in embryogenesis: one initial cell is shared into a diversification of different cells, shapes are transformed into other shapes in the way that the first initial shape (cell, blastula, ) is not recognizable in the later shapes. The built body does not comes to light in shape of blastula, neither fetus, it only comes to light in shape of a final human being, this is…

result from forces coming from the surrounding environment, and we call it “natural selection”. But… this evolution is merely steps of a larger process: reproduction. So, the whole universal evolution can be a process of ex-machine reproduction. So, the scientific community needs looking for right terms to deal publicly with this issue. Theory is a word employed by scientists, but today we know it is not a theory, anymore. In the other hand, we don’t know if it is “evolution”or “reproduction”?

XXX

Evolutionists believe a talking snake is less credible than a talking gorilla/man that climbed out of a prehistoric petri dish .

Talking is not invention of gorillas. Millions years ago “genes” were “talking”among themselves and billions years ago, before DNA’s emergence here, the ancestral of DNA had its elements talking among themselves in the sky. But for transforming this “talking” into sounds waves in manner that humans can heard, the DNA need the apparatus of voice, which snakes does not have. Talking snakes is a fiction, not rational, and talking primates becoming humans is rational.

XXX

“all atrocity IS man’s fault.”

Natural disasters is just one example of atrocities that are not human’s fault.

” We have caused all the worlds problems.”

No, we haven’t. You’re just melodramatic.

Yeah…Just at this moment somewhere in Amazon jungle a beautiful, sweet, but self-indefensible capybara is running, desperate trying to escape, from a horrible beast that attacked her. The horror of the worlds, the big horrible mouth will eat her still alive in the next minute.This is human fault? If you was there, watching, and having power for stopping the massacre, would you do nothing?! If there is a God watching everything, why this God don’t do anything? There isn’t God watching.

Unless you can explain how man, a product of nature, is responsible for the atrocities of nature, you have grounds to claim it.

To the ‘God can’t be watching’ comments, pretty much the same thing : just because you can’t fathom something, that isn’t an argument against it.

Are you a creationist? Are you a believer in “devolution”? If so, you could be right, accordingly to the final results of the materialistic worldview in Matrix/DNA Theory: biosphere is a product of a fall of an ancestor living in the Paradise. But… the same models suggests that the Bible’s narratives about a god present here, talking and watching, and a god creating universes from nothing, is an absurd.

XXX

Tom Adams claims to be a genius, yet spends his time trying to debunk evolution on a youtube thread. Brilliant! This shit is entertainment. Are the evil scientist listening yet. Ha ha!

Don’t worry! The mighty, tiny, lord PinkUnicorn said that he will send a special X-ray from the solar flare at December, 12, 2012, straight upon the head of Tom Adams for illuminating his ideas. The energy then will be transformed in pure sweet honey for feed him and turning better his humor. Pink is all love. Pink bless you!

XXX

As an agnostic atheist I think no one can say for sure that a God doesn’t exist, but on the other hand I don’t think anyone can say with certainty that a God DOES exist. The only evidence is subjective hearsay and the spurious reasoning of the already indoctrinated.

If a God does indeed exist, though, it certainly isn’t the primitive, petty, jealous, genocidal, misogynistic, foreskin-hating, magical patriarchal buffoon described by the Bible. That creature reeks of human-inspired conceit.

Agnostics here, Subscribes here!

So, there are believers: theists and atheists. And no believers: agnostics. As an agnostic myself, I am watching this debate with discomfort, because there is a third option – the agnostic worldview, ethics, morals, behavior and life’s purpose – and I need this worldview be the standard education of children, but we have no voice, neither here, neither at public arena. Let’s try beginning something here? Say hello and stick straight to the facts.

No, that’s wrong, you fucking retard. Most atheists aren’t believers, and agnostics fall under both categories, agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists. Learn the definitions of the words you use before spouting your ignorance.

This kind of aggressiveness is proof of fundamentalism produced by beliefs. Agnostics has no motivation for reacting in this way. Retardation is what happens with you: your education is not complete, we can see it in your words. If you are an atheist, how hell do you understand what atheism is? Don’t know the fatality described by Godel’s theorem? Nobody can know the Truth about a system, a process, standing inside it. You are inside the process of atheism. Try to listen who is outside.

This has been flagged as spam hide

God is a myth. You haven’t typed a fucking to change that FACT. God belief is more proof of evolution and our primate origins with it’s primitive superstitions.

It is dependable what is your meaning for “god”. All meanings given by religions must be wrong since the founders did not know Nature how we know it today. All beliefs about “god” are not rational, included the non-belief in god. The very fact that inside this Universe we are seeing the existence of this unknown thing called “consciousness”, the rationalization that a Universe made with matter/energy could not create “consciousness”, leave an open possibility of “cosmic consciousness”. God?

The level of order and sophistication found in nature is unreal m-theory; evolution; quantum mechanics; right down to the strings found in atoms all working in perfect harmony. Did you know that the likely hood that the universe could cause a life permitting universe is 1/10 billion to the power of 124 its crazy. We still don’t understand all the mysteries in the universe and you want me to believe it was some cosmic fluke? I don’t know man what your say is a alot harder to believe in than God

Do you think that consciousness exists only here? Do you think that only “life”can produce consciousness?

My calculations suggests there are zillions of lifeforms and zillions of types of organized matter/energy that can support consciousness. There are lifeforms and consciousness more evolved than us and less evolved, certainly we are not at the bottom neither the top. Maybe there is a kind of consciousness at the top ( not how creationists defines their god). If you want call it God…

To you first two questions my answer is no. I agree with what you saying but hear me out. God is a divine will or consciousness which created governs and gives purpose to the universe. We are made in the image of God In that we are conscious. We have the ability to create, govern and give purpose to our surroundings. What makes us sons of God (not to confuse with The Son of God) is our connection or oneness with God through the holy spirit…………..

