(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
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
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
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
This has been flagged as spam hide
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
in reply to Austriak1 18 minutes ago
Expulsar este ateista fanatico
@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
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
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?
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
fangednekoyasha 1 hour ago
TheMatrixDNA in reply to fangednekoyasha 1 second ago XXX
Dan Dillon 1 hour ago
TheMatrixDNA in reply to Dan Dillon 1 second ago XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Contra ToE
Keith Davis in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago
SÔBRE O VíDEO/DEBATE
Stephen Nielsen 2 hours ago
lennyhipp in reply to Stephen Nielsen 10 minutes ago
XXX
Expressões Inglêsas usadas aqui:
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.