Warning: Missing argument 1 for ShareThisShareButtons\Button_Widget::__construct(), called in /home/theunive/public_html/pt-br/artigos/wp-includes/class-wp-widget-factory.php on line 43 and defined in /home/theunive/public_html/pt-br/artigos/wp-content/plugins/sharethis-share-buttons/php/class-button-widget.php on line 29

Warning: Illegal offset type in /home/theunive/public_html/pt-br/artigos/wp-includes/class-wp-widget-factory.php on line 43

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/theunive/public_html/pt-br/artigos/wp-content/plugins/sharethis-share-buttons/php/class-button-widget.php:29) in /home/theunive/public_html/pt-br/artigos/wp-content/plugins/disable-xml-rpc-pingback/disable-xml-rpc-pingback.php on line 51
foruns « The Universal Matrix/DNA – Artigos

Posts Tagged ‘foruns’

Copy of CosmoQuestX Thread: Lição de Como Abordar Estes “Pseudo-Cientistas”: Avisar que não isto não é Ciencia, não falar da Matrix/DNA a não ser quando perguntado, mas fazer-lhes perguntas sempre

sábado, outubro 18th, 2014

xxxx

 

xxxx

Pag 1: 

  1. #1

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    Thousands of Evidences Against The Mainstream Model Supports a Different Model

    Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	origem-astronomica-dos-cromossomas-sexuais.jpg <br />
Views:	81 <br />
Size:	54.0 KB <br />
ID:	20110

    Do you think is it possible that the modern Cosmos’ world view can be revolutionized like that when the heliocentric world view came upon the geocentric world view? I am asking it because there is a rational theoretical Cosmos’ model, unknown by you, suggesting that reality is very different than we are thinking. For instance, while we think that stars are born, they are dying, and vice-versa. Wait: remember that only proved known facts can debunk this hypothesis, do not deny it supported only upon the believed concepts built by the current theoretical model.

    The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model. But, 30 years ago and spending 7 years studying the natural systems that composes the Amazon jungle total biosphere, he found that explanations about the origins of each system must comes from the astronomical system surrounding Earth. That’s the cause he searched data from Astronomy, and concluded that the modern Nebular or Standard Theory must be not complete. Trying to complete it for getting a model able to create this biosphere, he built which is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. It includes new and very different models for atomic and astronomical systems.

    Since that Astronomy, quantum theory, were not his business, and he is a skeptical naturalist philosopher, he tried to forget his models, but, by the last 30 years, the bombardment of news, data, images, every day remembering the predictions of his model, made him to search scrutiny and testings, by the academic teams. Due its isolation at the jungle or even in New York ( he is American citizen) never reached someone for talking about. Here, at CosmoQuestX, appears to be a great opportunity.

    There are thousands of evidences for this new model, collected at his unknown website, the unique source of divulgation. So, I don’t know which I will bring here first for beginning a discussion. I will try only one by know, referring the picture attached here.

    How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface? Metabolism, life’s cycle, sexual reproduction, genetic code, etc.,? The Matrix/DNA model is a unique astronomical model that shows where all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems. I know you will not accept and grasp this idea, but, the unique rational and scientific thinking way is pointing out one detail of this biosphere at a time, asking here for me pointing out the principle or primordial force at the astronomical model. For beginning to understand what I am talking about, the picture attached here is about the primordial process, forces and elements contained inside the building block of all astronomical systems, 4 billion years ago, that evolved into the modern human sexual reproductive system.

    Is there someone interested in this issue? I will be grateful… Cheers for everybody here…

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-11 at 08:41 PM.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  2. #2
    Solfe's Avatar

    Solfe is online nowOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    7,251

    What is your theory? Do you have any mathematical models?

    Solfe———————————————————————————–
    “You’re only given one little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.” Robin Williams.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  3. #3

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    testing

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 04:11 PM.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  4. #4

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    ( Thanks for remembering me how works the mainstream mindset – it is product of brains hard-wired by a millenary culture based on a specific logistic called Mathematics. If you are interested to know how works brains hard-wired by other life’s experiences – like the rules of salvage jungle and crude Nature plus absorption of scientific data coming from the civilization – here you will have an opportunity. But, please, does not believe that these brains are not worth to know because you have seen no technological and scientific production. This world view is suggesting many new ways for producing new technology. And I think yours quickly question was due the attached picture on my post did not worked, but I have solved it. Please, go back to the first post for seeing the kind of models I have applied.)

    Mathematical models? I am talking about a theory about “natural systems” models. Not about man made models for expressing their thoughts. And graphics produced by this theory are suggesting that the linear logistic of Mathematics is good for translating a smaller phase of any natural systems longlife. Here is the predictive power of Math: it can predict the smaller phase of the next systems inside the big hierarchy of systems that composes the Universe. Matrix/DNA formulas are based on human mental translation in shape of designs that register the internal circuit flow of energy/information at observed natural systems and the final result of these draws seems something like genetics and simple computational software’s diagrams. That’s the way Nature works. Math falls when trying to calculate the whole of any system because they are not solely based on Mathematical logics.I will try an analogy:

    Aliens made of iron and rubber that does not know life as we know and does not see the our visible light arrived to Earth. They saw lots of bone skeleton walking on the streets ( their vision can’t see the soft meat). Their Cosmology and Astronomy are based on Physics and Math. Quickly they learned and described the skeleton, its origins, composition, etc. Nothing about Biology, neurology, mental sciences, then, nothing about the whole system “human body”. This is the way that Physics and Math is seeing the Universe. Only its skeleton composed by atoms, galaxies and its “mechanistic” processes, not the other levels of processes necessary for understanding the whole. Matrix/DNA’s Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA” and express some primordial principles of genetics and so on. Welcome to the universal Matrix/DNA world view.

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 04:28 PM.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  5. #5
    Nowhere Man's Avatar

    Nowhere Man is offlineEstablished Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    2,921

    What do DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?

    Would this “unknown website” be www dot universalmatrix dot com? Because that’s what comes up first when you give universal matrix dna to Google (after some articles that mention the words independently).

    Your diagram is not in English, so it is not helpful to a monolingual chap like me.

    Fred

    “For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time.”
    — John Dryden, “The Vindication of The Duke of Guise” 1684Earth’s sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  6. #6

    Jeff Root is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13,013

    I only had to look at the diagram for a few seconds to get the
    general idea. The original poster learned about genetics, and
    it impressed him so strongly that now he interprets everything
    in terms of genetics, including the origin and evolution of the
    Universe.

    Have I got that right?

    — Jeff, in Minneapolis

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  7. #7
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    the diagram is not in English so I’m not sure what it is trying to claim. I will how ever address some of the OP comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	origem-astronomica-dos-cromossomas-sexuais.jpg <br />
Views:	81 <br />
Size:	54.0 KB <br />
ID:	20110Do you think is it possible that the modern Cosmos’ world view can be revolutionized like that when the heliocentric world view came upon the geocentric world view? I am asking it because there is a rational theoretical Cosmos’ model, unknown by you, suggesting that reality is very different than we are thinking. For instance, while we think that stars are born, they are dying, and vice-versa. Wait: remember that only proved known facts can debunk this hypothesis, do not deny it supported only upon the believed concepts built by the current theoretical model.

    Your understanding of how we have come about the current mainstream models seems a bit flawed. It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe.
    The theories have been developed and changed over time based on observations. The hallmark of a good theory is that it is not only falsifiable but that it makes very good predictions within its domain of applicability. As a hypothesis coming in to replace a established theory you have to do a number of things. 1st is that the new hypothesis is at least as good at making predictions and fitting the data as the current model within its domain of applicability. This also means that the new hypothesis can be independently verified via the scientific method. Next the new theory should be capable of distinguishing itself from the existing theory. IE you can’t just say “It makes all the same predictions as the existing theory”. This is where new “ideas” most often fail and fail miserably. They can’t be qualified. They often involve a lot of hand waving and seem to always not be defined well enough that anyone can independently verify of falsify them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model. But, 30 years ago and spending 7 years studying the natural systems that composes the Amazon jungle total biosphere, he found that explanations about the origins of each system must comes from the astronomical system surrounding Earth. That’s the cause he searched data from Astronomy, and concluded that the modern Nebular or Standard Theory must be not complete. Trying to complete it for getting a model able to create this biosphere, he built which is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. It includes new and very different models for atomic and astronomical systems.Since that Astronomy, quantum theory, were not his business, and he is a skeptical naturalist philosopher, he tried to forget his models, but, by the last 30 years, the bombardment of news, data, images, every day remembering the predictions of his model, made him to search scrutiny and testings, by the academic teams. Due its isolation at the jungle or even in New York ( he is American citizen) never reached someone for talking about. Here, at CosmoQuestX, appears to be a great opportunity.

    There are thousands of evidences for this new model, collected at his unknown website, the unique source of divulgation. So, I don’t know which I will bring here first for beginning a discussion. I will try only one by know, referring the picture attached here.

    How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface? Metabolism, life’s cycle, sexual reproduction, genetic code, etc.,? The Matrix/DNA model is a unique astronomical model that shows where all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems. I know you will not accept and grasp this idea, but, the unique rational and scientific thinking way is pointing out one detail of this biosphere at a time, asking here for me pointing out the principle or primordial force at the astronomical model. For beginning to understand what I am talking about, the picture attached here is about the primordial process, forces and elements contained inside the building block of all astronomical systems, 4 billion years ago, that evolved into the modern human sexual reproductive system.

    Is there someone interested in this issue? I will be grateful… Cheers for everybody here…

    English doesn’t seem to be your first language but even so much of that last main paragraph makes no sense to me.

    First is that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. The material that makes up our solar system is billions of years older and formed from stellar processes from earlier stars. Something we continue to observe today. It isn’t like we just think stars form in a certain way without proof. We can see stars in every stage of the process from their initial formation to their often very violent death. We can tell you what the star is made of, how hot it is, how big it is, how old it probably is, how it will progress in its life cycle. We can now even detect the planets around many stars and tell you a lot about them. There is still a lot to learn but nothing so far points to the current models being just out and out wrong like the old heliocentric or geocentric views.

    So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?
    Why do you not think that normal chemical processes could not form the biochemistry of the early Earth?
    Why do you not think that normal biological processes could not account for the diversity of life from its being on the Earth?
    What does DNA have to do with anything in regards to the formation of solar systems?
    Why do we care about the “human sexual reproductive system”? Why is it more special then the reproductive system of any other life form on Earth, many of which share traits because of common ancestry.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  8. #8
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Mathematical models? I am talking about a theory about “natural systems” models. Not about man made models for expressing their thoughts. And graphics produced by this theory are suggesting that the linear logistic of Mathematics is good for translating a smaller phase of any natural systems longlife. My formulas are based on softwares that works like genetics, no Math. Math falls when trying to calculate the whole of any system because they are not based on Mathematical logics.I will try a sample:Aliens made of iron and rubber that does not know life as we know and does not see the our visible light arrived to Earth. They saw lots of bone skeleton walking on the streets ( their vision can’t see the soft meat). Their Cosmology and Astronomy are based on Physics and Math. Quickly they learned and described the skeleton, its origins, composition, etc. Nothing about Biology, neurology, mental sciences, then, nothing about the whole system “human body”. This is the way that human Sciences is seeing the Universe. Only its skeleton composed by atoms, galaxies. My Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA”. Welcome to the universal Matrix.

    No, you can’t just make up stuff and make unsupported claims about it in a science forum like here.

    First you’d have to explain how alien life could exist from just iron and rubber.
    Next you have to explain how that alien life “sees” the universe around us. Even if there was a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that did let them view us like that it doesn’t change the actual physics of the universe so that they wouldn’t be able to make observations in other spectrums.
    for example we only “see” in a very narrow band of we define as “visible light” yet we “see”, via instruments, pretty much the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Even if something is completely invisible to the naked eye we can observe it. When you look up at the night sky and see black our telescopes look up in all different wavelengths and see so much more then our eyes alone would.
    Could the alien life not have access to technology that would see our flesh? I guess but just because they are ignorant and form bad models on incomplete data doesn’t mean anything. If you think there is something science isn’t “seeing” then you have to explain a) how you can detect it and b) how it is needed to explain what we do see.

    I can say that the orbits of the planets are controlled by IPWUs (Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns) pulling them along and we just can’t detect them but this doesn’t make it a better explanation then gravity because since it is undetectable it is not falsifiable.

    So far the hypothesis you are supporting doesn’t rise to the classification of science. It is squarely in the realm of what is akin to new age pseudoscience.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  9. #9

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To Nowhere Man:

    Differences of cultures coming from different habitats makes difficult a conversation, but, with patience, each part will understand the other. You need to learn how doing it because you are going to meet very different culture at new planets. So, by while I didn’t understand why you have interpreted my say – “all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems” – as – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing and my answer should be another question: “What the fetus have to do with the egg at large? Maybe, that the egg is merely an accessory supporting the fetus?”. But, I can say: “DNA and human sexuality are evolutionary products made in this Universe and by primordial states of bits-information present at the Big Bang”. For sure! If not, show me what supernatural force coming from outside the long universal chain of causes and effects made them? If you forget this logical principle of reasoning, you will need inventing mystical forces, as gods or ex-machine randomness.
    But, will we go anywhere debating concepts. We need to attaining at real facts. My affirmation is: Human sexuality – the machinery and process – is the product of biological organization of matter evolved from the part of the machinery and process of the mechanical astronomical primordial organization of matter.
    If we have not seen it, we need search them there, because they must be there. For doing it there is some methods, which the principal are:

    a) comparative anatomy between biological systems and astronomical systems ( I did it with atomic systems also). This is a long process because you get thousands of differences, thousands of sameness ( like: biological systems have life’s cycle and astronomical systems have it also);

    b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years. Starting from the top of evolution here and now and going back to the Big Bang. These calculation will be driven by the the 3 known variables of biological evolution ( VSI- Variation, Selection, Inheritance), plus 4 variables mechanisms of cosmological evolution. Never forget that cosmological mechanisms are involved upon biological and biological mechanisms must have been involved into cosmological.

    c) never makes a new step in yours calculations without searching everywhere in universal nature a known real proved fact that supports as parameter the prior theoretical conclusion ( if you does not do it, you will fail away off the beam)

    d) and strictly formal logics.

    Doing that you will find ( theoretically) what machinery and processes at astronomical systems evolved into biological reproductive sexual machinery and processes. It will be very difficult to recognize the biological process of self-reproduction at the Newtonian described mechanics of astronomical systems, as it is difficult to find inside a computer the corresponding parts and processes that mimics the human brain. But, it is possible going further and discovering these machinery and process at electromagnetic organization of matter, also. The final level inside this Universe where you will see this phenomena is at a positive light wave mixed with negative light wave. ( See the graphic here. Please, try:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/…-Spectrum1.bmp

    So, the fundamental unit of information of DNA is a lateral pair of nucleotides and it has the same configuration and functionality as the fundamental unit of information of all known natural systems, including atomic and astronomical systems.
    ( I am busy now, but will come back for other contributions here. Thanks to the contributors…)

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:39 PM.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  10. #10

    Reality Check is offlineEstablished Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    […
    The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model….

    TheMatrixDNA: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.

    Presenting what could be a diagram of the author’s ignorance about physics and biology in an non-English language is not a good start :P!
    For a start

    • the universe is at least 13.8 billions years old (not 4 billion).
    • astronomy is not biology and biology is not astronomy.
    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  11. #11
    Solfe's Avatar

    Solfe is online nowOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    7,251
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    My Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA”. Welcome to the universal Matrix.

    So, in reading the diagram, I can’t help but notice that there are no details. Y contains half the info of what? X contains all the information of what? You have a series of points labeled Function 1, Function 2 and so on. What “function”?

    My Portuguese is nearly non-existent.

    Solfe———————————————————————————–
    “You’re only given one little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.” Robin Williams.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  12. #12
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    To Nowhere Man:Differences of cultures coming from different habitats makes difficult a conversation, but, with patience, each part will understand the other. You need to learn how doing it because you are going to meet very different culture at new planets. So, by while I didn’t understand why you have interpreted my say – “all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems” – as – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing and my answer should be another question: “What the fetus have to do with the egg at large? Maybe, that the egg is merely an accessory supporting the fetus?”. But, I can say: “DNA and human sexuality are evolutionary products made in this Universe and by primordial states of bits-information present at the Big Bang”. For sure! If not, show me what supernatural force coming from outside the long universal chain of causes and effects made them? If you forget this logical principle of reasoning, you will need inventing mystical forces, as gods or ex-machine randomness.
    But, will we go anywhere debating concepts. We need to attaining at real facts. My affirmation is: Human sexuality – the machinery and process – is the product of biological organization of matter evolved from the part of the machinery and process of the mechanical astronomical primordial organization of matter.
    If we have not seen it, we need search them there, because they must be there. For doing it there is some methods, which the principal are:

    a) comparative anatomy between biological systems and astronomical systems ( I did it with atomic systems also). This is a long process because you get thousands of differences, thousands of sameness ( like: biological systems have life’s cycle and astronomical systems have it also);

    b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years. Starting from the top of evolution here and now and going back to the Big Bang. These calculation will be driven by the the 3 known variables of biological evolution ( VSI- Variation, Selection, Inheritance), plus 4 variables mechanisms of cosmological evolution. Never forget that cosmological mechanisms are involved upon biological and biological mechanisms must have been involved into cosmological.

    c) never makes a new step in yours calculations without searching everywhere in universal nature a known real proved fact that supports as parameter the prior theoretical conclusion ( if you does not do it, you will fail away off the beam)

    d) and strictly formal logics.

    Doing that you will find ( theoretically) what machinery and processes at astronomical systems evolved into biological reproductive sexual machinery and processes. It will be very difficult to recognize the biological process of self-reproduction at the Newtonian described mechanics of astronomical systems, as it is difficult to find inside a computer the corresponding parts and processes that mimics the human brain. But, it is possible going further and discovering these machinery and process at electromagnetic organization of matter, also. The final level inside this Universe where you will see this phenomena is at a positive light wave mixed with negative light wave. ( See the graphic here. Please, try: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/…-Spectrum1.bmp

    So, the fundamental unit of information of FNA is a lateral pair of nucleotides and it has the same configuration and functionality as the fundamental unit of information of all known natural systems, including atomic and astronomical systems.
    ( I am busy now, but will come back for other contributions here. Thanks to the contributors…)

    Biology is just chemistry. Chemistry is just physics. Physics is just the rules that stuff in our universe obey.

    Your image makes no sense.
    Explain what you mean by it.
    Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 103– 10-2 labeled with Stars and the elderly?
    Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10-2– 10-5 labeled with Comets and adults?
    Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10-5– 10-6 labeled with Pulsars and sperm?
    etc

    Nothing just slapping labels on a existing chart doesn’t mean anything. You have to explain the components and the relations and what it means.

    Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
    Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.
    Fact after a few tens or hundreds of millions of years stars started forming that had higher metallicity
    Fact Chemical processes allowed elements to form into molecules.
    Fact Those same chemical process allow for biological molecules to form.
    Fact There is no reason to think that those chemical processes could not and did not result in at least one abiogenesis event.
    Fact There is no reason to think that we are a product of evolution from one such abiogenesis event.

    Yes we are part of the universe and our biochemistry is just a product of chemistry. Note the “chemistry” in both those words. Chemistry is just a manifestation of interaction based on physics.

    To that end yes the laws that govern our universe are also ultimately responsible for you and me being here. That is it. I’m not even sure what you are trying to claim but it smells of new age pseudo science.

    So how about actually explaining what you mean. Because if it is just what I’ve already listed then you have discovered what the science says. Your graphic suggests you are implying more and it really makes no sense as is.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  13. #13
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    For those that are wondering about the Portuguese from left to right it is
    Cadaver
    Elderly
    Adult
    Sperm
    child
    babe
    gestation
    chromosomes X + Y

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  14. #14

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To Solfe ( thanks by the right question):

    I will try to explain a little bit of the diagram because we need several big books for everything ( I am working it during 40 years and every day discovering something new about this formula). It is about ” systems”, which connects and interacts with all natural systems and account for 13,7 billions years of transformations/evolution. I don’t know how to begin and which detail should be the first. Before explaining the diagram, I think that it is better an introduction about the general meaning of the whole theory. This diagram is based upon other diagram, which could be seen as a formula, the most simple software diagram:
    Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	The MatrixDNA as Closed System 5.jpg <br />
Views:	29 <br />
Size:	11.0 KB <br />
ID:	20112

    The non-scientific merely philosophical observation of the elements composing the Amazon’s biosphere, the way they interacts themselves and with the surrounding whole, identifying and seeing these elements as units of systems, finally suggests that there is a pattern common to every system composing that biosphere. You can see the pattern when trying to draw the channels of interactions between those elements and inside the elements, between their organs and cells ( wait: if you like Astronomy and Physics I will show these patterns at those fields). Drawing those channels where runs blood at animal bodies, or runs those fluids of plants ( I need advise you something very important here: sometimes I forget the right words,, names, in English, or use wrong words, like now I don’t remember the English names of those liquids running inside plants), or the chain of food among the species, all of them results into the same final drawing, or figure. They have the same shape, the same configuration, same dynamics. So, the conclusion by the author is that those fluids or energy changing are carried or they transports a flow of energy/information. It is like an electrical circuit unifying parts into a system. This circuit is a kind of soul of all natural systems. And this circuit models the shape of material structures repeating the same pattern visible at every biological architecture. So, this formula is the circuit inside which runs the flow of energy/information of a complete, perfect, closed, natural system. This flow is composed by particles or parts ( the Fs) which express the dimension space with those intervals between the parts, which express the dimension time, the chronological order of events during the lifetime of a system.
    We have no animals and plants visible here, so, I will point out something that you have just now at yours eyes and makes easy to begin understanding what this pattern is about, how it models every biological architecture. Please take yours left hand. Now put it with palm down over the formula. Please, put the palm over F1, that figure of a vortex. The minor finger will be over F2, the followings fingers upon F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7. Don’t get conclusions yet.
    Now, please, try to see that the formula have the same shape of a lateral horizontal pair of nucleotides of the DNA. F1 is the left sugar and F4 is the right sugar, while the others Fs are the four nitrogenous bases, linked by hydrogens bridges.
    Now, please put yours two hands in front of you. One hand with palms down, the other with palms up. Turn the hands in a way that the fingers of left are superposed upon the fingers at right. Imagine that the two palms are the two horizontal lateral sugars of DNA. The four superposed fingers are the bases, and the thumbs are the left and right streams of the DNA. Still, it could be merely coincidences. It is DNA that makes hands, but, forget it by now.
    Do not make any judgement by while, please. This exercise had the goal only for showing to you the basic principles used by the author for beginning to grasp the existence of that universal pattern. If you know the explanations of that formula, you will notice that yours fingers repeat the five principal shapes acquired by yours own body due the process of life’s cycle ( the minor is the baby shape, the other is the child, till the thumb, which is the elderly. And the usual different, specific function of each finger repeats the usual function of each human body shape at familiar and social humans systems, which are, by extension, copies of natural systems. And going further into the levels of different dimensions of this universal Nature, you will notice that the intensity of energy and work of each finger, each shape of human body are equal the intensity of energy of each frequency/vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum of any light wave. The sequence of vibrations/length, etc., are the same.
    Now, don’t’do that, but imagine putting yours face upon this formula. The mouth and nose goes over F1. Two eyes are F1 and F7. Two ears are F2 and F6. The front head will be F4. Since that this formula makes the same effect when we put a building block of astronomical systems 10 billion years old, you will discover that the human face was written in the stars.
    Don’t do that, but only imagine putting the whole body over the formula, the stomach over F1, the heart over F4, ( both Fs works as a bomb, like stomachs and hearths)… Or take this new system built by Nature, the top of evolution here, called “brain” and put it over the formula, hippocampus over F1 and locates the other hormonal glandes upon each F.
    It means that there was a working formula at that terrestrial soup where life began. ( I will explain it later). And working that soup was the energy from the Sun. The author took his eyes from the pantano where he was looking for LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems) and drove his eyes towards the Sun, The secret is coming from there… that’s when he began to search about everything that the scientific field of Astronomy had collected. And finally draw a model of what must be a building block of astronomical systems that fits the formula. The first drawing made at the jungle with rough papers and pencils was this one, a system containing all known seven principals different shapes of astronomical bodies, but, connected by the same systemic circuit:

    Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	Matriz DNA Universal.jpg <br />
Views:	18 <br />
Size:	9.4 KB <br />
ID:	20113

    As all living beings have a common internal pattern called DNA which was the carrier of biological evolution, all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies to human beings, have in common this pattern, so, let’s say, it is their “dna”, their inner template. But it sometimes is mechanical, biological, electro-magnetic, etc. till existing at a light wave. So DNA is merely its biological shape and the top shape of the long evolution of this “pattern”. Let’s call this universal pattern as Matrix/DNA.
    This pattern works like a fractal, but not like the Fractal obtained by Mandelbrot using Math because it is living fractal and evolves from the simplest shape ( merely a vortex) till the most knowns complexes system’s shapes, that’s difficult to identify something that change its shapes and composition accordingly to each different environment.
    This pattern is a working natural system. It has parts, nucleus, internal interactions and a final identity of the system, which is the sum of all parts’ information plus the informations derived by fuzzy internal logics, and this identity determines the behavior of the system. But, now, going further into natural history, emerges the suggestion that the great secret of this system is that it is formed when any portion of inertial mass ( dark matter, aether, space’s substance?) is penetrated by a natural light wave which means that the code for all natural systems began with a light wave emitted at the Big Bang. ( wait… this is merely a non-scientific theory – it is a theory as coined by the Greeks philosophers).
    Now, if the moderator don’t close this thread because – I agree – it is to much “weird” and seems off topic, the next post I will try to explain the first diagram, which suggests what were the ancestors elements and forces that evolved into sexual chromosomes.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  15. #15

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To WayneFrancis
    Wayne , I will try getting time for answering each question from yours, but the few time now permit me an answer:

    So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?

    There is no problem. But… my models are suggesting that have two processes, or two methods for astronomical systems formation. It mimics the two processes, or two methods of cell’s systems formation. The first cell system was formed by symbiosis, then, the cells learned how to replicate themselves. All existent cells today were formed by the second process. My models are suggesting that the first galaxy ( or first astronomical system) was formed by symbiosis. From all existent galaxies today, I don’t know are there old galaxies formed by the first process. Our solar system seems to be the second process, so, the current academic theory could be right. Ihave a question for you, about images captured by Hubble. There are images where two galaxies are together, them, the current theory interprets the image as “collision” of galaxies. My model is suggesting the opposite thing: those galaxies were twins and they are separating. My question is: what data the current model have for proving that they are colliding? If Nature makes that everything equal are self-repulsive and the opposite are attracted, why galaxies should be different?

    But why I am telling that they are separating? Because I search the whole Universe, the whole Nature, and never saw a system colliding and entering inside other. By another hand I can see here nature showing the same image sent by Hubble: when a cell system enters into mitosis. We know that it is two galaxies because we see two shapes of galaxies and two nucleus. But, when a cell goes to replicate, first it creates a new nucleo, then the organelles, then the two cells separates. It is the same image I am seeing in the sky, thanks to Hubble and the prestigious NASA’s team. The repulsion between galaxies and their “replication” could explain why the Universe is expanding – for arrangement of places for newborn galaxies, like a fetus or embryo expands.

    The first process of symbiosis is necessary for explain the origins of bodies that are not in the solar system, like quasars, pulsars and galactic nuclei. Who drove this process was just the Matrix, at an evolved state from its primordial state… a light wave. So, using yours own words:

    Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
    Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.

    Till here, I almost agree. The problem is the word “stars”. I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body. And other problem is that my models says: there were hidden variables acting upon this evolution, as the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang. A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter. When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they were being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. Having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence… this was the astronomical symbiosis. It happens that when you curve the line of this sequence, at opened space, getting a spherical shape, and links the initial point with the final point, the flow of the vital cycle becomes the flow that runs inside a circuit performing a perfect closed system. This was the building block of astronomical systems. Its shape and configuration is the same shape and configuration of a lateral base-pair of nucleotides, which pair is the fundamental unit of information, the building block of DNA. So, the seeds for life are being spreaded everywhere, searching a planet in good conditions. It is not panspermia. Astronomical systems projects themselves as a whole as the seed for biological systems. Are there some problem about sizes? The astronomic is big and the nucleotide is microscopic? Nature applies nanotechnology and giantology ( sorry, I need to invent this world just now) everywhere. Yours own body is the result of yours parent bodies that have collapsed and nannotechnolyzed ( another rampant word) inside a microscopic chromosome. I am suggesting that the current academic model is not wrong, only that it is not complete. And with some mistakes: when they think that a image reveals a star born, it is dying, and vice-versa. But, the birth or death of a star takes millions years, so, we never will prove what theory is wrong here. With the Matrix/DNA’s formula we can explaining everything that exists today and the Natural Universal History of 13,7 billion years. And my models are suggesting there are no black holes as theorized by Hawkins: at the nucleus of any astronomical system there is a vortex made by the rotation of a nebula of dust coming from died systems.

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:56 PM.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  16. #16

    Reality Check is offlineEstablished Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    TheMatrixDNA: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.

    Later posts suggest that you are the author of the ATM idea, so this may not be an issue. To confirm this my first question.
    IF1: Are you the author of this ATM idea, TheMatrixDNA?

    I will point out a couple more errors in your OP.

    • Any evidence against the mainstream model is not support for your model.
      Your model is not the only alternative to the mainstream that exists (just read the ATM section )!
    • No evidence can support a model that does not exist.
      A model in science is not an idea in someone’s head and their thoughts about what that idea means, even with pretty pictures. A model in science produces predictions that can be tested against the real universe. That involves mathematics.

    Scientific terminology exists for a reason – so that people can agree on what things are!
    A star is … a star!
    Hydrogen (and a bit of helium, etc.) collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body called a star!
    Light waves are … light waves!

