Posts Tagged ‘Intelligent Designer’

Cérebro e MRI de Estados Místicos, Religiosos, Produzidos por Campos Magnéticos

sexta-feira, outubro 10th, 2014


Religious experience is a natural product of the brain. (?)

Aberto para pesquisa dos detalhes. Ver o video: ( Religious experience can be replicated using magnetic fields.)

The Sensed Presence with Dr. Persinger


Minha primeira impressão desta nova informação:

A memória humana tem sua História, que vem desde suas origens, sua ancestralidades, até chegar ao ponto em que está hoje. Acontece que essa história da memória obedece o mesmo processo de qualquer corpo evoluindo sob o ciclo vital.  Então essa memória um dia esteve no cérebro de répteis, outro dia antes ainda foi um mero sistema nervoso difuso numa bactéria, ou seja, a memória teve suas formas transformadas em novas formas assim como um corpo humano se transforma pela ação do ciclo vital. Acontece ainda que este ciclo vital vem originalmente das simples ondas de luz natural. Estas ondas são relacionadas com eletromagnetismo. Então quando aplicamos fortes forças eletromagnéticas no cérebro, estamos mexendo com toda essa história e diferentes niveis, dimensões, da Natureza. cada etapa da história da memória é relacionada com cada etapa de um espectro eletromagnético de uma onda de luz, ou seja, cada fase da evolução da memoria teve sua especifica frequencia vibracional. Ora, quando aplicamos uma força eletromagnética sobre o cérebro, estamos invadindo-o com uma especifica frequencia energética, muitas vezes sem saber-mos qual frequencia está chegando ao cérebro. E cada tipo de frequencia ativa um especifico campo da memória relacionado a uma especifica era anterior de sua evolução. Com isso, a memória envia ao cérebro, ou à “mente”, flashes registrados naquela época. Não sei ainda porque neste caso especifico desta experiencia do Dr. Persinger, os pacientes revelam estados religiosos, fato que vou investigar.

Frases de Experts Contra a Teoria da Evolução: Veja Como A Matrix/DNA Derruba Todas Elas, Fácil.

quarta-feira, outubro 8th, 2014

É bom ler estas frases ( intermediadas com opiniões vindas da minha interpretação dos modelos da Matrix/DNA), pois elas ajudam a pensar o fenomeno da evolução e servem para testar nossas prórprias teorias. Um trabalho meticuloso, bem feito, de coleção por…

Judy’s Patch – WEBSITE


Quoting scientists themselves:


“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!” (Professor Harold Morowitz)

Matrix/DNA: Ok, but, natural informations is not in shape of electrons, and so, in shape of photons. Which we don’t know the number. By the way, I don’t agree with chance formation either… 

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” (Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)

Matrix/DNA : Porque temos que sair de uma teoria extrema e cair em outra teoria extrema? Você não pode enxergar que existem mais teorias sem serem tão extremas?

“Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as…to make the theory of evolution impossible.” (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)

“A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)

Matrix/DNA: No. A close inspection suggests the empirical impossibility of Darwinism, not about natural evolution.

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in “Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Matrix/DNA: O problema é que a origem da vida aqui não foi como a construção de um Boeing 747, e sim, como o desmonte de um existente Boeing 747 para com suas peças e material fazer um pequeno avião. O sistema astronomico – esta galaxia – que produziu a primeira simples célula viva aqui era a maquina mais perfeita possível de ser feita pela Natureza. Entidades muito complexas podem darem um enorme salto construindo coisas muito simples, porem o contrario é impossível: coisas muito simples não podem dar o enorme salto de construírem imediatamente algo muito mais complexo.

Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress…..The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science….I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

Matrix/DNA: You are right, really this non-complete theory have prejudicing scientific evolution into the right and best way for human life’s conditions. But, still, it is better with Darwin than with the creationist myth alone as it were at the Middle Ages.  

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

Matrix/DNA: Yours own body is the result of a big explosion occurred inside an ovule, when exploded the spermatozoon membrane. But… we know that yours body and that event did not occurred by accident.

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and 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)

Matrix/DNA: Yours mistake is that the formation of life did not occurred from inanimate matter, but, from animated natural systems, which have no  fixed limits with animated “life”.  Yours problem is that you does not know the astronomical system where this event occurred, and which, produced this event. 


“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man.” John Reader (photo-journalist and author of “Missing Links”), “Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

“We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information …. ” – D. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25


“The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time.” – David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College


“In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution 



“Evolutionists believe, for example, that the land plants didn’t appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out. Yet over sixty genera of woody plants, spores, pollen, and wood itself have been recovered from lowest ‘trilobite rock’ (Cambrian) throughout the world. The evidence is so well known that it’s even in standard college and biology text books.

“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” David Berlinsky Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute.



“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)



We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. …Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.”Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.” (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the “Hopeful Monster” theory.)

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “The return of hopeful monsters”. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28


There are twelve major layers that form what is called the standard geologic column. Each of these layers is identified by the fossils that are found in it. But, strangely enough, most often the fossils are dated by the strata in which they are found. Can you see the faulty logic in that approach? Let us read what some evolutionary geologists say:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), “Paleoecology and uniformitarianism”. Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning … because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” Dr. J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science. (1976)

“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.”S. Welles: World Book Encyclopedia Vol.7 (1978) p. 364

compare with:

Palaeontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.” S. Welles: World Book Encyclopedia Vol.15 (1978) p. 85 
(Samuel Welles was Research Associate, Museum of Palaeontology, University of California, Berkley)

“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here reasoning in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.”
R. Rastall (Cambridge geologist): ‘Geology’ Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 10 1949.


“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-celled marine invertebrates in the lower Cambrian rocks on the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age…

…however when we turn to examine the Pre-Cambrian rocks for forerunners of these early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over 5,000 feet) sections of sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them.” Axelrod (1958), a paleontologist

This evolutionary paleontologist was willing to ask some hard questions about transitional forms showing how one organism turned into another.

Ager, an evolutionary geologist, seems to think this is a problem all the way through the fossil record. He predicted that no matter where we searched we would find: “not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”  (This is what the creationist model predicts!)

“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record SUDDENLY and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

‘Phyletic gradualism [gradual evolution]… was never “seen” in the rocks’.” Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge (both evolutionists).