No, since I was born I never had free will and never could do what I think should be the right thing to do. I was born as product of chaos – from this chaotic and salvage biosphere – and condemned to be slave like I am till now. And I saw my family, my ancestors, my neighbors, everybody in the same situation. If there is god he is the god of people in Wall Street, they have some free will, not mine. The real world suggests that your tortured mind is out of control, sorry. .

A spirit which was planted into mankind like a seed. Mankind was given the option of freewill “the knowledge of good and evil” knowing that we would take it and be condemned. What we do with this freewill is the test. Will we use it to bring “life” into the world and bear fruit or will we use it for personal gain and take life from the world becoming a weed. When the harvest comes it is the fruit that will be taken because they have proven they are sons of God. This is the christian Idea of God

My life’s experience in this world and the world I have seen does not support the christian theory. The suffering and torture I have seen upon my loved people of my species makes me hate any kind of god. If I meet any god I go immediately to war trying to destroy it because if exists a god he is responsible for torturing me and my brothers. My method of investigation has suggested the existence of a ex-machine consciousness but totally natural, and absent here.

XXX

“The chemicals you describe are physical.What then is driving the chemical on its own to perform a function?”- reactions. That’s what chemistry is. Molecules are not thinking entities with a mind. They don’t have brains. They don’t think. DNA is formed by how base pairs react. What order they’re in determine what get built. If one is in a different order and a reaction occurs, then an error is formed. Basic chemistry. You are looking for something that isn’t there.

T8fgzz in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Are you a Chemist? If so, maybe you could talk about this issue of abiogenesis and the topic of this video. I am defending a theory, result of 6 years observing natural systems and biosphere in Amazon jungle searching connections and applying comparative anatomy between living and non living systems. It’s not science, is natural philosophy. My results suggests that those atoms and molecules at abiogenesis were not only acting by reactions, but driven by a previous design. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Design aims for simplicity. Life is complex and inefficient, wasteful, lacks plan, and full of decay.In design, form typically follows function yet life shows many examples of different forms with the same function, and some structures and even entire organisms without apparent function. Humans naturally look for design because we are pattern seeking mammals.Intelligent design is subjective (cont.).

form from increasingly complex molecules.Self replicators are simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry.Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin.Biochemistry inevitably produces complex products.In synthetic DNA, a different assemblage of molecules can replicate and evolve just like DNA and RNA. These different molecules can even convert to DNA and back, and has also shown stronger than regular DNA or RNA, in that they’re more resistant to degradation by biological nucleases.

But…but…it is just what I am saying: there was the perfect Paradise, the perfect Adam, they was the most simplest perfect design, but then, happened the sin and the fall, down to the worst complex design…

Sorry, I was joking…but this biblical allegory fits surprisingly with the real history: the perfect and simplest Newtonian watch ( this astronomical system) fail/evolved into the inefficient complex cell system. Or do you have doubt that it happened? Do you see continuing evolution?

The process of Abiogenesis need not be the only requirement for evolution to begin. Why is that? Because we already know from observation in 2011 that stars naturally produce complex compounds, like amino acids and even sugar molecules that don’t need to be synthesized in space. Stars naturally produce them in a matter of weeks and spew them into deep space, where they can drift onto forming planets. Its a natural occurrence.There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot

Ok, our difference is that you see evolution in prebiotic chemistry arising from the simplicity of molecules reactions and I see in the same prebiotic evolution atoms being guided by photons that works like genes towards the reproduction of a previous, astronomical design. Wait… I know my suggestion seems totally absurd ( it was for me before 30 years of thousands of natural phenomena suggesting that it, at least, makes sense). For instance, the previous prechemical design, non-living (cont)

shows the mechanical/magnetic principles that evolved into chemicals replicators. I mean, replication is a mechanism that exists before the origins of chemistry at Earth. Astronomical systems, without chemistry, are self-replicating. But their replication is shared into two phases: the original system needs dying for producing its copy. It is recycling.You can see how in “The Matrix´s Software at the Evolutionary Stage of Closed System” ( Google this name in “image”). Take time to understanding

Okay. That’s a hypothesis. Now demonstrate that it’s correct.

Expulsar este ateista fanatico

Joshua White – Expulsar in reply to Austriak1 18 minutes ago

I can’t explain 30 years of hard work in 500 letters. But there is a simple parameter: your body began with molecules called gametes which were driven by instructions of a design ex-machine in relation to your inner universe (the ovule) towards the formation of a cell system. Or do you think those molecules only did everything obeying the forces of chemical reactions? If you have here pure Nature explaining to you how she make things, why do you go after explanations that you never saw?!

Demonstrate how “astronomical systems” work “without chemistry”, and demonstrate how they are “self-replicating”. You’re making baseless assertions.

Have you seen the formula I suggested above? Go Google, images, type “The Matrix´s Software at the Evolutionary Stage of Closed System”.Then type “Humam Life’s Cycle and Astronomical Life’s Cycle”- second image. And for understanding the origins of sexual reproduction see the picture “Origin Of Sex Chromosomes”. But the explanation for photons as “life’s designers” see “Light – The Electro-Magnetic Spectrum by Matrix/DNA Theory” in Google images. Please, don’t go..

Describing a gamete as a molecule is utterly disingenuous, since gametes are a type of cell and composed of many, many, many molecules. And yes, the molecules of the cell act according to the natural laws of biochemistry, no supernatural influence needed. Would you mind translating “instructions of a design ex-machine in relation to your inner universe” into intelligible English please? Your pseudo-intellectual gibberish is tiring.

Nope. It is clear that instead searching knowledge and changing information you have a political agenda. It is not my business. That’s explain your insults, which finished forever our conversation. Only a stupid closed mind could attain to the word””gamete” without understanding the unnecessary mention of chromosomes molecules. Only a stupid could say that astronomical systems are supernatural. Only a stupid does not understand that the human specie is the ex-machine design outside the ovule.