    Last edited by Reality Check; 2014-Nov-13 at 06:26 PM.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  17. #17
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    To Solfe ( thanks by the right question):I will try to explain a little bit of the diagram because we need several big books for everything ( I am working it during 40 years and every day discovering something new about this formula). It is about ” systems”, which connects and interacts with all natural systems and account for 13,7 billions years of transformations/evolution. I don’t know how to begin and which detail should be the first. Before explaining the diagram, I think that it is better an introduction about the general meaning of the whole theory. This diagram is based upon other diagram, which could be seen as a formula, the most simple software diagram:
    Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	The MatrixDNA as Closed System 5.jpg <br />
Views:	29 <br />
Size:	11.0 KB <br />
ID:	20112

    Seeing I have been a business analyst/ software engineer for over 26 years know I fully understand software diagrams. The diagram you link to makes little sense compared to a software life cycle diagram.

    Let us examine your various images. First off your understanding of cosmic evolution seems flawed.
    You have this sequence
    Black hole => Baby star => Planet => Pulsar => star => star dust
    and star dust looping back to black hole.

    First off besides the early stars where there was no material to make planets besides those that were failed stars planets and stars form about the same time. During the time the star is forming the planetary system is also forming.
    Next is pulsars come after a star has used up all of its fuel and not before.
    Also most stars do not form pulsars.

    So the actual sequence is something is more of a tree and the next step depends on the previous step. For example a molecular cloud may or may not form a protoplanetary disk and may or may not produce a star sufficient to cause nuclear fusion.
    A star when it runs out of fuel will produce different things depending on its size. It may end in a nova leaving behind a white dwarf. It may super nova leaving behind neutron star or black hole. If a neutron star is left behind it may or may not be
    a pulsar depending on a number of factors.
    Black holes produce almost nothing. The radiation left over from the surface of last scattering, also known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, over whelms the hawking radiation from any black hole out there at the movement.

    The fact is that new stars, and planets, are produced from the material ejected from nova and supernova of earlier stars. But in the animal kingdom that would be the equivalent of when someone dies they explode into a bunch of cells. Those cells group up into zygotes. Those zygotes collect more cells and form blastocyst. Those blastocyst gather more cells forming an fetus. That fetus gathers more cells from the surrounding cloud to make a baby. That baby develops not gathering any more material and cannibalizes itself until it grows old and dies. No need for mothers and fathers. But this isn’t what we see.

    You’re charts are almost meaningless. They are factually in error and the fact that there is a “stellar life cycle” and a “biological life cycle” is only similar in name. The links you try to establish art even weak. At best they are badly poetic.

    To continue on with your failed analogy. Children inherit their characteristics from their parents. For other life their is no change but just effectively cloning. In astronomy the characteristics of a star system isn’t as strictly linked to the previous generation of stars. A star could be made from the material of 0 – n previous stars and very likely to be more then just 2 previous stars. As pointed out for a new star to be formed it’s parent star(s) must have exploded. Stars don’t pop out of other stars. Some stars die and eat other other stars living for a brief moment again. So in astronomy terms white dwarves/neutron stars are like zombies.

    So you need to provide some actual evidence beyond your hand waving and VERY bad analogies between the life cycle of humans and stars.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  18. #18
    Van Rijn's Avatar

    Van Rijn is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,729
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing

    Then why do you keep bringing up DNA and X and Y chromosomes? DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there (some viruses use RNA only). While X and Y chromosomes aren’t specific to humans, they are what most people are familiar with because that is what our species uses for sexual determination (generally – there are complicating details). However, it is far from a universal system. Many species don’t reproduce by sex in the first place. Then there is the fact that there are a number of sex determination systems. There is the ZW system, with males having ZZ chromosomes and females having ZW. There’s the X0 system. There are environment based sex determination systems.

    X and Y chromosomes are far from universal even in earth life, and DNA (as well as RNA) molecules are far from universal, period. So what’s the point of even mentioning them?


    “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  19. #19
    Van Rijn's Avatar

    Van Rijn is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,729
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
    Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.Till here, I almost agree. The problem is the word “stars”. I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body.

    Are you claiming that helium, not hydrogen, is the most abundant element in the universe? Are you claiming that stars are generally made of helium? Note that our own star is mostly hydrogen, and hydrogen is, per the evidence, the most abundant element in the universe.


    “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  20. #20
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    As said this post isn’t even wrong. It is pseudo science word salad and mean absolutely nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    To WayneFrancis
    Wayne , I will try getting time for answering each question from yours, but the few time now permit me an answer:So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?… And my models are suggesting there are no black holes as theorized by hawkins: at the nucleus of any astronomical system there is a vortex made by the rotation of a nebula of dust coming from died systems.

    You have no models. You have hand waving word salad with no proof. Hand waving and word salad don’t count as proof.

    We know galaxies collide because we understand how gravity effects matter. We don’t have to watch 2 galaxies colliding over tens – hundreds of millions of years to know that it is happening. We have plenty of evidence of gravity pulling matter together. We have absolutely no evidence at the scales you are talking about pushing anything apart. We have never seen, and I can predict with great probability, will never see a human or other body of mass suddenly fly off the Earth do to a repulsion of gravity especially naturally occurring gravity.

    Just because you interpret the data in a manner that goes against all known physics doesn’t mean anything besides the fact that you have a very poor grasp on the relevant science. When you look at a picture of a galaxy merger and say it appears to you that they are separating I can agree that a still image could ignorantly be thought that they are separating. Looking at the images there are 3 possible answers.
    1) The galaxies are merging
    2) The galaxies are splitting
    3) The galaxies are static in that formation

    Now again if you don’t know any of the science you might as well flip a coin on which one is correct.
    But thankfully we don’t have to do this. There not only is a lot of science to back up #1 and that same science falsifies #2 & #3.
    We don’t even have to stop there. While you look at a static image that just gives you some visual data actual scientists can use more data then you can see to determine what is going on.
    While it is true that these mergers would take much longer then any human would be able to individually watch we don’t need to watch it for that long.
    We can detect the motion of these galaxies even with just the images we take. We do this using the doppler shift objects in motion cause.
    Think of it this way. Say you are inside a house sitting on a chair looking out a small window.
    Outside there are 2 children playing catch. You can’t see either child but when they throw the ball you see it pass the window. Even with that small window you can tell which direction the ball is going and thus which child threw the ball.
    Likewise these images can be analysed to indicate the motions of the galaxies and the motions indicate a merger not them flying apart.

    So for your idea to be true we would have to do the following
    1) throw out what we know about gravity.
    2) discover some process that would do what you are suggesting.

    I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body.

    And you would be wrong given everything we know about physics. First off the first generations of stars formed from a mix of hydrogen and helium. A ratio that fits very well with the main stream models. There is no separation of those gases and
    if the first generation of stars formed from just helium things would be a bit different. So we have yet another problem where your idea doesn’t AT ALL match the reality we see around us.

    And other problem is that my models says: there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.

    First off you having stated a first problem unless you count your actual first idea as a problem. But that doesn’t mean anything because your first idea is fantasy.
    The statement “there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.” means nothing. It is a great example of pseudo science word salad. It says nothing and means nothing while trying to coopt terms in an effort to impress the ignorant. When I was stationed in Hawaii I used to assist our IT help desk. I’d often go out to look at someones computer that called in with some problem. Very often when I got there everything worked fine. Many times it would be something stupid like the computer was unplugged. When asked what was wrong often I would say that I couldn’t find a fault or point out they didn’t have their computer plugged in. One time on a call that it was just the computer being unplugged, and told me on the call at our help desk if it was plugged in and was told yes, I was asked what was wrong with the computer. I responded with “The flux capacitor was oscillating, I just had to invert the modulation to obtain a spherical sinusoidal wave period from the CPU.” and the person nodded in agreement and said “Oh, OK”. When I left their office with a work mate they looked at me and asked what that was about and I told them “Before we came up I asked him if his computer was plugged in and he said yes and it wasn’t and I wanted to see how ignorant about computers he was.”. My word salad didn’t fool my work mate and only made them ask why I said the ridiculous thing that I did. Like wise spouting out a sentence like indicates either 1 of 2 things to most people here. 1) You don’t know even the basics of the science topic you are dealing with and your really think that what you said makes sense or 2) You are just trying to fool people hoping they’ll just nod in agreement.

    A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter.

    Again pseudo science word salad. The grouping of Radio, Microwave, Infra Red, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-ray and Gamma ray are all just arbitrary human classifications of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact the “Visible” spectrum is very arbitrary to the human eye. Other animals have different visible spectrum ranges. We could have any number of break downs and there is nothing about it that “imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter”

    When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they was being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence…

    WF1 Define: vital cycles
    WF2 State how light waves carry “vital cycles”
    WF3 State how different “vital cycles” are part of different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
    WF4 State how the “different shapes of bodies” are defined and how they transition from one shape to another. IE at what point does a baby become a child? How do we quantitatively know if a young human is either a baby or a child?
    WF5 Define: “vibrational states”
    WF6 State how the “vibrational state” aligns to a body and why other “vibrational states” can not align to a body.

    Consider those official questions. We need answers that can be used by independent parties to validate your claims. If your answers can’t be used to validate your claims then you aren’t talking about real science.

    Finally you don’t seem to understand what Stephen Hawking says about black holes. So your final statement, like pretty much every other line in your post, says nothing and isn’t based in reality.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  21. #21

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To WayneFrancis
    Thanks by yours contribution to my work. My suggestion is that gora out from concepts, interpretations and straight on some facts. So, yours question:

    WF1 Define: vital cycles

    Wikipedia: In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. (…) Reproduction completes and perpetuates the cycle.
    Ok, the world view produced by Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that this phenomena called “vital cycles” came by evolution from the ancestor of biological systems, which is this planet, plus the solar system, plus the galactic system. Yours model says no, everything that is “life” exists only at biological level. Then the mainstream mindset is not considering this phenomena when elaborating the standard model. Or it have did it and I am not known it?
    If a cosmic model does not see the vital cycle of astronomical systems, it will be obligated to conclude that these systems and its parts are formed by spontaneous generation, in the shape they are just as we see them. And this is just what the standard model suggests as the formation of astronomical bodies. In Biology we made this mistake long time ago, when the Greek philosophers believed in spontaneous generations of organisms.
    A big mistake made by one is comparing a system with parts of another system. Organisms are systems, their organs are parts of a system. The vital cycle is applied over the system, not over the organs, since that organs does not change shapes.
    If the vital cycle came from Cosmos, as suggested by Matrix/DNA, it is or was applied over astronomical systems, not astronomical bodies as parts of that systems. Any rational astronomical model need including the calculations of changing shapes. The big problem for doing these calculations is knowing that astronomical systems had two processes of formation, and we does not know who is first generation or later generations.
    Then, we are getting lots of images of distant astronomical systems and bodies and the first worry is the classification: it is planet, a dwarf, pulsar, a star? Several bodies have not fit the definition of any group and is becoming common scientists saying… ” This goes against what was believed, meaning that we need fix something in our theory…”
    For me, at Matrix/DNA Theory there is no such problem. It is like an alien specie observing humans, each time that see a new human creates a debate: is it a child? a teenager? or maybe an elderly? But, okay, it is good trying to know the most about each object. That’s why I kept the Matrix/DNA cosmological model by 20 years only at my pocket, as an exercise of curiosity, observing the data coming from the mainstream, and making comparisons with my model. My real interest is the Matrix/DNA formula applied over here and now, not cosmology where I can’t do nothing.
    The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence. It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos, we are like intruders virus and the meaning of the Cosmos existence is not our meaning. This world view is modeling the mind of humans which is building this civilization based on it. And Matrix/DNA world view is suggesting that the Humanity health is in needs that is time for fixing the Standard Model, before to be too much later.
    So, my question is: What happens at 4 billions years ago that changed cosmological evolution in the way that the systems ancestor had no life’s cycles and the systems after that event have life’s cycles?

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  22. #22

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    You have no models. You have hand waving word salad with no proof. Hand waving and word salad don’t count as proof..

    Then, I am in better situation than you. I have ours hands, faces, everything in our body and ihis biosphere, for accounting as proof of my models. You have nothing here at Earth’s biosphere as proof for yours models, and lots of word salad that are convincing the ingenious students.

    You don’t have the human being as account for proof of yours Cosmic model because you have separated Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – without any evolutionary link between them. You took the long natural chain of causes and effects that comes from the Big Bang and left it outside the Earth’s surface, because the final product of this chain here and now does not fit with yours model as the producer. Then, for explaining our presence here you need fulfill the gap between the two blocks with something non-existent, as the magic randomness. Wake up now for not finishing like yours gurus writing books explaining how something could came from nothing, and put words salad there… Or Stephen Hawking seeing non-existents black ghosts monstrous cannibals of galaxies in the sky…

    Do you know the worst thing about this? Is that, I think, it is possible that yours models are right. I have no proof for debunking them, so, I should be mystical, not rational, if merely saying that they are impossible. The first rational reaction when we have no proofs for debunking a specific world view, is the Einstein’s reaction: “One doesn’t need to prove that his theory is right. Only that it makes sense.” So, the absence of proof is not enough for repealing a theory – that’s why it has the name of theory. The problem is that yours model does not make sense. I am asking a unique real proved fact that debunks my models and till now, nobody brought it over the table. Only bringing on another hypothesis and theories. I know it does not means that these models are right, I only ask the mortal fact for putting the models into the garbage and be free for searching on another direction, because I am here after the final thru – if it exists or not.

    After all yours bombardment, I still prefer the Matrix/DNA model when making comparisons with the Standard model because the few facts that I really know pointings out that it makes more sense. Matrix/DNA is something from something and something always back… Again, I am on better situation than you, because I have not broken my head on a wall of Nothing… at least, yet.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  23. #23

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To Jeff Root:

    Almost right Jeff, but was not in that order that the theory was developed. First there was no genetics and no Universe, only a man living alone in the jungle, excaping from slavery by human modern civilization. As naturalist philosopher every time observing details of Nature and asking “why?, how?, “what’s produced this phenomena?”, he noticed a general pattern, put it in the paper – it is the Matrix/DNA fórmula. Genetics and the Universe came after, because the formula left him there.
    But, what is wrong thinking that this Universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang? The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible? Remember that genetics is based on DNA and DNA seems a computational program. Then, if we say that is occurring a genetic process or a computational process, maybe is something in between.
    There are two ways for investigating evolution. You can start from the Big Bang and calculating the next steps till arriving here and now; or you can start from everything that is known here and now and calculating the steps back in time, to arriving to the singularity and the Big Bang. The Standard model applies the first method; Matrix/DNA applies the second.
    You look to the diagram. My question is the repetition of the question made by the author when he saw a picture of sexual reproduction and learned about chromosomes: “What’s hell… How Nature had the idea when created this extraordinary engineering?! Where and how the long chain of causes and effects coming from the origins of this world, that created this phenomena here, had hidden the natural forces and elements used for producing this phenomena?”
    I would like an answer from the cosmic standard model. Meanwhile, the Matrix/DNA model has suggested an answer with this picture, I don’t believe in it, it must be tested… against real facts.
    What’s yours answer? But, please, no theories talking about magics of supernatural creative gods and supernatural creative randomness.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  24. #24
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    Reply Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    To WayneFrancis
    Thanks by yours contribution to my work. My suggestion is that gora out from concepts, interpretations and straight on some facts. So, yours question:WF1 Define: vital cycles

    Wikipedia: In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. (…) Reproduction completes and perpetuates the cycle.
    Ok, the world view produced by Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that this phenomena called “vital cycles” came by evolution from the ancestor of biological systems, which is this planet, plus the solar system, plus the galactic system. Yours model says no, everything that is “life” exists only at biological level. Then the mainstream mindset is not considering this phenomena when elaborating the standard model. Or it have did it and I am not known it?

    Correct you don’t know it. You don’t seem to know the basics of science and there is the problem. You make untrue statements about reality then blame your ignorance of the science and claim it is wrong while you over simplified analogies some how provide a better explanation. They don’t. They might make you have a warm fuzzy feeling that you know something most people don’t but that does no good in the realm of reality where other people have to be able to take your claims and compare them to observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    If a cosmic model does not see the vital cycle of astronomical systems, it will be obligated to conclude that these systems and its parts are formed by spontaneous generation, in the shape they are just as we see them. And this is just what the standard model suggests as the formation of astronomical bodies. In Biology we made this mistake long time ago, when the Greek philosophers believed in spontaneous generations of organisms.

    You apparently ignored my previous statement that said basically Biology comes from biological chemistry which is really just a subset of chemistry which follow the rules of physics which seem to have been set in the first moments of our universe.

    So VERY high level picture of what has happened in the last 13.8 billion years.

    The universe was in a very hot dense state. Essentially a sea of energy unimaginable by most people.
    Something, which we do not know and may never know, triggered a change in the hot dense state that made space rapidly inflate.
    As it rapidly inflated the fundamental forces of our observable universe came into being. These forces being gravity, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force.
    This allowed matter to form from energy which isn’t just an idea but an observable fact that we as humans have reproduced here on earth.
    This first bit of matter was ionized hydrogen. This hydrogen was create at a point where the temperature and density of the hydrogen in the universe was able to also undergo fusion like what happens in our sun.
    This allowed a portion of the hydrogen to fuse with other hydrogen into helium. Something we also know can happen and have duplicated here on Earth.
    As space expanded, as predicted by General Relativity another highly tested theory that so far has never been falsified, the temperature of the material cooled. This is a simple rule of thermodynamics that says when you expand a volume of stuff that stuff will have its temperature lower. This is also tested here on Earth. Your refrigerator and air conditioner work on this exact principal.
    After a few minutes of the inflation the temperature and density was low enough that the ability for hydrogen to fuse together stopped which led to a mix of about 74% hydrogen and 26% helium.
    The universe was still pretty hot and dense. To hot for the hydrogen and helium to be able to hold onto any electrons.
    About 380,000 years after the initial inflation the temperature of the universe dipped to about 3,000 degrees Kalvin. Electrons could then stay connected to the the nucleus of the hydrogen and helium atoms.
    At this point the material became electrically neutral which allowed the photons to travel essentially ignoring the matter.
    The universe continued to expand but at a much slower rate then it started at.
    The Hydrogen and Helium gas that was spread through out the universe started to gravitationally collapse. This caused the first stars to form. Massive stars the burned very hot and very quickly.
    Through stellar nucleosynthesis the hydrogen and helium started forming heavier forms of matter. The ratios that we observe perfectly matching what would be predicted by the periodic table and theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.
    At the end of a stars life, because of processes we understand very well. The stars under go novas and supernova which is responsible for not only spreading the elements that formed in the star over its life time but also more and new elements that the star during its life time couldn’t produce because the energy levels within the star were not high enough.
    These heavier elements, that because of the electromagnetic force, could then combine into things we call molecules via the rules of chemistry.
    These more complex clouds of gas, still mostly hydrogen and helium, would continue to collapse down but now along with stars being able to be formed planets and other bodies could as well.
    Chemistry allows large and more complex molecules to form some molecules that we classify as biological molecules but is still just chemistry.
    This continues using not only the material provided by the stars but also energy from these starts to form the first self replicating molecules.
    Because the process of self replication isn’t a perfect process, ie it doesn’t happen the same way every time, these replicating molecules could change over time.
    Sometimes the changes would cause some molecules not to be able to replicate any longer.
    Eventually, and at least once, these biological molecules combined enough into a system we would recognize as life.
    This for Earth happened about 3.6 billion years ago. Only a few hundred million years after the Earth and less then a billion years after our sun formed.
    Evolution is the science that explains how this first set of life evolved into all the life we see now and see evidence of in the past.

    Not all life reproduces the same. Human reproduction is a highly faulty system. Humans can’t be classified as the most evolved life on our planet either. All we can say is that we have the most complex brain that we have discovered so far.

    no “spontaneous generations of organisms” needed. Our biology is a product of chemistry which is a product of physics which results from the rule of physics within our universe

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  25. #25
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    Reply part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    A big mistake made by one is comparing a system with parts of another system. Organisms are systems, their organs are parts of a system. The vital cycle is applied over the system, not over the organs, since that organs does not change shapes.

    And what is that word salad supposed to mean?
    That a babies heart and an old man’s heart are the same shape? If so I’ll point out that they are only the same shape as much as a babies body and a old person’s body are also the same shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    If the vital cycle came from Cosmos, as suggested by Matrix/DNA, it is or was applied over astronomical systems, not astronomical bodies as parts of that systems. Any rational astronomical model need including the calculations of changing shapes.

    Meaningless word salad. What changing shapes? If you want to talk cosmology and most of astronomy the only real shape is a sphere and that is dictated because of gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    The big problem for doing these calculations is knowing that astronomical systems had two processes of formation, and we does not know who is first generation or later generations.

    No! Your ignorance of the science leads you to this incorrect conclusion. Your incorrect conclusions lead you to make patently false claims that pretty much so far are not falsifiable only because what you are saying makes no sense. It would be like instead of saying “5 + 3 = 8”, I said something like “Banana + red = electricity”. Actually that statement is still better then what you’ve said because it actually makes claim with a result that can be compared to what we observe.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Then, we are getting lots of images of distant astronomical systems and bodies and the first worry is the classification: it is planet, a dwarf, pulsar, a star? Several bodies have not fit the definition of any group and is becoming common scientists saying… ” This goes against what was believed, meaning that we need fix something in our theory…”

    Care to provide a reference to anything like that? Even so science doesn’t know everything. It probably will never know everything. Science takes new observations and tries to make sense of it by either fitting it into the current theories or coming up with new theories. But while you’ve claimed there are “thousands of evidences against the mainstream model” you have not presented even ONE here.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    For me, at Matrix/DNA Theory there is no such problem. It is like an alien specie observing humans, each time that see a new human creates a debate: is it a child? a teenager? or maybe an elderly? But, okay, it is good trying to know the most about each object. That’s why I kept the Matrix/DNA cosmological model by 20 years only at my pocket, as an exercise of curiosity, observing the data coming from the mainstream, and making comparisons with my model. My real interest is the Matrix/DNA formula applied over here and now, not cosmology where I can’t do nothing.

    You have no model. All you have nonsensical ramblings. You have so far shown no problem with the main stream models beyond you saying there are problems and that your model, that really doesn’t amount to more then a jumble of thoughts you’ve put down in a web site that make no sense given all that we know regarding science and reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence.

    Science isn’t about philosophical meanings of our existence. What it is about is the meaning behind why we think natural systems behave as they do. It is about predicting what those natural systems will do in the future given a starting condition. The big bang model doesn’t tell us anything about where the hot dense state of the universe came from. It just states that given it started from that state this is how we predict it evolved. But not in a biological evolved definition but the more simple definition of evolve which means something like unfolding. Trying to gleam philosophical meanings of our existence isn’t the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and religion and there are other internet forums you can go to if you want to discuss those but mind you making pseudo science statements to try to back up your philosophical claims isn’t going to help you with people that understand and care about both science and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos, we are like intruders virus and the meaning of the Cosmos existence is not our meaning.

    The physics of our universe allow for life to exist. Life isn’t an intruder in our universe. It didn’t come from outside of our universe. Another poor analogy that you are putting forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    This world view is modeling the mind of humans which is building this civilization based on it. And Matrix/DNA world view is suggesting that the Humanity health is in needs that is time for fixing the Standard Model, before to be too much later.
    So, my question is: What happens at 4 billions years ago that changed cosmological evolution in the way that the systems ancestor had no life’s cycles and the systems after that event have life’s cycles?

    What happened 4 billion years ago is that the Earth formed and was capable of supporting life as we know it. It doesn’t say that life else where in the universe didn’t exist before then. We can say that life couldn’t happen at 380,000 years after the big bang because the universe lacked the appropriate complex material to form life. Not only do you need the right molecules for life to start but you need other conditions for life, as we know it, to start. For life as we know it that includes liquid water. If I was able to pop around the universe or even just our galaxy I’d expect to find life as we know it to be in many different places. I’d expect that the origins of some of those life forms to be older then 4 billion years and some to be younger. I’d expect that we’d probably even be able to find a system where an abiogensis event is occurring right now for the first time on some new planet.

    First rule of replacing an existing theory is to know everything you can about the existing theory. You seem to not even have a pop science level of understanding of the formation of the universe let alone biology. No surprise you have questions about how it could happen. But instead of going to the Q&A board and asking questions, getting answers and learning you’ve come here and announced that the science you don’t understand at all is wrong.

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  26. #26
    Van Rijn's Avatar

    Van Rijn is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,729
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    But, what is wrong thinking that this Universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang?

    You can imagine whatever you want, but if you want to support a scientific argument, you need to present a useful model supported by significant evidence. You haven’t shown anything like that.

    The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible?

    If I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard how do you debunk the claim?

    You’re making a very common type of claim, one that is often seen in pseudoscience. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders. It is up to you to present a falsifiable argument, which you have yet to do. I’d suggest looking up “argument from ignorance.” And as others have pointed out, your arguments demonstrate extremely limited knowledge about the relevant scientific subjects, so if you don’t see the problems with the arguments you’ve presented, you either haven’t tried very hard to learn, or you just aren’t willing to listen to anything that contradicts you.

    Just as one example:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence. It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos

    That’s fundamentally wrong. If our existence wasn’t supported by the Cosmos, we wouldn’t be here posting about this!


    “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  27. #27
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    Response Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Then, I am in better situation than you. I have ours hands, faces, everything in our body and ihis biosphere, for accounting as proof of my models. You have nothing here at Earth’s biosphere as proof for yours models, and lots of word salad that are convincing the ingenious students.

    Again you have presented absolutely nothing here. If you have a problem with some main stream science topic then ask questions and learn. Some times the answer might be “We don’t know” and that is fine. We don’t know everything and probably never will. The main stream models you criticize have great predictive power. Your “model” isn’t even a model. Just because you call it a model doesn’t make it one. A model defines and quantifies a particular aspect of the natural world. This definition and quantification allows use to make predictions that can be tested. For example special relativity predicts that the faster you go relative to another observer the less time you will experience. It predicts this very precisely giving us the formulas that tell use how much time difference we should see if we run tests. Decades later after the theory was first presented we finally got the technology to test it and when we did the results matched prediction to a very high degree.

    We test physics all the time. We test chemistry all the time. We test biology all the time. If you have a problem with something in one of those realms perhaps you should ask but you still haven’t presented even one piece of evidence against the main stream model.

    Finally when I use the term word salad I use it in direct response to a statement you’ve made. Others can come along if I’m just totally misunderstanding your point. I point out where definitions are ambiguous. I point out where you use specific terms in a manner that they have no meaning in. That is word salad. If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it word salad. So if you want to coopt terms for use in your idea then you have to define what you mean by those terms. Seeing as you haven’t that leaves your references to things like the electromagnetic spectrum having properties that they don’t based on arbitrary groupings that we humans use is a prime example of your word salad. Please tell me what word salad do you think I or any other person here has used?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    You don’t have the human being as account for proof of yours Cosmic model because you have separated Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – without any evolutionary link between them. You took the long natural chain of causes and effects that comes from the Big Bang and left it outside the Earth’s surface, because the final product of this chain here and now does not fit with yours model as the producer. Then, for explaining our presence here you need fulfill the gap between the two blocks with something non-existent, as the magic randomness. Wake up now for not finishing like yours gurus writing books explaining how something could came from nothing, and put words salad there… Or Stephen Hawking seeing non-existents black ghosts monstrous cannibals of galaxies in the sky…

    First off when we talk about evolution in cosmological and astronomical terms we are talking about a very different thing then biological evolution.
    The former refers to how the basic structures within the visible universe formed.
    The later refers to how life changes over time because of changes in genetics that work on a population scale. Process like inheritance, random mutation, horizontal gene transfer, sexual selection, etc.
    The genes of a human are different then the genes in annelids (worms) from 500 million years ago. We share some of the basics. Both us and them use the same DNA tool kit. The chemistry is the same. But our evolution is very different.
    There are planets out there in space that have been around much longer then the Earth. The oldest one we have discovered is over 12 billion years old. This planet will be around in another 12 billion years. We don’t know if the Earth will be. Maybe the Earth will survive our sun’s red giant phase. Something we know will happen because the science of stellar nucleosynthesis is well established and matches observation perfectly. We’ve witnessed many super nova. We even have before and after pictures of a star that has gone nova.

    Take your alien example. Show an alien with intelligence a number of pictures of a human from fetus to death and there is no reason why they couldn’t put them in the order even not knowing our biology. With stars we not only have all the pictures but we know the physics as well. We know why our sun will not ever go super nova. We know our sun will stop fusing elements at carbon. This isn’t guessing and word salad. This is science.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    Do you know the worst thing about this? Is that, I think, it is possible that yours models are right. I have no proof for debunking them, so, I should be mystical, not rational, if merely saying that they are impossible.

    I don’t say the current main stream models are “right”. I, and any good scientist out there, would say that the current models are “The current best explanations for the current observations we have”. Science does a lot of disproving and what we are left with is models that have the best predictive power in their domain of applicability. Even then sometimes we use models that are less accurate because they are more simple to use. A prime example of this is Newton’s law of gravity. We know it isn’t right. We know GR provides more accurate results. But we still use Newton’s law of gravity because in its domain of applicability it works very well and is much easier to use.

    Again how, specifically, is something that one of the main stream models says ‘impossible”. Give us an actual specific example and perhaps we can explain it to you. Not that not being able to explain something doesn’t make it impossible.
    No one can explain exactly what the stars that came before our sun and provided the raw material for our solar system were. But we can make some general statements about it. No one can say exactly how life started here on Earth. Even when we get to the point where can produce new “life” in the lab we still won’t be able to say exactly what happened here on Earth. We can say there seems to be no barrier to life starting given normal physics and chemistry.

    to be continued….

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  28. #28
    WayneFrancis's Avatar

    WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,317

    Response Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    The first rational reaction when we have no proofs for debunking a specific world view, is the Einstein’s reaction: “One doesn’t need to prove that his theory is right. Only that it makes sense.” So, the absence of proof is not enough for repealing a theory – that’s why it has the name of theory. The problem is that yours model does not make sense. I am asking a unique real proved fact that debunks my models and till now, nobody brought it over the table. Only bringing on another hypothesis and theories.

