Posts Tagged ‘biológica’

Evolução Cosmológica Recapitulada na Biológica: Mary Schweitzer’s 69 myo T. rex bones

quinta-feira, novembro 15th, 2012

A Teoria da Matrix/DNA terá que enfrentar a arraigada cosmovisão/doutrina que se apossou do sistema acadêmico global. Ela parece vir do que se chama “secularismo”. Isto está definido e bem explicado seus efeitos no primeiro post abaixo do Alan Clarke. Mas adicionalmente, o debate copiado abaixo trouxe mais um grande material para pesquisa. O esqueleto biológico deve ser uma cópia da Matrix na sua forma como LUCA, portanto falta fazer um desenho mostrando isso. Ao mesmo tempo, a informação neste debate a respeito da existencia de soft tissues and biomolecules no meio dos ossos me leva á intuição de estar vendo a evolução biológica recapitulando a cosmológica, ou ainda mais, que os eventos da cosmológica ficarem registrados aqui, nesta biológica arquitetura. Preciso estudar isso. para tanto buscar as informações sugeridas no debate. O que foi ” Mary Schweitzer’s supposed 69 myo T. rex bones”? Pesquisar isso. Ver abaixo minha resposta no debate.

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 week 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 1 week ago

@tsub0dai “please provide evidence for one!”

My evidence is the same as yours. We differ only in our interpretations of the evidence. Evolutionists tried to interpret stretchy transparent blood vessels in Mary Schweitzer’s supposed 69 myo T. rex bones whose contents could be “squeezed out” to be biofilm. When that interpretation fell apart, they changed their interpretation to exceptional preservation of original tissues by raising the preservation limit from thousands of years to millions.

Alan Clarke in reply to tsub0dai 1 week ago

Mary Schweitzer never even claimed to have found unfossilised tissue. You are simply wrong. What she claimed to have found were ‘fragments of mineralised collagen’ and the impressions left by the soft tissue. At no point was the dating of 65 million years ever even in question by the actual reseaqrchers involved in that discovery.

parsivalshorse in reply to Alan Clarke 1 week ago

“…recent studies have suggested that primary soft tissues and biomolecules are more commonly preserved within preserved bones than had been presumed. Some of these claims have been challenged, [arguing that the tissues]… are microbial artifacts [biofilm], not primary soft tissues. … extracts from a specimen of Brachylophosaurus canadensis has shown the interpretation of preserved organic remains as microbial biofilm to be highly unlikely.” – Peterson et al.

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse 1 minute ago

This is more one strong evidence for cosmological evolution. The biological vertebrate skeleton is just a copy of the sky made with bones. That’s explained by Haeckel theory that “phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny” amplified to cosmological level. The head is the “black hole at the nucleus of a galaxy”, the throat is the systemic circuit, the vertebral column is the espiral, etc. Primary soft tissues and biomolecules were made by genes referring to minutes after Big Bang,so, the “microbial”

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