The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of around 600 million years ago. The animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period without a trace of the necessary evolutionary ancestors:

“It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history…Despite tempting fragments of evidence, such as cutinized [waxy] spores and bits of xylem [wood] dating back to the Cambrian period…” Richard Dawkins,Weier, Stocking, and Barbour

Most evolutionists still believe that land plants didn’t evolve until much later. But notice, the evolutionist argues ‘in spite of the evidence.'”


“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the BritishMuseum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“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.” (Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species”)

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present has been capable of proof.”
L. Harrison Matthews FRS – Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species – 1971 p.11

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, states that every system left to its own devices will always move from a condition of order to disorder.
“… all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out all by itself.” – Isaac Asimov – “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, You Can’t Even Break Even,” – Smithsonian (June 1970) p.6

The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, NationalCenter of Scientific Research.)

“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, “The emperor has no clothes.” (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

“The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century.”(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

“9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view.” (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

“We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not onlyunproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact.” (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?” (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion….The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational.” (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology atPrinceton University)

“Evolution is faith, a religion.” (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for byDarwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

“There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “general theory of evolution,” and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” (Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.” (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that thetheory of evolution is impossible.” (Dr. P. Lemoine, “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?” Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)

“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.” (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by adecline in scientific integrity.” (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

“The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle—an architect.” (Scientist Allan Sandage)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?” (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in “The Fresno Bee”, <?August 20, 1959.


“It will never be possible to prove scientifically whether the earth and universe are old or young. All calculations involving processes which antedate recorded history must be based on assumptions which can never even be tested, let alone proved, scientifically.” Dr. Henry Morris

“When the blood of a seal freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago.”Antarctic Journal, Vol.6 – (1971) p.211

“Richard Leakey’s ‘1470 Man’ was variously dated using the same rocks, the same equipment and the same technicians, at both 220 million years and 2.6 million years BP.

Similarly, rocks associated with Louis Leakey’s ‘Nutcracker Man’ gave a date of 1 .75 million years, although material from the same stratum submitted to Carbon 14 dating gave an age of 10,000 years.

A single sample of rock, one of many brought back from the moon, was dated by the uranium-thorium-lead method to give results ranging from 5.4 billion years (somewhat more than the estimated age of the moon) to 28.1 billion years (half as old again as the greatest estimate of the age of the universe!).

Results have been published that show that recently erupted rocks have been dated at 22 million years old by the Potassium Argon method … The hair on a mammoth was found to be 26,000 years old while the peat in which the mammoth was preserved was measured by the same Carbon 14 technique and found to be only 5,600 years old.” Dr. D. Rosevear Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry

“If a C14 date supports our theories we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put if in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it” Professor Brew (1970 – speaking at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile) – The Revised Quote Book – p.23

“Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.

“No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error”. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.


“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist

Existe a Divisão entre “Historical Science” e a “Ciência Experimental de Laboratório”? Uma Defesa dos Materialistas

domingo, fevereiro 16th, 2014

Dear Creation Museum, all science is “historical science.” Here’s why

by  – Feb 12 2014, 12:20pm EST

Debate Bill Nye  x  Ken Ham

Debate Bill Nye x Ken Ham

Melhor Debate entre Religiosos e Materialistas: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

sexta-feira, fevereiro 14th, 2014

Bill Nye debates Ken Ham FULL



Meu Comentario postado no Debate:


Louis Charles Morelli – 2/14/2014

Nobody lost this debate, religion from both side lost, Humanity earned, becoming a little bit more agnostic and evolved a new third perception of natural phenomena which will develops Science and the power of human kind. Each world view is discriminatory ignoring the aspects presents at natural phenomena pointed out by the opposite world view, and is selective, seeing only those aspects that feeds its beliefs. There is a new world view, different from those two debated here, that is suggesting lots of natural mechanisms and processes which could be applied developing Science and technology, called ” The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles Theory”. It was born just from the agnostic and non partisan behavior comparing the Nye’s and Ham’s worlds views, the marriage and war between two existents complements producing a son, more evolved. Thanks Bill, you are great, thanks Ham, you was the giant’s shoulder that supported me to see larger horizons than you saw.
+KStyle Blue God uses mathematics, logic and beauty in His creation that is evident all around us. also the star light could have travelled at a faster rate in the past or closer to the beginning or there are some models including the stretching of space and time itself near the beginning.
+islandonlinenews Which is the God’s mathematics and logics in that scene you see a lion killing a sheep? I know, you will say that it is result of degeneration due humans’ sin. Then, which is the God’s math and logics creating a world able to degenerate?! You will say that the possibility of degeneration must exist for correcting mistakes made by those that have free will. Which is the feelings of an entity that produces free wills that produces the scenes of lions eating sheeps still alive? I think you have no answer for that and will come with the old cliché: ” God has its mysteries”. And I will say that yours god is a monster, or better, you are projecting yours inner poisons over self-created god, which is yours image projected. I can’t accept such monster as god, sorry.

Evolution x Creation Debate

quinta-feira, fevereiro 13th, 2014

The Science Can Be Seen as Purposeful

Karl W. Giberson, a physicist who teaches science and religion at Stonehill College, is the author of “Seven Glorious Days: A Scientist Retells the Genesis Creation Story.”

Meu comentario postado no artigo:

Louis Charles Morelli

New York, NY (

“We are hard-wired to want creationism to be true.”

There is a third world vision that you does not know yet, I will tell you their interpretation. Nope. Human brain today is result of mixing three kinds of neuronal informations and connections: 1) from this new emerging system called “consciousness”; 2) from the genetic directly inheritance of animals/mammalian; 3) remotely, from the system that created this biosphere and is modelling it – the Milk Way. That’s the explanation there are three kind of people that want three different world views to be true. And… the astonishing fact observed today is that the remote ancestral is becoming the dominant one.