Expulsar este ateista fanatico

Confirmed idiot

@Austriak1 Darwin went on an eight year nature walk and came home with an alternative to the truth for those won’t have a King. His ‘observations/predictions rely on the simplicity of life. If DNA had been discovered, he never would have published.

John Brown 55 minutes ago

I think I understand better what happened with Darwin than you, because I did it also, going to a seven year nature walk ( Amazon jungle) and came back with a new world view. It should happen with anyone that do same thing. Culture sometimes deviates from reality, as in religions, the suffering in these kind of travel makes the collapse of the top of this cultures and a returning to real nature with a new understanding. DNA is confirmation of evolution, but also an ex-machine reproduction.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

@Austriak1 Darwin said that savage races of men would be exterminated. What races was he talking about?

John Brown 41 minutes ago

I don’t know, never heard that. But… it is not what is suggesting my theory. The supreme and visible goal of evolution here and now is the development of human brains for supporting the birth and development of consciousness. Then I conclude that all human brains must be aided to develop and not be exterminated.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Natural Selection
While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations.

XXX

16) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.”

I am challenging any person to point out one, only one, detail in any biological system or at the cellular level that I could not locate the its ancestral mechanic/electric/magnetic shape in the universal formula of natural systems. It means that all of them are not only reducible to LUCA, but to galaxies and atoms.

XXX

15) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics over the past fifty years.”

Of course Darwin could not describe in full the natural process called “evolution” with the knowledge of 150 years ago. For explaining evolution today and filling the Darwinian gaps we are increasing more 4 variables over those three discovered by Darwin.

XXX

14) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Darwi­n conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”.

Darwin did not know the astronomical LUCA, to whom all cellular pieces are reducible.

XXX

13) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.”

Here ID uses strategy for getting the readers (common people=inferior class) against ToE. But Natural selection has not elected “superior species” when gave the reward of transcendence to be the next top evolutionary specie. Was not dinosaur, but the small cyanodont choose to be mammal.

XXX

12) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding.”

There are several differences. One is that the human breeder is visible to the specie being driven and the natural breeder of evolution from aminoacids to apples was not visible to apples. Its is about “hierarchy of systems” where informations comes from systems that we can’t see/touch. Other is.. natural selection always has the purpose of self-reproduction

Why is it that only creationists make these arguments? If something was wrong with evolution scientists in general would be objecting not just creationists. Creationists purposefully or ignorantly ignore the evidence and then make these twisted comments in regards to science that no credible scientist would.. Crazy spins on thermal dynamics that solely come from creationists for example. Rejecting fact on the basis of faith is crazy.

I think there are faults in both sides. I am seeing the current worldview among scientists is being driven by Physics/Math. Evolution is natural process that had worked at biological/cosmological systems, so, why Biology is not trying to expand the understanding of evolution to its roots, which is coming from the so called “non-living systems”? If Universe is a living thing, Physics never will grasp it The result is a non-complete view of evolution, a good opportunity for creationism.

XXX

11) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:”Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild.”

No, sometimes is not. For instance the transformation of a reptile laying egg out into a mammal keeping the egg inside was a mutation disvantage since the female became less able to hunt/escape. This mutation was expression of potential genes in junk DNA: astronomical systems already puts eggs out and keep inside.

Sorry, but it wasnt a disadvantage. A pregnant female can move from cave to cave, or go collect fruits, vegetables and what have you. If you have a nest full of eggs you need to keep warm, you can´t do all those things. You have to stay near the nest and keep the eggs warm. So this was even a pretty big advantage !!!

My friend, we, from the jungle, always are laughing with these kinds of jokes from civilized people. You are really funny, I will pay the beer. Are you talking that reptiles eat vegetables and fruits as enough diet? No, they are carnivorous. And resting over nest full of eggs? No, they leave the egg in the pathway and if they can, they eat the eggs and babies. You are invited to watch them here and smoking a Cuban “charutto” with my lord, the mithy, tiny, PinkUnicorn. Please, send more jokes…

You shouldnt just believe what some website tells you !!! Go look what the real scientists have to say, they have all the evidence on their side, and you are free to check the evidence yourself.

Those anti-evolution websites are constantly caught lying, and i bet if i visit that website i will find hundreds of propaganda lies ! HUNDREDS !

That alone proves them wrong: if you advertize the truth you don´t need any lies.That they use lies proves they don´t even believe their BS themselves !!!

Yes, I agree, and does not understand which are the advantages in lying about these topics. By the way, about evolution, Science have all evidences, but the connection among these data trying to get the final big board when there is no all enough data for, always produces non-complete theories. And evolution must be a continuing universal process, starting at Big Bang, so, biological evolution is micro and does not offers all data. That’s why I like also the efforts made by Matrix/DNA Theory.

Austriak, you are staking facts and debunking them based on the fact that your opinion differs from theirs. Natural selection is nature’s way of selecting the best traits in an organism, just because you think it isn’t won’t change it. If something were put at a major disadvantage by an evolutionary change, it would die out. No changing that.

Ok, you are right, it should be written: “opinions that debunks the opinions of ID” It is all about theories and good for our own evolution. Best traits in relation to what? I think the answer is: adaptation. But, when a blastula shows a new trait towards the future fetus, this trait is bad to the blastula in relation to the state of the womb now. It will be adapted to a state that does not exist yet. It exists, outside the womb. The mammal apparatus were selected to adapt to a future system.

XXX

10) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species.”
Any trait registered in DNA ( the biological shape of an universal matrix) is not destroyed, it does not “die out”. The inferior members were expression of universal mechanisms in less evolved biological environment, and retired to be “junk DNA” for any future return.

XXX

9) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”:” …(it grew wings and learned to fly). ”

They have not invented wings and flying. Wings are evolutionary product from past limbs that are products from original cilia and flagelluns at the first cell system. Flying is a movement in space made by astros like comets that are driven by its tails. Comets tails and flow of degenerated dust from died stars are traits of ancestors expressed in cells. Look for the roots.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

8) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly).”