    Do you mean Einstein’s quote of “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
    And that is true. Science isn’t about proofs. Math is about proofs.
    Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    A scientific theory is very different then the common term theory.
    A theory is defined as “an idea used to account for a situation”
    A scientific theory is defined as “is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”

    The problem with your idea is were possible I’ve pointed out where it isn’t supported by observations we have of the real world. Much of what you’ve said can’t be falsified because you don’t make any testable claim.
    For example physics predicts that hydrogen when excited should have a very definite spectral signature and when we test it it matches exactly with prediction.
    Our understanding of physics and elements was so good that elements were predicted before they were discovered. These predictions included much more then the spectral signature of the element. It included things like how it would react with other elements. The big bang model predicted that there should be a near uniform glow in the sky from the point where the universe cooled so that the hydrogen and helium could capture electrons. This glow should match a thermal black body spectrum of ~3000 calvin red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. Decades later this was discovered and that is what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. There have been many attempts to disprove it but it is still the best explanation we have for the observation.

    The main stream models do make sense. It is apparent they don’t make sense to you but if you actually spent the effort to learn what the models predict and why you might actually start to understand them.
    I have shown you already where your idea doesn’t match reality. I’ve provided that definition of “scientific theory” which your idea doesn’t even come close to matching. You don’t even have a hypothesis at this time because you haven’t clearly defined a problem, stated how your idea answers that problem with some data in a manner that other people can test if your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    I know it does not means that these models are right, I only ask the mortal fact for putting the models into the garbage and be free for searching on another direction, because I am here after the final thru – if it exists or not.

    I think I understand what you are saying so I’ll address what I think you are saying after I repeat your statement in my own words.
    “I think the main stream models are restricting the investigation of other ideas that may explain what we observe better”
    This is often the argument of someone with a new idea. They think the existing models are wrong and because their idea goes so much against the existing model that people are unwilling to investigate their idea.
    The actuality is 2 fold. First is the current models are the best current explanations for a reason. That is because they’ve survived everything that has been thrown at them. They produce the best and most accurate predictions.
    The second problem is most often someones idea has fatal flaws that stop anyone from wanting to investigate it further. If someone presents an alternate explanation for some aspect of the natural world and the very premise that the new idea is built upon is based on a misunderstanding of something we can stop right there. It would be like someone told you that they could beat you in chess in 5 moves and you were a grand master at chess you might sit down with them. If they immediately move a pawn diagonally like it was a bishop or a queen then you have ever right to just get up and walk away. No matter what the rest of their game is the reality is they aren’t playing chess. I’m sorry but what you are doing isn’t science.

    If you wish to say something like “The big bang model can not explain the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe and my idea is a better explanation” you’d already have a problem because it does explain it. Your idea might explain it better but the false initial statement won’t help your presentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
    After all yours bombardment, I still prefer the Matrix/DNA model when making comparisons with the Standard model because the few facts that I really know pointings out that it makes more sense. Matrix/DNA is something from something and something always back… Again, I am on better situation than you, because I have not broken my head on a wall of Nothing… at least, yet.

    Once again you have not provided a SINGLE problem. The closest thing you’ve come to is making it clear that you don’t understand what the current science is. What even basic cosmology says and how physics, chemistry and biology work.
    Your idea doesn’t explain the origin of the universe any better then me claiming the universe came from magical universe creating pixies.

    So come up with an actual problem with an actual model and how your idea answers it and matches the observations we have.

    Let me ask you some a simple question.

    WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?
    WF8 What evidence do you have that your idea about the age of the universe is correct?
    WF9 How can some interdependently test you ideas prediction of the age of the universe?

    Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  29. #29

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To Van Rijn

    You: DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there… While X and Y chromosomes… it is far from a universal system.”

    Okay, I have not explained the first picture. There is a universal formula that organizes matter into systems, from the Big Bang to humans and now, consciousness. Like there is a biological formula that is common to all biological systems, called DNA. This formula is a natural complete system totally unknown to human kind, because since Bertalanffy with the General Theory of Systems did not knew the formula and what really is a natural system, couldn’t develop this field which failed into cybernetics and artificial systems.
    The formula is composed by any body under the force or process called life’s cycle ( which came first from waves of light which propagates by this process, but I will not go such further now). Under life cycle a body differentiate from other without it because it has “self-dynamics” ( sorry problems with English here). So the body propagates into time and space being transformed into new shapes, like light. At the picture, the arrows are the aspect waves, for the dimension time, while the bodies “Fs” are the aspect “particle” for dimension space.
    Under life’s cycle a human body change every second when a cell is substituted, but for easing we will talk about only seven shapes: blastula, fetus, embryo, child. teenager, adult and cadaver. Usually we see these shapes aligned linearly, but if we encurve the line making a sphere, we got a natural, complete, perfect, closed system ( totally in thermodynamic equilibrium, a perpetuum motor, the most perfect possible machine, and would be eternal if have not the increase/decrease of energy, when entropy degenerates the system: such state was only reached by matter when evolution arrived to the first building block of astronomical systems. And it failed as biological systems, which are opened systems.
    A system is composed by parts, each one performing a specific function ( the Fs). Since that each part is a shape of a unique body, and we can see the general aspects of each part, we can conclude which is each function: the dust of a prior system as degraded mass rotates building an axis and from here a vortex. The dust is entering the vortex (F1)which is mixed with energy in increase state coming with F5. This works like our kitchen machines ( liquefators?) with three levels of density and which creates bubbles high energetically and heavy elements, which are expelled from the vortex into space ( F1 is the generator womb). We have the shape of germ (F2) till embryo ( for biological systems, is not a seed yet). For astronomical bodies ( of the first original astronomical systems or building blocks) this was the nucleus. This bubble cross the event horizon composed by surrounding dust (part of F7) that works like amnion/placenta and this dust is aggregated upon the nucleus making concentric spheres (F2, F3) with different densities due the space becoming cold. Now it is a seed, seed for plants,animals galaxies, maybe universes and so on… At the building block of astronomical systems, F3 was the first planets. Here humans are teenagers).
    The internal germ feeds on this “placenta” eating it from inside to outside. At the first astronomical body, this creates pression of gas which need be expelled and the body develops giant volcanoes. At human bodies this is the age of 14,16, when begins to ejaculate, at cells systems, mitochondrias begins expelling ATP, and so on…
    Crossing gravity this expelled matter falls into the magnetic lines of the spiral going internally towards the nucleus, because it is a closed system. This is F5, comets at the sky or spermatozoon at human beings, or pollen for plants, or RNAt and RNAm for cells, etc.
    So, inside the sphere has a circuit, where runs the flow of energy/information of the system. When the flow arrives to F4, it is shared, one part going to adulthood ( here begins entropy) and other part going to the nucleus. So, this lateral internal branch carries energy while it is increasing, that is what is mixed with degraded mass, creating a new cycle. Observing the picture we find that F4 performs the male function ( volcanoes was the astronomical shape of what evolutionary became “penis”. F1 performs the female function, so, the system is hermaphrodite ( like his first reproduction as biological system called primordial cells, which were hermaphrodite). The flow F1 to F4 to F1 is half-face, has only half part of informations from the whole system ( in fact it has all informations, but half part is dubbed, so, the left half part is dominant, then, it i expressed. It is the non-biological ancestor of chromosome Y; the flow F1 to F7 to F1 have also informations of the right face, so, total informations, it is the ancestor of female chromosome X. When the system was divided into two bi-sexual symetric faces, developed this newtoniam mechanical sideral astronomic process of sexual reproduction – which was a development coming from the change of pions between neutrons and protons at atoms systems. I have discovered thousands of marvellous details in this formula, I described only one, and here there is no space for continuing.
    There were two processes for astronomical systems formations, like there were for cell’s system formation. This formula should be about the first process, which does not happens anymore. So, this was the building block which is equal the building block of DNA. While at biological systems their DNA is inside, at the astronomical system, its DNA was the whole system. I am composing how this DNA was the template for atoms. It is Universal. Under evolution also. It is the “Matrix”. I think this Matrix emerged at this Universe in shape of quantum vortex inside bubbles which was bits-information working as the first universal genes coming from the unknown system that triggered the Big Bang. When these vortex disappears they leave a wave of light, which has the code for life’s cycles in shape of seven different frequencies.
    Now I need yours help for destroying this theory that is a kind of virus that I got in Amazon jungle and it is eating my life and I can’t resist to it because it makes to much rational sense for me and everyday I am discovering new evidences suggesting that it exists, but, I am a skeptical, I do not believe in it. Debunk it and you will save my life. Please, only a unique real known proved fact that debunks everything here. Thanks. Any question? Cheers…
    Oh… it is missing the most important part; Matrix/DNA is saying that Humanity is 8 billions genes building together with other trillions of genes spreaded in this Universe, the final body made off consciousness substance in the shape of the matrix formula that will be the exactly reproduction of the thing that created this Universe. From the Big Bang to the Big Birth. So… you are the son… Congratulations.

    Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
  30. #30

    TheMatrixDNA is online nowMember

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21

    To WayneFrancis

    You:WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?

    I never thought about that, I accept 13,7 billions ( I said it in a post above. See b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years.) But, let me do now some calculations by my naturalistic method. The embryogenesis pf a human takes 9 months. I think that its consciousness appears at 6 or 8 months. Let’s say… seven. Since that in this Universe is occurring a normal natural process of genetic reproduction from some system that must have consciousness also ( if it appeared here, is because it was there); and since that natural processes here are fractals of universal processes or macroscopic fractals…Considering that the Universe today have 13,7 billions years ( yours model says it) and consciousness is emerging just now, it means that 7 months for humans is equal 13,7 billions years. to the Universe. So, 13,7 shared by 7 = 2, each human month is 2 universal billion years. Humans have birth 2 months after getting consciousness. So 2 x 2 = 4 and 13;7 + 4 = 17.7 … I will bet that this Universe will die, will be discarded as placenta, at the age of 17,7 billions years. Let’s wait till there, if I lose I will pay the beer, but if you lose you will pay, okay?

    Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:34 PM.

    Pag 2:

    1. #31
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      To WayneFrancisYou:WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?

      I never thought about that, I accept 13,7 billions ( I said it in a post above. See b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years.) But, let me do now some calculations by my naturalistic method. The embryogenesis pf a human takes 9 months. I think that its consciousness appears at 6 or 8 months. Let’s say… seven. Since that in this Universe is occurring a normal natural process of genetic reproduction from some system that must have consciousness also ( if it appeared here, is because it was there); and since that natural processes here are fractals of universal processes or macroscopic fractals…Considering that the Universe today have 13,7 billions years ( yours model says it) and consciousness is emerging just now, it means that 7 months for humans is equal 13,7 billions years. to the Universe. So, 13,7 shared by 7 = 2, each human month is 2 universal billion years. Humans have birth 2 months after getting consciousness. So 2 x 2 = 4 and 13;7 + 4 = 17.7 … I will bet that this Universe will die, will be discarded as placenta, at the age of 17,7 billions years. Let’s wait till there, if I lose I will pay the beer, but if you lose you will pay, okay?

      There is the problem. Your idea is just a mash of bad philosophy that has no support with the reality we have around us.
      The main stream models make specific claims that can be tested and falsified. It can be tested now not in billions of years. It can be tested in different ways too. For example we should not see many objects that we think are older then 13.8 billion years old. Surprise we don’t. There are some outliers but these are few and far between and is probably an indication that there is something going on that we haven’t accounted for making the object appear older then the universe rather then the objects actually being older.

      You seem to put a very strong importance on human consciousness but there is absolutely no indication that there is any tie between consciousness appearing here on Earth and any physical process in the universe.
      Let us travel down this road. Now you say our universe will end in 4 billion years and has a direct linear relationship to human pregnancy.
      A typical human pregnancy lasts for ~265 days and that we are at about day 206 because you believe consciousness arises at about 6-8 months.
      First you need to define “consciousness”. I’ll do that for you
      Consciousness
      the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind

      The fact is a fetus and even a baby doesn’t have a sense of self. It isn’t until about 15 months – 2 years after being born that a typical human has a sense of self. But lets ignore this fatal misunderstanding of the science you have proposed.

      Supposedly our universe has already gone through the first 3 phases of blastula, fetus, embryo or at best according to you.
      I’ll point out that your misunderstanding of the science here is also greatly flawed.

      A fetus is AFTER an embryo. In fact a blastula is an embryo. The blastula occurs on about day 3. This means the firsts major transition, according to you, should have been at about 200,000,000 years. Yet recombination occurred at 380,000 years. You are off by 3 orders of magnitude. In human pregnancy terms that that is about 7 minutes after fertilization not day 3. Yet we see no major transformation of that 1 cell at that point.

      The universe became matter dominated at about 9.8 billion years. What major significance happens at pregnancy at a 21 weeks of pregnancy? OH look nothing major.

      Why would the universe be tied to the birthing cycle of 1 species on our planet. Our babies are considered to be born under developed. Ideally pregnancy would last longer for the babies sake but the human body wouldn’t cope that well. Human evolution has a very valid explanation for this. No cosmology needed.

      There is no connection between the universe and our species birthing cycle. To say there is with what you have provided as examples is absurd and very bad cherry picking of data since you can’t even get the order of categorization we have arbitrarily given to different points of pregnancy. You have to explain why you leave out some stages and how someone could tell which “stages” are important and which ones are not.

      No one can prove you wrong because you don’t want to learn about reality and when told about it you don’t seem to want to accept reality. You turn around and repeat the same thing over and over ad nauseam.

      You can’t claim you’ve spent 20-30 years researching this all and then get basic 9th grade biology wrong. At best you’ve spent 20-30 years concocting a fantasy version of our universe in your head disregarding any reality that conflicts with your fantasy. The only one that can make you understand that your idea isn’t based in reality is you and the only way you can do that is actually learning about nature as it actually is. Not your false distortions of reality.

      You seem to be trying to develop your own version of astrology which is another pseudoscience that has absolutely no real observations backing it up. Good luck with that. I’m sure there will be those that will believe you but then there are people out there that will believe anything.

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    2. #32

      DaveC426913 is offlineEstablished Member

      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Posts
      823

      Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle?
      Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies (hours)?

      Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years. What was the universe’s timeline before then? Say, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, or bacteria?

      How does the universe evolve in the same way creatures do? Do stars gestate baby stars? Do baby stars inherit blueprints of their “parent” stars?

      The real problem here, is the lack of distinction between an analogy i.e. superficial similarity, and an actual model.

      If analogies were actually models, then I could say that the Sun is the same shape as an orange, therefore they must have the same history and physics. I could then go on to say that the Sun, by extension, has seeds, and grew on a cosmic tree.

      Do you see how superficial similarities do not inform us about underlying structures?

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    3. #33

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
      Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle?
      Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies (hours)?

      To DaveC426913
      You: “Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle? Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies ( hours)?

      Dave, for understanding the Matrix/DNA basics, and why humans, please, first see these images at this adress:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=8409 ( please, I am not trying to sell my website, but I have tried attaching here the images from Google-images and didn’t get it).

      Ok. The shape of a brain plus the “medulla” is the same shape of an ovule being penetrated by a spermatozoon still with its tail outside. Merely coincidence? Nature built the architecture of “fecundation” for giving birth to a new baby, which is a “new natural system”. I suppose that the human head means for Nature the same that an egg/womb. Inside this “egg” is being generated a new shape of the natural universal system called “consciousness”, or “mind”. Inside this head-womb-egg, the ovule ( the spherical part of the nervous system) is being fecundated and still keeps the extension as the spermatozoon’s tail. Same process, same artist, same target = same final image, scene, picture. But…”maybe”… yet.

      Is it mere coincidence that the two shapes are equal? Or it means that inside Nature there is a natural force working as specific function for all natural systems, and like an artist, this force models matter with its “personal style, does not matter what new environmental configuration and new material disposable ingredients?

      Nobody knows. There are two alternatives here, maybe more. And a human makes his/her selection. The preferred alternative is dependable how was hard-wired his/her brain. So, a brain educated by the Standard model will say: “It is not even a coincidence, the two images have nothing to see in common.” Other brain, creationist, will see God here. My salvage brain nurtured between the jungle and the books from naturalist philosophers is skeptical and experimentalist, then I am testing all possible alternatives. The alternative that it is merely coincidence is being built and tested by the Standard model. Someone need testing the other alternative, and I am not seeing someone doing that, so, I need do it.

      Why humans and not elephants? Because the most complex natural system that I am seeing here and now( this region of the Universe and this time) is consciousness. Elephants have a little bit of it, humans have more of it. And the most complex system known just now is probably, the top of universal evolution here and now. The top state of a fetus is the nearest shape of the generator’s shape.

      Yours own body began with an unique event: the explosion of a sepermatozoon’s membrane at the center of an ovule. A microscopic big bang. Then two different but symmetrical strands of two DNA’s tried to align at the exactly position and I see this as “chaos” because each female gene searching its male counterpart producing chocks, conflicts, heating the environment. Everything here mimics the beginning of a new natural system inside the egg “universe” at 13,7 billions years ago, if you considers the theoretical Physics of the Nobel Prize Yukawa about the nuclear gluon. Following came the morula, the blastula, which mimics the shapes of the first galaxies… is it mere coincidence again? Maybe. Or is there a universal pattern? I don’t know, both are rationally possibles alternatives. If it is a pattern, the embryogenesis of consciousness at human beings must be a microscopical embryogenic process mimicking the embryogenesis of the thing that carries on ( or put outside his body) this universal “egg” where is being nurtured a natural system that is its/his/her reproduction. Welcome to the Matrix/DNA alternative, but does not believe in it, it is under testing against real facts.

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 03:03 PM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    4. #34
      profloater's Avatar

      profloater is online nowOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Apr 2011
      Location
      Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
      Posts
      4,420

      This is fun but not even consistent. Are you saying there is a pattern which pre-exists matter? A pattern which like fractals works at all scales? A pattern is a nice idea but is it what you are claiming.? Otherwise In your description what comes first?

      sicut vis videre esto
      When we realize that patterns don’t exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
      Originally Posted by Ken G
      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    5. #35

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
      Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years. What was the universe’s timeline before then? Say, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, or bacteria?

      Dave, this question could be answered if you change the idea of “abiogenesis” by the idea of “astronomical embryogenesis”. It is the possibility that all history of abiogenesis ( maybe 3,5 billion years) is merely the history of reproduction of an astronomical system at Earth’s surface. Which operates in a scale of millions, billions years. This astronomical embryogenesis history finished when evolution here arrived to the primate ancestor of humans. At this point began another history of reproduction, a reproduction of another system hierarchic superior to galaxies, bringing on also its more complex bits-informations.

      But… why the “embryo” here is so different in relation to what should be an embryo of an astronomical system? It is due “severe mutation”. Why severe mutation?
      The answer is very complex and need a entire book, but I will try a few resumed details:

      a) The astronomical “mother” was formed with only two states of matter and at free space. Solid and gaseous. Her baby here is being made at “closed space” and made off with three states of matter, adding the liquid state. The liquid state transformed the initial Physical forces and laws into Chemistry, exactly “organic Chemistry”. This change in environment, space, material ingredients, causes severe mutations.

      b) While at human embryogenesis the genome of the parents is transferred to their offspring entirely closed inside an envelope (chromosomes), at astronomical embryogenesis the “genome” is transferred fragmented into bits-information, expelled free in space and different times. I think that these bits-information are photons produced by emissions of radiation by stars and others bodies, where each photon accounts for a specific bit of the astronomical system. These photons were the non-biological ancestors of modern genes. When these bits reach a planet with good conditions, they penetrates its atoms and drive these atoms to novelty, new combinations, trying to reproduce the system where they come from. Since they arrives at different regions of that planet and at different times, this will produce smalls packets of information, these packets can be joined producing larger packets and so on. This is the cause of diversification of species and the transformation of species.

      There are more important details, but no time and space here for it. And if you try to think about it, certainly you will see details that I have not observed yet. Never forget that this is merely a “non-scientific theory”, does not believe in it. Cheers…

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 03:52 PM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    6. #36

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
      This is fun but not even consistent. Are you saying there is a pattern which pre-exists matter? A pattern which like fractals works at all scales? A pattern is a nice idea but is it what you are claiming.? Otherwise In your description what comes first?

      Profloater< I ask you, please, think in this way:

      There is a pregnant woman. Inside her womb is working a kind of formula, called DNA, building an embryo. The DNA came from parents that exists outside and before the womb. They were existing before the micro big bang caused by the explosion of an spermatozoon envelope inside an ovule.

      Now, try to remember all image and scenes narrated by the Standard model about the universe’s origins. Make comparisons between the two situations. Try to see the womb – only the womb – as being what we call “Universe”. While the fundamental elementary particles of the Standard model could be bits-informations, primordial ancestors of the genes.

      If you saw similarities, it is possible that they are merely coincidences. But it is possible also that it is not coincidence – could be the repetition of a pattern.
      My skeptical, agnostic mind suggests that I keep considering all possibles hypothesis, since that they appears “rational” to me. So, I will test this hypothesis about a pattern till the hell. The Standard model is testing the other hypothesis, where there is no pattern. Thanks God. Someone is doing something good.

      “If” it is a pattern, there was a kind of DNA as hidden variable working at a universal natural system formation going to be the embryo, – which is not the same that “the universe’s formation”. The Universe is merely the womb.

      We found a formula that has been worked very well… as a “cosmic Matrix/DNA”… “if” there was a cosmic DNA. So, is possible that we have the womb, the DNA… it is missing the woman, the parents. It is missing the natural system that belongs to an evolutionary species that lives beyond the Universe, and was existing before the Universe. This mysterious natural system could be a microscopic atom containing all mass of all galaxies, as suggested by the Standard model. It is rationally possible. But, I think, the Matrix/DNA is also rationally possible alternative. The “God” alternative should be possible to my reasoning if this “God” is a natural system, non-supernatural, not a magician, because I have not seen the effects of such God inside this universal womb. But… I am a monkey-man arriving to New York coming from the Amazon jungle so my brain is not developed for to grasp everything, and maybe, creationists have a better developed brain that is able to perceive more of this world. It is possible.

      I have stopped my investigation inside the limits of the space universe and about only the time after the Big Bang, I resist to all temptations for looking for the woman, because I know that my brain could not understand it: it is missing more sensors, I need to develop the actual sensors, etc. Besides that, just now there are billions of my human brothers being tortured under severe conditions of life and I need work here and now trying to produce something that diminishes this torture. No time for building theoretical metaphysics.

      But you do yours choice, of course. If you build a good metaphysics – who is that woman, her species, etc. – I will appreciate knowing it. Cheers…

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 04:50 PM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    7. #37

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
      How does the universe evolve in the same way creatures do? Do stars gestate baby stars? Do baby stars inherit blueprints of their “parent” stars?

      Dave, for us the “Universe” is a super-agglomerate of agglomerates of galaxies. These galaxies are species of the evolutionary tree, they are ours ancestors like bacteria and reptile are. Maybe these galaxies are fossils, maybe they are still active. Like our human bodies have more aliens cells than our own cells, we exists inside a big body or fossil of our ancestral. It is not the Universe neither galaxies that are evolving, but, the evolution is about a universal system inside it. The top of this evolution here – in this specific region of this Universe – and at this time, is the shape of this universal system called “human being”. Maybe at other regions there are most evolved tops.

      You asked “How does the universe evolve in the same way creatures do?”. I think that the question should be the opposite: How does the creatures evolve in the same way the universe do. Because if one mimics the other, is the most recently that mimics the older.

      Remembering that I also does not know the final thru, the Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that the Universe is not a magician, than, it can not create new informations from nothing. It only can do things with the informations that it received at his birth.
      Then, the universe was made by a method, a process. It is the unique process that the Universe knows, that it has informations for. So, never the creatures inside this Universe could be created by other process than the process that itself was created.

      The problem is that creatures does not evolves as the Universe evolves, because the Universe stopped evolving when its evolution arrived to the shape of galaxies. I say it because the building block of galaxies is the most perfect possible machine/organism/system that is possible doing with matter. It was the supreme goal of all matter, reaching the thermodynamic equilibrium in good conditions of existence. It was a paradise for our ancestors. It is a perfect closed system, isolated from everything else, closing the door to evolution. If you see the shape of the Matrix/DNA as the template of galaxies, you will understand lots of things.

      But, then, above the galaxies and maybe above the universe, there was a superior natural system, with a weapon, a force, which can be measured by us as “entropy”. Maybe this mysterious system is who gave the initial informations to the Universe by normal genetic process. Due entropy, our ancestor in the sky failed at planets surfaces, as biological systems. These are opened systems, opening the door for continuing evolution.

      But remember: this is merely a theory: does not believe in it. I don’t believe in it. Which not means that I will not testing it. Cheers…

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 05:55 PM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    8. #38

      Reality Check is offlineEstablished Member

      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Wellington, New Zealand
      Posts
      1,221

      You missed this simple yes/no question, TheMatrixDNA:

      Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
      Later posts suggest that you are the author of the ATM idea, so this may not be an issue. To confirm this my first question.
      IF1: Are you the author of this ATM idea, TheMatrixDNA?I will point out a couple more errors in your OP.

      • Any evidence against the mainstream model is not support for your model.
        Your model is not the only alternative to the mainstream that exists (just read the ATM section )!
      • No evidence can support a model that does not exist.
        A model in science is not an idea in someone’s head and their thoughts about what that idea means, even with pretty pictures. A model in science produces predictions that can be tested against the real universe. That involves mathematics.

      Scientific terminology exists for a reason – so that people can agree on what things are!
      A star is … a star!
      Hydrogen (and a bit of helium, etc.) collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body called a star!
      Light waves are … light waves!

      I will also emphasis what other posters have mentioned – rather incoherent chunks of text is not science .

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    9. #39

      Reality Check is offlineEstablished Member

      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Wellington, New Zealand
      Posts
      1,221
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      …But remember: this is merely a theory: does not believe in it. I don’t believe in it. Which not means that I will not testing it. Cheers…

      TheMatrixDNA: That is a strange statement – are you saying you are here to waste our time with someone else’s fantasies that you do not believe in?

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    10. #40

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      Your idea is just a mash of bad philosophy that has no support with the reality we have around us.

      My Almighty Pink Unicorn! Wayne, how you could making a post totally wrong? Do you really think that Matrix/DNA suggests that this Universe has consciousness, or is going to have it? That I am doing comparisons between human consciousness and universe’s consciousness? That the evolution of the womb ( this universe) should be equal the evolution of the embryo inside it (a natural system that has been evolving since the Big Bang) ?! That’s absurd.

      For yours sake: The Matrix/DNA is suggesting that human’s head works as the egg/womb where is being generated a new shape of the universal natural system, called “mind”, or consciousness. The Universe is other thing, it is the womb/egg where has been developed all prior shapes of this system. Consciousness was sleeping at atoms,dreaming at galaxies, began to wake at biological systems, and is lifting up at humans, that’s the suggestion from Matrix/DNA
      xxxxxx

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      You seem to put a very strong importance on human consciousness but there is absolutely no indication that there is any tie between consciousness appearing here on Earth and any physical process in the universe.

      If it seems to you, it is totally wrong. Of course, there is no physical process in the universe revealing some influence or effect from consciousness. You can be sure about that because there is no physical process in biological embryogenesis revealing action or presence of consciousness. As it is here, it is there.

      Any definition of mind. consciousness, any theory about, is not scientific statement because this field belongs to Neurology which still did not find how neurons produces thoughts, or how neurons correlates with thoughts. Universe and thoughts are abstracting things and you made this big exercise of comparison between them rolling lots of data?! I never had time for…

      If you understand as “evolution of the universe” as the evolution from elementary particles to atoms to galaxies I agree, but it stops here. Matrix/DNA is suggesting that this line of evolution stopped at galaxies for natural corrections like the DNA has mechanisms for self-corrections. Then, the old evolution came back continuing through biological systems. If you want to do comparisons between the embryogenesis of the universe and embryogenesis of consciousness you never will got it, because the evolution of “this universe” arrived to morula, or at least till blastula, and stopped it.

      The age of the Universe is an issue that I never did and I can’t deal with now, I have no time for, and I don’t see any useful product from this issue, I made the post about it tempestivally answering yours question, without thinking, and in a hurry made some mistakes, as not considering the time of that correction and if will have some acceleration at the end of the process. Sorry.

      But, thanks by the contribution. You have made me to remember that I need open a new chapter in my website for researching this issue. And you have furnished some informations that I didn’t have.

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 07:57 PM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    11. #41
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      To DaveC426913
      You: “Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle? Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies ( hours)?Dave, for understanding the Matrix/DNA basics, and why humans, please, first see these images at this adress:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=8409 ( please, I am not trying to sell my website, but I have tried attaching here the images from Google-images and didn’t get it).

      The rules of the board require you to answer a question here not push us off to your site so that your back link count goes up.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Ok. The shape of a brain plus the “medulla” is the same shape of an ovule being penetrated by a spermatozoon still with its tail outside. Merely coincidence?

      Coincidence? It looks as much like that as it does a Chupa Chups. Our brain is a product of our evolution. Cephalopods can be highly intelligent too but their brains is shaped very differently. Why do you Stop with the medulla? What is wrong with the rest of the nervous system? Our brain looks like a lot more like coral or vise versa.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Nature built the architecture of “fecundation” for giving birth to a new baby, which is a “new natural system”. I suppose that the human head means for Nature the same that an egg/womb. Inside this “egg” is being generated a new shape of the natural universal system called “consciousness”, or “mind”. Inside this head-womb-egg, the ovule ( the spherical part of the nervous system) is being fecundated and still keeps the extension as the spermatozoon’s tail. Same process, same artist, same target = same final image, scene, picture. But…”maybe”… yet.

      You now seem to be putting a lot of weight in pareidolia. This is like when you see a shape in the cloud or stars or other natural feature. Most often, but not always, this is an issue of perspective in that it would look totally different from another direction. For example with your sperm and egg example if the sperm was as big in relation to the egg as the medulla is in relation to the brain then the egg would not survive fertilization. Also an egg is not the shape of the brain. It is round like a ball and the brain is not. The human egg has the texture of a luffa not a smooth creased surface.

      So you are seeing what you want to see. So the connection you’ve made is very weak and again has absolutely no evidence for it besides in your brain.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Is it mere coincidence that the two shapes are equal?

      They are not equal. This sizes are wrong. The shapes are wrong. The textures are wrong.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Or it means that inside Nature there is a natural force working as specific function for all natural systems, and like an artist, this force models matter with its “personal style, does not matter what new environmental configuration and new material disposable ingredients?

      You are cherry picking what you consider evidence then running with it. All the while ignoring everything that goes against your idea.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Nobody knows.