ODDOWL  WASH. GA. 4 December 2013

Evolution begin about 13 billion years ago… The Zionist Torah was written in the 6th. century A.D. in Babylon… The Torah was plagiarized from inscriptions written on the walls of the monuments in Babylon also from papyrus documents and monument inscriptions in Canaan and Egypt… The argument is not really between evolution and creationism but rather between evolution and fraudulent claims…

Louis Charles Morelli  New York, NY

Good point. When we know that evolution began 13,7 billion years ago, and re-calculates the Universal Natural History, we learn that Darwinian theory is merely the account of a micro-cycle of cosmological evolution, the one related to biological systems. The three fundamental variables of Darwinian theory (VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance) dos not explain even biological evolution because there are more 4 variables acting here. But the most surprising suggestion from this new Universal History is that suddenly we discover how and from where came the inspiration for those Bible’s authors. The narrative of Adam/Eve in the Paradise is the exactly scientific description of the state of the world before life’s origins, I mean, the state of the real creator of life here. And the explanation about this inspiration is also surprising, but rational: the infant human mind, still not fulfilled with our culture, was being bombarded by flashes of data and scenes registered at our DNA from ours yet non-living ancestrals systems, like the Milk Way – the real creator of biological systems. At my website you can see how the fair tale of the paradise is a metaphor of that “creator” and its internal functionality.

Matrix/DNA: A strong belief in a creation story like that told in the Bible validates the powerful human desire to believe that our lives have meaning and purpose,…

Nope. The creation history of the world in the Bible is pure result of speculation and the history of Adam/Eve in the Paradise is a metaphor and deviation of the real state of the world moments before life’s origins. This state of the world ( the state of this planet, belonging to its stellar system, belonging to a galaxy) drove abiogenesis till the first cell living system, is such way that the building blocks of DNA has the same configuration and functionality of the building blocks of galaxies ( you can see both at “The Universal Matrix for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles Theory”, website.  The first cell system still is a biological copy of this astronomical building block. Then, this astronomical ancestral is registered at our DNA, inside those first 300 genes that has becoming the non-coding DNA. At the infancy of human consciousness, there were flashes, quickly images coming from memory to the mind, related to that ancestral, and those receiving these images wrote the fable of the Paradise, which is the right scientific description of the working astronomical system. But, then, the infant mind operates turning the objects seen into fantasy, imaginary friends for talking, etc. That’s how  and why the authors of the Bible wrote it.



Copia do artigo para analise:

We are hard-wired to want creationism to be true. A strong belief in a creation story like that told in the Bible validates the powerful human desire to believe that our lives have meaning and purpose,…

Matrix/DNA: Nope. The creation history of the world in the Bible is pure result of speculation and the history of Adam/Eve in the Paradise is a metaphor and deviation of the real state of the world moments before life’s origins. This state of the world ( the state of this planet, belonging to its stellar system, belonging to a galaxy) drove abiogenesis till the first cell living system, is such way that the building blocks of DNA has the same configuration and functionality of the building blocks of galaxies ( you can see both at “The Universal Matrix for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles Theory”, website.  The first cell system still is a biological copy of this astronomical building block. Then, this astronomical ancestral is registered at our DNA, inside those first 300 genes that has becoming the non-coding DNA. At the infancy of human consciousness, there were flashes, quickly images coming from memory to the mind, related to that ancestral, and those receiving these images wrote the fable of the Paradise, which is the right scientific description of the working astronomical system. But, then, the infant mind operates turning the objects seen into fantasy, imaginary friends for talking, etc. That’s how  and why the authors of the Bible wrote it. The Matrix/DNA Theory also suggests that our lives have meaning and purpose, but it is very different than the Bible. 

…. that what we do matters and that we are not just “matter grown to consciousness,” in Carl Sagan’s immortal phrase.

The brouhaha about “biblical creation” is really a proxy war about the reality of meaning in the world. Are we here because God intended us to be here? Is our origin part of a plan? Do humans matter in the grand scheme? Are the instincts we have about right and wrong rooted in reality? Or did the universe come about through a mysterious accident called the big bang, followed by other accidents leading to our solar system, our planet and the long meandering history of life that led to us? Are we, as a Dutch documentary once suggested, “A Glorious Accident”?

It would be nice if the scientific story of our origins could be understood as purposeful, rather than as a series of accidents. I laid out just such a “bipartisan” story in my book “Seven Glorious Days,” but the warring camps are just too far apart in this conversation to appreciate any mediation. Evolutionists have fought hard to make sure we understand evolution as lacking direction or purpose. The theory has come to be strongly identified with atheism. Its most public champion is Richard Dawkins, whom Ned Flanders met in hell on a recent episode of “The Simpsons.”

Biblical creationists have fought even harder to keep evolution — the atheists’ creation story — out of Genesis. Its most public champion, Ken Ham, imposes a wooden and implausible literalism on the Bible to ensure that nobody can fit evolution in between the lines.

On Main Street, on television and in the pews of America’s many churches, leaders on both sides portray a choice between a world with purpose and one without. The trouble is, when they ask that either-or question, there’s no right answer.

A Controvérsia Entre Evolucionistas e Criacionistas na América, Um Segredo por trás do Sucesso da América?

quarta-feira, janeiro 8th, 2014

Just 1/3 of Americans “believe” in the theory of evolution by natural selection

December 31, 2013 | by Lisa Winter

A uniformidade do pensamento gera a esterilidade da criatividade. Enquanto nos países da Europa a grande maioria já abraçou a crença na evolucão segundo a teoria Neo-Darwinista, e na maioria dos outros paises a uniformidade da crença religiosa prevalece, na América a população se encontra dividida quase ao meio (veja resultado da pesquisa no artigo). Para enfrentar os inglêses e seu deus, Darwin, a América meio cientifica/meio religiosa criou o Intelligent Designer, um misto de ciencias e religião. E no artigo, um português, sob o nome de Joaquim, postou um comentario chamando meu país de “dumb” ( quer dizer, um povo mudo, não tem voz própria), que Portugal é diferente no sentido de ser melhor, e especifica sua plena crença no Darwinismo. Todos sabem que aqui na Matrix/DNA temos uma visão de mundo diferente das duas, porem meio-termista, que tanto ratifica algumas coisas no darwinismo quanto no criacionismo. Portanto, vemos como sábia e salutar essa divisão de opiniões quando conhecem apenas as duas teorias, ambas com muitos erros. Abaixo vai a cópia dos comentários:


Fellow americans that are reading this, first of all sorry for my english, im portuguese by the way, you must understand something and please dont get me wrong on this one you live in a dumb country, im not saying that you guys that are reading this are but i feel that in my country is a lot difrent from there, i feel that in america lots of people go to work have children go out with friends but they really know nothing about the world, they are not very smart in my opinion but for me its really not a shock that only 1/3 of you guys believes in that, we should see that you live in a very religious country where kids are toght that they must do what god pleases in order to have a good life or whatever, they cant think anything by themselves, they only tell you what they were told. well that how i feel about a america at least most of it i know its not 100% like that but… i think you shouldnt be shocked either