No, species by its own does not develops a new, never existed before, “functional advantage”. It should be “creation of new information from nothing” and in this Universe, from the Big Bang to nowadays never was created information by magics. Look to ancestors and known something about “fuzzy logics”: the roots are there.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

7) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations.”

No. Natural selection is the product of convergence of all natural forces to a same point in time/space, which express their supreme tendency for thermodynamic equillibrium. It produces and drives mutations at new environments.

Austriak1 1 second ago

XXX

6) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­­ot)com”: “While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal.”

That’s due the ancient people were more “natural” and since human reason is a natural product, this reason, when free and acting by its own, grasps better how nature works

Austriak1 21 minutes ago

XXX

5)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­­ot)com”: “These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).”

Yes. The same way that a blastula shape is driven to become an entire different shape as fetus or embryo in which we can’t recognize the initial shapes. Shapes are driven to reproduce the creator system.

Austriak1 26 minutes ago

XXX

5) Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­­ot)com”: “In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.”

No. The agent behind natural selection is the environment, biosphere, product of entropy/transformation/nanotec­hnology of this vast environment called Milk Way. Mutations can happen by chance or driven by the effort of this ancestor’s reproduction.

Austriak1 32 minutes ago

XXX

4)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­­ot)com”: “That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.”

No. From the first cell system (aka “first living being”) to apes, all emerged complex properties that they show to us are merely development of properties in a physical/mechanical/magnetic fashion exhibited by the building block of this galactic system. So, this ancestor was/is not more simplistic as functional system.

Austriak1 38 minutes ago

XXX

3)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­­ot)com”: “and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”.

No! Biological systems (aka, “life”) has been developed from aminoacids to apes driven by a natural system where biological systems emerged. The building blocks of atoms and galaxies systems are the same building blocks of RNA/DNA, which are the building blocks of biological systems, showing a process of evolution that is coming from “something” before the Big Bang.

Austriak1 48 minutes ago

XXX

2)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­­ot)com”: “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life”

Darwin’s work was a theory about a real observed process called evolution without the knowledge about genetics and astronomy we have today. Evolution today was expanded from “microbiologicalevolution” to “universalmacroevolution” and the variables found by Darwin were increased by variables found at ancestors non-biological systems, which are not non-life, but “half-life”

Austriak1 56 minutes ago

XXX

1)

Debunking “darwins-theory-of-evolution(d­­ot)com”

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related.

Of course they are related since they arose in this same biosphere and both have the same building block: DNA. The common ancestor, rationally, is the Earth and the system it belongs to: the Milk Way. Or is it Orion, or, still, something non-natural?

Austriak1 1 hour ago

XXX

Life and evolution started?! Have you seen the origins of something never existed before? Where? When?! Everything I saw are results of transformation from something else existing before. Where have you travelled?

There was no origins of life and “life” has not created evolution.”Life” is the wrong name for “matter organized as biological systems” which is transformations/cosmological evolution of “electric/magnetic mechanical natural systems”, like atoms and astronomical systems.

Austriak1 in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXX

And I find it incredulous that people believe it is possible to this microscope human brain located at this lost point in this vast immense universe have found the explanation for life and matter existence! Or believing that some supernatural being told the Thru to someone else! That’s crazy!

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXX

All social systems feeded by religions are based in animalism ( Bible, for instance, accepts the existence of employers and employees, which is an extension of animalism, from the division predator/prey). That’s were due two intention of authors’ Bible and all clergies: !) to be predators, avoiding the naturalist condemnation over every human being that is to do the hard manual work; 2) and justify their ownership of more land than which one can work with his.her own hands. That’s crazy!

Austriak1 1 hour ago

XXX



If the physical properties of the constituent parts of a universe permit them to interact in such a way as to self-replicate with variation, then evolution will occur. And (big surprise) ours happens to be such a universe. If it was one of the universes where that can’t happen then there would be no one to wonder about it.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

So, are you saying that universes can create new information which never existed before? Creating with what? From what?!

Austriak1 in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Bill Nye can tell me that God and Miracles doenst exist when he can explain when the universe stops expanding. The concept of infinite is just as ridiculous as a grand architect who exists outside of the reality we question his existence in.

Roger Roach in reply to Roger Roach (Show the comment) 2 days ago

Why have you chosen to go far away off Nature, if you are a natural being? Have you or any other human being seen eternity, infinite, or some supernatural grand architect? Never. Why human minds creates these minded weird things? It is natural that we want to know the initial causes of things we see here – like the universe, life, etc. – them rationally, there is another element that could answer these questions if not Nature? Here and now Nature is showing how did it. Look around.

Austriak1 in reply to Roger Roach (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

If evolution was real why are monkeys still turning to humans

What are these monkeys Retarded monkeys They too stupid to evolve

Really You people Migth want to find God Cause you gotta to OLD to stupid stuff like evolution

apparently these monkeys are special monkeys and too stupid to evolve we have never left our solar system and we think MANKIND NOWS IT all 300 years ago they still though the world was flat MONKEY HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sonya McAlister 2 hours ago

The cause that sent some apes to extinction and rewarded one group with their transcendence towards the shape of human specie is the same cause that just now is sending some human beings to extinction and a small group to their transcendence a new evolved shape. You should be careful…learning the lessons of past evolution for to participate in that small group.

Austriak1 in reply to Sonya McAlister (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

“The chemicals you describe are physical.What then is driving the chemical on its own to perform a function?”- reactions. That’s what chemistry is. Molecules are not thinking entities with a mind. They don’t have brains. They don’t think. DNA is formed by how base pairs react. What order they’re in determine what get built. If one is in a different order and a reaction occurs, then an error is formed. Basic chemistry. You are looking for something that isn’t there.