      The argument “nobody knows” is intellectually dishonest. Just because we don’t know with 100% certainty anything, because we are after all only human and not omniscient, doesn’t mean that 2 ideas hold equal probability of being correct.
      On the one had we have science with independently verifiable statements. On the other hand we have nothing but conjecture on what you think looks similar to something else. I can’t be certain that gravity will be around tomorrow but I am as close to certain about that fact as I can be. It doesn’t mean that someone like you who says we’ll be able to fly tomorrow using only the power of our minds is just as likely to be correct.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      There are two alternatives here, maybe more. And a human makes his/her selection. The preferred alternative is dependable how was hard-wired his/her brain. So, a brain educated by the Standard model will say: “It is not even a coincidence, the two images have nothing to see in common.” Other brain, creationist, will see God here. My salvage brain nurtured between the jungle and the books from naturalist philosophers is skeptical and experimentalist, then I am testing all possible alternatives. The alternative that it is merely coincidence is being built and tested by the Standard model. Someone need testing the other alternative, and I am not seeing someone doing that, so, I need do it.

      No you aren’t. You are not doing anything remotely like being skeptical. That which is asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. You have NO evidence. You have nothing that can be independently verified. You have no guidelines in which we can decide what structures in the universe should look like other structures. Why don’t we see giant eggs and sperm in space? Why don’t planet have that shape? I can tell you why. Gravity! I can tell you why our nervous system is shaped like it is. Evolution! The answer is of course more detailed but you don’t seem to want to learn. I’ve simplified the history of the universe for you and you seem to have ignored that so I wouldn’t have much hope if I tried to explain the evolution of the nervous system but here is a picture of some other creatures brains.
      Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	brainevolution.gif <br />
Views:	7 <br />
Size:	31.2 KB <br />
ID:	20123
      They don’t all look like sperm and an egg. I don’t think even the human brain does. What they do look like is that they all share a common basic structure, that has nothing to do with a sperm and egg beyond all those creatures using sperm and eggs in their reproductive cycle.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Why humans and not elephants? Because the most complex natural system that I am seeing here and now( this region of the Universe and this time) is consciousness. Elephants have a little bit of it, humans have more of it. And the most complex system known just now is probably, the top of universal evolution here and now. The top state of a fetus is the nearest shape of the generator’s shape.

      No, again you are cherry picking. Humans are not more evolved then elephants. There are a handful of other animals we know have a sense of self. That have consciousness. More consciousness then even a 1 year old human baby.
      Tell me what makes your understanding of your sense of self better then a Magpie’s sense of self?

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Yours own body began with an unique event: the explosion of a sepermatozoon’s membrane at the center of an ovule. A microscopic big bang.

      NO! you don’t even understand the big bang. The big bang wasn’t a explosion of stuff. It wasn’t even an explosion. It was just space time inflating. There is no more mass/energy in the universe today then there was at the point of the big bang. In human terms that means you and I would have the mass of 1 egg and 1 sperm. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure that the combined material of the egg and sperm I came from doesn’t equal 100kg

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Then two different but symmetrical strands of two DNA’s tried to align at the exactly position and I see this as “chaos” because each female gene searching its male counterpart producing chocks, conflicts, heating the environment.

      It doesn’t matter what you see. What matters is what you can define, quantify and what predictions you can make. I’m sure this all makes sense in your head but given the level of your scientific understanding I’m not surprised it doesn’t actually match what actually happens in our reality.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Everything here mimics the beginning of a new natural system inside the egg “universe” at 13,7 billions years ago, if you considers the theoretical Physics of the Nobel Prize Yukawa about the nuclear gluon. Following came the morula, the blastula, which mimics the shapes of the first galaxies… is it mere coincidence again? Maybe. Or is there a universal pattern? I don’t know, both are rationally possibles alternatives. If it is a pattern, the embryogenesis of consciousness at human beings must be a microscopical embryogenic process mimicking the embryogenesis of the thing that carries on ( or put outside his body) this universal “egg” where is being nurtured a natural system that is its/his/her reproduction. Welcome to the Matrix/DNA alternative, but does not believe in it, it is under testing against real facts.

      This is the closest you’ve come to actually almost coming upon something science has known for a while. The fact that a sphere is the most simple 3 dimensional shape. It has the smallest surface area to volume. Even so most cells are not spherical. Not even all eggs are spherical. Galaxies, even early ones are not spherical either. Their shapes are dictated by the in falling material and the physical law that the material must maintain its angular momentum.

      I notice you totally ignored the gross misunderstandings you seem to have about gestation and cognitive development and everything else I’ve pointed out. This is called confirmation bias. Your refusal to accept reality when it doesn’t fit with your idea.

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    12. #42

      DaveC426913 is offlineEstablished Member

      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Posts
      823
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      To DaveC426913 ]
      Is it mere coincidence that the two shapes are equal?

      Yes.

      Like it is mere coincidence that the sun and an orange are the same shape.

      Same shape does not mean same origin.

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    13. #43
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      My Almighty Pink Unicorn! Wayne, how you could making a post totally wrong? Do you really think that Matrix/DNA suggests that this Universe has consciousness, or is going to have it? That I am doing comparisons between human consciousness and universe’s consciousness? That the evolution of the womb ( this universe) should be equal the evolution of the embryo inside it (a natural system that has been evolving since the Big Bang) ?! That’s absurd.

      You are the one saying that our now, development of our species consciousness within our universe, is some how related to when, you thought, consciousness developed within individual humans. So yes I think it is absurd and I think your suggestion is too. Hence I’m pointing out just some of the fatal problems with your idea.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      For yours sake: The Matrix/DNA is suggesting that human’s head works as the egg/womb where is being generated a new shape of the universal natural system, called “mind”, or consciousness. The Universe is other thing, it is the womb/egg where has been developed all prior shapes of this system. Consciousness was sleeping at atoms,dreaming at galaxies, began to wake at biological systems, and is lifting up at humans, that’s the suggestion from Matrix/DNA
      xxxxxx

      Even catering for English not being your first language that statement makes absolutely no sense.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      If it seems to you, it is totally wrong. Of course, there is no physical process in the universe revealing some influence or effect from consciousness. You can be sure about that because there is no physical process in biological embryogenesis revealing action or presence of consciousness. As it is here, it is there.Any definition of mind. consciousness, any theory about, is not scientific statement because this field belongs to Neurology which still did not find how neurons produces thoughts, or how neurons correlates with thoughts. Universe and thoughts are abstracting things and you made this big exercise of comparison between them rolling lots of data?! I never had time for…

      You really have no grasp on any science it seems. I’ll have talk to one of my very close friends who is a senior professor doing active research on cognition and consciousness that apparently you don’t think she is actually doing science. Lets see if what she does classifies a science.
      1) investigate some aspect of the natural world. a
      2) formulate testable ideas that can and are independently verified or falsified. a
      3) design and perform experiments that can be repeated by others. a
      4) collect data from the experiments. a
      5) present the data so that it can be independently reviewed. a
      6) present a conclusion that may or may not support your initial idea. a

      You’ve skipped steps 2-5. What you’ve put up on your site is not data. It is baseless assertions and there is a big difference.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      If you understand as “evolution of the universe” as the evolution from elementary particles to atoms to galaxies I agree, but it stops here. Matrix/DNA is suggesting that this line of evolution stopped at galaxies for natural corrections like the DNA has mechanisms for self-corrections. Then, the old evolution came back continuing through biological systems. If you want to do comparisons between the embryogenesis of the universe and embryogenesis of consciousness you never will got it, because the evolution of “this universe” arrived to morula, or at least till blastula, and stopped it.

      First off I’m not suggesting anything about your idea beyond the fact that it is based on very bad understandings of various scientific fields and doesn’t match what we observe in the universe.
      You are the one that is claiming there is a link between biological evolution, human gestation and the the evolution of the universe. You don’t define exactly how anyone besides you can identify what links there are and how anyone would be able to identify those links.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      The age of the Universe is an issue that I never did and I can’t deal with now, I have no time for, and I don’t see any useful product from this issue, I made the post about it tempestivally answering yours question, without thinking, and in a hurry made some mistakes, as not considering the time of that correction and if will have some acceleration at the end of the process. Sorry.

      No, you can’t just brush stuff away when it shows your idea is flawed. You are making claims that the big bang is something very different then it is. One of the things the big bang model lets us predict is the age of the universe. Thus your “better” explanation should also explain it.
      You can’t just blame this on being hurried either. Your web site has the same problems with its “cycles”. Again before you can replace or put down something you need to understand that something. You clearly do not have an accurate understanding of the scientific fields you are pontificating on. Thus any conclusions you base on your faulty understanding are most likely also going to be faulty. You made very specific claims based on your idea that I showed would also indicate we should, if your idea is correct, find other correlations. In a sense as presented your “idea” makes predictions that there are similar stages between the evolution of the cosmos and human fetal development. I’ve pointed out that this is not the case. That on both sides there are pretty significant points that don’t have a correlation with the other side. Thus your idea as presented is falsified. Welcome to the scientific method.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      But, thanks by the contribution. You have made me to remember that I need open a new chapter in my website for researching this issue. And you have furnished some informations that I didn’t have.

      I am still actually waiting for answers to most of my direct questions.
      I am still actually waiting for just ONE of the thousands of evidences you have against the mainstream model. Not your hand waving based on your ignorance of the mainstream models.

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    14. #44

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
      Yes. Like it is mere coincidence that the sun and an orange are the same shape.

      Sun and oranges? Shapes are mere coincidence? Impossible!

      Plants were the first biological systems produced by this astronomical system to which Earth belongs, the Milk Way. Animals are later generations. We know that firsts species are more “equal” to an ancestor than the laters. So, plants as the first “visible” biological systems, must mimics the shape and functions of their ancestor Milk Way… Let’s see the evidences:

      The Milk Way is a spiral, the three of oranges seems a spiral.
      Milk Way has a central “trunk” and arms. The tree of oranges have a trunk and branches.
      Milk Way have planets, the colors can be blue, green, etc. The tree has leaves.
      Milk Way has yellows luminous stars attached to the arms. The tree have beautiful yellow oranges attached to the branches…
      And our star have a very caloric relationship with the tree through photosynthesis…

      My friend, don’t you think that is too much coincidences? And look to each leaves, again the fractal of the tree drawn there… As the tree keeps the fractal, the shape of its creator. The probabilistic calculus shows that Nature could create here billions of differents things, shapes and atomic combinations, but, no, it choose just to do the daughter like the mother….
      Before going to the jungle and educated by the Standard model – which taught that biological evolution has nothing to see with cosmological evolution and shapes here are merely product of chance, I believed in my teacher. But the continuous bombardment of patterns made me began to suspect that, again, human beings were suffering of more faith than reason.

      Oranges emerged inside the Milk Way and made by the Milk Way. Who else? Did you see someone bringing on something from outside the Milk Way? All informations for oranges and its trees were here and neither the Milk Way is a magician able to create informations from nothing ( only God and the ruler of the Standard model, the Almighty Absolute Randomness, are able to do magics). The astronomical building block was LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Daughters in Amazon jungle have the same shape of their mothers. Where you live is different? So, what’s the problem that you at least does not experiment the alternative of natural patterns?
      You can see the face of LUCA in this image:

      Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	Ciclo_Vital_Humano_e_Astronomico.jpg <br />
Views:	12 <br />
Size:	461.5 KB <br />
ID:	20125

      Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 06:05 AM.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    15. #45

      Reality Check is offlineEstablished Member

      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Wellington, New Zealand
      Posts
      1,221

      Still outstanding after a week, TheMatrixDNA !

      Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
      Later posts suggest that you are the author of the ATM idea, so this may not be an issue. To confirm this my first question.
      IF1: Are you the author of this ATM idea, TheMatrixDNA?I will point out a couple more errors in your OP.

      • Any evidence against the mainstream model is not support for your model.
        Your model is not the only alternative to the mainstream that exists (just read the ATM section )!
      • No evidence can support a model that does not exist.
        A model in science is not an idea in someone’s head and their thoughts about what that idea means, even with pretty pictures. A model in science produces predictions that can be tested against the real universe. That involves mathematics.

      Scientific terminology exists for a reason – so that people can agree on what things are!
      A star is … a star!
      Hydrogen (and a bit of helium, etc.) collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body called a star!
      Light waves are … light waves!

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    16. #46
      PetersCreek's Avatar

      PetersCreek is online nowModerator Borealis

      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Location
      Peters Creek, Alaska
      Posts
      8,530

      TheMatrixDNA,

      Our rules require that you answer questions in this forum. Do not make any other claims in this thread until you have answered the outstanding questions. If you do not, this thread will be closed and you may not discuss the topic here anymore.

      ─────────────────────────────────────────────
      My moderation comments will appear in this color.
      To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post: 
      .
      ◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►
      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    17. #47

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      Your understanding of how we have come about the current mainstream models seems a bit flawed.

      Of course, it is flawed, but, everything you have said here as informations about the Standard model I already knew long time ago. The Matrix/DNA is about natural systems which needs all scientific fields knowledge and expertise, and I can not get everything alone.That’s the reason I am here at this forum: searching more informations about the whole theory, trying to get explanations of deep Physics concepts and deep Mathematical calculations that I couldn’t get alone, searching any established “natural” fact or scientifically proved “natural” law, mechanism, process that could debunk the whole Matrix/DNA’s models and those scientifically collected data that are evidences or could helping to develop the Matrix model. I think that yours rewards loosing your time with me is that you have the opportunity to see the world and the mainstream model from the eyes of people educated and trained at the crude and yet virgin Nature of the jungle, which is a good laboratory at opened sky, producing different neuronal connections and hard-wired brain while you have had a strictly urban life and artificial laboratories with powerful technological instruments as extensions of our brain’s sensors. You will think that I have nothing useful because you need data experimentally proved and I didn’t it because I have no access to scientific laboratories but lots of suggestions for scientific experiments. But, please, if you still think that will lose yours time – and it is possible – I will understand and I don’t want prejudice you.

      [QUOTE=WayneFrancis;2254626]It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe./QUOTE]

      I have read this many times when watching these debates between materialists and creationists. Matrix/DNA works as a kind of “third view” with different propositions that neither materialists neither creationists knows. Matrix/DNA is and will be attacked by both sides. Matrix/DNA was built accidentally, after observing Nature in the jungle and learning which ways Nature works at that slice of biosphere. These observations suggested ideas that were being accumulated and finally resulting into a big theoretical model which includes the external Nature beyond the immediate space and time. Now we need data from this external Nature to check if the theory is agreement with reality. All data that I have obtained from scientific books were predicted by the models and are in agreement with them. Remember that I didn’t said that the Standard model would be wrong when compared with Matrix/DNA model. Most part are in agreement, but, Matrix/DNA is suggesting many things that is missing in the Standard model.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      English doesn’t seem to be your first language but even so much of that last main paragraph makes no sense to me.

      Yes, I am naturalized American citizen but the native language is Portuguese and some native languages of the jungle. I have tree big problems when trying to communicate explaining the Matrix/DNA world view: a) Despite the fact that since my infant times I read books in English and learning it alone or schools, i never wrote in English, then,it prejudices all Matrix/DNA details when communicating them by writhing. But I am still learning day by day and if you teach me something that I weiting wrong, I will be grateful;2) Matrix/DNA models are suggesting many new natural mechanisms, processes, objects, that have no name yet in any language, so, we need creating new words. For instance, the models suggests the state of astronomical bodies that is not a quasar or a pulsar how it is defined by the Standard model, but since there is no name for these objects and they are in between the definitions of pulsar and stars, I have used the name of pulsar for that body, which causes lots of confusion by people trained by the Standard model.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      First is that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. The material that makes up our solar system is billions of years older and formed from stellar processes from earlier stars.

      My friend, we will lose time here if you continuing to repeat common informations about the Standard Model that I know since my infant times. Now I am reading lots of material about general relativity, the Hubble constant, the Physics of the Nobel Prize Hideki Yukawa and of course, quantum theory and String M-theory. Matrix/DNA models were built with data from hundreds of books got at universities’ libraries and my job at earlier times was helping students making theses, monographies, of several different fields. You are saying that because I wrote:”How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface?” It means how was the evolutionary state of this solar and galactic systems after a cosmological evolution that began with the Big bang at 13,7 billion years ago. I was thinking that Matrix/DNA models are suggesting the presence of more natural forces and elements as hidden variables in relation to Oparin’s model for reduced atmosphere at 4 billions years ago at the life’s origins first moments, which were missing at Urey/Miller’s experiments and that’s the cause that Urey did not get amino acids able to perform the next steps towards proteins. Based on Matrix/DNA models we need to repeat the Urey experiments with different processes and changing/adding some ingredients.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      We can now even detect the planets around many stars and tell you a lot about them..

      I am following this issue every day, carefully. But the interpretations from astronomers for images and data measurements sometimes are not accordingly to Matrix/DNA models. The real data fits the models, what is different are the interpretations of these data. For instance, those planets free in space without orbiting any star are a problem for the Standard model that was not predicted it, but it fits very well predictions from Matrix/DNA models registered 30 years ago. That’s the reason I can’t abandon Matrix/DNA putting them in the garbage, they are right in relation too many things that were not included into the Standard model.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?

      It is being difficult to me to define the formation of our solar system after Matrix/DNA models advice that there were two process for astronomical systems formation and I don’t know what process was applied for formation of this system. The fact that is missing some shapes of astronomical bodies in our solar system (pulsar, quasar, etc.) indicates that it is from second generation, which process is similar to the Standard Model. The differences between the two models about solar system formation are more related to magnetic fields, forces and ingredients modeling the system at its formation, etc. But since I had no time for to much cosmology and I am developing hundreds of researches at another fields as Biology, Neurology, Medicine, etc., because matrix/DNA is about natural systems and these systems have a little bit of each scientific field, these models are not complete yet.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      Why do you not think that normal chemical processes could not form the biochemistry of the early Earth?

      The normal chemical process has formed the biochemistry of the early Earth, what does not mean that yours theoretical model about normal chemical process has formed it. You know that are gaps in it and I think they will be fulfit when completing the model. Matrix/DNA model has translated the real chemical processes better than yours model, I think.It happens that the suggestions of Matrix/DNA, despite it seems to work well, are very “weird” from mine and yours point of view. For instance I am now studying the Sun’s magnetic field from Matrix/DNA different perspective because the models are suggesting there are evolutionary relations between the known fact that the Sun’s magnetic field flips at each 11 years cycles was the ancestor mechanism that developed into the mechanism at genetic level that possibilities the signals switches putting genes in or off. It is very “weird”, very complex, but it makes sense. From where Nature got the mechanism for these signals and commands at genetic level, accordingly to the Standard model?

      In the jungle we see life by a different perspective than yours at urban habitat and a naturalist philosopher arrive to a conclusion that Pasteur was right and Linus Pauling wrong, Must have a kind of vital principle acting inside the earlier organic chemistry, coming from the mistakenly called “non-living world”, which still is a strong and determinant hidden variable unknown by modern Science. Matrix/DNA suggest what is it, how it is, and where it came from. Biological systems are merely a continuing from cosmological evolution with severe mutations because astronomical systems were formed and composed with only two principals states of matter – solid and gaseous ( of course, there are the electromagnetic, the quantum, states, etc.) – and biological systems were formed and composed with three states, adding the liquid state, which had multiplied the power of Physical processes resulting into chemist processes. Forgetting the differences of formation and composition by Physics and Math is the cause that that chemistries and biologists are not grasping the whole picture of earlier life’s formation.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    18. #48

      TheMatrixDNA is offlineMember

      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Posts
      20
      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      Why do you not think that normal biological processes could not account for the diversity of life from its being on the Earth?

      The normal biological processes accounts for the diversity of life, of course, what does not account is the theory of the Standard model about normal biological processes. When we see the novelty suggested by Matrix/DNA models about how are normal biological processes we see clearly that a theoretical model in fact works. For instance, and about diversity of life and reducible complexity, we get more explanations adding the mechanisms and processes that has in normal biological processes but the Standard model has not solved them. Take LUCA from the Earth’s surface and put it in the sky: you will see how all complexity are reduced to LUCA. Keep LUCA at Earth’s surface and you have no way for escaping from the assertions of the people from the intelligent design. Break the external membrane of spermatozoa and spreading the genes into different spaces and scales of time and you will get the great diversity of the offspring from a unique common ancestor. So, Matrix/DNA models can help the real Science and you.

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      What does DNA have to do with anything in regards to the formation of solar systems?

      I didn’t said that, it would be absurd!

      Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
      Why do we care about the “human sexual reproductive system”? Why is it more special then the reproductive system of any other life form on Earth, many of which share traits because of common ancestry.

      Neither I care. I mentioned it because it is the most known evolutionary shape of this system by human beings and here I am talking with the life form called human beings.

      Edit / DeleteEdit Post   Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    19. #49
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317

      Response Part 1

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Of course, it is flawed, but, everything you have said here as informations about the Standard model I already knew long time ago. The Matrix/DNA is about natural systems which needs all scientific fields knowledge and expertise, and I can not get everything alone.That’s the reason I am here at this forum: searching more informations about the whole theory, trying to get explanations of deep Physics concepts and deep Mathematical calculations that I couldn’t get alone, searching any established “natural” fact or scientifically proved “natural” law, mechanism, process that could debunk the whole Matrix/DNA’s models and those scientifically collected data that are evidences or could helping to develop the Matrix model. I think that yours rewards loosing your time with me is that you have the opportunity to see the world and the mainstream model from the eyes of people educated and trained at the crude and yet virgin Nature of the jungle, which is a good laboratory at opened sky, producing different neuronal connections and hard-wired brain while you have had a strictly urban life and artificial laboratories with powerful technological instruments as extensions of our brain’s sensors. You will think that I have nothing useful because you need data experimentally proved and I didn’t it because I have no access to scientific laboratories but lots of suggestions for scientific experiments. But, please, if you still think that will lose yours time – and it is possible – I will understand and I don’t want prejudice you.

      You keep talking about “natural” this and that. Science is about the study of the natural world. I and others have pointed out basic scientific observations that are at odds with your idea and you seem to either ignore it and just repeat the same thing over and over.
      Statements like “yet virgin Nature of the jungle, which is a good laboratory at opened sky, producing different neuronal connections and hard-wired brain while you have had a strictly urban life and artificial laboratories with powerful technological instruments as extensions of our brain’s sensors.”
      means nothing. If you have a claim that observation you make some how different then what other people make then you’ve got a problem. You seem to be claiming that you are privileged to knowledge that others are not. If you have data you believe others have missed you need to explain how others can obtain said data. Otherwise you are appealing to Revelation. Science relies on all observers being able to make the same observations. If you think you’ve made observations because you’ve been in a “Jungle” and some how you have clearer skies then people in the city I’ll point out the scientist make observations all over the world and make observations with equipment that reveals much more information then you’ll ever be exposed to.

      [QUOTE=WayneFrancis;2254626]It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe./QUOTE]

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      I have read this many times when watching these debates between materialists and creationists. Matrix/DNA works as a kind of “third view” with different propositions that neither materialists neither creationists knows. Matrix/DNA is and will be attacked by both sides. Matrix/DNA was built accidentally, after observing Nature in the jungle and learning which ways Nature works at that slice of biosphere. These observations suggested ideas that were being accumulated and finally resulting into a big theoretical model which includes the external Nature beyond the immediate space and time. Now we need data from this external Nature to check if the theory is agreement with reality. All data that I have obtained from scientific books were predicted by the models and are in agreement with them. Remember that I didn’t said that the Standard model would be wrong when compared with Matrix/DNA model. Most part are in agreement, but, Matrix/DNA is suggesting many things that is missing in the Standard model.

      No. You can make baseless claims like that. Science has observation which can be independently made and verified. Creationist and you have hand waving. There is no “external nature”. If you aren’t talking about the natural world, which is what science does, you are talking about a supernatural world which isn’t science. Even when scientist talks about things like the multi-verse much of the time it isn’t science. When they make claims that can be tested then they are in the realm of science. Like I’ve pointed out before claiming your idea gives all the same answers as the current models doesn’t make your idea science. You have to show HOW your idea arrives at the same answer. For example you’ve made a claim that the first galaxies shapes are the same as a human egg because of some fractal system word salad. The main stream models explain the shape of the galaxies by how GR dictates how gas clouds will collapse under their own gravity. Observations show that the first galaxies are elliptical not spherical like a human egg. The main stream models can start with a gas cloud and demonstrate how the material produces elliptical galaxies. They can show how these Elliptical galaxies will continue to collapse and form into spiral galaxies. They show how various galaxies colliding with each other form the many different irregular galaxies we see. You have “Hey that looks like a human egg to me! There must be a deep philosophical meaning behind it” The science is quantifiable, reproducible and falsifiable. Your idea is new age pseudoscience.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Yes, I am naturalized American citizen but the native language is Portuguese and some native languages of the jungle. I have tree big problems when trying to communicate explaining the Matrix/DNA world view: a) Despite the fact that since my infant times I read books in English and learning it alone or schools, i never wrote in English, then,it prejudices all Matrix/DNA details when communicating them by writhing. But I am still learning day by day and if you teach me something that I weiting wrong, I will be grateful;2) Matrix/DNA models are suggesting many new natural mechanisms, processes, objects, that have no name yet in any language, so, we need creating new words. For instance, the models suggests the state of astronomical bodies that is not a quasar or a pulsar how it is defined by the Standard model, but since there is no name for these objects and they are in between the definitions of pulsar and stars, I have used the name of pulsar for that body, which causes lots of confusion by people trained by the Standard model.

      Then invent a new name and more importantly define it. Explain it in detail. Tell us what these new objects are. What are their properties. How are they formed. Where can we expect to see them.
      You keep claiming there are thousands of evidences against the main stream models and now many new object but you have not, even once, provided any examples.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      My friend, we will lose time here if you continuing to repeat common informations about the Standard Model that I know since my infant times. Now I am reading lots of material about general relativity, the Hubble constant, the Physics of the Nobel Prize Hideki Yukawa and of course, quantum theory and String M-theory. Matrix/DNA models were built with data from hundreds of books got at universities’ libraries and my job at earlier times was helping students making theses, monographies, of several different fields. You are saying that because I wrote:”How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface?” It means how was the evolutionary state of this solar and galactic systems after a cosmological evolution that began with the Big bang at 13,7 billion years ago. I was thinking that Matrix/DNA models are suggesting the presence of more natural forces and elements as hidden variables in relation to Oparin’s model for reduced atmosphere at 4 billions years ago at the life’s origins first moments, which were missing at Urey/Miller’s experiments and that’s the cause that Urey did not get amino acids able to perform the next steps towards proteins. Based on Matrix/DNA models we need to repeat the Urey experiments with different processes and changing/adding some ingredients.

      Sorry I don’t believe you. Here is why I don’t believe you. You provide no evidence. Your statements show a clear misunderstanding of even basic cosmology that I’ve already pointed out. Coming back and saying you understand what the main stream models say since you where a baby is highly unlikely. If you were some type of savant then I’ll point out that it is useless because what you communicate to others isn’t a great understanding of what you are writing about but a huge fantasy world that is in gross opposition to the natural world the rest of us live in.

      If your idea will succeed in producing life in experiments then tell us how and get ready to accept your Nobel prize. What “ingredients” need to be change/ added? What processes need to be incorporated. Tell us how so that we can independently verify your claims. The problem is your claims are completely without evidence thus I go back to this quote
      “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
      Until then you are just shoveling more pseudoscience.

      I honestly don’t care who or what you read. If you come here with accurate statements about the mainstream models, 1 or more problems with the said model and an actual model that will provide answer(s) then I’m on board with you. But you don’t. You don’t have a model and repeating that you do over and over without any evidence of an actual model makes you look like a liar that is just trying to get attention. You have not provided even on problem you have with the main stream model. This would be in the form of a well defined statement like “x is observed but no model currently explains why. My model explains x by the following …” followed by a detail explanation of how your model explains the observation. If you model, at any point, requires something that can not be measured and observed, then you’ve stepped out of the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural and it isn’t falsifiable. Lastly so much of your posts show gross ignorance of the actual science. Dropping terms and names like GR, the Hubble constant or any scientists name doesn’t lend credibility to your argument.

      To be continued…

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    20. #50
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317

      Response Part 2

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      I am following this issue every day, carefully. But the interpretations from astronomers for images and data measurements sometimes are not accordingly to Matrix/DNA models. The real data fits the models, what is different are the interpretations of these data. For instance, those planets free in space without orbiting any star are a problem for the Standard model that was not predicted it, but it fits very well predictions from Matrix/DNA models registered 30 years ago. That’s the reason I can’t abandon Matrix/DNA putting them in the garbage, they are right in relation too many things that were not included into the Standard model.

      How? Why do you think the main stream models can not explain rogue planets? Why do you think the main stream models can not explain even rogue stars in intergalactic space. The main stream models have not problem with planets being ejected from their host system. This can occur in a number of different ways. Interaction between 2 solar systems can easily eject a planet from its host system. Interaction within a solar system between planets can also eject a planet from its host system. This is a prime example of your ignorance of the science. I’ll also reiterate that gasp in some model isn’t evidence for your model. Saying your model explains something doesn’t mean your model explains something. An actual well define explanation that is falsifiable can be an explanation for something. But you haven’t provided that. All you’ve provided is “These objects look the same to me….coincidence? I think not!” Which is an appeal from and to ignorance.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      It is being difficult to me to define the formation of our solar system after Matrix/DNA models advice that there were two process for astronomical systems formation and I don’t know what process was applied for formation of this system. The fact that is missing some shapes of astronomical bodies in our solar system (pulsar, quasar, etc.) indicates that it is from second generation, which process is similar to the Standard Model. The differences between the two models about solar system formation are more related to magnetic fields, forces and ingredients modeling the system at its formation, etc. But since I had no time for to much cosmology and I am developing hundreds of researches at another fields as Biology, Neurology, Medicine, etc., because matrix/DNA is about natural systems and these systems have a little bit of each scientific field, these models are not complete yet.

      More word salad and avoidance. You say our solar system is missing pulsar, quasar, etc. Here again is an obvious misunderstanding of the science. There is absolutely no reason why we should ever find a pulsar or quasar as part of our solar system. In fact it would be near impossible for us to be in a solar system that has one of those objects because they are not very conducive to life. We have no reason to think that a solar system should have a G class star half way through its lifespan in the main sequence should be paired up with a pulsar or quasar. We could find a system like that which happen by interactions of multiple systems that allowed the 2 stars to form separately but eventually become gravitationally bound to each other. It would be more surprising to see planets as we would expect those planets to be ejected during the process. But even then you might find planets involved depending on the distances and masses involved. But if there was a planet then life is highly unlikely because of the amount of ionizing radiation that the pulsar would emit.