TheMatrixDNA  to Joaquim 

Well,… Senhor Joaquim, then you think ours is a dumb country and that yours country is different meaning better. I have not seen a long time the name of portugueses in the list of inventions, dominated by 90 of Americans. What is happend?! The uniformity ob believe in yours country has killed creativity, the use of the mind for questioning? If we are dumb why are you using our computers, Internet, and maybe travelling to here by an airplane invented by Americans? Do you know something? I love this division of beliefs in my country, it means our people hear all voices and not one, in this case, the Bretains and their god, Darwin. I don’t believe in jewish and their god, neither in Bretains, I am sure that evolution is a fact, that change over time is a fact, but mixing all theories, I created mine. It is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems”, I found a link between biological evolution and cosmological evolution which explains universal evolution, a lot more complex than the Darwinian explanation, and filling the gaps of his theory. But the whole thing is suggesting that… the Bible really describes our ancestors at 10 billion years ago, before life;s origins here. My suggestion for you and all Europeans is: does not hear anybody, because nobody knows the thru, search yours own world view. There are problems with Darwin’s theory and only a country that creates things like Intelligent Designer ( which has several mistakes also) will question Darwin and will keep the evolution of knowledge. Senhor Joaquim: tente pensar nas espécies existentes e nos mecanismos sugeridos por Darwin, tente fazer seus calculos. Não vá na onda da Europa que  pensa que alcançaram a Verdade. It is hilarious!

Evolução versus religião na América perturbando escolares, e a Mediação pela Matrix/DNA Theory

sábado, janeiro 4th, 2014

Este assunto na América está ficando muito sério e perigoso, pois veja neste artigo como ele está atormentando dia a dia a vida de professores, estudantes, reitores, políticos, etc. Está até derrubando grandes colégios, quando os financiadores descontentes com o ensino da Evolução retiram seu patrocínio.

Mas o conflito não deveria existir se ambos os lados tivessem um pouco mais de conhecimento sôbre a real Natureza e os profundos significados ocultos em suas criações, ou seja, se soubessem o que a Teoria da Matrix/DNA tem descoberto e reunindo mais evidencias para seus modelos que as duas outras partes juntas.

Tentarei traduzir aqui um inteiro artigo publicado por quem realmente sabe o que está se passando, pois trata-se de um professor que está sendo perseguido num destes colégios, ao mesmo tempo que vou copiando aqui os meus comentários postados no debate que se segue ao artigo.

2013 Was a Terrible Year for Evolution

Karl W. Giberson

By Karl W. Giberson – 2014/01/02/

Meu comentário postado no artigo do The Daily Beast 

MatrixDNA –  

 The problem is not the real natural process of evolution and real facts of origins hidden under the Bible’s scripture. It is all about human interpretations, as discovered now by a new and different interpretation of those real facts, called Matrix/DNA Theory. The facts that Science and the Bible deal with are the same, the interpretations of evolutionists are 50% right and 50% wrong, while the interpretations of Christians are just 50% right where evolutionists are 50% wrong, and vice-versa. Evolution of biological systems is a fact, the problem is the neo-Darwinian theory, pointing out wrong interpretations of real mechanisms and non-complete, since that the three variables VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance – are merely half history because the variable are seven, not three. The problem is that Darwin and reductionism has separated Cosmological Evolution and Biological evolution into two blocks without any link between then, and it is a big mistake. Then, the four variable acting here over evolution are not seen, producing gaps and denying the effort of explanations, which are opportunistically used by creationists.

 Genesis, Adam and Even in the Paradise, were not revealed by supernatural beings, it was the memory of ancient people remembering by flashes the history of our ancestors comprising 13,7 billion years, history registered at the memory of our DNA at the center of neurons.  But those flashes were wrong interpreted, the Paradise is the right description of ancestors at the state of thermodynamic system under equilibrium by metaphors.

See a little bit of Matrix/DNA interpretation and discover how it is just the factor that is missing for keeping faith and Science, everybody will be happy.


MatrixDNA –  

O problema não é o real natural processo da Evolução e os reais fatos das origens ocultos sob a escritura da Bíblia. É a respeito das interpretações humanas, tal como foi descoberto agora por uma nova e diferente interpretação daqueles fatos reais, denominada Teoria da Matrix/DNA. Os fatos que a a Ciência e a Bíblia estão abordando são os mesmos, as interpretações dos evolucionistas estão 50% corretas e 50% erradas, enquanto as interpretações dos cristãos são justamente 50% corretas onde evolucionistas são 50% errados, e vice-versa.  A evolução dos sistemas biológicos são um fato, o problema é a teoria neo-darwinista, afirmando errôneas interpretações de real mecanismos naturais, e incompleta, desde que as três variáveis VSI- Variação, Seleção, Hereditariedade – são meramente a metade da história, porque as variáveis são em numero de sete e não três. O problema é que Darwin e o reducionismo têm separado Evolução Cosmológica e Evolução Biológica em dois blocos sem nenhum elo entre eles, e isso é um grande equivoco. Então, as quatro variáveis atuando aqui sobre a evolução não estão sendo vistas, produzindo falhas na teoria da evolução e anulando os esforços de explicações, o que são oportunisticamente usados pelos criacionistas.

Gênese, Adão e Eva no Paraíso, não foram revelados por seres supernaturais, foi apenas a memória do povo antigo se lembrando através de visões relâmpagos e intuições, a história de nossos ancestrais compreendida em 13,7 bilhões de anos, história registrada na memória do nosso DNA, que estão no centro dos neurônios. Mas aquelas visões foram equivocadamente interpretadas, o Paraíso é a correta descrição dos ancestrais no estado de sistemas sob equilíbrio termodinâmico, por metáforas.

Veja um pouco da interpretação da Matrix/DNA e descubra como ela é justamente o fator que está faltando para manter fé e Ciência, e todos serão felizes.


Saltinecracker –  

If God is so great and so perfect then why are their birth defects.So God couldn’t create a being that can’t give birth to something that doesn’t have defects. That doesn’t sound so smart to me nor  God like.