T8fgzz in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Are you a Chemist? If so, maybe you could talk about this issue of abiogenesis and the topic of this video. I am defending a theory, result of 6 years observing natural systems and biosphere in Amazon jungle searching connections and applying comparative anatomy between living and non living systems. It’s not science, is natural philosophy. My results suggests that those atoms and molecules at abiogenesis were not only acting by reactions, but driven by a previous design. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

The better question to ask is one that neither religion nor evolution/BBT has yet properly answered. “What caused the initial event that spawned all subsequent action/reaction chains.” Basically, for Atheists, what was the causal factor of the Big Bang, for Creationists, what was the causal factor for God.

Sad thing is, both systems fall apart when put up against initial causality.

AndrewDeLong in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

It happens because either religions and the current theories based in scientific method went far away from Nature. See the explanations found by Matrix/DNA Theory, initial causality are well explained and there is a vast amount of evidences already collected as supporters of its models. But you and any other human being will not accept nether understand the explanations. Why? Thousands years of culture becoming more and more anti-natural.

Austriak1 in reply to AndrewDeLong (Show the comment) 1 second ago 6:32 – AM – OCT – 04

NON PUBLISHED: AndrewDeLong: “What caused the initial event that spawned all subsequent action/reaction chains.”

That’s is easy! Ask Nature. Where we can see such event? On… there is one everybody knows: the fecundation of ovule and subsequent new natural system. What’s  the cause of that event? An ex-machine, an outsider ( in relation to ova+spermatozoon) design inside a natural specie that was a little bit less evolved. The answer from Chemists like T8Fgzz is “reactions of atoms/molecules, because they can not see the invisible software coming from the unknown outsider system bringing the design and driving those atoms and molecules for to organize into a system. This is thru for abiogenesis and emergence of universes.

XXX

No, you can’t. You don’t know who the shoemaker is, he died years ago and his body was cremated. To top it off, no shoemaker you meet will admit to making that type of shoe. Do you still think there was a shoemaker who made that shoe? Why?

Marty Robinson in reply to emero510 1 hour ago

Because apes did not have shoe, then it is not an evolutionary product. But in relation to nature, everything known belongs to a natural system and all natural system has been caught having an ancestor. Now we are discovering that the first cell system (aka “living being”) had an ancestor system. And since lots of evidences are suggesting this Universe is product of genetic reproduction, the Universe itself had an ancestor. Ancestor = previous non-intelligent design. Any maker found…

Austriak1 in reply to Marty Robinson 1 second ago – 9:03 – AM – Oct – 03

Theory: Abstract knowledge or reasoning a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity”

There, you didn’t even have to look it up, I looked it up for you. There is nothing unscientific about theorizing that something as complex as (or vastly more complex than) a shoe was made. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. Or you are just that lacking intelligence. You are Ignored.

Marty Robinson in reply to odinata (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

The most complex natural thing we know today is a human body and it was made by genetic transmission of non-intelligent previous design. The Universe is very simple, merely an agglomerate of galaxies, it is merely mass since neither system it is. You are suggesting otherwise because instead Nature, a fiction book called Bible had hard-wired your brain. But you can fix it, if you come here with focus , first, in real natural phenomena, then, debating the different theories and interpretations.

Austriak1 in reply to Marty Robinson 1 second ago

“Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.”

–Schafersman, Steven D. “An Introduction to Science”

You have NO EXCUSE for remaining a fool.

allieron in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

The word “theory” belongs to greeks that coined it and not to scientific community. The universal definition is “Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking”. So, religions and ID are theories.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

Correct.

Science shot itself a bit in the foot with its oft confusing (for the layperson) descriptions, but when you look at the overview of the scientific method and its evolution, it’s understandable that a large percentage of the world population are simply too stupid to understand it.

“It’s hard to soar with eagles when you’re surrounded by turkeys.”

allieron in reply to Austriak1 24 minutes ago

Maybe not. That’s debatable. Human being and its “scientific tools” are still a specific observer located at a specific and tiny point in time/space. We can grasp only few light frequencies, the great universe and effects of forces from the hierarchy of systems prejudices our knowledge of any natural object. Sometimes the world population can make better theories because they are still linked to Nature through reason, which is produced by Nature. It is not the case of religions, but natives.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

That doesn’t change the fact that “theory” in a scientific setting has a very specific definition that differs from general parlance.

Joshua White in reply to Austriak1 26 minutes ago

Ok… Evolution is not an object, it is a process, composed by mechanisms. Am I wrong? Inside the Science field, it is not a theory, anymore. But we can not bring a process over the table for convincing a manual worker or a creationist. What we can do? We need a better strategy than this one we are watching here, debating if evolution, ( or religion. ID) is a theory or not.

Austriak1 in reply to Joshua White 1 second ago

I have used a natural phenomena loved by any person for convincing that evolution is real: the events that comprises the generation of a new human being. There are diversification of species of cells starting from an unique common ancestor, the first cell. There are transformation of shapes with increased complexity ( from morula to blastula, fetus,etc.) Still there is a previous design that is ex-machine in relation to the universe of that cell or embryo ( the ovule, the womb).It works, or not.

Austriak1 in reply to Austriak1 1 second ago

Scientific Theories are facts.

Lots of them.

Thousands.

Combined into the explanatory power that no single FACT has by itself.

Chemistry works because ATOMIC THEORY is FACT.

odinata in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 22 minutes ago

Atoms are facts; Atomic Theory is an interpretation, a suggestion about what is atoms.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

It’s not an “intimation”. A Scientific Theory is the HIGHEST level of knowledge we possess. It incorporate laws, facts and enough evidence to ensure ONLY a brain-dead, utterly ignorant moron could FAIL to understand its explanation.

“A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.”

allieron in reply to Marty Robinson (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

Now you said it right: “a scientific theory is…” But, related to official and universal definition of the word “theory” religions and ID are theories. For to solve this problem ( a problem created by scientists) in Science should be used other word, such as “scitheory”.