      So another question for you.
      WF10 Why if your idea predicts pulsars and quasars in many solar systems do we not observe this to actually be the case?
      WF11 Why does your idea predict pulsars and/ or quasars partnered with stars that are still well within the main sequence?

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      The normal chemical process has formed the biochemistry of the early Earth, what does not mean that yours theoretical model about normal chemical process has formed it.

      Please reform this statement. Perhaps you should use Google translate and use your native language.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      You know that are gaps in it and I think they will be fulfit when completing the model. Matrix/DNA model has translated the real chemical processes better than yours model, I think.It happens that the suggestions of Matrix/DNA, despite it seems to work well, are very “weird” from mine and yours point of view. For instance I am now studying the Sun’s magnetic field from Matrix/DNA different perspective because the models are suggesting there are evolutionary relations between the known fact that the Sun’s magnetic field flips at each 11 years cycles was the ancestor mechanism that developed into the mechanism at genetic level that possibilities the signals switches putting genes in or off. It is very “weird”, very complex, but it makes sense. From where Nature got the mechanism for these signals and commands at genetic level, accordingly to the Standard model?

      First you have provided what problem you have with, what I’m guessing is biological system. Second you have not stated what that actual problem is and how your idea solves that problem.

      But you have made a bit of testable statement and claim.
      You say the sun’s magnetic field causes genes to turn on and off.
      WF11 How does the our sun’s magnetic field cause genes to turn on and off.

      What, precisely, within the a gene is reacting with the magnetic field of the sun. What genes are affected. What determines what genes are effected. What changes should we detect with the magnetic field flips? How do the genes react to the sun’s magnetic field but not the hundreds of other magnetic fields life on Earth experience? What patterns within biology should we detect on a 11 year cycle from the corresponding sun’s solar cycle? What data do you have to support your claim.

      Note this is a formal question and I would actually like an answer, even if it is I don’t know, to this question before any of my other outstanding questions

      To be continued…

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    21. #51
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317

      Response part 3

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      In the jungle we see life by a different perspective than yours at urban habitat and a naturalist philosopher arrive to a conclusion that Pasteur was right and Linus Pauling wrong, Must have a kind of vital principle acting inside the earlier organic chemistry, coming from the mistakenly called “non-living world”, which still is a strong and determinant hidden variable unknown by modern Science. Matrix/DNA suggest what is it, how it is, and where it came from. Biological systems are merely a continuing from cosmological evolution with severe mutations because astronomical systems were formed and composed with only two principals states of matter – solid and gaseous ( of course, there are the electromagnetic, the quantum, states, etc.) – and biological systems were formed and composed with three states, adding the liquid state, which had multiplied the power of Physical processes resulting into chemist processes. Forgetting the differences of formation and composition by Physics and Math is the cause that that chemistries and biologists are not grasping the whole picture of earlier life’s formation.

      Again gross misunderstanding of even basic science. There are 4 states of matter as defined by science. Solid, liquid, gas and plasma. These are very different then the fundamental forces. I have no idea why you would mention “quantum” at this point either beyond thinking using terms, even if it has no relation to what you are trying to discuss, will some how confuse anyone here into thinking that either we don’t understand something or in the hopes that you’ve used a term that might be applicable.
      The rest of your statement, like most of your posts, means absolutely nothing to anyone but you.

      What do you mean by “earlier life’s formation”? Are you talking about abiogenesis?

      It would help if you stop jumping around with topics. Pick one problem with one area of science.
      State your understanding of what the relevant main stream model says about that problem.
      State your idea’s solution to that problem in a manner that is falsifiable by others.

      When you do that we can then discuss if your idea actually rises to the definition of science.

      I’m also curious to know what conflict between Pasteur and Pauling you think modern science has wrong?

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    22. #52
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317
      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      The normal biological processes accounts for the diversity of life, of course, what does not account is the theory of the Standard model about normal biological processes. When we see the novelty suggested by Matrix/DNA models about how are normal biological processes we see clearly that a theoretical model in fact works. For instance, and about diversity of life and reducible complexity, we get more explanations adding the mechanisms and processes that has in normal biological processes but the Standard model has not solved them. Take LUCA from the Earth’s surface and put it in the sky: you will see how all complexity are reduced to LUCA. Keep LUCA at Earth’s surface and you have no way for escaping from the assertions of the people from the intelligent design. Break the external membrane of spermatozoa and spreading the genes into different spaces and scales of time and you will get the great diversity of the offspring from a unique common ancestor. So, Matrix/DNA models can help the real Science and you.

      Let us get things straight here. If you are going to use scientific terms then you have to use them in the context that science used them.

      First Evolution accounts for the diversity of life. It does not cover Abiogenesis which is more a field of complex chemistry.

      When you bring in the “standard model” into the discussion you are confusing the issue.
      The standard model is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions. It is ultimately responsible for how chemistry works. You do NOT have to bring it up when talking about biology. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion of either evolution or abiogenesis. Those 2 fields work fine with the standard model. If you agree then stop talking about the standard model when you are talking about biology.

      I’m guessing you have a problem with abiogenesis. Do we know how life started? No. Do we think that something else is needed to explain the origins of life beyond chemistry? No. If you think there is then you need to state what extra you think is needed. If you don’t then stop saying the current models can’t explain it. Note that there is a difference between “Can’t explain it” and “Has not yet found an explanation”.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      I didn’t said that, it would be absurd!

      Pretty much everything you seem to say is absurd. You keep co-opting terms and expect people to understand your meaning with out providing any definitions. Take the following quote from you where you draw a link between the shape of a tree and the shape of a spiral galaxy.

      The Milk Way is a spiral, the three of oranges seems a spiral.
      Milk Way has a central “trunk” and arms. The tree of oranges have a trunk and branches.
      Milk Way have planets, the colors can be blue, green, etc. The tree has leaves.
      Milk Way has yellows luminous stars attached to the arms. The tree have beautiful yellow oranges attached to the branches…
      And our star have a very caloric relationship with the tree through photosynthesis…

      You present a link that coincidental beyond the fact that a galaxy and a tree are both within our universe.
      The galaxy does not look like a tree. The central bulge in a spiral galaxy is the result of a very different process then the trunk of a tree.
      You seem to be amazed that planets have colours and a tree have leaves.
      You seem amazed that because we human perceive some stars as yellow, our sun actually has a peak luminosity in the green band, is profoundly related to oranges.
      The only part that begins to make any sense there is that plants use photosynthesis to produce their energy.

      So we have a bunch of rambling from you that you make links between something terrestrial to something cosmological based solely on your opinion that they look the same.

      Your refusal to understand that just because you can cherry pick, and very badly I might add, some properties of 2 different systems that you think have the same invisible root cause in your “Matrix/DNA” idea, doesn’t mean they do. Because you don’t provide anything that can be tested of falsified.

      Quote Originally Posted by TheMatrixDNA View Post
      Neither I care. I mentioned it because it is the most known evolutionary shape of this system by human beings and here I am talking with the life form called human beings.

      If you don’t care then stop bringing up a link between the 2. Your images imply links that are not there. It doesn’t matter if you pick a elephant, worm, bee or amoeba. Your basic understanding of the both biology and astronomy are wrong. It isn’t about interpreting the data different. It is about you being ignorant of the science.

      You take a look at a pop science image like this
      Click image for larger version. </p>
<p>Name:	bullet.png <br />
Views:	4 <br />
Size:	84.6 KB <br />
ID:	20130

      and claim that is one galaxy hatching out of another. Yea it looks a bit like that from that image but science isn’t based on just that image. Science knows about GR. It know the relative motions of those 2 galaxies. It can map the dark matter from those 2 galaxies. Every piece of data points to this being the product of 2 galaxies colliding because of gravity.

      You come along and claim it some how shows 1 galaxy hatching from another.
      For your idea to be true almost everything we know about physics has to be false.

      Where did the mass of the “new galaxy” come from?
      Where did the energy for momentum of that new galaxy come from?
      How are the 2 galaxies going against general relativity in one aspect but seemingly holding together via gravity in another.

      You treat pictures like that in a manner where you say scientist can not say if they are colliding or separating. But I’ve already told you that they can tell the directions those galaxies are travelling in. We see many examples of galaxies in the process of merging. From just starting to merge to almost completely merged. We know they are merging because of the extra information that scientist have beyond the simple picture you are looking at and it fits perfectly with simulations of galaxies merging. What it doesn’t match AT ALL is galaxies spontaneously splitting apart. Claiming it is a difference in interpreting the data is like reading the first paragraph of Moby Dick and saying the story is just about a guy who got bored and went for a ride in a boat is just a difference in interpreting the major theme within the story of Moby Dick. You are either ignoring or are ignorant of the rest of the book.

      Quick reply to this messageReply   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote   Multi-Quote This Message     
    23. #53
      WayneFrancis's Avatar

      WayneFrancis is offlineOrder of Kilopi

      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Posts
      4,317

      I’m going to cut off one of your objections before you try to make it.

      You’ve claimed because we haven’t been around long enough that we don’t know those galaxies are in the process of a merger that we can’t say they are.
      Going back to the Moby Dick analogy. Is like saying “Well you only have 1 page of the book, how do you know the real whole story?!”
      We know the whole story because we have every page of the book available to us right now. We can put those pages together and the story makes sense.

      It is like we have the cliff notes of Moby Dick = general relativity
      We then use the cliff notes to reconstruct the entire book from the pages torn out of the binder and thrown about the room.
      We can then reconstruct the book based on our understanding from the cliff notes.

      Based on GR we can reconstruct galaxies merging We can test it in many ways. Each time we get results that are in agreement with observation.

      What you want is the equivalent of a claim that Star Wars Revenge of the Sith is a story about a man that cures his need for robotic limbs and life support by shuffling himself into a pool of lava then jumping out of it with his limbs spontaneously regenerating. All because you don’t know if you should watch the movie in reverse or not…even worse that we don’t know which direction the movie was intended to be played.

      Este foi meu ultimo post o qual não foi publicado e o thread foi fechado:

      TheMatrix/DNA

      Hi, Sir… Seems to me that you are the moderator so, thanks by doing that.

      [QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.[/QUOTE]

      Yes, I am the author of a copyrighted work registered as “fiction” ( note: not “Sciences”) which documents numbers from Brasilia and Washington can be seen at my website. I began this thread talking the necessary and unavoidable about the authorship referring to “the author” and not explaining that the author is myself, but, as you can see at posterior posts, I have corrected it. My motive for doing that is avoiding the readers changing the focus from the topic of Matrix/DNA models and the Standard Model to the focus over the authorship.

      [QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:Presenting what could be a diagram of the author’s ignorance about physics and biology…[/QUOTE]

      Please, could you pointing out every detail of this diagram suggesting that the author is ignorant about [U]”natural”[/U] and not [U]theoretical[/U] physics and biology? With real scientifically proved facts, please? That’s one of those several causes I came here to CosmoQuest forum: elucidating my misunderstandings about the Standard model and correcting or explaining the misunderstandings of others persons that shows interest to know the Matrix/DNA model.

       

      [QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]: in an non-English language is not a good start.[/QUOTE]

      I know that. But as not a native speaking English I made lots of effort trying to understanding the diagrams written in English, so I need using the translation free at Internet for doing that. Will you never accept any diagram written in Germany, French or other language?! Ok, you are free for doing that. I had not translated the diagrams yet to English due missing time and the technological resources at the jungle where the originals were made.
      [QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:[*]the universe is at least 13.8 billions years old (not 4 billion)..[/QUOTE]

      Please, if you can do it, explain to me how my words here: ” How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago…” was interpreted as saying that the Universe is 4 billion years old?! I will guest that such terrible mistake is due English alone. So, I will write it another way: “How Universal Nature ( and not only the terrestrial Nature), and pay attention, please, I am saying how the cosmological evolutionary point in that time – 4 billion years ago – of its entire cosmological evolutionary history of 13,7 billion years,…) Is it possible now to understand this English and that it is not suggesting that the author would not know that the techniques of redshift measurements carbon dating, cosmic background radiation, etc., are suggesting that this Universe is 13,7 billion years old? Could you think that someone ignoring what any high school student knows, coming here talking about cosmological models?! Sorry, I can’t believe in it…
      [QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:[*]astronomy is not biology and biology is not astronomy.[/LIST][/QUOTE]

      Good point! Here is the focus of differences between the Standard model world view and the Matrix/DNA model world view. Please, could you bring here which are the scientifically proved facts ( and not the theoretical interpretations of this fact made by the believers in the Standard model) showing that the natural architecture of this Universe is separated into two blocks, one being ruled only by known human Physics and Astronomic Science and other block being ruled by human Physics Science known laws plus the rules upon biological systems?

      I know that human Sciences needed in the past dividing General Science into compartments due the limits of its unique scientific applicable method that is the reductionist method. I don’t know that [U]Nature[/U] did same such division. If you does not explain to me where and when Nature did it, where and when the long [U]natural[/U] flow of causes and effects that began when this Universe was transformed from something that was existing before,and which flow has showing that it is increasing complexity upon the initial reduced complexity, when and were this flow changed his cosmological trajectory because you know that the laws, forces, elements and mechanisms that rules what you call “biology” were not inserted in this flow before what you call biology, emerged at the surface of this planet.

      Ok, I know that this complex question written in non good English can not be understanding. So, let’s try another very reducible way: Please, bring on here the scientific proved facts that ( not yours words “astronomy” and “biology” and yours concepts about these words) that the natural world composed by solar and galactic systems is not the natural world composed also by biological systems, and vice versa. Where and when the natural words was shared into two different natural worlds, one in relation to the systems existing before life’s origins and the other existing at Earth’s surface after life’s origins.

      My question is due the Matrix/DNA universal model has not detected such separation at Nature and is suggesting how the “biological phenomena”that we are watching here and now had all its evolutionary initial states at all natural architectures since the Big Bang. Don’t worry and please, don’t makes initial judgements about the mind of the person you are talking. This is normal at any event when two different cultures meets face a face first time. Cheers…

 

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (3)

terça-feira, setembro 18th, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a terceira parte dêste artigo, vide as duas anteriores, numeros 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08))

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA:

xxx

The supposed “scientific” objections to evolution “ONLY” come from creationists. This speaks volumes. If evolution had all the holes in it that creationists suggest, all scientists would be debating the issues. Instead the only people who raise objections are doing so because of something unscientific to begin with: their belief in god… Ironically, something that requires no evidence itself.

That’s not important, but I need to say, I am not creationist and I have objections – not to evolution as natural process – but against the Darwinian Theory and its modern shape, Modern Synthesis. The three Darwinian variables – VSI (Variation, Selection, Inheritance) does not fill the gaps of species transformations and macroevolution is not reduced to biological evolution. What is Universal evolution? Which are the links between cosmological and biological evolution? ToE is a science-stopper.

xxxx


Darwin was metaphysical when said: “The big diversification of species indicates they are product of evolution and not created one by one by God”. A thru naturalist philosopher never says the word “god” nor mention something written in mythological books because he can’t having that things in his mind, it works as deviation of Reason, and creates avoidable wars with beliefs that don’t deserve attention. Metaphysics still present in neo-Darwinism believing in blind evolution, as science-stopper.

xxx

Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally? Nature did it: the Newtonian watch ( solar system) produced all living beings here. Is that what says the theory of abiogenesis? That’s wrong? Is it right teaching it to children? Which is your opinion?

“Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally?”

Are we talking about a metallic watch made up of non-affinitive macro-structures?

Do you really think something like a watch or car or computer is analogous to life? A watch is built using mechanical tooling. So are cars, and computers. So they are not in the slightest bit comparable to a biological system that is built from a single and heritable nucleic acid polymer. If you still don’t get it, just ask.

Jack Hoff in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago


You know I am talking about the solar system. You know it is all about Newton’s mechanics. And I already ask: “Inside the solar system, described by Newtonian mechanics, arose life. Was it an evolutionary sequitur or something outside the solar system came here for producing life?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack Hoff 1 second ago


What the hell does “evolutionary sequitur” mean? It’s entirely possible that panspermia occurred and life came here on a meteoroid but that’s a circular answer as we would still have to determine where that life came from. Perhaps life is an emergent property of basic chemistry.

It must be a production of basic chemistry, I can’t see other alternative. But… that chemistry should have the forces and elements for producing biological systems. If these forces and elements were not discovered yet in this solar system ( and forget panspermia) where they came from?! From magic or from nothing? By evolutionary sequitur I tried to say: “life was produced naturally by evolution from its last more evolved ancestor – which only can be this solar system” (or are there another?)

“Newtonian watch”? That’s a metaphor, dipshit. Solar systems are not timepieces. By the way, Newtonian physics were demonstrated as inaccurate by the theory of relativity.

And which were the forces and elements that relativity has discovered, which added to Newronian’s mechanic model, had produced biological systems?

And the Theory of Relativity demonstrated inaccurate by Quantum Theory. You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater though. Newtonian physics still very much describe how the Universe works even if some things were proved inaccurate by Relativity. The same applies with our understanding of the atomic level and the way that Relativity does not properly describe what we observe. All work together to form the best picture we can until we have a “Theory of Everything.”

Thanks by the intelligent observation. Is this indication that we need re-calculate the reduced atmosphere and the ingredients inside that primordial soup for elucidating the initial mystery of abiogenesis, and by extension, how the process of evolution emerged here? Over the solar system we need apply relativity and quantum mechanics… or were those chemicals elements at Earth entangled with their counterparts at some unknown outsider atomic or astronomical system? What do you think?.

My opinion is, you need to learn some astronomy and biology before you try to wax philosophical about them.

And my opinion is that you focuses over the facts (solar system, Newtonian mechanics, abiogenesis) instead being a psychologist. Be white.

Every lifeform is evolving. Fucking retard.

“salvage monkeys”

So are they going around, gathering what’s useful? And yet you insult them.

Then you have a time machine?! Some lifeform goes to extinction; others are transformed into more complex form. The situation of monkeys today only will be known in the future. Are you a divine prophet? I am sure you are not a great Pink Unicorn prophet because he is all love, his prophets does not insults nobody. It is not insult calling monkeys as salvage: if you don’t do that, they will think you are calling them as “gay”. Stay calm, don’t be furious, think Pink, we all are Pink…somewhere.

xxx

I’m Christian and I believe in evolution. All the facts point to evolution being true and most biblical scholars believe that Genesis’s portrayal of creation is most likely a metaphor.

Tobias, there is hypothesis suggesting the narrative of Garden Eden could be the most accurate account of evolution, ever. This hypothesis emerges from the results of comparative anatomy between living and those ancestors non-living systems (atoms, galaxies). You get a picture of a link system, the state of the world minutes before life’s origins. In that picture there are all symbols used in Genesis: serpent, tree, genomes X and Y (Adam, Eve), the Fall, apple. But… memorized in our DNA!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TobiasFunke2026 1 second ago – 5:45 AM – Dom – 30

xxx

Did you read my other comments? I believe in a God who is completely just and merciful. No one will be roasting in hell. They will have to pay for their sins if they do not rely on the atonement of the Savior, but they will be given a kingdom of glory. I believe that God communicates with mankind today as of old.

This Bible’s history makes sense, when based in my personal investigation about Humanity’s conditions today. But you know, the Bible was written by men, illiterates, living in a tribal state of salvagery, who said that talked with God, and even they were able to produce the contents in the Bible ( a whole history obeying the same moral patterns), we have lots of other authors able to write fictions in same style. How could the Bible stopping you from doing yours own investigation?!

xxx

Hummm… this debate leads me to suspect that there is no other outside reality than that created by  collective human mind. Our social state just now is the actual result of the eternal dispute between two internal opposite tendencies inherited from something existing before Big Bang: tendency to creationism, to be closed system, inertial, acomodated, female; tendency to evolutionism, to be opened system, progressist, unstable, male. Hystorical experience shows that we must wish noone earns.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second agon – 7:00 PM – Sat – 29

xxx

alfadrone: The universe comprises an evident system of causes and effects, and it is possible to construct theories about them.”

The unique thrutfull source for the best rational theory is Nature, whithout bias. The Universe has been studied and described by Physics in same way that Physics will describes a fecundated ova and embryogenese inside, whithout grasping the biology and meaning. Before the Big Bang that starts the process in ova there was a previous non-intelligent design. No creation

xxx

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: “It has never been shown that a coding system and information could originate by itself in a material medium”

RNA/DNA is not a code and was not made by some intelligence transmitting a message. DNA is merely a long line of undividuals (nucleotides) of same specie, the ancestor LUCA. As humans beings, every individual has some specific different detail and specialized in specific function, the whole works like a Ford production. See: THE HUMAN COSMIC CODE… IS THE GALAXY’S DNA!

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: “WHY IS ATP SYNTHASE ANALOGOUS TO AN ELECTRIC MOTOR THAT HUMANS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED?”

ATP Synthase motor is merely the biological shape that evolved from an ancestor mechanical shape, which is the rotational motor of galaxies. If you want to learn about and see the pictures of this evolution – detail by detail – Google: The Cellular ATP Motor came from the Galaxies’ Rotational Motor?! Cherrs…

xxx

” EVERY creature is complete, but still slowly changing, adapting”.

This kind of evidences has not convinced creationists, the proof is their existence and faith after 150 years. Why? Because the mind of creationists was indocrinated to jump to first causes.

” EVERY creature is complete, but still slowly changing, adapting”. This kind of evidences has not convinced creationists, the proof is their existence and faith after 150 years. Why? Because the mind of creationists was indocrinated to jump to first causes.

xxx

That depends largely on the question if our universe is the only one. If there are many universes (which may sound unlikely at first, but actually it is very lilely the case), then it is no surprise that there is one like ours among them. You see the chance to win the lottery is very slim, yet people win quite regularly 😉

But you are correct,the fine tuning of the universe is indeed one of the strongest arguments for design behind this universe, but it says nothing about who/what designed here

felix mai in reply to magical224 (Show the comment) 23 minutes ago

Felix, about source of light, Mandelbrot, Universe tuned, Science in Genesis – these things earn a new dimension if we stop with Physics and Math and go back as human observing Nature with the modern scientific knowledge.The most ancient method – comparative anatomy - now applied for comparison between living and non-living systems is a astounding source of surprises due the results. Light becomes a tiny force that imprints the process of vital cycles into matter (birth, growing, – cont.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to felix mai 1 second ago

maturation, death). So, it is possible that a natural source of light introduced at the Big Bang the code of life modelling all matter – from atoms to galaxies for finally producing life, in the way this light go. The Universe tuned for life remember the womb tuned for babies and the initial quantum vortexes remember bits-information that remember genes, everything suggesting that in this Universe is occurring a genetic reproduction of something ex-machine, but, natural. DNA becomes a univ..

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

universal matrix that is coming under evolution since Big Bang and can be seen modelling from atoms to galaxies. This matrix is a living and evolving Mandelbrot fractal seen at every natural architeture: for instance our hands, the different functions of fingers, fits very well when superposed to a nucleotide, the building block of DNA. Genesis becomes a metaphora that describes corretly the state of the world 5 billion years ago. It is weird, but suggests that our worldview will change totally.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

If you really want to go into this in more detail i would say PM me to my account. This is hardly the place for a serious detailed discussion about topics that are this complex 😉 We are way to restricted in lenght of the arguments, can´t really work with links etc. So mail me if you are sreious, but be warned, i might need a bit to answer (i should prepare a pecture atm, but i just needed a break ^^)

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

You are right: no way for debating these issues here. My point is that this guy, (magical…) is remembering that the mythology in genesis could be product of people more “natural” than we are today and trying to find answers their imagination sometimes touch next to the right answers. Of course, most of it must be fiction, but, if a theory of everything will be get by Biology instead Physics and Math it will mean that some great theories today had extrapolate reality and could be fiction also.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to felix mai 1 second ago

xxx

you story book god has no concept of real justice does he? How can you condemn children for their parents misdeeds? How can you condemn great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand children for those same misdeeds eons ago?

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to Péter Szabó (Show the comment) 11 seconds ago

Hummm…Astronomical punishment takes astronomical time. Our justice condemns a man 50 years old for his misdeeds 30 years ago.The misdeeds of eons ago are from the same spirit/children today. Have you heard about selfish gene? It appeared when the spirit living in this Universe choose to build his own world separated from everything else, a perfect closed system. It was a kind of garden paradise. And it was the building block of galaxies. Hermaphrodite was male and female (Adam and Even). So?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

xxx

PART 1 OF 2

In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago

Everything wrong! Evolution is shared into three levels: microevolution, mediumevolution and macroevolution. Micro occurs in individuals or species; medium occurs in biological organization of matter among populations of species; macro is universal, the evolution of a unique natural system that had the quantum-magnetic shape of atoms, the mechanical solid shape of galaxies and here, the liquid-biological shape. Medium evolution works only with micro+macro mechanisms. Tell it to Lewin.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

Oh…, and for you and Lewin two suggestions: 1) Google this article’s title: Physicist Derives Laws of Thermodynamics For Life Itself; 2) See the model of a macroevolutionay system by Google: The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles Home

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

This is just a part of the truth, maybe we should see their side, search for: “Ken Ham Responds to Intolerant Bill Nye Defenders”

Péter Szabó in reply to GreatG0dOm (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

My Dog! How in the hell I can watch a video-response where the man says: “The reason I answered in that way is because the Bible…”

Is he a retard?

Facts, man, facts…go straight to facts, real natural data! Pleases, refers to any kind of foreign ancient history with their mythological tales that you like to people that says like that too, but we here have no time for waste in it and we don’t like it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Péter Szabó 1 second ago

xxx

Tell me how life began as well… I know that according to Darwinism, life began from a single cell. And just correct me if I’m wrong. And you said evolutionary stages is separate… So from that one cell made different types of dinosaurs, trees, plants, and fishes? Thats a lot of variety and made so perfectly. You know what I mean? Like… each living thing has a purpose to either be eaten or not. And… not only that but cells/ organs inside them have a purpose as well….

drawingangel2 in reply to shamanis1227 10 minutes ago

“I know that according to Darwinism, life began from a single cell.”

Supposing that life began from a single cell and supposing that life was created by a supernatural magician, are both, deviation of human reason from its roots – Nature.

Nobody was there, we have lots of experiments suggesting abiogenesis, but abiogenesis by chance is other deviation of reason. Someone have seeing magic creating something? No. Someone have seen chains of accidents creating some working natural system? No.

EXACTLY! So both evolution and religion is based on faith or theory. Right?? But… I can’t explain this… I have met two friends (Jenny, and Jennifer) They have similar names I know, but one day we were having a serious convo about religion. Jenny, whom I met in high school, is not crazy and doesnt do drugs but she said that she became a Christian after God saved her from demonic possession. Jennifer, whom I met in college (shes a pharm student, so very intelligent) said the same thing…

drawingangel2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

That’s the point! Any human being that has plenty of control of his/her rationality and his/her brain is hard-wired naturally does not shows silly behaviors. And any observer that loves such people leads them to a doctor. But if someone suggest that the non normal behavior is caused by non natural causes certainly has no natural reason. Only who invented ghosts as demon can invent also ghosts as gods. Everything wrong with Jenny and Jennifer and any bastard that gets profit from their disgrace.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to drawingangel2 1 second ago

xxx

Wrong, Atheist. Life is either product of intent, or life is an unintended byproduct of chance. Atheism is faith that life is an unintended byproduct of chance.

Atheism is also faith that the laws of physics and the laws of nature were formulated by chance.

And another faith of Atheism is that the continuous force which is ordering atoms from energy is being caused chance. Chance is a condition – of disorder.

No creative genius or scientific genius in history was in denial of God’s existence.

onefodderunit in reply to BobLeeSwaggaa 7 hours ago

“Chance is a condition of disorder”

You say that because you don’t know how a new environment (like earth biosphere) is created due internal slow collapse of any natural system ( like entropy of solar system). Initially the new environment is chaotic ( salvage biosphere) but the work of entropic particles trying to rebuild the system ( like genes) lift up a flow of order from the chaos ( biological evolution). Disorder is a determined product of chance, but order is possible, and is stronger.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to onefodderunit 1 second ago – 5:02 AM – Thu – 27

Thanks for remind the great Max, who said: “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”  If you have noticed, my name here is Matrix/DNA so our matrixes bring us to closer. But Plank didn’t know perfect closed systems and that force is natural light.

xxx

Creationists and ToEists have the same problem: reductionism. Nature teaches that always there are three alternatives. If reduction >expansion> equilibrium. Creationists had reduced a possible consciousness-God of zillions of life-forms in zillions of galaxies of zillions of Universes to a man that watch this lost planetary point. ToEists forgets that evolution and natural systems are coming from the unknown darkness beyond Bib Bang. Only Matrix/DNA Theory is trying the expansion.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 11:54 PM Wed – 26

Matrix is right… unknown darkness. and M theory is based on “extra dimensions” that we cant yet detect

xzel0 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

I have often said that reductionism was a problem. I think some forms of physics like m-theory have gone beyond the big bang. Thankfully. Even as a child, I wondered, “how can they think this is the only universe? how can they think life isn’t ubiquitous, look around?” Look up into the sky at night, billions of suns/stars showing you that light shines on many planets.

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

Oh, Honorable Prophet Number One! You are back! I wish…I wish…everything pink for you.

Yes but don’t worry: we are a portion of dense embryos of consciousnesses inside bubbles that are this human head surrounding by the cosmic adult less dense consciousness.From Big Bang we are going to our Big Birth, when our bubble will open and we will be the great ocean. Pink Unicorn came last night with beautiful pink rose in his face ( he is all love) and said that. Think pink! The Universe is pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago

xxx

Also, what’s the point of acting like there is free will, when God would know the destiny of all his creations.

The Bible also says not even Jesus know when he will return to earth. According to Christianity, Jesus is God but a human version. How could God keep information from himself?