Reply da Matrix/DNA:

MatrixDNA –  

@Saltinecracker  –  That’s an easy answer by creationism. The Creator is responsible by His creation, not for the wrong practice of free will making new wrong creations. And easy answer for Matrix/DNA Theory: our ancestors, about four billions years ago, yet under the primitive evolutionary shape of an astronomical system, choose to be a closed selfish system, cutting relations with external world, closing the doors to Evolution. The Universe reacted applying the force of entropy, the system decayed here, initially under a chaotic state, creating this salvage biosphere in state of chaos, and we, humans, inherited that mistake in shape of selfish genes. So, birth defects are still happening.


GarthMaul – 
If evolution is real, why is it nowhere observed to occur in nature? If science cannot prove that it occurs, why should anyone accept it? Seems to me it is more reasonable to believe in an invisible intelligent creator, than an invisible unintelligent who-knows-what.

Reply da Matrix/DNA:

@GarthMaul  There is a third alternative, you are missing it: an invisible intelligent creator, but, not supernatural. Be it “who-knows-what”, something triggered the Big Bang. Why not a natural intelligent system merely doing the same thing that triggered the Big Bang of an envelope spermatozoon inside an ovule at the initial moment of yours own body? Evolution is proved by 9 months of embryogenesis, when an initial ball of cells evolves into a being. We can’t see Cosmological Evolution due the relativistic effect: the point in time/space that we are as observers is microscopic, while only a macroscopic observer can see evolution as we see it at embryogenesis. So, if you want calling the mysterious system existing before this Universe as God, feel free, no problem for us, agnostics and evolutionists.

Steve50 –  

I thought maybe this article would have some evidence….nope!!! All about being offended that we don’t buy this stuff. We are not like animals. We create. The gulf in between attests to creation. Their is no in between.

Reply da MatrixDNA

MatrixDNA – 

@steve50  Yous said: “The gulf in between attests to creation. There is no in between”

Nope. There are no gulf in betweens. It happens that in Nature there is something called “hierarchy of systems”. If you does not know genetics, you should believe in evolutionary gaps between the shape of a fetus and the shape of an embryo when watching a static movie of embryology. Who works the informations that transforms fetus into embryos is the DNA, a hidden system. Same way has worked biological evolution here, from bacteria to monkeys. It happens that you does not know the real source for biological systems. At Matrix/DNA models we have found that astronomical galactic systems has as building blocks a working primitive system that has all life’s properties. So, the Milk Way is the real LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor) which Darwin thought that was microscopic and living at earth surface. Every gulf in between at Darwinian theory is now fulfilled by informations supplied by that hidden hierarchic system. I agree that nature is surprising us every day at each discovery, I agree that nature is a job of supreme intelligence, but… my body seems a job of intelligence also and I know that my parents – even that they are intelligent – did not applied any intelligence and no magics for doing me. Why not God?

EABlair –  

I find more dignity and wonder in the notion that I am related, however distantly, to every other living thing on the planet than in believing that my ultimate ancestor started out as a pile of dirt breathed on by an invisible spirit.

Reply by MatrixDNA – 

@EABlair But…the first living being on the planet, from which evolved every living being, with exception of human species, was made by an invisible spirit that breathed a pile of dirt or initial soup. Natural systems are like computers, composed by hardware and software. We created computers merely copying what exists in Nature. I know it because the bits-information that penetrated terrestrial atoms at that soup, were photons radiated by galactic decay, and they drove the atoms to make new combinations, reproducing here the building blocks of galaxies in its biological fashion, as cell’s systems. The anatomy and functionality of those astronomical building blocks are the same we see at a base-pair of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. So, there is a photonic counterpart of every natural system, you can call it “software”, or “invisible spirit”, no problem, you are always right. Human species has a novelty, called consciousness, which is the same software of atoms and galaxies. It happens that the “spirit”, or the software, came with the Big Bang, was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, began waken up at animals, and lifted up at human beings. You are the one that breathed on that soup.

Something else: we are discovering that the seven principals shapes of any human body under a life’s cycle, vibrating at specific frequencies, the same sequence that vibrates the seven frequencies of any natural light wave. So, natural light is the source that imprints the vital cycle over inertial mass, like dark matter. In other words, light is the first source of a code for life. The Bible says that first God created the light. It seems thru for me now, since that natural light seems to be the arms and hands used by God for creation, everything by natural genetic process. And remember that light is composed by photons, or vice-versa.

somervillechangeling – 

Quote: “Hey, did you know that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and never even existed? And that you can still be a Christian and believe that?”

I have no problems with Adam and Eve not being the first physical humans, but they were the first spiritual humans made in God’s image…

Reply by MatrixDNA –  

@somervillechangeling  Adam and Eve were not the first humans, they were not humans, but, they existed as ancestors of all living beings. The fable of Eden Paradise was written by primitive ancient people with brains not occupied by this accumulated culture in the last 4 thousands years. Their brains were almost empty, so, at their dreams, the neurons produced flashes of scenes and events registered at their DNA’s memory. It happens that DNA is 3,5 billion years old, but its history did not began here. DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix, a kind of DNA of our ancestors systems, like atoms and galaxies. So, the MatrixDNA  is at least, 13,7 years old, and its whole life’s history is registered at our DNA, most of them, registered at those 300 genes that emerged with the first living being, and today is the most part of “junk DNA”. The description of Eden Paradise by biblical authors is a metaphor for describing the building blocks of galaxies, which were our ancestors, which is registered at our DNA . If you describes a closed perfect natural system under thermodynamic equilibrium, yours description with “scientific words” will describes the same images of an Eden Paradise. I have the system designed here and I can see here every symbol used in Bible: the serpent, the tree, the apple, a paradisiac system, and the system has a circuit  composed by two flows of informations. it happens that those two energetic flows works exactly as works the spermatozoon and ovule at sexual organisms. What the problem if the biblical writers – who never saw a spermatozoon and ovule – choose a name for them, like Adam and Eve? Really they were our female and male ancestors, but, hey, when the top of evolution was the galactic shape. The fable of the Paradise in Genesis was not revealed by supernatural beings, neither by God: it was merely sweet memories from the past when our ancestors where like Gods… without consciousness…  Even the entropic decay of that system could be described as The Fall of Adam and Even, and the beginning here as “the sons of necessity” because here they lifted up as opened systems.  C.S. Lews was pretty right !

somervillechangeling – 
@Saltinecracker  –

I’m inclined to doubt evolution just as much as I doubt intelligent design. Both sides cherry pick arguments and have axioms that I’m not sure will hold up as viable in the next civilization that replaces ours as ours did the medieval.