Austriak1 in reply to allieron 1 second ago

An interpretation made entirely of facts.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 21 minutes ago

That’s debatable. Since nobody never saw an atom and can’t show it bringing on the table, what we can do is observing its surrounding manifestations and hitting it for observing the external effects, as in CERN. Atoms are like black holes, we know there is something in that point of space, but we have only theories about,. The atomic theory is not the real fact “atom” because is a non-complete description. Proof is 8.000 new scientific papers each year.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

a problem created by scientists??? how? because words changed meaning over time? Or did scientist invent the word? That’s like blaming forest fires on the guy who invent the word fire.

tsub0dai in reply to Austriak1 20 seconds ago

My friend, when the first scientist used this word, he should look right in the dictionary what was the definition of that word. And it is what says Wikipedia, coined by Greeks. He made a depreciation of his own work when saying that it was a “contemplative and rational generalization about the fact I have been observed…”.

Austriak1 in reply to tsub0dai 1 second ago

You need understand that the scientific community needs to leave the word “theory” inside the field of Science when talking with someone outside that field ( like creationists). When creationists says that “evolution” is merely a theory how we should answer? That’s a complex issue for thinking about.

Austriak1 in reply to Austriak1 1 second ago

No, religions and ID are not scientific theories.

They make no testable hypotheses.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 (Show the comment) 8 minutes ago

You are right, they are not “scientific theories”. But Science is not the owner of the word “theory”. It still belongs to Greeks that coined it, and here, they are theories.

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

Evolution is still a theory.

Just like Relativity is still a Theory, Atomic Theory is still a theory, etc.

And they are all FACT.

odinata in reply to Austriak1 3 minutes ago

Evolution, atoms, curve of space are facts. I think that Atomic Theory was the right name when the atom was first proposed by early Indian and Greek philosophers. The same way that there is no exact line showing when a human body ends its phase as child and begins the phase of adolescence, there is no a right point when a theory is transformed into the fact itself. What do you think?

Austriak1 in reply to odinata 1 second ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” Ibid., p. 141.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

But those physical properties, although suggests previous non-living design, does not shows evidences for “intelligent design” when we recapitulates natural history from here to Big Bang. This is a good point and a fault in the scientific community thought today, and the culprit is the indoctrination in the reductive method which is avoiding the scientific treatment of natural systems. Others theories are just now seeing the purposes of genes/life coming from photons and non-living systems.

Austriak1 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago – 9:50 PM Oct 02

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

XXX

“Many universities are cutting out their philosophy departments, because it’s just not needed once you have science.”

“Philosophy without Science leads to magical thinking, Science without philosophy is blind science.”- Louis Morelli …And I agree. The human sensors can’t see natural phenomena belonging to others light’s frequencies and matter/energy organized in all dimensions. So, for each given object, human science selects some data and discriminates all others. Philosophy help to fix it

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 6:12 AM Tue – Oct -02

XXX

Everybody here has defined evolution and forgotten to define “God”. Wikipedia: “God is omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, eternal, necessary existence.

This is good business: Smart Designer. First you select all good attributes seen in peoples’ dreams. Then you think some fairy tales. Instead Harry Potter, give the name God. Now go to sell it. Those dreamers people will buy..

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago 6: 49 AM – Tue – Oct – 02

XXX

Natural Selection isn’t random. Mutations are random but those that suck die and dont reproduce. This is not random.

Mike Vasquez in reply to JungleJargon (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes, but ToE does not explains in full what is natural selection (NS), given opportunity to creationists criticize it. The way ToE is introducing NS suggests that evolution is blind and a world ruled by random. ToE suggests that could have many universes where NS would not exists, then, it is product of random. But if universes are merely tools of a big process of reproduction of that unknown thing that triggered the Big bang, NS would be not random. ToE needs arrive to this larger process.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Mike Vasquez 1 second ago 6:25 PM – Oct – 01

XXX

The Great God has absolutely no need for your approval…

the strawman gods you demolish are simply the creations of your own myopia…

answer this question:

who created the laws of physics?

Tom Adams in reply to TheBloodyBlackJackal (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

“who created the laws of physics?”

That’s a child’s question. Of course it was the great god Pink Unicorn. The proof is that our ancestor, the apes, like bananas because bananas has the shape of the corn of our god. Think Pink! The Universe is PInk. We all are Pink…somewhere. Pink is all about love!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

XXX

Evolution says matter made or remade what you are for no reason.

That is irrational and illogical.

JungleJargon 1 minute ago

Nope. The “evolution” we are watching here is merely the steps of an universal process of genetic reproduction. It is showing to us that this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg ( or galaxies are the bodies of our ancient ancestors) where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction from something ex-machine, something that is existing beyond this Universe and had fecundated this egg with an initial Big Bang. So, evolution suggests the purpose is to produce the “son” of that unknown source.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago 6:03 PM – October – 01

Variation of the same kind is not the same thing as transformation into being different kinds by the reprogramming of the entire genome billions of times in succession by accident.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

You need remember that this Universe is composed by a succession of “natural systems’ hierarchy”, where those simpler systems are sub-systems of those more complex systems. Biological evolution is happening over natural systems that are inside and were produced by a system more physically evolved than any monkey. Informations from this more evolved system are free in the air and they are responsible for those transformation of species. Our problem is with our knowledge about astronomical systems

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

Nature is not able to programme or reprogramme life forms billions of times in succession.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 hour ago

Nature is doing it here under your eyes, by genetic transmission. Your problem is that you don’t know the natural program that can evolve from a simplest non-material quantum vortex, which has already all seven natural forces that evolved to the seven natural life’s properties. This “genetic program” is coming from somewhere before the Big Bang and we can not go there for knowing what is the source. There is no magical code in DNA, merely diversification of LUCA – the Last Universal Ancestor.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

XXX

Not only are the odds extremely high for 17 of the most of the most common elements to be absolutely essential universally interchangeable working parts inside of us, those essentinal elements are also programmed to be many different kinds of life forms. The programming of matter into being life forms *proves* there is a Programmer not made of matter because matter is not able to make itself programmable *and* matter is very simply not ever able to programme or reprogramme itself by accident.