HighCardWins in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord (Show the comment) 38 minutes ago

Free will? In the most possible perfect and happy paradise was living Gods Father and Mother, a lot of sons. One son once time said: I know everything here is good but is missing something:you have more power than me. I will travel and will build my world where I will be really powerful” God said to mother: Let him go. He will built hundreds different worlds, will experiment all, and one day he will make one just like this. He will create a father/mother, just us. Everything will be the same.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HighCardWins 1 second ago

xxx

The ‘Chicken or the Egg’ question is one that believers in a Creator cling to.

They actually see it as a “got’cha” question that wonderfully mocks evolution. It doesn’t.

Newly found fossils of embryos from the first aquatic reptiles called mesosaurs — along with a pregnant female — may be the oldest known example of birth given to live young instead of eggs. Both mammals and reptiles wrap their developing embryos in protective layers, something that helped the little ones survive on land.

DarwinsFriend 2 minutes ago

Yes, but the evolution from reptiles laying eggs out to mammals keeping eggs in is a challenge to ToE , I think. Why a reptile female should have the wish for keeping the egg inside?! It is a could-blood monster that eats its babies! Or if the impulse for this evolutionary process did not came from inside the reptile, what kind of pressure could exert the environment over that female?! Pregnancy turns into weakness for hunting and survival, should be discarded by natural selection. Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

“the evolution from reptiles laying eggs out to mammals keeping eggs in is a challenge to ToE”

How is it a challenge? We have monotremes, egg laying mammals, we have marsupials, where the baby is not completely formed in the female’s body and we have placental mammal. Heck, it’s been observed that some reptile went from oviparous to viviparous.

You might want to study the subject before saying it challenge a scientific theory,

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 23 seconds ago

I had read enough about these transitional states from reptiles to mammals. The last and best link should be the “cynodont”, I have read. But your answer does not address my problem: natural selection should discard any minor mutation towards mammals pregnancy. A hypothesis is that ToE is not knowing the whole truth about natural selection or the agent behind it – the contemporary environmental model. Do you know there are other theories suggesting a more complete natural selection mechanism?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

Well as it happens this very transition has been witnessed recently in Australia’s yellow-bellied three-toed skink.

google: Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth

narco73 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

The transition is well documented, I think, but it only describes the process working, not what is driven the process. Natural selection as believed in ToE should discard the first tiny mutation to mammals pregnancy because it prejudices the female reptile. It suggests that ToE has not grasped the whole mechanism of evolution, yet. Ok, this is my humble opinion and I am biased because I appreciate my Matrix/DNA models that suggests more complex explanation for evolution. Don’t worry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to narco73 1 second ago

xxx

The God Particle has been discovered by European scientists proving that all things were created from a Super Partner meaning we were created from something that has the same DNA as us. MEANING we were intelligently created and designed. Simply put God created us. Lastly, look at what Bill says in this video…he describes nothing at all. No proof. No evidence.

Archos Archon in reply to narco73 1 minute ago

That’s interesting! Which relations the Higgs boson has with DNA?! Where did you get it? Some link, please? But there is a big mistake in your theory. If we were created by something with same DNA ( and this is next to what my theoretical models are suggesting about the same “matrix”), the process of creation must be the same genetic process, and everybody knows that genetic transmission does not need intelligence. What intelligence applied mother giraffe for creating the baby giraffe?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Archos Archon 1 second ago

xxx

Light exists. You cannot disprove which is why you resorted to Old Testament . The thesis statement of John is God IS Light. Absolute PROOF

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheHigherVoltage 7 minutes ago

How is hard-wired your brain in a way that you can not understand what “circular reasoning”” is? Why cannot you understand that words written in a book does not prove the existence of the fact it is saying exists? Of, courses, light exists. But to say that some special light is God you need bring this light here and showing it is able to do magics or talking things. By the way, my theoretical models suggests that natural light is the carrier of vital cycle process. Is it the arm of God?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

xxx

I have traveled to numerous continents hoping to be proven wrong. What I believed about origins and evolution for most of my life has now crumbled like a house of cards as my enjoyment for travel and post career time is allowing me to look behind the curtain. If I visited the creationist website you accused me of, then please amuse everyone here with the name of that website. You’re wrong. In an earlier post an evolution apologist described our life progression as evidence for evolution.

1GODISNOWHERE1 in reply to AlphaDogmatist 32 seconds ago

Why you had choose theism instead atheism or agnosticism. I did the same (traveled to continents searching for and now looking behind the curtain) and I choose agnosticism. Which were the causes that produced this final difference? The real nature of human beings. The salvage inheritance of salvage ancestors fighting for survival and searching the best accommodation ( wealthy, big house, employees, etc.). You was born as predator, I was born for being slave. You saw a good God. I didn’t.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 1 second ago

Excellent proposition! My journey was similar to yours, and yet I realized that chasing historical creation theory was more enjoyable than chasing historical scientific theory. Observable, testable, repeatable. It’s worldview and finding one’s happy, or unhappy place. Biblical history, writings, and artifacts supporting it are observable and testable, but hardly repeatable. The Big Bang is none of the above. Shall we start a new thread on 30 degrees vs. 2.7 degrees Kelvin? Predator or servant?

1GODISNOWHERE1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 hours ago

Creation is not a theory. Science has disproven what the bible says happened a long time ago. A lot of religious folk don’t believe in the literal genesis.

What do you mean “the big bang is none of the above?” there are repeatable experiments that can produce evidence for the big bang. Evolution, the big bang, any theory, is not a “worldview” it is the world. They are models that explain and make predictions. The big bang is reasonable just like its reasonable that the roman empire existed.

ArticulatedHypernova in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

xxx

Darwinian evolution should be presented AS IT IS. A Natural History theory. IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

Chakrathazhwar 1 hour ago

And the Bible, Quran, etc., should be presented AS IT IS: merely a book written by men about the ancient history of foreign people full of mythological fantasies. IT IS NOT THE HISTORY AND FAIRY TALES OF OUR NATIONS!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 33 minutes ago

Bible and Quran? Why does scholarly westerners ignore the VAST library of ancient philosophical and scientific literature of India? Try reading Srimad Bhagavatam, Rg Veda, and various Upanishads that describe contemporary cosmology 11 centuries ago.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 18 minutes ago

They does not ignore. Einstein had as bed-room book “The Secret Doctrine”, as said his housekeeper, and Newton wrote a lot about esoteric philosophies. In fact, these ancient philosophies had predicted lots of we are discovering today. But why India did not became the superpower and eradicated its larger population from the miseries cycle? Due wrong worldview that emerges from these philosophies/religions.Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

What is super power? Enslavement to gadgets and the loss of real human personal relationships via spending countless hours on facebook and youtube? We are devolving.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

I don’t think so. Contemplative philosophies of Indians’ monks did not eradicated the ideology that underlies its social system: the class division between predators/preys and general slavery. It means the salvage natural inheritance of human species driving the real life, not their religion. Same for Westerners. The spending of time in Internet is indicative that lots of humans are rejecting this traditional salvage systems, and searching other alternative. Internet is relationship among minds.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

Remember the British presented the west with its universal view of the caste system. The caste system is actually related to the classes of citizens of the Greek Polis and represents a social cooperative body of God on earth. Abuses are always introduced by mayavadis (i.e. impersonalists and atheists) which use try to destroy the harmony of society. The fundamental catalyst for destruction is personal greed and envy, the original sin as described in the book of GaNeSSH er I mean GeNeSiS

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

It doesn’t matter how British justify social systems, which matters is what this system is. It is mimicking the laws of the jungles: the prey works all day transforming plants into meat while the lions are resting, and when the production is ready the lions came to take it. Isn’t social system for beings that aren’t afraid doing their necessary hard work and loves all human beings. The Bible.Kuran, Tora, approve this animalism and are used by predators instead animal force because it is easier.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

xxx

If this world manages to survive a couple more centuries, I am certain that it will be the Evolutionist worldview that will have ceased to exist. Of course, mad scientists will be promoting some other utterly unprovable, illogical, rediculous theory on mankind, but there are so many holes in the theory of Evolution that it is nearly at the point of self impolosion, which is probably why the zealots are so desperate to convince us all to believe it. The drive to survive is not unique to species.

Timothy Stout 1 hour ago

The current state of Theory of Evolution will evolve for pairing with the real universal natural process of evolution. It is missing that Biologists grows their focus from biological evolution towards universal evolution. They will discover there are forces and mechanisms in the real creator of biological systems and inside who, biological organisms are driven to evolve that affects the diversification of species, causing puntuaction equillibrium, etc. They will fix Physics/Cosmology by Biology

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Timothy Stout 1 second ago

xxx

You just gotta laugh at darwinist/evolutionists/atheis­ts, no matter how many times they have their collective arses handed to them in any argument they just keep shouting the same old nonsense, “big bang, something from nothing, life from nothing, then man and everything else from ooze” and they call creationist crazy! Now, who has to have more faith in their beliefs?

alfadrone 21 minutes ago

Yours words reveals that your worldview is not appropriate for Humanity. If you see any human being saying things that you think is “nonsense” it means that a human being is infected with something that make it not convenient for the good of Humanity. Then, that person needs help and not laughing. But, prove that it is nonsense showing real facts or show real facts that prove the opposite worldview. If creationism produces laugh against human beings, it is not appropriate for Humanity.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

I don’t deny that life originated or that gradual change in species happens. I have not claimed to be a scientist. As I previously posted, Bill Nye crossed over into my unscientific realm and I have given some of my decidedly unscientific reasons that I think he is wrong. If nothing else, acknowledging that worldview determines acceptance of his theories will be a major accomplishment.

doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

I think is not a worldview, but the immense collection of factual evidences suggesting diversification of species coming from a common ancestor, like the expansion of Universe and diversification of galaxy’s shapes suggests the start from a initial atom/point, or the great diversification of cells shapes and functions of a blastula is known started from a single fecundated ova. But ToE suggests to the mind of children a kind of worldview that’s is a minded-stopper, not appropriate for children.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to doctordemando 1 second ago

xxx

So? Vitalism is long dead. There is no “lifeness”, no elan vital, that keeps living organisms going. It’s all chemistry keeping us far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and there’s no reason to believe that the predictability and regularity of chemistry was any different at the origin of life from what it is today.

That’s why the origins of life is not assumed to be a random process.

Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

I think the problem is “how do you define “elan vital”. Knock down the “mind” as in “fainting”, by the rest of life of a person; it is still alive? I think “not”. Now: DNA works like a code. Code suggests the existence of “message”. Message can be the instructions of the mind for moving the body. So, it suggests that DNA has a kind of “mind”. If so, vitalism is acknowledge that always, from complex molecules to human beings, there is a same vital process. If so, it is not only chemistry. Wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago 3:48 PM Wed 26

Thank you but I don’t think I can break it down any further than that. To say ‘life is inevitable because it exists’ just doesn’t cut it for me.

doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

I think we could refute this logic if we find an exoplanet in same conditions of Earth 4 billion years ago without life. It should be the proof that life is evitable. So, this “theory” is scientific because it is falsifiable. But it can not be a scientific statement because for such, one need show where and how the natural forces and elements are determined to converge to a tiny point in time/space and develops to life form. But then, it is not physics/chemistry alone, is Vitalism. Am I wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to doctordemando 1 second ago

xxx

It constantly amazes me how creationists will trot out some piece of 19th century science like the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The 19th century was the time when Darwin actually had scientifically literate opponents. Lord Kelvin wasn’t an idiot–if the 2LoT really and truly precluded evolution, he or some other anti-Darwinian physicist would have said so and we would have nothing to argue about now.

Nullifidian 1 hour ago

Maybe the problem is not Creationism neither evolution, but the theory of

2nd law. Nobody never saw a perfect natural closed system and most of samples mentioned by physicists are process and not systems. I have a theoretical model of a perfect closed system in my website but discovered it by accident: calculating how should be an evolutionary link between the most evolved non-living system and the less evolved living system ( galaxy and cell). It is clear how increased entropy produces order.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

xxx

So who are these guys?

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens sapiens.

DarwinsFriend in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Alls these guys were great workers preparing the landscape and red carpet for arrival of human species. But all these guys were commanded by the Great Mithy Tiny God Pink Unicorn. Think Pink. The Universe is Pink.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 43 minutes ago

xxx

Evolution ISN’T random because it’s driven by natural selection, which is non-random. Answer.com explains why.

“Natural selection acts on the genetic diversity of a population, where the best traits for survival and reproduction increase in frequency over time. Since natural selection pushes a population’s traits in an advantageous direction, it’s not random but rather predictable, since we know its purpose.”

NuggetKazooie in reply to YesYouNeedJesus (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

This makes no sense. If natural blind forces pushes a natural process’s traits in an advantageous direction, and the trait called “natural selection” was selected by those blind forces for survival over time, natural selection is product of randomness, which reverts over evolution as product of randomness. Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

How is it random? Didn’t I explain why? Maybe you should Google it.

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

Why only is there universes that has natural selection? Can not have worlds without natural selection? Is there something or someone determining that all worlds will have natural selection? Nope. Then, natural selection is product of randomness, and in its track, so is evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

xxx

@fangednekoyasha Evolution is an idea that DOESN’T PAN OUT. Changes/adaptations/mutations? Yes, but no new information SPONTANEOUSLY appearing. EVER.

John Brown 4 minutes ago

“no new information SPONTANEOUSLY appearing. EVER.”

Despite the fact you makes sense ( this Universe can not create information from nothing) evidences suggests that new informations had appearing in organisms. How do you explain this paradox? I am waiting and will advance the best solution I have found:hierarchy of natural systems – by which, informations from a larger system, sometimes invisible or not fully known to human beings, penetrates its internal subsystems driven their mutations.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to John Brown 1 second ago – 6:05 PM- Tue – 25

xxx

The “same designer” argument does not explain why such patterns of shared traits only ever follow a single nested hierarchy. This hierarchy is also confirmed in genetic patterns such as the pattern of shared ERVs.

Onithyr in reply to Darren Spill (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

The “same designer” fully explains ERVs if described as the model in Matrix/DNA Theory. But..then, this designer in not supernatural neither intelligent, merely an ancestor that has been ignored by ToE: LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological beings. The model shows the real creator of life, LUCA, as the building block of astronomical systems that is coming evolving since the Big Bang. So, take care when avoiding the idea that the first life came from previous natural design

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Onithyr 1 second ago – 4:42 PM – Tue – 25

xxx

My Dog! I am being hard bitten here by the “stupid monkeys cult” and sametime by “stupid ghost in the sky cult”! Please my Great Protector Might and Tiny Pink Unicorn, save me! Where is your first honorable prophet the Number One PinkUnicornIsLord? I am falling but I am loud: We are all pink…somewhere. The Universe is Pink! Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Fun little question for you: If the big bang created the entire universe’s matter from energy, where did the energy come from and where did the empty space the energy was located in come from? More to the point, isn’t the big bang’s existence just as impossible to prove as a intelligent being having created the universe? If that is the case, then for what reason is “God” laughed at by some scientists but the big band theory isn’t laughed at just as much?

Permafry42 in reply to DNAunion 15 hours ago

Why are you so extremely based in dualism? Experience suggests that always there are third alternatives in the middle of two extremes, and generally, is this hidden alternative where lays the wisdom. A third alternative cam be the models of Matrix/DNA Theory: mass and energy are derivations emitted from two different frequencies of electric-magnetic spectrum of any natural light wave advancing over opposite light wave that generates dark energy. And Light can be a tool of God for creation or not

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Permafry42 1 second ago

While i believe there to be some type of high power out there (whether he/she/it created the universe is impossible to prove or disprove), I neither believe in science nor faith as a solution to the answer of the universe. All theories and theologies have the problem of infinite regress, meaning it’s impossible to prove or disprove any theory or belief about the creation of the universe.

Permafry42 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

Yes, I also think that this two groups ( one defending the existence of gods and other the non-existence of gods but coming with no better explanation) are ingenious. But it seems that we disagree in something: it’s impossible to prove or disprove any those theories but our knowledge is advancing and we need to keep the hope that one day we will be finally free from this ignorance of our existence. This hope is the cause I tried a new method of investigation and elaborated new theory. Cheers…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Permafry42 1 second ago

xxx

You can trace time as far back as you would like, but It had to start somewhere by some uncaused cause. Call that cause what you want, but I see no evidence to state that there is no uncaused cause that started it all. Atheists please prove me wrong, I am open to opinion. Also, because you cannot emperiologically prove something to be correct does not mean that it is not. There is no emperiological evidence for gravity, yet if one denied the existence of gravity one would be considered insane.

Eating2Bananas in reply to TheOfficialPSPHacker 16 hours ago

You never learn? Don’t you know that human beings solely with their real knowledge and hard-wired brain can not solve problems beyond this observed material Universe? Universe from nothing or supernatural eternal creators gods are products of imaginations that has no foundations in humans’ nature and real knowledge. If we will solve this problem, there is an unique method: starting from what we know and can perceive here and now and trying to amplify our horizons. We can not jump to the Truth.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Eating2Bananas 1 second ago

xxx

Neo-darwinism is on its way out and will soon be the next scientific theory believed by 99% of scientists, yet obviously false. Anyone remember spontaneous generation? The problem with atheists and evolutionists is that they always assume there MUST be a naturalistic explanation for something. When your initial assumption is wrong, good luck to you. There is not always a naturalistic explanation for evidence. Mt. Rushmore was not created by random, natural processes. Life is information based!

Will Duffy 2 minutes ago

“If you want know ME, came through studying my job, which is my link with you: Nature.” That is what said my Great God Pink Unicorn. Suppose that God said it, really. You would making a terrible mistake conditioning the mind of your children if, instead obeying God, you are obeying ancient foreigns and their mythology, like Bible, Kuran, etc., which leads your children ignoring Nature and dealing with the supernatural. All life that you know is based in natural information. Poor children!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Will Duffy 1 second ago – 2″44 PM Tues – 25

xxx

That wasn’t Nye’s point. He said, “Parents can believe in evolution, but please don’t teach evolution to your kids because we need engineers”. This statement uses a false logical exclusion. Engineers can be creationists. Both evolution and creationism use the same facts, but make different interpretations of those facts, depending on worldview. Remember, peer reviews don’t eliminate bias, but confirm that the bias that is present is accepable by the mainstream. That is all.

cjbasye in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 55 minutes ago

You are right. Peer review are made by biological beings and they are specific observers located in a specific point in time/space with limited sensors capability. This kind of observer selects subjectively some data and discriminates/ignores other data that are invisible to them. It is absurd that any rational being believes that his current and limited scientific method can reach the truth about any real material body. But we have no alternative and this is the way we will evolve.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to cjbasye 1 second ago

“Remember, peer reviews don’t eliminate bias, but confirm that the bias that is present is accepable by the mainstream.”

Bullshit. You completely miss the point of peer review. Peer review, by its very nature in examining methodology and seeing whether the study has posited alternative explanations to the main hypothesis being put forward, etc., works to eliminate bias.

Creationism fails miserably on this account, and you want to lecture to people here about “bias”? Bullshit.

BlueScreenLife in reply to cjbasye 2 minutes ago

xxx

Science is not infallible and men are not omniscient. The history of science is fraught with examples of disagreements, even among colleagues in the same field. You say spin or hype, that may be true, but it might not be the case at all. Just because we have not discovered a use for what is called “junk DNA” does not mean it is useless or truly junk.

Steven Rowitt in reply to Nullifidian (Show the comment) 54 minutes ago

Scientists are humans and makes errors when interpreting real data. The wrong concept of “junk DNA” is due scientists in the field of biology has accepted the dominance of theoretical concepts coming from the field of Physics and has not questioned the astronomical model furnished by astronomers. Then.biologists are not going further into the state of the world when appeared the junk DNA because Physics suggests it came by chance. The “junk” is non-expressed potential functions of past times.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Steven Rowitt 1 second ago

“Physics suggests it came by chance. The ‘junk’ is non-expressed potential functions of past times.”

– junk DNA no more pertains to a ‘non-expressed potential function of the past’ than a large rock pertains to a ‘non-expressed potential wheel of my car’.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Totally wrong your analogy. DNA is a system, all about systems, and rocks are not systems, only constituents of parts of systems. Constituents of parts can be inertial mass, not performing any function than being mass for fulfill empty spaces. As a system and encoded data DNA possess memory of functions of its ancestors system which has no practical use now, so, junk as potential functions. Remember the pieces in a junk car for selling because they can be useful yet.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

xxx

Now how the universe with its “clockwork” functioning of natural laws came into existence… that’s another question. I’d say its valid to consider it may have been created by an intelligent entity.

Doug Bane 9 seconds ago

Yes it is wonderful how this Universe works perfectly as the best machine.But searching for causes that produced the Universe in this way out of nature is not rational. And Nature shows to us just here other beautiful micro-universe “with its clockwork functioning by natural laws” and producing a new biological system, a new “life”: the womb of a pregnant woman. Nature does not play dice with us. The womb came to existence from a previous non-intelligent design: genome. Why not the Universe?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Doug Bane 1 second ago – 3:17 PM – Mon- 24

xxx

THE ABSURD NOTION OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION FROM NONLIVING AND MINDLESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS DEFIES THESE SCIENTIFIC LAWS, PRINCIPLES OR THEOREMS:

1st & 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS [CONSERVATION OF ENERGY; EVER INCREASING ENTROPY/BIOLOGICAL ENTROPY RESP.]

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

INFORMATION SCIENCE & THEOREMS

MENDELIAN GENETICS

BREEDING LIMITATIONS [VARIATION LIMITED TO WITHIN KIND, NO CROSS BREEDING BETWEEN KINDS]

HALDANE’S DILEMMA

CHEMICAL LAWS

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Jesse Bryant (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Of course it is absurd. It would be the same notion of human embryo evolution from the punch of atoms grouped in molecules inside a fecundated egg. But how a rational being think when facing this mystery of life’s origins? Don’t apply any kind of imagination or intellectual inquiry before searching the solution that Nature is showing. How Nature do it? The final baby comes from a natural designer: parents belonging to human species. I have found my “natural designer” for life.Search it yourself.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

Thermodynamics: The net entropy of a system will increase, but units within the system may become more ordered without violating this.

Biogenesis: We aren’t talking about spontaneous generation, but chemical reactions that can produce the key molecules that make life possible. See the Miller–Urey experiment.

Information science: What? How on earth does evolution contradict information science?

(con’t)

Renbirde in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

Are you saying that the tendency of non organic matter getting ordered in the way that creates aminoacids. proteins and finally a complete biological system is product of an entropic event? But… entropy of what?! Which kind of entropy was occurring when the Earth surface was nude of life?!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Renbirde 1 second ago

My knowledge is that the aminoacids produced by Miller-Urey experiments are not those that constitutes the building blocks of biological systems. And why the aminoacids of Miller-Urey did not follow the natural steps of evolution, towards the next phase, the production of proteins, membranes, RNA. etc.? Of course, the answer can be one and unique that: there were hidden variables or ingredients in that soup of reduced atmospheric that Miller and scientists today does not know.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Renbirde 1 second ago

“And why the aminoacids of Miller-Urey did not follow the natural steps of evolution, towards the next phase, the production of proteins, membranes, RNA. etc”

a). evolution explains the diversity of life NOT IT’S ORIGIN, it’s a seperate topic

b). the reason Miller-Urey experiment didnt demonstrate ‘the next stage’ is because it wasnt meant to (it was beyond the scope of the experiment), HOWEVER the ‘next stage’ WAS DEMONSTRATED in subsequent experiments.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

The exact aminoacids got by Miller-Urey becoming automatically peptides and those complexes molecules for proteins?! Please give me the link for the “paper” or at least some theory about, please… I know that ToE is not related to abiogenesis, my answer for Renbirde is due his talking about abiogenesis.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

“My knowledge is that the aminoacids produced by Muller-Urey experiments are not those that constitutes the building blocks of biological systems”

– that really depends on what you define as ‘the building blocks of biological systems’ in anycase the experiment demonstrated the formation of organic matter from inorganic matter and provided a testable prediction for abiogenesis (one the best forms of evidence in science).

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Of course, the building blocks (not talking about atoms) are those 20 aminoacids seen in all life’s forms. I know the great contribution of Miller-Urey experiment for advance our reason and knowledge in the right track. The problem is that the Miller’s reduced atmosphere was based on the Pavlov calculations who had focused Earth alone and forgot that earth is merely a part of a big system and the sun’s energy is 50% of the whole history. Then, the hidden variables missing in that experiment.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

“The exact aminoacids got by Miller-Urey becoming… ”

– what the experiments have shown is that amino acids are fully capable of forming increasingly complex chemical structures, and that these structures can form increasingly complex structures .etc. Which provides EVIDENCE in the form of TESTABLE PREDICTIONS (one of the best forms of evidence in science) that the steps you mention can occur via naturalistic means.

That is why abiogenesis is the best and most well evidenced explanation

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

Yes, the existence of cars have shown that from them we see increasing complex structures, as roads, bridges, GPS. Which provides evidences in the form of testable predictions that the steps of increasing and diversified complexity occurs in Nature. You have not furnished the links for papers affirming that Miller aminoacids did it alone as I can not suggest real data that cars do it alone. We don’t need ID for abiogenesis if we see that longtime process as cosmological embryogenesis.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 2 seconds ago

“The problem is that the Miller’s reduced atmosphere was based on the Pavlov calculations…”

– incorrect, whilst the earliest Miller-Urey experiments were conducted under the conditions you mention the later ones were not and they also were shown to produce amino acids.

– That combined with the later experiments by Joan Oro indicates that the circumstances necessary for amino acid formation are not particularly rare.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

You have no teaching me how the Miller’s aminoacids gave alone the next evolutionary step and it seems that this process never was proved in lab. Yes. the circumstances necessary for amino acid formation are not rare if we take as base the models of Matrix/DNA Theory suggesting that instead abiogenesis there was cosmological embryogenesis with big mutations due the new state of matter ( liquid) and emergence of organic chemistry. By the way, thanks for mentioning Joan Oro, I will Google it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

A first and quickly look to Joan Oró work showing production of adenine ( this yes, a real aminoacid for life) from hydrogen cyanide suggest that I am right: HCN has been detected in interstellar medium and Miller did not include any photons radiated by cosmic radiation in its experiment. My models are suggesting that the hidden variables for producing aminoacids with capability for next steps of abiogenesis are informations in shape of photons about the building block of astronomical systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

xxx

Why the Bible must be wrong. We have tons of data that can be proven in lab: aminoacids (not exact those chosen by life) can be produced from inorganic matter. Molecules can replicate. All these things fits in a big board if we suppose that one shape (aminoacid) could evolve towards the next more complex shape. We are hard-wired for believe it: if you see 7 photos of different shapes of one person, you know that there is a sequence of one shape producing the other. And nobody see God doing it.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 1:58 PM – Mon – 24

you admit that life has not been created by evolutionists…

QED

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Wait. As a naturalist philosopher I think that the Darwinian three variables – VSI: Variation, Selection,Inheritance – are not enough for explaining the natural process of evolution. But this fault is not enough for invalidate evolution and does not indicates the interference of any Intelligent Designer. The problem with ToE is that there are more hidden variables to be added over those three, and these variables are relative to the real creator and designer of biological systems: galaxies.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

well, the only evidence I have seen presented is miller urey and some outfit peddling a virus that they put together on the beach in La Jolla…

evolution is so well established that, after a century of trying, they moved the first evolution elsewhere, so they could continue what they had already done without inconvenient truths countering their claim…

has evolution devolved in the Department of Genetic Reverse Engineering?

I don’t lie, comrade goebbels…

Tom Adams in reply to panguite (Show the comment) 1 day ago

Tom, look here where lays your problem. We have tons of data that can be proven in lab. Aminoacids (not exact those chosen by life) can be produced from inorganic matter. Molecules can replicate. All these things fits in a big board if we suppose that one shape (aminoacid) could evolve towards proteins and RNA. We are hard-wired for believe it. Because if you see 7 photos of different shapes of one person, you know that there is a sequence making one shape producing the other. Or did God?!.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

I understand all the theories of evolution and of a creation free universe, and they make sense! However, the sun and the moon both appear to be the same size in the sky. The chances of that happening on ANY planet are staggering. If you add that probability to the probability of life evolving on its own, and the numbers become too large to handle. Unless a sun and moon of the same apparent size are necessary for intelligent life to evolve, I can’t think of any explanation other than creation.

octospidersrock 2 minutes ago

The probability calculus does not apply for calculating the probability of emergence of biological systems (aka life) at some galaxy. The reason is the same that the probability calculus never could be applied for calculating how will be the shape of your grandson. Nature is tuned for producing your grandson in the shape of human specie. Same way, galaxies are natural systems tuned for producing biological systems, everywhere.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to octospidersrock 1 second ago 6:20 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

Oh help me Mr Witchdoctor tell me what to do,

We don’t know how life started and my brain is in a stew.

Without a known beginning,

How can we be sure,

The morality of sinning,

And other things obscure.

There is no way of knowing,

If the god I love is real,

So I pin my case on ignorance,

And make THAT my appeal.

ExtantFrodo2 50 minutes ago 3

We don’t need to know anything else than what Nature is showing: the immediate purpose of Evolution here and now is the development of consciousness through the efforts for getting a more evolved brain. Do everything towards this supreme goal. Try to identificate what is good and what is bad in relation to this purpose. Drive your life fighting for the good ones and against the bad. At least, you will be in tune with Nature’s rhythm. It means to be monetary poor but rich in health and wisdom.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

xxx

Well you see, eating food in the same hole required to breathe and sustain life, is just something that occurred AFTER the fall of man from original sin and blah blah blah.

God created two holes to separate food from lungs, but one disappeared and now we need a flap to direct from one hole.

God also made child birth painless in women, but alas, hungry hungry humans ate the pomaceous fruit of an apple tree, and now these bitches gotta hurt when making babies. <3 God

confettibrains in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 43 minutes ago

The worst thing here is that this wrong design maybe is related to the fall of our ancestors – if I didn’t some mistake when applying comparative anatomy between biological and astronomical systems. This event (fall of ancestor) is recorded in our memory (in the region of Junk-DNA). The narrative of Genesis is product of altered states of mind, when flashes of this memory came to mind. The whole mythological narrative is due the ignorance of those authors about modern cosmology and genetics.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to confettibrains 1 second ago

xxx

Ask yourself who would design a critical air intake to be co-axial with the food intake passage unless the intent was to make a jet engine. Do you know how many creatures (mankind included) that die each year from this one “intelligent design” alone?