Reply by 

MatrixDNA – 

@somervillechangeling @Saltinecracker  – Intelligent Designer has some good points, like the irreducible reversibility to a LUCA existing at Earth. Life at earth is product of a design, the source of this design never existed at Earth, but that source was not an intelligent being. Like the genome of yours parents that designed yours body was not intelligent being. LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) of all living beings is the building blocks of galaxies, and its picture is at my website. Every detail of any living body of any species are reducible to LUCA, but LUCA leaves in the sky. I don’t know and don’t have yet the picture of the system that triggered the Big Bang. The MatrixDNA theoretical models are suggesting that that system must be a conscious intelligent system, since that we are seeing consciousness being reproduced here. But the models suggests that inside this Universe is occurring a process of genetic reproduction, reproduction of that ex-machine system. if you want call it God, no problem with that. I know that the origins of life here did not require intelligence.


Obs: Meu nickname no Daily é MatrixDNA


Tradução do Artigo no The Daily Beast

2013 Foi um Terrível Ano para Evolução

Nunca duvide da crescente evidencia – 64 por cento dos Protestantes Evangélicos e brancos rejeitam a ciência, e professores dos Colégios cristãos são atacados se a noticia de que estão ensinando evolução se espalha para alem da escola.

Evolução não trabalhou bem em 2013. O ano terminou com o livro ante-evolucionista “A Duvida de Darwin” como best seller na categoria de paleontologia da Amazon. O estado do Texas consumiu uma boa parte do ano tentando manter o mais respeitado texto da Biologia para o médio ensino fora das escolas publicas. E o líder ante-evolucionista e administrador do Creation Museum, Ken Ham, fêz seu discurso anual dizendo que “o prego final tinha sido posto no tumulo da pobre e cambaleante teoria da evolução do Darwin.

( continuar esta tradução quando o tempo permitir)

Evolution did not fare well in 2013. The year ended with the anti-evolution bookDarwin’s Doubt as Amazon’s top seller in the “Paleontology” category. The state of Texas spent much of the year trying to keep the country’s most respected high school biology text out of its public schools. And leading anti-evolutionist and Creation Museum curator Ken Ham made his annual announcement that the “final nail” had been pounded into the coffin of poor Darwin’s beleaguered theory of evolution



Cristão-Judaísmo Usando Ciências para Defender sua Teoria

terça-feira, dezembro 10th, 2013

Has Science Discovered God?

What are these stunning discoveries that have scientists suddenly speaking of God? Three revolutionary discoveries from the fields of astronomy and molecular biology stand out:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence

1. The universe had a beginning (One-Time Beginning)

In the early 20th century, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding. Rewinding the process mathematically, he calculated that everything in the universe, including matter, energy, space and even time itself, actually had a beginning.

( Nota da Matrix/DNA:  Hubble preferiu se apoiar numa invenção humana – a matematica- ao invés de observar e buscar no mundo real o apoio para uma operação mental ao descobrir um novo fenômeno real – que o Universo está se expandindo. Suponhamos que de repente vemos uma pedra se expandindo. Primeiramente, vamos querer saber a causa da expansão ou a origem da pedra? Obviamente vamos analizar a causa da expansão, vamos decompor a pedra em seus elementos constituintes, e suponhamos que não encontremos nada mais do que os normais constituintes de pedras. Acho que Hubble seguiu este caminho e até aqui não aplicou matematica alguma. Ele tinha em mãos, a matéria, energia, conceitos como tempo e espaço. Então começou a calcular as interações entre estes constituintes, e para isso tem que usar os conhecimentos da Fisica. Ora a Fisica sugere racionalmente que um corpo só pode ampliar seu volume se diminuir sua densidade. Não existe como um corpo isolado, tal como se pensa ser o Universo, criar matéria do nada para essa expansão. A não ser que o corpo não seja isolado, e algo externo esta insuflando matéria nêle.  Se o corpo está diminuindo sua densidade, pode-se calcular lógicamente que ao se regredir em seu passado vamos encontrando-o cada vez menor e mais denso. Continuando essa regressão, apenas no nivel mental, chegariamos a um ponto final, limite, ou não chegariamos a ele, sendo infinita a regressão? Não tem como saber, nunca tivemos tal coisa em mãos, nunca vimos nada parecido. Mas Hubble disse que usando a matematica chegou a um ponto em que o corpo termina, ou seja, teve um inicio. Primeiro eu teria que analisar este exercicio matematico, antes de qualquer julgamento sobre sua conclusão. E enquanto não o fizer, só me resta respeitar sua conclusão, tê-la sob observação, mas sem acreditar nela, pois não procurei se existem ou não, erros na matematica aplicada.

Mas existe uma outra maneira de analizar a pedra em expansão. Sabendo de seus constituintes e tendo a certeza que não se vai encontrar nada desconhecido, desviamos o olhar da pedra e fixamos o olhar na natureza à volta. Tentamos buscar na memória os fatos conhecidos no maior espaço e período de tempo possível. Nunca vimos uma pedra na terra se expandindo sem estar entrando algo nela. A pedra é um meteórito, veio do espaço? Sim, temos que abri-la e procurar os ingredientes. Nada de estranho encontrado, resta o exercício mental, mas fixo na Natureza. A pedra faz parte do planeta que se formou numa poeira estelar, a qual pode ter vindo, ou da morte de outra estrela ou da primitiva galaxia que já possuis estrelas, pois alguns elementos da pedra foram formados por estrelas. Estrelas se expandem por si próprias? Tudo indica que sim, e tambem se contraem. Mas isso é causado por reações nucleares, e a pedra não tem reações nucleares.  Voltamos a estaca zero e desistimos de buscar a causa, mas para nossa sorte, não existe pedra se expandindo por si só, foi tudo um exercício mental. Nosso problema é a expansão do Universo. Existe como decompo-lo em seus elementos constituintes? Claro que não. Existe como recorrer a fatos conhecidos reais para calcular de onde o Universo veio? Claro que não.  Então vamos desistir do problema? Ainda não, pois não terminamos de procurar na Natureza. Resta uma pergunta: “Existe algo observável na Natureza que se expande”  Muitas coisas: um rio ao receber água do mar, uma montanha ao ser atingida por um meteórito, o gaz ao se aquecer, … O gaz ao se aquecer… diminui em densidade. Seria o Universo uma bolha de gás contendo algumas partículas denominadas galaxias, e estaria esta bolha sob alta temperatura? É possível, porque não? Porque há regiões que não tem gás. Então outra substancia com propriedades parecidas com a do gaz, como talvez um éter, ou dark matter, e preenchendo os espaços que pensamos estarem vazios? Pode ser, mas qual a diferença entre esta pergunta e a pergunta se não existiria um Deus onipresente em todos os espaços, invisível, que estaria se expandindo? Vamos sempre caindo no reino da fantasia metafisica.