JungleJargon 5 minutes ago

“matter is not able to make itself programmable”

That’s evident, of course. So, what we must do? Search in Nature how matter is organized into working systems. A good method is “comparative anatomy between living and non-living system”, and calculation how the forces existing before the first natural system (atoms) acted over initial mass. For doing that the best is applying the nuclear glue of Hideki Yukawa. This will show how the programme is encoded in any light wave. This is “the creator”.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

Nature does not progrmme anythig.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

Maybe you are right, but, meanwhile, all of us have only theories. Nature is the whole Universe and nobody can know the thru about the Universe standing inside it (see Godel’s theorem). My theory is that inside this Universe is ruling the “matrix” — a kind of software diagram that I show in my website and which are under tests. But, I respect your theory: it could be the right one and mine, the wrong one. Who knows?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

XXX

Evolution is a myth that causes problems.

There *is* evidence of Creation. The programmed matter inside of you proves you have a Maker / Programmer not made of matter because matter only ever does what it is made to do. Matter is not able to programme itself.

“Scientists” are so out of it.

They need to stop teaching evolution immediately! Life does not reprogramme itself. It only does what it is made to do and proves you have a Maker.

PROOF OF GOD in less than 10 seconds

watch?v=_hLWx0cgOps

JungleJargon 8 seconds ago

You are obsessed by the word “programme” but forgetting that this world and the process behind it only exists because we discovered it working in Nature. It happens that what you think as “divine programme” is merely a set of diversification of an unique natural system which are expressed obeying the past evolutionary events. There is no “natural programme” and DNA is not a code as if some intelligence were transmitting a hidden message.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

You fail to prove that matter made or remade what you are billions of times in succession by accident.

JungleJargon in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago 6:03 PM – October – 01

So when our nearest star goes into supernova – will that be His programming too?

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 39 seconds ago

The current astronomical theory, called “Nebular Theory” is suggesting that our nearest star is going into supernova? This star is the Sun? Ok, if this theoretical model is right, my model could be wrong… or not. I am based in my model for suggesting the post above: there is a kind of universal “matrix” which appears to be a genetic or computational programme coming from somewhere ex-machine. DNA is merely the biological shape of this matrix, a evolutionary step following the last top system.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

thematrix says - ToE and ID are theories,

No, evolution is a scientific theory and ID is a hypothesis, it has never made theory status…

geezusispan in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Evolution is a natural phenomena, We can see evolution in any process of embryogenesis, where something in shape of blastula evolves to fetus, embryos, etc. If Nature does it here in 9 months, it is rational to suppose that it does in 3,7 billion related to biological history and it does in 13.7 billion years of universal history. ToE is the theory of biological evolution ( which comprises medium and micro evolution) without knowing universal evolution and its effects over biological history.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to geezusispan 1 second ago

Supernova or expanding to the diameter of the Earth’s orbit – there’s a better outcome for human beings, all the animals, and every molecule of water on our blue planet?

That’s God’s Plan? Really?

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Sorry, I don’t understand exactly your point, due language translation. My models are not suggesting any transformation of Sun going into supernova. It is suggesting that galaxies were built by the same natural formula that built our DNA. I am suggesting the software’s diagram of this formula, so, it is falsiable. But who said anything about God? Is there God, is there a plan? My models suggests there is “natural reproduction of that unknown something that triggered the Big Bang” It’s not God

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

> It’s not God <

Yes – my point exactly.

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide

What is intelligently designed/built/made/assembled has a prescribed function/purpose duty, order, form, special materials, finish, esthetics, etc. It performs its function in specialized conditions that are suitable etc.

Can you pass the test? Are these things intelligently designed/built:

Pyramids, bee, satellite, ATP Synthase motor, humans.

Humans cannot make a bee or the ATP Synthase motor. Who did that has the intelligence/ability to design/make the bee and the ATP Synthase motor?

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Joel Ward 5 minutes ago

Yes, the ATP Synthase motor was previously designed before abiogenesis and you can see where and how – Google: ” The Cellular ATP Motor came from the Galaxies’ Rotational Motor?!” And the social system of bees already was designed by the same ancestor, you can see how in that website. But they were previously designed like your body was previously designed by human species, genetically, naturally. If there is some “intelligence” acting over evolution, does not look it inside this Universe.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

XXX

This is the first youtube comment thread that I have participated in that broke 200,000 comments. Un-fucking-believable.

fangednekoyasha 1 hour ago

And I am proud of America! Here still there is diversity of minds while the rest of the world are dominated by one (certainly wrong) worldview. The diversity of minds is the field for creativity and creates the appropriate conflict for exercising and driven our supreme search for answers to our existence. ToE, Darwin, and you, atheists, makes a good job defending the concept of natural evolution, but ToE need be improved and ID is a kind of police avoiding what happened in Europe. Great America

TheMatrixDNA in reply to fangednekoyasha 1 second ago XXX

ALL of you evolutionary NUT CASES ask your leader BILLY BOY NYE how ANY & I MEAN ANY science experiment TODAY can PROVE ANYTHING about what was occurring 3.7 BILLION YEARS AGO?? If you DUMMIES would stop your LUNACY long enough to THINK for a SECOND you would ALL realize examining how LIFE functions TODAY will NEVER EVER be able to PROVE as a FACT that LIFE evolved 3.7 BILLION years ago. WAKE UP & SMELL THE BEAUTIFUL SCENT OF YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER’S FLOWERS THE ROSE IN PARTICULAR. God Bless!!!