ExtantFrodo2 48 minutes ago

Well…Why not to know the model of a theoretical designer that is the result of a different approach? Life is biological systems which appeared inside and made by the Newtonian mechanical astronomical system (NMAS). Anything wrong here? If right, the designer and who still drive evolution here is NMAS. And NMAS should be LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Right? But…in LUCA there is only one “organ” for “breathing and eating”. It is the previous design.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

Are you attributing intelligence to NMAS? What evidence do you claim supports this if you do (and you seem to because you call it “a designer”).

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 24 minutes ago

Nope. The previous design for biological systems – from archaea to gorillas – is NMAS, but it is not an intelligent designer. It is the same process that results in our bodies: it was previous designed genetically inside our creators (our parents), but our parents did not applied intelligence for doing the design. Everything happens naturally. You need only a simple astronomical formula-design for getting all diversification of biological species, and all complexity seen in a biological organism

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

Whether the mind can be uploaded to a silicon or other non-biological substrate which is less prone to damage, can be engineered with multiple redundant backups, remains to be seen. I suspect that a slow (neuron by neuron) replacement process would be the least disruptive to the mind presently hosted by a biological substrate. This would require mature nanotechnology to design and implement.

Wisdom is good regardless whether you are meat or machine.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 30 minutes ago

If you do that – the perfect substrate for the best welfare of the mind – you could fall in the hell eternally. Every animal that got a super-specialized way of life was condemned to extinction (dinosaur, eagle, gorilla. etc.). Mind is merely a new evolutionary shape, product of this same lineage, why do you think that mind would get a different destiny? I believe that natural evolution will lead us to the right alternative: our body will be more and more energy, less mass, the best substrate.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

mind/intelligence may find the same fate. There’s no guarantees. You can not be pure energy. Energy radiates and dissipates. Matter is cohesive and by many estimates able to emulate the human brain in a space less than a sugar cube. Most of our brain is taken up by maintenance of the cells. The actual computing and connections space is miniscule in comparison. Small brains like those could fit in very small robot bodies (and of course not require vast resources for survival and maintenance)

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

I have solved this problem of energy dissipation: light wave as closed system. And you have ignored my mention about the dangers of specialization. I think I understand your subliminal intention supporting the choice you made: it is the normal course of human being fighting for survival in the best way possible, but, this fight is driven by a specific world view, which can be the unique right world view. I will give up because my choice is based in a different world view, which you don’t know.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago – 6:44 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

Life is nothing more than animated matter. Mind (the software running on the substrate of animated matter: is what we cherish. The body is a piece of crap that is very fragile, poorly designed, badly powered, insufficiently self maintaining & this is all obviously due to the default effects of evolution. We are presently limited to the one substrate for existence of our minds. This is unacceptable. So we invent gods when we should be inventing a more durable substrate.

ExtantFrodo2 28 minutes ago

Congratulations, ExtantFrodo2, you have reached smart conclusions without making the sacrifice I did for getting the same. Have you noted that these are two extreme asymmetric alternatives: or a better material substrate or the jump to a spiritual elevation (it can be the search for God, or the freedom of mind from any kind of substrate)? And do you agree that the wisdom is always a third alternative? Which should be the third hidden alternative? The Admirable New World but minded free?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago – 4:54 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME!!!!

Why Z + W bosons have mass but Photons and Gluons Don’t!?!?!

No really, I want to know. lol.

ArticulatedHypernova 32 minutes ago

In Matrix/DNA Theory it is fully explained: photons are the result of fragmentation of light waves which are the responsible by quantum vibrations which creates the Higgs field and hence, giving mass to Z + W. The electric magnetic spectrum of any light wave shows seven different frequencies, states, the first being high energetic and dynamical, the last entering in state of inertia. In another words: becoming mass. Ok, it is only a theory you can see the spectrum at Matrix/DNA website.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ArticulatedHypernova 1 second ago

xxx

Please come celebrate with me. Join my channel to experience the wonders of the lord. Our pink unicorn made evolution. Now you can all get along. Evolutionist, we admit evolution is an observable fact. Creationist, we admit that our lord made everything from nothing and he is beyond space and time because he is pink and invisible at the same time. MatrixDNA, you are welcome to come join. We will try to fit your theories into our model, as well. Please listen when the lord doth call.

PinkUnicornIsLord 7 hours ago

Can we forgo fitting MatrixDNA’s ‘theories’ into the IPU theistic evolution model until MatrixDNA makes his ‘theories’ fit reality? He still hasn’t gotten back to me with an answer about where, if having sex chromosomes is one of the traits of the last universal common ancestor, any sex chromosomes can be found in prokaryotes.

Nullifidian in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 6 hours ago

Nullifidian: Sorry, only now I am seeing your question. Prokaryote is merely an intermediate phase in the long, astronomical, process of LUCA reproduction, which end was the first cell system totally working. Binary fission already was a mechanism existing in LUCA (the flow of energy/ínformation once time made one side of LUCA’s face as complete structure, can reproduce it as right face, and split it resulting in two structures). Thanks, that’s what I need for developing/testing the theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

That is fine. MatrixDNA needs to first make sense of what he is saying, get it peer reviewed, publish… then we will work on accepting his vision of universal unity. Do you think perhaps that he is trying to create M-theory, yet doesn’t know someone else has already?

Honorable prophet Number One of Almight Sacred Pink Unicorn: I was in our office when arrived new message of our God. He says creationists are wrong calling us “the monkeys cult” but we have been wrong also, we are “The Physics Cult”. He says we need be “The Biology’s Cult” because we are biological beings and the Universe is alike a living cosmic egg inside the eternal living Pink Unicorn. So, our papers can not be peer-reviewd by the current establishment.The Universe is Pink! Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago – 7:46 PM – Sun – 23 Sept.

PinkUnicornIsLord in reply to Nullifidian 6 hours ago

No, I honestly think he’s just seeing things. He takes superficial resemblances as evidence of some deep homology (for example, he once claimed that cilia evolved into vertebrate limbs) and doesn’t know enough or care enough to make sure that it’s consistent with what we know of biology and cosmology and actually makes sense. He’s like one of those people who sees the face of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and then spend their lives obsessing about the miraculous apparition.

Nullifidian in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 5 hours ago

Nullifidian: the systemic function that produced bacterial flagellum, cilia, is the function with the mechanism that gives motions to systems. Limbs, wings, comets’ tail, the trail left by pion inside atoms nucleus, all of them has the same universal function. If you can waste one minute of your time, see the software formula, the blue picture of systems and the picture of Human Cosmic Code in Matrix/DNA website. Understand the supreme formula for natural systems and its functions is all we need

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

“Sorry, only now am I seeing your question.”

I don’t mind a delayed response, but though you’ve now seen your question, I *have not* seen your answer. Nothing in that pile of incoherent rubbish comes close to addressing the issue of where sex chromosomes are in prokaryotes if possessing sex chromosomes is the ancestral trait, according to your ‘theory’. Your failure to answer this is not surprising, as your ‘theory’ is rubbish and has no basis in reality. You’re seeing patterns that don’t exist.

Nullifidian in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 33 minutes ago

I have answered it. I said that prokaryotes does not need possess sex chromosomes or can possess it, the theory is safe any way. The evolutionary step from LUCA ( the top of evolution before life’s origins) till the formation of the first living being was made by a process where the genome is splitted in space/time instead the linear biological process where the genome is transmitted enclosed in envelope. LUCA is a thermodynamic closed system, so, think about the effects of entropy.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

XXX

Please come celebrate with me. Join my channel to experience the wonders of the lord. Our pink unicorn made evolution. Now you can all get along. Evolutionist, we admit evolution is an observable fact. Creationist, we admit that our lord made everything from nothing and he is beyond space and time because he is pink and invisible at the same time. MatrixDNA, you are welcome to come join. We will try to fit your theories into our model, as well. Please listen when the lord doth call.

PinkUnicornIsLord 6 hours ago

XXX

How a scientist projects his worldview upon the evidence: Sample: Stephen Hawking.

The Universe began with Big Bang ( also, the first machine began with a explosion in a motor); The Universe is eternal re-cycling, it expands and contracts ( also the supreme meaning of existence of a machine is the gear that comes and goes); Black holes devour whole worlds (also, the machine exists for devouring prime matter). The History of the Universe is the same of that produced the electric-mechanical brain.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 10:22 A.M – Sun 23 – Spt.

Computers. It is not a history narrated by human biological brain. Why? Hawking has no human sensory complex. The mechanical brain is feeling the world for him. Then, first time Hawking did a software furnishing informations to computer, this managed his sensors adapted to macroscope and microscope apparatus and went to explore the invisible real. This brain brought new informations for Hawking, used for re-programming the computer. Finally the electric mechanical brain is driven the process…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

of knowledge. They are two different observers, two different intentions. If there is something alive in the Cosmos the mechanical sensors can not grasp it. Each observer selects an array of natural phenomena that fits the same organization of matter of his sensors, and discriminates others. This is projecting itself over evidences. Unfortunately, the electric-mechanic brain has dominated Hawking biological brain. There are no such ghosts as black holes, merely rotational vortexes. I am wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

The recycling idea has gone out of favour in cosmology over recent decades, they tend to describe a continuos expansion followed by heat death. So not so much like a machine – more like a flower blooming and withering.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 hours ago

xxx

Cont.

Evolution doesn’t happen by chance as it is mainly driven by Natural Selection. Natural Selection isn’t random because a certain animal HAS TO adapt to the environment. This animal can mate with any animal and get the same scenario. HAH.

Now onto Abiogenesis.

NuggetKazooie in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Yes but Natural Selection happened by random, it was produced by chance since that the Universe had trillions of other alternatives. By default, evolution happens by chance. The problem is that atheists does not know the real process of evolution, which has a purpose. This Universe is merely the sum of fossils of an ancestor: galaxies. Evolution is occurring inside these fossils carried by biological systems and the purpose is to reproduce be-it-what-is that generated the Big Bang.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

Ya know I was trying to debunked that 40,000th power argument and I was explaining if abiogenesis did happen, The odds would be on our side. I made no note of Miller-Urey or the first cell.

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

Actually, it’s not random. Here’s why.

“Natural selection acts on the genetic diversity of a population, where the best traits for survival and reproduction increase in frequency over time. Since natural selection pushes a population’s traits in an advantageous direction, it’s not random but rather predictable, since we know its purpose.”

Answers.com

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

No, natural selection IS the default. Evolution is a process. It has no purpose. Purpose is assigned by some intelligence. Reproduction is not a purpose. It does not have a purpose. It is a process. It is strictly mechanical.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 hours ago

@”Evolution is occurring inside these fossils carried by biological systems and the purpose is to reproduce be-it-what-is that generated the Big Bang”

And with that, I realized that there was no point wasting any time reading further.

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 hours ago

But natural selection isn’t chance, it’s selection.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 hours ago

xxx

Cont.

Abiogenesis sort of does happen by chance, but the odds are in our favor.

Primordial soup: Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen, and Oxygen

At the time, these were common, putting the “chances” in our favor

With the right conditions, with the soup, the sun, and the and the young atmosphere, we get abiogenesis. But with that, Anywhere the conditions are met, Abiogenesis could take place. That could be ANYWHERE. Half the Earth. Still feel like using that dumb 40,000th power argument?

NuggetKazooie in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

For saying that these ingredients alone produced the right aminoacids which were able to jump to the next evolutionary step building proteins, which produced the RNA-world, we need do it in lab. The Milley/Urey aminoacids are not those chosen by life and they never built a protein. What about Matrix/DNA Theory? The first cell was not produced by abiogenesis but by cosmological embryogenesis where Nature applied nanotechnology for reproducing biologically the building block of galaxies.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

xxx

what are the mathematical odds, “by chance” a man evolves and develops with reproductive organs, and then eureka! “by chance” a woman evolves with a womb capable of sustaining life to the baby for a 9 month period until delivery, “by chance” her breast somehow develop life giving milk for the baby until he or she is able to start digesting food. Evolution “a lot of chances” and impossible mathematical odds. Its a dead, decaying, dying stupid theory.

jimmyriche 40 minutes ago

You are right criticizing the idea that an unguided Natural Selection drive a blind evolution and if we are so beautiful and complex we should be product of lucky by chance. These people lost the control of their Reason. But you are wrong if belief that a possible creator of this Universe comes here dealing with us and designed human reproductive organs, etc. They also lost the control. Everything will be clear for you when our space exploration will show who is Milk Way, the real designer.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to jimmyriche 1 second ago

xxx

Okay…. Then if the earth is billions of years old, why is it only 2012? Are humans only 2012 years old? Explain AD and BC, which the whole world refers to when speaking of time.

marjie114 in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

Marjie, Science has the power for given longlife to you. For instance, do you know that now you are at least 3,5 billions years old? And more: you are more older than your grandmother! We are DNA, and there is an unique kind of DNA which was born 3,5 billions years ago. When he reach 3,49997 years, your grandmother was born, she take her DNA and left the principal. When the principal reached 3, 4998 you was born. Then your DNA is older than her. But, you are younger than your son, yac…yac…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marjie114 1 second ago

There is a problem with my Mathematics. The Matrix/DNA Theory discovered that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal formula that Nature has used for organizing matter into systems. The same formula for atoms, galaxies, living beings. And the formula has the same configuration/functionality of DNA. Then, DNA is variation of this formula, called “Universal Matrix”, which was born with the Big Bang. But, it means that you has not only 3,5 billion: you are 13,7 billions years old..sorry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Evolution is not a process of accidents or random chance, it is a process driven by natural selection. Can you cite one verifiable lie that science has told, or are you just speaking creationist talking points as a means to apologize away scientific explanations of the natural world?

americannightmare76 in reply to JungleJargon (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Natural Selection drives Evolution which drives Natural Selection? Yes…why not? Natural Selector is the environment, the whole. When she selects one (like once time did with dinosaurs, now with human specie) this one change the environment ( dinosaurs ate all vegetation, humans causing global warm and destroying forests), and it means changed the last Natural Selector, turning it more complex, evolved. The nest one to be selected will need be more evolved (like I am…). Feed-back, my friend.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

Feedback? Okay, try forming coherent sentences so your argument actually looks like it’s meant to make sense. Exactly where in my previous comment was I being redundant? Exactly what are you talking about when you reference “she” and what evidence do you have that dinosaurs (vaguely implying all) consisted their diets of strictly vegetation? What are you talking about?

americannightmare76 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

A few things: 1) You said: ” Evolution is a process driven by Natural Selection (NS)”. I thought about it and saw a bigger board: NS was composed by less information when was selecting reptiles or bacteria than is now, selecting mammals. It is debatable, but deserves more studies. The Universe goes from simpler to complex, environments change, so, must change the complexity of NS. But, living beings changes the environment (bacteria producing oxygen, etc.), so, contributes to evolution of NS.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

2) I do not agree with the hypothesis that a meteorite was the cause of dinosaur extinction. The Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that the process of Darwinian biological microevolution is not complete, it is more complex, since inherited mechanisms from universal macro cosmological evolution. These extra mechanisms explains better dinosaurs extinction, one of them being the devastation of vegetation. 3) My sentences are coherent in my native language, sorry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

If English is not your first language, fine, I can accept that, but it still makes even trying to discuss this matter extremely difficult. If English is your first language…dear christ on a fucking pogo stick hoping his way over to that holy three way orgy with Mary and Joseph what the fuck?

Nothing in that entire comment made any sense to me, and I dare not try and spend too much time deciphering it. Just research what evolution actually is, if I can understand it everyone should be able to.

americannightmare76 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

That’s funny! Atheists went running for assuming the ownership of Darwinian Micro Biological Theory of Evolution because the theory is a good weapon against theism. And now they requires creationists just research what evolution is. But this theory does not explains the natural process of Evolution. Evolution is a universal process that began at the Big Bang, built atoms systems, astronomical systems, went through Cosmological Evolution. Now they don’t want research what real evolution is…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

That piece of Hovindish drivel is neither accurate nor honest. To claim that the Big Bang is inherent in evolution is hardly credible. It is true only insofar as the Big Bang is also an essential element in basic maths, all architecture and in the composition of a great symphony.

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

Do you think that evolution was invented by stupid matter of this lost planet? I don’t know Hovindish, I am talking about the final results of a new method of investigation: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. And those results suggests new models of atoms and astronomy that fits with biological systems inside a big universal process of evolution. It is merely a new theory ( already compiled thousands of evidences and right predictions), but here we are debating theories.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ozowen 1 second ago

xxx

Micro-evolution is where animals slightly change and happens quickly. Macro evolution is where things change a lot. If we evolved from apes, We would have to evolve into a whole different species. We can’t do that. Niether can any other animal. It requires a ton of change in cellular structure.

UltraShadic100 in reply to uriituw (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

You have a good point that I need know for my personal investigations. Transformation of “something-like-ape” into human would require changes in cellular structure? It seems probable. Despite the possibility that human specie could be the top of one lineage developed by its own since reptiles – the cellular changes shouldn’t be important. You are affirming “there are no different new specie”. It means that you know there are a ton of change. Please, do you have a link to any source/study?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to UltraShadic100 1 second ago – 3:58 PM – Sat – 22

xxx

Since that all creationists fled in disarray under the weight of facts, I have a question to atheists here. Do you have scientific confirmation from psychology or neurology doing experiments with children educated by atheism world vision and following his/her life till death, that resulted in the best healthier, citizen, successful and happy adult (as all of us wish to be our kids) that we can do facing our modern knowledge and resources?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

What the fuck is an “atheism world vision“?

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

Thanks… you made me learn now that English does not use the name “world vision” as Latin, but the name “world view”. Oh… I think that an atheist is a man with an Occam’s razor at hand always alert waiting any mention about supernatural deities, for cutting if off . As suggests Dawkins: it is too much complicated thinking in a God before the Big Bang; thinking there was the “nothing” is less complicated. The problem with atheism is ignoring that every singularity is produced by complexity

TheMatrixDNA in reply to fangednekoyasha 1 second ago

xxx

Dear honorable prophet of the Great Pink Unicorn: my life is very happy since yesterday when you said your Almighty Dog accepted me. I am voluntary to joining with you for writing the Sacred Book of pinkiunicornism. First you know we need debate how will be the genesis of everything. I think the Universe is a turtle, self-recycling through quantum vibrations and we, living beings, are like those billions of bacterias inside the turtles body. The turtle is Nature and Nature is conscious (cont.)

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Since Nature is conscious think about a human body: the mind or consciousness is somewhere but can not see and has no control over organs and the bacterias living in this body. Nature+ consciousness =God=Pink Unicorn. Each bacteria has a bit of the total consciousnesses, then, the sum of all forms of life of all galaxies is the whole consciousness. When a bacteria dies, his bits became part of the whole consciousnesses and when a region of consciousness makes a sin, became bacteria. Is it good?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Stupid atheist monkey cult. You can’t explain why we still have apes if we evolved from them. You can’t explain how the earth is older than 6001 years old. You know they changed the classification of the fish, and there are no transitionals. We all know that the earth and sun are in the perfect place or we would all perish. Why would and elephant evolve into a lemon tree. The competitive dna should have kiilled the other species so why are their frogs and birds? Answer me that. We are all pink.

PinkUnicornIsLord 18 minutes ago

That’s easy! 1) Evolution kept apes for our fun in zoos.2) I can: the Bible did not account the periods the time was resting, vacations, holidays; 3) They did with Spanish fishes for keeping their prices in market and saving the euro: 4) Perfect place? Sun and Earth has no established place, they are moving with the galaxy; 5) Why would Sadhan Hussein evolve into a president? Accidents occurs, my Pink brother; 6) After extinction of dinosaurs, DNA’s got the Cambrian Peace Treatise. Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago

xxx

RoccoP777 said: ” No not yet present information enters the mix of an existing gene pool as the theory of evolution claims.” and ” you have to appeal to science fiction”

The problem with Toe is reductionism and ID is uncontrollable expansionism. No human being can understand evolution standing inside biological evolution or flying to outside the Universe around the first causes. Your opinion: which is the right point in time/space for an observer to watch and understand biological evolution?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 4:33 PM – Fri – sept – 21

xxx

If I offered to pay you to build a mobile robot with facial recognition software, so that it could walk through a mall and instantly recognize my friend George within one second, could you build it for me? What would you need for this project? Would it require detailed plans? You are more complex than a mobile robot and you have facial recognition software. If logic tells you that a robot requires one or more intelligent designers and builders, what does that say about yourself?

Angela Pearce in reply to pontecanis (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

But…but…Angela!!! Are you not seeing that I – this complex being – was made by my parents and they didn’t use intelligence for doing me?! All that is need is the free course of Nature. How much intelligence mother giraffe applied for doing that beautiful baby giraffe? Ok, there was a previous design – the giraffe’s species. We are discovering that all natural systems had a previous natural non-intelligent design, from humans to Big Bang. There was any intelligence before Big Bang? Prove it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

xxx

Humans came from apes? Most physical and DNA evidences suggests it, but some scientists suggests that biological brains could not give the jump for consciousnesses. The physical body came from apes but not the mind, so, what happened? The answer must be in two details:1) hierarchy of systems, where superior unknown systems furnishes informations for mutations/evolution of sub-systems; 2) In this Universe occurs a genetic reproduction of something natural and conscious. What do you think?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 6:21 AM – Fri – 21 – Sept.


Our ape cousins demonstrate a full range of emotions, problem solving skills, self-recognition, self-identity, language ability, memory and learning and everything else associated with consciousness.

As do many mammal we’ve studied so far.

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

TheHigherVoltage: it’s good going to Wikipedia and reading “apes” and “consciousness” for debating this topic. I did not say that consciousness fell from the sky over the human primate ancestor abruptally, such transference of informations are realized in the superior system dimension of time. Bees and ants societies are more evolved than any animal/human society since there are no internal conflict of class but you know insects have no morals/counciousness, that’s instincts from natural orders.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheHigherVoltage (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Human beings not only COME from apes, they ARE apes. And our brains are typical mammal brains, only with an enlarged prefrontal cortex.

MomoTheBellyDancer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 36 minutes ago

I think that physically it seems that the body of humans came from the bodies of apes. But… in this Universe is occurring the evolution of a unique primordial system, which was in shape of atoms systems, evolved to stars systems, galactic systems, cells systems, brain systems and the new last shape is consciousness system. The jump from galactic to cell system was spectacular due emergency of new state of matter – liquid. Same is the jump from brains to consciousness, a new state of matter.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MomoTheBellyDancer 1 second ago

xxx

I could tell you, but you wouldn’t believe me. You’re inside the darwin monkey cult as deeply as Stephen Hawkings mind is inside a black hole in distant space. I cannot help you.

Angela Pearce in reply to Onithyr (Show the comment) 28 minutes ago

“Stephen Hawkings mind is inside a black hole in distant space”

You are right, the ghost invisible black hole is a mathematical exercise and computer simulations that went away off the beam. My personal cosmological models suggests that at that place, instead the Hawking’s black holes there are merely vortexes created by stars dust under galactic rotation. But before the Hawking’s mind falling into black holes he fell under the mechanical machine’s brain interpretation of a biological Universe.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

xxx

So basically your saying that evolution exists, but you don’t believe we all evolved from a single celled organism as our common ancestor? That’s absolutely ridiculous. We have a proven method that explains how life diversified; why the hell would anyone assume that it was by some other method that we haven’t proven possible? That’s saying that the Earth revolving around the Sun now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t the other way around in the past.

TheBloodyBlackJackal in reply to ironjamesvane (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Hummm… let’s thinking about yours suggestions. Do you know the proven method used by Nature for producing the diversification of life? Then, logically, this must be the method used by Nature for leading the first single celled organism to producing the diversification of cells for to build the first multicellular organism. Must be the same method for leading a single zygote cell to diversify into morula. Have you applied “variation, selection, inheritance” over a zygote and got a baby?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheBloodyBlackJackal 1 second ago

xxx

Actually, it’s a group fighting with sharpened stick helped them survive against a single tiger. Do not forget that us, homo sapiens, are social animals.

Atharkas in reply to FreakShop94 34 minutes ago

You have given me a new idea just now, thanks. When was the first time this phenomena appeared in Nature? What made animals to be social animals as when attacking in groups? Are there any sample of unicellular organisms attacking in groups? About monkeys, apes: they attacks in groups? I think that the primate human ancestor adopted this natural mechanisms due caves: a tiger attacking a cave full of Australopithecus produced a counter-reaction in group because one couldn’t escape. Convergence?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

Actually, the rise of multicellular from unicellular is a sign that working as a group helps the survival of many. Same with several unicellular living in a symbiotic relationship to the point they are considered a single life form (example : Mixotricha paradoxa).

If those more sociable survive, that traits will be passed on. It’s that simple.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

You right but your sample does not help my investigation about first causes and universal meanings. Where is coming the tendency for social groups from? Where are the ancestral forces for this phenomena in the non living world? Seven kinds of astronomical bodies (pulsars, stars, etc.) are grouped symbiotically as systems, each one supporting the existence of all. Same for atoms systems. I don’t understand these people debating creationism/evolution without inquiring the others’ universal meaning

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

xxx

I worry more about the darwin monkey cult poisoning the minds of students with lies and frauds that cause them to act like monkeys. When people are taught they are made in the image and likeness of God, they are more likely to act like children of God. But when they’re told they’re monkeys, they will act like monkeys. Silly Willy is a case in point that proves my theorem that darwinism causes mental retardation, frauds, and lies in the name of science.

Angela Pearce in reply to ismashudie (Show the comment) 48 seconds ago

I think you are right if children are conditioned to believe strictly in Darwinian theory of evolution. There is no way in that theory for hidden the supposed salvage ancestry of monkeys. But conditioning children to believe and following the morals of the Bible or Kuran is same thing as bad. Those gods and morality are salvage, bloodthirsty, slavery and keeps the societies shared between predators and preys. There are new theoretical models of evolution suggesting better ancestry, as Matrix/DNA

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

You’re on the right track. Science should embrace Intelligent Design and religion should embrace proven scientific principles for living correctly.

Angela Pearce in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

It means that Christian religions should forget the Old Testament full of bad morals and only spreading the thoughts of Jesus Christ, which are most good morals principles? Why Science should embrace Intelligent Design if all observed and known natural phenomena are coming from non-intelligent previous design? Do you know even one that I have not found a rational suggestive previous non-intelligent design? Maybe this chain of design-effect-design was triggered by some intelligence, but not here

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

Look inside the one cell organism for the intelligent programming required for DNA replication; this shows what Bill Gates called, “more intelligent programming than all Microsoft products.”

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

Nope. I have looked already and concluded that in fact there is a software program in the first cell. Then I went after the producer of this software and found another less evolved natural software. No intelligence was found here. But, the software I found as producer of the first cell is not here at earth. This software is visible as the building block of astronomical systems. It means that Darwinian evolutionists, reduced to earth landscape, does not have the complete theory. Neither ID’sts.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

“I have looked already and concluded that in fact there is a software program in the first cell.”

Wow, that is just amazing, seeing as there isn’t one.

“This software is visible as the building block of astronomical systems.”

Really? Constealtions unravel and reproduce like DNA?

At least creatinists have a book of lies to support them. You just make crap up

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes, you are right. The software that is your mind working the hardware that is your brain has no evolutionary link with the software that is the commander of instructions of  DNA hardware, and both appeared by magic here. My friend, the human consciousness was sleeping in quantum dimensions, dreaming in galaxies, began waking up in animals, and is awakening in you. This is the natural evolution of a universal software, which creates its own hardware for getting informations for self-evolving.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 1 second ago

xxx

There’s nothing perfect about the way evolution works, or the life forms that have evolved. If we were perfectly designed, we wouldn’t have so much back trouble, nosebleeds, cancer, strokes, etc.

The creationist perspective apparently makes it very difficult for people to understand the realities of evolution.

ge556 in reply to reifsneider (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes but the other way around is also truth: after 150 years of Darwinian theory about evolution, we wouldn’t have so much back trouble, nosebleeds, cancer, strokes, etc. – if the theory was the right and complete one. Reason suggests there are more than “variation, selection, inheritance”, more hidden variables. The very fact that all living being were previous genetically designed points to the reasonable conclusion that the first was also. Be minded opened to new evolutionary theories.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ge556 1 second ago

xxx

What is appropriate for all of us, including children, is the TRUTH, definitely not myths. If you are a truth seeker, search for “Truth Contest” in Google and click the top result, then open “The Present” and read what it says. This is truth you can check, not religious nonsense or any other BS.

LivingRealityNow 19 seconds ago

Do you really think that introducing this “Truth Context” as the “truth you can check” I will go there? Don’t you know the immense space/time and light waves’ dimensions you can not see and reach with your little brain and poor sensory apparatus? Don’t you realize that the “Truth” ( if does exist one) can not be known by humans in this lost little planet? Please, comm’on. If you say: “I have found a theoretical solution that seems the best today…I have a theory..” that’s ok, I will see it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to LivingRealityNow 1 second ago

xxx

THE ONLY REASON WE ARE ALIVE TODAY, IS BECAUSE WE USED A SHARPENED STICK TO KILL TIGERS AND BEARS. REMOVE THAT STICK, WE WERE OVERPOWERED (TECHNOLOGY BEING THE STICK) TO REMOVE THE STICK, IS TO REMOVE HUMANITY FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH

herald potter 34 minutes ago

But…but… the predators (tigers) still exists and hidden behind walls waiting the labor of preys transforming glass into food, and attacking every time that the prey becomes fat. The very truly fact is that today and now, there are 95% of world’s population being tortured as slaves, the “scientific products” only has helped predators taken the liberty and happiness of Indians natives in the jungle. People walking in the streets seems zombies. Have you thought what is going wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to herald potter 1 second ago

M SAYING WE NEED TO ADOPT REASON AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES. WE CANT WITH ASSHOLES TRYING TO STOP PROGRESS. IF YOU STOP PROGRESS, YOU CONDEMN HUMANITY TO EXTINCTION, THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY WERE ARE ALIVE TODAY. WE WERENT BORN WITH CLAWS, OR A SUFFICIENT BITE FORCE. WE WERE BORN WITH THE ABILITY TO CREATE. TO REMOVE MANS SHARPENED STICK TO HUNT IS TO KILL HIM

herald potter 37 minutes ago

I think you are 50% right and 50% wrong.Right saying we need science, technology and progress, wrong saying the currently progress should be the right one. There are several alternatives for progress. Who is the judge? The very fact that today 95% of worlds population are slaves, being tortured under this social systems shared between predators and preys. Science is doing good job by itself, but given power to predators.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to herald potter 1 second ago

6.6 billion people are not currently tortured slaves.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago in playlist More videos from bigthink

Go work as employee 50 hours a week closed in a small space that you are not the owner… then, come back saying what you said. Don’t forget that tomorrow in the morning, the salvage human of any Amazon jungle tribe will wake up having the whole world free for him to chose what he want to do. He is not the right way of living, of course, but is useful for this comparison.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

You’re just mad because you’re unemployable.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Yes, I am not voluntary slave. I have created my own free job for producing what I am consuming and paying my taxes to Uncle Sam. But things could be better in this whole world if all societies were not mimicking the salvage rules of jungles, still shared between predators and preys.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

xxx

I still await the recipe for primordial stew…

lazy-bones pseudo-scientists like to think they don’t have to actually prove it to endorse their atheism, but that’s why they make you actually prove things…

now flat-earthers, they resisted the need to prove things too…

and also the biblical scriptures’ descriptions of the universe…

and look where it got them…

The exclusion of intelligent design from the discussion is rather stupid, eh?