Mas não desistimos ainda, continuemos procurando na natureza. Tem algo mais que se expande por si mesmo? Tem. Um corpo vivo. O humano por exemplo, começa como minuscula célula, aumenta para mórula, depois para blástula… Porque o Universo não estaria se expandindo pela ação de uma genética invisível e desconhecida a nós? Isso não é metafisica como o éter. Sabemos que existe a genética. O Universo como um corpo vivo? Não necessariamente: enquanto o embrião expande, o involucro externo se expande, seja um ovo ou um útero.  O Universo pode ser, ou o embrião, ou o ovo. Mas não se vê nenhum embrião interno, a não ser que galaxias sejam como células de um embrião. É possível? Acho que não: teriam que serem galaxias vivas, e parece não ser este o caso. Mas o embrião teria que ser uma arquitetura mais evoluída que tudo o mais existindo no espaço do Universo. Mais que humanos. Teria algo assim? Parece que sim: auto-consciência. Um embrião constituído de auto-consciência? Só se os genes trabalhando essa genética forem ou serem primitivamente auto-conscientes, assim como as células são primitivamente vivas. Os humanos se encaixam no perfil. E nada impede que no Universo existam muitas outras formas de genes auto-conscientes…

Esta hipótese esta superando todos os obstáculos, ao menos, racionalmente. Vou ficar com ela, enquanto não aparecer outra melhor. E então, o Universo teve um inicio a partir do Nada? Não. Todo ovo veio de um sistema natural e pelo processo genético. Esta deve ser a base para calculares o que existia antes do momento inicial do Universo, sabendo que este momento inicial não é uma origem, mas sim uma reprodução. E porque não ficar com a resposta do Hubble? A matemática reduz demasiado a fantasia ao real, tão demasiado que ela reduz tudo à fria física e não detecta os elementos organizados biologicamente, não detecta a vida. Temos que fazer um esforço para reduzir nossas fantasias infantis, mas a Vida não é uma fantasia, é um fenômeno real.

Algum erro neste raciocinio, alem do evidente salto no vazio dado pela preferencia do autor? Existe outra maneira de prosseguir isto sem sua interrupção por uma preferencia pessoal?


Shockwaves rang loudly throughout the scientific community. Many scientists, including Einstein, reacted negatively. In what Einstein later called “the biggest blunder of my life,” he fudged the equations to avoid the implication of a beginning.

Perhaps the most vocal adversary of a beginning to the universe was British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who sarcastically nicknamed the creation event a “big bang.” He stubbornly held to his steady state theory that the universe has always existed. So did Einstein and other scientists until the evidence for a beginning became overwhelming. The “elephant in the room” (Ver isto no Google search) implication of a beginning is that something or Someone beyond scientific investigation must have started it all.

Finally, in 1992, COBE satellite experiments proved that the universe really did have a one-time beginning in an incredible flash of light and energy. [4]

( Ver isto: 4 – George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 241.)

Although some scientists called it the moment of creation, most preferred referring to it as the “big bang.”

Astronomer Robert Jastrow tries to help us imagine how it all began. “The picture suggests the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb. The instant in which the cosmic bomb exploded marked the birth of the Universe.” [5] ( Ver isto:  Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (London: W. W. Norton, 1992), 13.)

Matrix/DNA : 

Ovos e úteros têm um momento inicial a a partir do Nada? Não existe como responder esta questão sem que em nossa mente surja o conhecimento do passado de qualquer ovo ou útero. E não há outra conclusão que a de responder que ” a resposta se perde numa longa história de transformações e evolução. O que se sabe de comprovado aqui e agora é que todo ovo e útero existe porque foi reproduzido igual ou com alguma mutação para o mais complexo de outro que existia ou continua existindo.  Quanto ao Universo, teve um momento inicial? Não sabemos nada, mas nada mesmo, sôbre o momento antes de um momento inicial. Diferente de ovos na Terra, não conhecemos nenhuma história de transformações e evolução antes de um Universo que tambem não sabemos como é, o que é. A pergunta não faz sentido, principalmente quando ela trás em si a implicação de que no momento interior era o Nada. Nunca ninguém viu o Nada e nem alguma coisa despontando do Nada. Se a pergunta não faz sentido, muito menos qualquer resposta. Nesse item, a unica coisa sensata que resta à Humanidade é: “Continuemos trabalhando duro e com coragem, desenvolvendo mais a nossa tecnologia, para cada vez mais nos aprofundar-mos no espaço sideral. Não temos outra alternativa sensata.”

Mas… nossa mente, nossa natureza, aprecia ter fantasias, amigos invisiveis imaginários com quem falar, transformar todos os objetos ao redor em objetos de brinquedo. Esse comportamento do individuo-criança é imitado no comportamento da auto-consciência infantil. É imperativo que acreditemos, por enquanto, numa fantasia. Porem a maior maturidade racional está sempre nos aconselhando a diminuir o tamanho da nossa fantasia, substituindo-a aos poucos pelos fatos do mundo real. Então, sobre a existência do mundo real, somos divididos em dois grupos conhecidos, com fantasias diferentes: para um grupo, o mundo real teve um inicio a partir do Nada. Se alinham neste grupo certas religiões como a judaica-cristã e intelectuais ateus modernos, travestidos de cientistas, encabeçados por Lawrence Krauss ( The Universe from Nothing); para o outro grupo, o mundo seria infinitamente eterno.  Nunca viram nada eterno, muito menos o infinito, são meras construções mentais do cérebro humano.