Dan Dillon 1 hour ago

The heaven father acting over that soup 3,7 billion years ago had intelligence minor than an amoeba despite was an almost perfect half-organism. He and his female counterpart were a sinner that made the biggest mistake of our ancestors: choose to be a closed system, the extreme expression of selfishness, closing the doors to evolution. Try to expand your mind’s horizons and think about the top evolved natural system in that time. You are repeating the sin of Adam/Eve when as evolution-stopper.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Dan Dillon 1 second ago XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra ToE

Multiple “sudden” appearances of complex life clearly seen in fossil data are still unexplainable within the evolutionary model. Even the highly touted, more recent, supposed human transitional forms such as “Lucy” and the “Taung Child” have been shown by contemporary studies to be unrelated to modern humans. Mitochondrial DNA samples from our old friends the Neanderthals have also proven to have no relation to human beings. All of this defies evolutionary claims.

Keith Davis in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

SÔBRE O VíDEO/DEBATE

It seems that we landed on the moon, invented the space shuttle, and brought the world into the highest standard of living EVER, all done by people who loved and feared God. Since our culture has started denying God, we’ve lost the shuttle, we haven’t gone back to the moon, and war and poverty are as big of problems as they ever were. It seems our species and culture grew just fine when we as a nation believed in our Creator. Too bad a scientist like Billy Nye is so terribly myopic.

Stephen Nielsen 2 hours ago

“It seems our species and culture grew just fine when we as a nation believed in our Creator” *facepalm* correlation NEVER = causation dope the US bible belt is amongst the highest in violent crimes and rape. highest in abortions and teen pregnancies “haven’t gone back to the moon” no, not much to learn about the moon, what do you prepose we learn there we don’t already know? “war… as big of problems as they ever were” mostly because of religion

lennyhipp in reply to Stephen Nielsen 10 minutes ago

XXX

Expressões Inglêsas usadas aqui:

-Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

-Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says

-Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

XXX

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (3)

terça-feira, setembro 18th, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a terceira parte dêste artigo, vide as duas anteriores, numeros 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08))

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA:

xxx

The supposed “scientific” objections to evolution “ONLY” come from creationists. This speaks volumes. If evolution had all the holes in it that creationists suggest, all scientists would be debating the issues. Instead the only people who raise objections are doing so because of something unscientific to begin with: their belief in god… Ironically, something that requires no evidence itself.

That’s not important, but I need to say, I am not creationist and I have objections – not to evolution as natural process – but against the Darwinian Theory and its modern shape, Modern Synthesis. The three Darwinian variables – VSI (Variation, Selection, Inheritance) does not fill the gaps of species transformations and macroevolution is not reduced to biological evolution. What is Universal evolution? Which are the links between cosmological and biological evolution? ToE is a science-stopper.

xxxx


Darwin was metaphysical when said: “The big diversification of species indicates they are product of evolution and not created one by one by God”. A thru naturalist philosopher never says the word “god” nor mention something written in mythological books because he can’t having that things in his mind, it works as deviation of Reason, and creates avoidable wars with beliefs that don’t deserve attention. Metaphysics still present in neo-Darwinism believing in blind evolution, as science-stopper.

xxx

Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally? Nature did it: the Newtonian watch ( solar system) produced all living beings here. Is that what says the theory of abiogenesis? That’s wrong? Is it right teaching it to children? Which is your opinion?

“Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally?”

Are we talking about a metallic watch made up of non-affinitive macro-structures?

Do you really think something like a watch or car or computer is analogous to life? A watch is built using mechanical tooling. So are cars, and computers. So they are not in the slightest bit comparable to a biological system that is built from a single and heritable nucleic acid polymer. If you still don’t get it, just ask.

Jack Hoff in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago


You know I am talking about the solar system. You know it is all about Newton’s mechanics. And I already ask: “Inside the solar system, described by Newtonian mechanics, arose life. Was it an evolutionary sequitur or something outside the solar system came here for producing life?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack Hoff 1 second ago


What the hell does “evolutionary sequitur” mean? It’s entirely possible that panspermia occurred and life came here on a meteoroid but that’s a circular answer as we would still have to determine where that life came from. Perhaps life is an emergent property of basic chemistry.

It must be a production of basic chemistry, I can’t see other alternative. But… that chemistry should have the forces and elements for producing biological systems. If these forces and elements were not discovered yet in this solar system ( and forget panspermia) where they came from?! From magic or from nothing? By evolutionary sequitur I tried to say: “life was produced naturally by evolution from its last more evolved ancestor – which only can be this solar system” (or are there another?)

“Newtonian watch”? That’s a metaphor, dipshit. Solar systems are not timepieces. By the way, Newtonian physics were demonstrated as inaccurate by the theory of relativity.

And which were the forces and elements that relativity has discovered, which added to Newronian’s mechanic model, had produced biological systems?

And the Theory of Relativity demonstrated inaccurate by Quantum Theory. You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater though. Newtonian physics still very much describe how the Universe works even if some things were proved inaccurate by Relativity. The same applies with our understanding of the atomic level and the way that Relativity does not properly describe what we observe. All work together to form the best picture we can until we have a “Theory of Everything.”

Thanks by the intelligent observation. Is this indication that we need re-calculate the reduced atmosphere and the ingredients inside that primordial soup for elucidating the initial mystery of abiogenesis, and by extension, how the process of evolution emerged here? Over the solar system we need apply relativity and quantum mechanics… or were those chemicals elements at Earth entangled with their counterparts at some unknown outsider atomic or astronomical system? What do you think?.

My opinion is, you need to learn some astronomy and biology before you try to wax philosophical about them.

And my opinion is that you focuses over the facts (solar system, Newtonian mechanics, abiogenesis) instead being a psychologist. Be white.

Every lifeform is evolving. Fucking retard.

“salvage monkeys”

So are they going around, gathering what’s useful? And yet you insult them.

Then you have a time machine?! Some lifeform goes to extinction; others are transformed into more complex form. The situation of monkeys today only will be known in the future. Are you a divine prophet? I am sure you are not a great Pink Unicorn prophet because he is all love, his prophets does not insults nobody. It is not insult calling monkeys as salvage: if you don’t do that, they will think you are calling them as “gay”. Stay calm, don’t be furious, think Pink, we all are Pink…somewhere.