Agora surge uma terceira alternativa, a Matrix/DNA. Ela é o mais extremado esforço na tentativa de diminuir o tamanho das nossas fantasias. E isto se faz, como vimos acima, substituindo pedaços da fantasia por fatos comprovados do mundo real. Então a estratégia da Matrix/DNA, para construir suas fantasias menores, é procurar aqui e agora no mundo real se existe um fato real, natural, que serviria de parâmetro para explicar a questão. Esta estratégia tem conduzido a Matrix/DNA a fantasiar o Universo desconhecido como sendo meramente o palco de um processo de reprodução no modelo genético de algo desconhecido que gerou o Universo. Em outras palavras, nessa fantasia produzida por um exercício mental de anatomia comparada e projeção do conhecido para calcular o desconhecido, chega à teoria do Ôvo Cósmico. Por isso a resposta à pergunta ” O Universo teve um momento inicial, a partir do Nada?” é simplesmente, “Não! Teve antes uma história de transformações e evolução. Temos que procurar conhecer esta história”

Everything from Nothing (Parei aqui)

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator. “British theorist, Edward Milne, wrote a mathematical treatise on relativity which concluded by saying, ‘As to the first cause of the Universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.’” [6]

Another British scientist, Edmund Whittaker attributed the beginning of our universe to“Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.” [7]

Many scientists were struck by the parallel of a one-time creation event from nothing with the biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1. [8] Prior to this discovery, many scientists regarded the biblical account of creation from nothing as unscientific.

Although he called himself an agnostic, Jastrow was compelled by the evidence to admit,“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” [9]

Another agnostic, George Smoot, the Nobel Prize winning scientist in charge of the COBE experiment, also admits to the parallel. “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”[10]

Scientists who used to scoff at the Bible as a book of fairy tales, are now admitting that the biblical concept of creation from nothing has been right all along.

Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its origins, soon realized that a chance cosmic explosion could never bring about life any more than a nuclear bomb would—unless it was precisely engineered to do so. And that meant a designer must have planned it. They began using words like, “Super-intellect,” “Creator,” and even “Supreme Being” to describe this designer. Let’s look at why.

Mensagem da Matrix/DNA: Brasileiros Devem Imitar Americanos no Debate sobre Curriculum Escolar

sábado, outubro 19th, 2013
Sample registration form for board of education hearing

What’s the Future of Texas Textbook Battles?

E a seguir a mensagem da Matrix/DNA:


” Brasileiros deveriam acompanhar isto, se querem que seus filhos cresçam com mentes saudáveis e construindo uma nova nação rica e progressista. A educação familiar em casa transmite uma milenar cultura popular e seus valores peculiares incluindo seus misticismos religiosos, enquanto os livros escolares completam ou mudam essa educação com a moderna cultura materialista da comunidade cientifica.
Eu acho que as duas estão erradas ( mas me baseio na minha própria cosmovisão, a qual também pode estar errada e certamente não é a verdade ultima), e os pais tudo deveriam fazer para que seus filhos não tivessem a mente doutrinada em nenhuma das duas culturas, para manterem o livre pensamento e o estimulo para continuar a árdua busca do conhecimento sobre o mundo natural real. Os exemplos dos países em que dominam uma ou outra destas duas culturas não são nada desejável…
Os USA sempre viveu e continua vivendo sob eterna discussão entre as duas culturas, dividido sua população pelo meio, e acho que isto tem suportado o enorme progresso cientifico enquanto uma moral espiritualizante tem suportado a Constituição que preza pela liberdade individual. Penso que o Brasil ainda esta imitando a ancestral lei das selvas, dividido entre predadores e ovelhas, enquanto uma parte da população esta entrando nas antigas religiões da angustia, onde o evangelho de uma religião estrangeira tenta se apoderar de escolas e governo, um caminho que as nações do primeiro mundo já trilharam a muito tempo atras…
Cada pai é responsável e tem que atuar agora decidindo o que deve constar nos textos dos livros escolares. Deixar que outros decidam – dos quais nunca se sabe quais são seus interesses ocultos – seria o mesmo que deixar a mente de seus filhos a merce da doutrinação dos vendedores de drogas que os aguardam do lado de fora dos portões das escolas. A Evolução é um processo real comprovado, mas a interpretação da evolução pela teoria de Darwin esta incompleta e sendo usada por ladinos buscando riqueza e poder. Por outro lado a versão religiosa da evolução, denominada Desenho Inteligente esta trazendo validos contra-argumentos a teoria de Darwin, mas usando suas evidencias teóricas para tentar doutrinar as mentes dos inocentes nas redes de suas religiões, as quais também são teorias.
De uma olhada na versão da evolução na Teoria da Matrix/DNA, veja como as falhas atuais na teoria darwinista são preenchidas com evidencias na natureza ao mesmo tempo que esta versão deixa a porta aberta para a crença religiosa. isto é livre pensamento, seus filhos tem a liberdade de escolherem e são motivados a buscar o conhecimento por si próprios.

Meu comentario postado no artigo da National Center for Science Education

There is an easier solution that will make all Americans happies, from both sides. Every detail of complex life here and today are reducible to LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor) as shown on the LUCA’s picture at Matrix/DNA Theory. The problem for Darwin’s Theory is that ( although the natural process of Evolution is real and belongs to Science class), LUCA is not a microscopic and microbial system, it is the entire astronomical system to which this planet belongs to. We are discovering the origins of LUCA far away off our visible dimensions, space and time, coming from light waves emitted by the Big Bang where we can see that the code for life was existing as the different frequencies of lightwaves, coming from a system beyond this Universe. This new world view is good for Sciences because it opens many possibilities for research, and it tranquilizes the religious people because their gods are believed to create everything through light. Why not teaching all theories, including Matrix/DNA Theory, in a kind of philosophy class? This is the minimal requirement for keeping the students’ free thought, as, I think, is the determination from our Supreme Law, the U.S.A. Constitution. I think that extreme materialism is dangerous because it can creates leaders as Stalin, Mao-Tse-Tung, and extreme religion is also dangerous, as proved by Taleban, the Church Inquisition, etc.  I think that the secret behind the America success as this great nation is due keeping this division between the population, where religions supports a moral structure and Science promotes the economic progress. A new theory that satisfies both sides is the best solution just now, I think… but… since I don’t know the final thru, I could be wrong also…