Tom Adams in reply to 88Keyz102 (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

I still await the recipe for primordial stew…

No, you are not waiting it because you already got it grateful, without any kind of rational work: God did it by magics. These is the problem of creationism: never doubt about the first causes. Newton, Einstein, etc., doubted it because their curiosity motivated reading philosophical occultism. All science produced by creationists are works around effects, never first causes. But Humanity never will get control of life/material world in your way.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

And the human scientific enterprise has not got the recipe for primordial soup due the fast advancement of reductionism and total disregard of systemic scientific method. Reductionism leads to delusion that the world is ruled by Physics laws when they applies only to the skeleton, ignoring the soft systemic biological rules covering the physical skeleton. The first real living being was a system, so, its creators must be a less evolved system. It was the hidden instructions in that soup.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

The morality of the Bible creates a society that murders only when threatened…

The first four commandments give us our freedom that derives from the Great God…

The next six are good ways to live, which most atheists I know agree with…

The Golden Rule covers exceptions and shysters…

Tom Adams in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

That’s stupidy! The morality of the Bible is racist, to the “elected by God” is permitted taking more land than necessary for survivor and slaving the landless. When a born-to-be-slave does not agree and fight back he is thieve. The electeds says they are threatened. You “people of the Bible” can delude yourself, but never deludes God. How are you hard working just now producing your bread and everything else you are consuming? I am.Or are you a predator vampirezing the energy of “employees”?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

“Males have the X-Y chromosome & Females only have the X-X chromosome which confirms that Eve was taken out of man/Adam.”

Brilliant deduced. It’s the most astounding breakthrough in cytogenetics since Albert Levan perfected karyotyping.

I promise to tack this up on the notice board at my university (giving you full credit of course) for other scientists to marvel at your wisdom.

Nullifidian in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

It is ironic! It’s just the fact females having only X chromosome a reasonable suggestion that abiogenesis was driven by a previous design which suggests that evolution is real and the previous design was not intelligent. As I wrote in my thesis-website “Origin Of Sex Chromosomes The first CELLS inherited the hermaphroditic state from LUCA” and you can see in the matrix formula, X was the entire circuit of LUCA’s systems, Y was only half circuit. So, X contains Y but Y does not contains X.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago – 6:49 PM Wed, 19

xxx

Random errors in a recipe will usually make it worse, but sometimes they will improve the product. The same is true in reproduction. It’s called evolution. Lots of detrimental changes get selected out, a few advantageous changes get kept.

It’s only “playing mind games” if you don’t understand your own analogy.

ge556 in reply to mariowh (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Hummm…who will decide that the new cake is “improved”? A person using its “flavor”. This is the agent behind the natural selection applied over the cake. Now, let’s go to the history of evolution. What agent was behind natural selection when a female reptile kept their eggs one day more than all others females? Certainly was not the environment approving a new way of adaptation because that female was sadly prejudiced for hunting, self-defense, etc. Nave you any idea?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ge556 1 second ago

xxx

(cont.) and then they could run experiments showing how by random, undirected processes certain colors in the painting could arise by tossing the various paint colors on the canvas — and then extrapolate, how the whole process can create such a painting via natural processes. Their explanation will woefully incomplete if they refuse to recognize the Master painter. Only by recognizing the Master can one get past the “how” and move on to the “why” and the purpose and meaning of the masterpiece.

RoccoP777 in reply to RoccoP777 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Maybe you are wrong. Till today, all known natural architecture, be it living or non-living system, were made by a previous existent “master”, here you are right. Now, try changing the human as observer of Mona Lisa by an alien observer of an embryo inside a womb. How atoms came to make a liver, a brain? Should the alien be right if concludes there is a master, supernatural and are using intelligence for doing the embryo? Nope. All previous masters found in Nature are natural systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 hour ago

When one has to start dipping into science fiction to support a theory, then he’s at the end of his rope. The Mona Lisa really does exist, that is observable, testable.

RoccoP777 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

Nope, relativism is not science fiction but a useful tool to correct one mind’s myopia. When you are believing in some suggested results of any investigation, before betting in it, try to be another observer in a different time/space. Several mistakes in my theoretical models were surprisingly corrected by this method.You should experiment other’s suggestion before believing in the suggestions of Bible’s authors. Of course Mona Lisa does exist and its creator was not supernatural.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago – 5:29 PM – Wed, 19

xxx


There is a big difference between simple ORDERING and ORGANIZATION — unfortunately many sem to think they are the same. If I have a messy office and open a window and a strong blows and pushes all my loose papers w, which were previously scattered all over the room into one corner, that is ordering. But to put those scattered paper in a file shelf in alphabetical order, that is organization — that’s on a whole different level and purposeful and planned. What we see in living organisms is not simple ordering of matter as you would observe in a snowflake or forming of a crystal, but complex organization which is purposeful and designed.

RoccoP777 in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

You said: “What we see in living organisms is complex organization which is purposeful and designed.”

Yes, the purpose is to reproduce a previous design. The recipe for a cake was written because someone made a cake and approved. But if your woldvision is based on ” what we see in organisms” and everybody are saying the re-organization of previous material natural, non-intelligent design, what’s hell are you seeing as intelligent design?! Where and when did you go away off the beam?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

I didn’t claim that! However long term experiment with e-coli bacteria and Drosophila (fruit flies) which breed very rapidly have demonstrated that a living organism does not evolve out of its family group in tens of thousands of generations. All their variations keep them firmly WITHIN their family group. No macro-evolution observed even here.

RoccoP777 in reply to scottpastry (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

Rocco, comm’on, you can not compare the results of experiments made now and by humans with the results produced by the long chain of causes and effects in the opened Universe. My theoretical models, for instance, are suggesting that the natural informations in that lab experiment isn’t 50% of all informations disposable in Nature’s space/time. For instance, the photons coming from the sun today are not the photons/informations from the last million years.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

Correct me if I’m wrong — the strategie for genetic rescue is to recombine an isolated gene pool with the original gene pool to replenish it. Nothing new, just get it back to its roots, the foolness of it’s original richness. Dog races which are over-breed get a genetic boost again, if they get recombined with a mongrel (mix breed). That’s why mongrel races of dogs are much more robust than the overbreed, isolated breeds.

RoccoP777 in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

If we can suppose by a moment that evolution is real, there is no final degeneration in biological evolution, since that the last top result of this evolution is the human brain and consciousnesses. There were no such things in the original gene pool, and it is clearly an advancement in complexity. You are confusing closed systems (isolated species or species super-specialized going to extinction) with opened systems ( species at relationships under evolution).

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

(cont.) were created at the beginning and since then only diversifying, giving rise to variations WITHIN the bound of these families is taking place. We should therefore not expect to see totally new families/orders arising. In fact we would expect to see a net loss of families, genus and species due to genetic depletion (selection culling takes its toll) and extinction – with no new life form to replace them. In the Bible it is stated that all of creation is under “futility” and (cont.)

RoccoP777 4 hours ago

You said: “We should therefore not expect to see new families/orders arising.”

There is a new model (theoretical yet) of LUCA – the Last Univ Common Ancestral of all biological systems – suggesting how a unique creature could be splitted in millions of others with different phenotypes. The solution is simple: you are right suggesting limits inside species because the genome is transferred closed inside an envelope. But LUCA transfers its genome spreaded in time and space: diversification

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

(Cont.) Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University confessed:

‘Even if ALL THE DATA POINT to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’. Hear that, even all the scientific data (facts) must subservient to ideology.

If a chemist and physicist were to take the Mona Lisa apart and could tell you what chemical compounds comprise the pigments, how the spectrum of light can produce colors — all the material features  and then they could run experiments showing how by random, undirected processes certain colors in the painting could arise by tossing the various paint colors on the canvas — and then extrapolate, how the whole process can create such a painting via natural processes. Their explanation will woefully incomplete if they refuse to recognize the Master painter. Only by recognizing the Master can one get past the “how” and move on to the “why” and the purpose and meaning of the masterpiece.

RoccoP777 in reply to RoccoP777 (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

RoccoP777. It seems that you are thinking that nature is only possible if ID and there are scientists avoiding this hypothesis due the ideology of naturalism. If I am right, I need to call your attention for other hypothesis: all life come from prior life and the first cell system (first living being) came from a natural system less evolved. So, Nature is suggesting that previous design is the rule. But all these designs were transferred without intelligence, naturally, genetic transmission.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago 3:37 PM Wed, 19

xxx

“don’t you want justice?”

Not if it involves eternal torment at the hands of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant. I’m not even happy about my government using drone strikes and torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Kandahar, and at CIA “black sites” around the globe, even though they sometimes let people go.

I guess I just must be less bloodthirsty than Christians are, especially the saints Tertullian wrote about, to whom the cries of the damned tormented in Hell would be like sweet music.

Nullifidian in reply to Daracon1010 (Show the comment) 58 minutes ago

What have you smoking/drinking/reading lately that produced such moral?! It’s the most beautiful moral and human intention I have seen! If I could talk in name of human kind I should say; “Thank you! You are may real lover and brother, my real universal family.What kind of philosophy have you being educated by the school, parents, authors, etc.? I need know because that is the world vision that I want for my children. Thank you and add me for following your flag. Any other will be discarded.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

xxx

Chromosome in humans is likely to be a fusion of chromosomes that occured in an ancestor? Ahhh, if only science could be proven by ifs, buts, maybes and likelys… but it can’t. I can say that it is likely that I will die tomorrow, but it does not make it so. I could say that it is likely that this universe was created by God. Would you agree? I doubt it. Saying something is likely because it supports your worldview is not going to help you at all.

Darsaan in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

The fusion is supported by Reason that knows the mechanisms in this event. Chimpanzee made the big mistake of accommodation in a wrong life behavior, closing the doors to the advancement of evolution and was discarded by natural selection. Same thing with dinosaurs, whales, birds: any species that takes a different pathway than the universal purpose and specializes in good life became a branch going to extinction. Nature attacks with entropy as this event, or go back, electing another specie.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Darsaan 1 second ago

xxx

I am here to spread the gospel. The flying spaghetti monster loves u all and wants u to have fresh beer. If u deny him, no fresh beers for u. The FSM loves u all and has bigger balls

MCDirdyBirdy 1 hour ago

MCDirdyBirdy is lying people! He did not say that FSM does not exist anymore because “He” became addict for spaghetti and ate himself…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MCDirdyBirdy 1 second ago – 2:39 PM – Wed, 19

xxx

Orceloi:  “the universe seems to expand both outward and inward toward infinite. ”

– My answer:  You can’t expand inward – that is a contradiction in terms.

parsivalshorse in reply to Orceloi (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

If you take everything literally, then better not study. I was not being literal, it was figurative, your not going to explode from this inward expansion i speak of . I meant that you can keep delving deeper and deeper, to smaller and smaller, and still you find more observable things. One question that has yet to be answered is where did the material for the big bang come from. If it just was there, then maybe we should just worship this god thing, cus he is just there…..

Orceloi in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

You are right with your question: where did the material for the Big Bang come from? Universe has mass with positive energy and the zero mass will happen when this mass will facing the negative energy from the gravitational potential. But, Physics is the study of the skeleton of the Universe, which has a more complex structure, the soft meat, which Physics can not perceive. The solution is same facing your eyes: your body began in state of singularity, mass was the placenta. Think about.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Orceloi 1 second ago

xxx

The only way we see things is by photons bouncing off of items, bouncing a photon off an electron to measure its position will change its momentum. So any time a photon hits anything it moves it.

budd1475 in reply to Orceloi (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

There is something about light and its fragments, photons, that is key for a beautiful theory that can be real. The screen image of electric-magnetic spectrum of a light wave shows seven different frequencies, colors. The spectrum performs a normal vital cycle, like the human vital cycle, from blastula (Gamma-ray) to baby (X-ray), etc. So, light is the carrier of a force that imprints into matter the code of life and vital dynamics. Each photon is a carrier micro-wave. Think about that.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to budd1475 1 second ago

xxx

How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs)

mariowh in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 45 minutes ago

The ancestral of sex – About 5 billion years ago, the evolutionary top system was the building block of galaxies. A perfect machine, half-biological because every life’s properties were beginning to express, in mechanic-Newtonian fashion. The system was composed by a nuclear quasar containing a black hole which emits spherical babies-stars; old planets with giant volcanoes emitting magma that becomes comets. Here, black holes modeled female organ and volcanoes, male organ. Comets are spermat..

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 2 seconds ago

ozoons. That’s the simplest pathway of evolution.Women are attractive? Quasars are the most beautiful bodies and attracts comets flying in the event horizon. Inside a quasar there is a conic black hole? Every female have it. Volcanoes ejaculates magma.The complementary apparatuses were written in the sky, but if you look right the most primitive ancestor in at atom nucleus, where proton makes the male, neutron, female, and “pion” the sperm. And go down you will find them in two quantum vortex.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 12:59 AM -Wed, 19

Well sexual reproduction offers a greater chance at genetic diversity, and so is an aid to adaptation – so many primitive creatures that could reproduce asexually began to reproduce sexually whenever possible. That is a biology question – what has it got to do with god or atheism? You do realize that the equation ‘I don’t understand _____, therefore god!’ is just an argument from ignorance I hope?

parsivalshorse in reply to mariowh (Show the comment) 39 minutes ago

The division of an ancestral hermaphrodite in two separated sex was caused by entropy attacking the ancestral. It was kept by natural selection due the separation created two opened systems, while the ancestral was closed system, discarded by evolution.Problem is that the ancestor is unknown by humans: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems did not leave at Earth surface: it is hidden in our galactic system as its building blocks. See his face at Matrix/DNA website.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1 second ago

Don’t be silly – the last common ancestor of all biology would have come long before sexual reproduction.

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

Don’t be silly – there was no origins, no invention, no creation, of sexual reproduction, neither before, neither after LUCA: Sexual reproduction is a name invented by humans for describing a natural mechanism that is coming evolving since the first system at the Big Bang. Can’t you see this mechanism in the nuclear glue linking protons and neutrons and emitting pion, described by Hudeki Yukawa, for which job earned the Nobel Prize for Physics?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1 second ago

Beautifully so. Every observable object in the universe has a degree of complexity and suffering. Nature transforms naturally. Even the smallest of stars so simple at an early stage have more life than us. The ants that bother me are more efficient, not necessarily more evolved, but less suffering nonetheless. As a true society we would minimize suffering and conceive much greater significance. But we all need to relate with a central ambition first. Oh, tradition, you dream-killer.

AspiringCommentor in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Agree. There is a detail facing our eyes that people does not pay attention – .an adult human body is very, very complex, but it was a point of singularity in the first moment of his life, a microscope ball.Now we are discovering that all complexity can be gradually reduced to the singularity at the Big Bang. But the beautiful is:who produced the human initial singularity were his parents, complexes. So, is rational to infer that before Big Bang there was something alike, complex and natural.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to AspiringCommentor 2 seconds ago 4:05 AM – Sept, 19

“Here, black holes modeled female organ and volcanoes, male organ. Comets are spermat..”

Seriously dude, WTF are you talking about?!?!?!?

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

Talking about universal evolution of a natural mechanism which humans called “sexual reproduction”. Do you believe that at any moment in this 13,7 billions years had an event emerging this phenomena? It would be magic, even by chance. You need know the “non-living”system that evolved to biological systems: all life’s properties, all organs, included sexual ones, were there, naturally designed and working. If had any “origins” it happened before the Big Bang, because in this Universe, never.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to BlueScreenLife 1 second ago

are these facts OR are these just-so-STORIES?

mariowh in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Theoretical models of astronomical and atomic systems suggested by the calculations when applying the method of comparative anatomy between all natural systems, living and non-living. My business now is searching for evidences a favor of these models (amount one thousand um my website) and evidences against, or any scientific proved fact that could destroy definitively the models ( there is none till now). But i am curious: ins’t you able to see those notable coincidence of shapes/functions?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 1 second ago

if you claim so much, blablablabla, you still have got to show people what evidence did you really get. Since you are giving no one evidence, I can only assume that you are lying about evidence you don’t have, and believe that theories are HISTORICAL therefore true.

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

Thousands of evidences, each one is a well elaborated long text of several pages, it is impossible to fit in 500 characters ( they are in my website and copyrighted at National Library of Congress. You are assuming it wrong.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 1 second ago – 6″23 PM Wed 19

xxx

Evolutionist would have us believe that all life evolved from a “soup” of water billions of years ago, that some single celled organisms eventually evolved into all the various forms of life on this planet. Some became grass while others became elephants and still others became humans.

alfadrone 2 minutes ago

But maybe they are half-right. That soup could be receiving cosmic radiation+sun’s energy+earth nucleus radiation through volcanoes vents. These things comes in shape of photons, which are bits of light, which is the carrier of a force that imprints dynamics to inertial matter, in shape of vital cycles. Three radiations coming from all sides of this galaxy which can be the building blocks of DNA, if Matrix/DNA cosmological models are the right ones. Inside that soup there was a…divine design.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

@TheMatrixDNA

google shows links that reference the movie matrix, do you have a link?

alfadrone 18 minutes ago

The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles. But explanations are in the page “home” and the evidences are being inserted in Portuguese version only. First of all, put the palm of your left hand over Function 1 at the matrix-formula ( also the pregnant woman) and begin to understand how the matrix design all things. Your little finger will be the “baby” the thumb will be the “senior”. Non-intelligent previous natural design under universal evolution.Good theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

alfadrone 5 minutes ago

Good point. The explanation is: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Who is LUCA? Where emerged biological systems and which system made them? There were atoms and astronomical systems. Could not be atoms, they are too much simple, it would be a impossible jump. Then, remains only “astronomical systems”. This is LUCA, and Earth is merely part of it. LUCA is almost a perfect machine, all life properties are performed in mechanical fashion. Bacterias are parts also.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

No mechanism you say? Viruses actually physically insert their genes into the host’s genome.

budd1475 in reply to alfadrone (Show the comment) 6 seconds ago

xxx

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 2 hours ago

Natural evolution has an initial goal for every new emergent system, but this goal always is mutated. The “plan” is to reproduce a prior natural design ( life can only come from other life, system can only come from other system). It happens that the prior design is a sub-system inside a larger hierarchy of systems, and the prior-prior system affects the process of reproduction, causing the final mutation. This explains the evolutionary steps between galaxies and cell systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 2:36 PM Tuesday – 18

” life can only come from other life”

Life has only been observed to come from other life.

“This explains the evolutionary steps between galaxies and cell systems.”

No it doesn’t. It does help explain mutation a bit.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 seconds ago

It explains satisfactory for me, better than any other explanation. But then, you don’t know the theoretical model of the building block of galaxies, which has the same configuration/functions that has the building blocks of DNA. The mutations you are telling about – between galaxies and cells – were due galaxies were made only by gaseous and solid states of matter, while cells were the galaxies being reproduced with the liquid state also, wich brought organic chemistry. Theories, my friend.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

Matrix is a wing-nut whose screwy ideas are of no benefit here.

pontecanis in reply to Wilbey Burns 4 minutes ago ( Da patrulha Ideológica)

xxx

“Darwinism” was transformed in the early years of the 20th Century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of “neo-Darwinism”. Combine the idea of favorable mutation occurring by chance and being preserved in the majority of offspring, with the natural selection process, and you’ve got the theory that is taught everywhere in the world today. Neo-Darwinism implies, “that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication — a matter of chemistry and statistics.”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

Yes, Neo-Darwinism and Creationism are errors produced by recently borne human consciousness. Every new natural system (consciousness included) begins its existence shared in two extremist alternatives. In this case, one half shows the tendency to implodes, self-reducing, the other has the tendency to explodes, self-dissipating. One focuses beyond the macro, another focuses inside the micro. The right is Matrixism, from Matrix/DNA, that stands at the middle.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

What is Matrixism?

alfadrone in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 minutes ago

A new way for connecting real data or known natural phenomena trying to get the big board, different from the reductionist and creationist method. It was born when applying the ancient method of comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems. The results suggests that DNA is merely a biological shape of a universal formula, called “matrix” existing as mechanical, electric-magnetic and light waves shapes, also. Only a new theory, a new world vision, being tested against facts.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

Conrad Waddington, a Professor of Biology at Edinburgh University, said, ‘Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation

alfadrone 5 minutes ago

If you are creationists you and Mr. Waddington are being contradictory. If had once time a Garden Paradise for Adam and Even, and they fell due a sin, why not God is keeping their turning back to His paradise through driven the process by the mechanism of Natural Selection? Could you imagine a more intelligent way for driven this possible than this one? God keeps the free will of Adam/offspring being hidden, invisible as the agent behind natural selection. Adam doesn’t know he is driven back.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

  • What the heck is genetic entropy? I’m a geneticist and I’ve never heard the term

    tsub0dai in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

  • It’s not surprising, because it’s not a term that exists anywhere in genetics. It was invented by creationist John C. Sanford in his book “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”. In it, Sanford proposes that there are very small deleterious mutations whose effects are so negligible that they don’t truly impact fitness in any way but whose cumulative effect is to make the genome “run” down until the genetic load becomes unendurable. Thus genomes were created perfect and only got worse since

    Nullifidian in reply to tsub0dai 53 seconds ago

xxx

THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

“the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know…”

The problem is that Newton cosmology was resumed to stellar systems where things like black holes, pulsars, quasars, have no place. These things emerges only in galactic systems, then, Einstein amplified Newton investigations from stellar to galactic. But the larger system always affects its sub-systems, then, Newtonian models need be replaced. Now Darwinism had resumed universal evolution into biological evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:44 AM – 18

xxx

Darwinists immediately try to brand anyone who questions Darwinism a “Creationist”, they pull another subtler, less logical trick: They claim we have no basis to argue against Darwinism unless we can adequately replace it. “However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime. How does strategy squares with any notion of “scientific inquiry”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

Are you copying and pasting again? Stop strawmanning you ass. The way science works is that you propose an idea, or a hypothesis will you, to explain a given phenomenon. The burden of proof is on the person who proposed the idea, and said idea goes under a very rigorous process of fact-finding and peer review. Should it pass these hurdles, it is accepted. When further evidence later disputes this finding, the process begins again! Do you understand how science works yet dimwit? ( Não é assim. Einstein disse que ninguem tem de provar sua teoria, apenas mostrar que ela faz sentido. Porem é preciso demonstrar porque ela não faz sentido)

BlueScreenLife in reply to alfadrone (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Lol… this is a wonderful analysis. I am experiencing this problem just now, since I am suggesting new models that transforms the concepts originated by neo-darwinism. And I am suggesting who is the criminal, but since they never had suspected him because they don’t know the hidden traits of his personality, they don’t hear the defendant.Who are the losers if I am right? The kids and themselves.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:32 AM Sept, 18

XXX

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

Yes, but “creation” means someone creating something in the best way possible to him and the carnage seen here does not fit this concept.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:17 – Tuesday, sept., 18

XXX

Theists who support evolution are in conflict with their beliefs. Theism contends god created us in the form we are now. Evolution claims the evidence shows everything evolved from simple one cell creatures.

allanhill1 52 minutes ago

Both are wrong. Is not rational believing in imaginary constructions of a consciousness that emerged only minutes ago, in relation to the natural universal time, because we know, all babies transforms the real things they see around in tools and fantasies. The unique trustful thing we have for trying to keep our mind synchronized with Nature is using the things and process we see here in our medium dimension for infer how is the macroscope, microscope dimensions and the the past. (cont)

TheMatrixDNA in reply to allanhill1 1 second ago – 10:56 AM Tuesday, sept, 18

Evolution is the proved process that things goes from the simpler to the complex ( every human body begins with a singe microscope ball and triggers the path to complexity), but “evolutionism” forgets that every initial singularity are produced by a prior high complex “natural” design without using intelligence (parents producers of that single ball). Creationism “feels” the hidden prior complexity but as children they imagines the natural invisible agents as ghosts and talking to them.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Evolution is the proved process that things goes from the simpler to the complex

No it doesn’t. Period. More often it trims away things. Viruses, like rabies virus has a whopping 5 genes.

tsub0dai in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 13 seconds ago

Nope. Evolution goes through the trunk of a tree and branches, like viruses, are lateral effects. By the way, since you don’t know how works the high complex natural system that produced abiogenesis ( this astronomical system called Milk Way) you don’t know the causes and origins of viruses. At biosphere viruses are biological shapes performing the functions of comets in that “creator of life”, the function number 5. See the picture of that system in Matrix/DNA Theory models.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to tsub0dai 1 second ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra ToE:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But I thought you were rolling in cash. According to creationists I’ve talked to, the only reason scientists accept evolution is because it keeps that sweet, sweet grant money flowing in, because there’s naturally no end of money available to study evolutionary biology, and you don’t have to account for how you spend it or show any results! It’s perfect!

Nullifidian in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 5 hours ago

xxx

It would be more accurate to make a distinction between different kinds of theory. There’s deductive theory and inductive theory. There’s deductive theory, like the theory of gravity. Gravity is an observable phenomenon, and a theory is reached deductively to explain what is seen. There’s also inductive theory, like the theory of evolution (or creation), which explains what the evidence as a whole might suggest, not what is actually observed (e.g. spontaneous creation or special creation)

culpritification in reply to marksmith1116 1 minute ago

xxxx

The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.

If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.

If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions. Obviosly evolution is not science. Truth hurts — especially if it’s funny

You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced

alfadrone 4 minutes ago

xxx

Milton summarized some of the myths referred to in the title of his book, ” myth of the age of the Earth; myth of radiometric dating; myth of the gradualist fossil record; myth of beneficial mutations, which just haven’t been found; the myth of natural selection; the myth that evolution is blind; the myth of the beak of the finch; the myth of vestigial organs; the myth of homology; the myth of the missing link. There’s a whole long long list of myths. Add them altogether and you get Darwinism.”

alfadrone 30 minutes ago

xxx

“Darwinism” was transformed in the early years of the 20th Century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of “neo-Darwinism”. Combine the idea of favorable mutation occurring by chance and being preserved in the majority of offspring, with the natural selection process, and you’ve got the theory that is taught everywhere in the world today. Neo-Darwinism implies, “that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication — a matter of chemistry and statistics.”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

xxx

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bom para ToE e/ou Current Scientific Method

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Cientistas Supõe Que Origens da Voda Não é Produto do Acaso:

  • If emergence of life isn’t presumed to be random then….what is it presumed to be?

    doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 11 hours ago

  • It is presumed to be the result of chemistry and physics, and these reactions are not random. Run a spark through a mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas, and you’ll get a big explosion and H2O as a result, not H43O729 no matter how many times you do it. If it were really believed to be random, then no scientist would have wasted even a minute’s worth of time trying to replicate any part of the process in the lab

    Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 6 hours ago


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bom Para Matrix/DNA:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

See how your “scientific proof” that the fish to man story must be true is because a religion believes in it? I rest my case.

It’s not about creation versus evolutionism – it’s about NO origin (of life, of universe, or of biological diversity of life) belief can be called science. No such belief can be backed up with an observation showing it to even be possible.

Evolutionism maligns science – can’t be shown to be possible and instead relies on attacking religion to “prove” it. Not science.

We haven’t observed an electron in actionso by your argument, every understanding we have about electricity is not science but a belief. Your computer is operating on a religion of faith.

Same with gravity. We can’t directly observe gravity – so gravitationalists are just full of faith and religion – and push their beliefs onto everyone else. Putting satellites in orbit is not science – that’s religion!

Now step back and realize why you’re an idiot.

Nor could we ever “see” an electron or gravity or a microwave because they exists outside the visible spectrum of light. Thankfully we have tools that can measure those things independently of sight, some people say seeing is believing but that only covers about 5% of reality. ; P

xxxxxxxxxx

Gamma radiation e DNA. Pesquisar isto:

Do you know what gene splicing is? Do you know how it’s done in the lab? Do you know what gamma radiation does to DNA? How about low dosage gamma radiation for DNA repair? How about for DNA gene splicing. The ice core gamma radiation record is clear and well documented. So are the effects of gamma radiation on DNA. Some want turtle shell and bone digging as science and some want astrophysical. Darwinian evolution will definitely not stand even for a few more years.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to Onithyr 1 hour ago

Good science always challenges existing theory. If you don’t like it, you can certainly cling to Darwinian theory. I think that theory is really bad. Its much more plausible that DNA changes come as a result physical phenomenon scientifically KNOWN and PROVEN to produce DNA change. Darwin was stooopid. 😉

Chakrathazhwar in reply to Onithyr 42 minutes ago

Se êle está dizendo a verdade estaria aí a brecha por onde entraria LUCA mesmo nos ultimos estados avançados da evolução biológica, resolvendo o problema da falta de links.

XXX

Nunca esquecer:

“matter cannot be created or destroyed “”

Wrong.

Matter can be created from energy, as occurs in particle accelerators. And matter can be destroyed by being converted into energy, as occurs in nuclear bombs.

DNAunion in reply to TheOfficialPSPHacker 16 hours ago 2

XXX

Pesquisar isso. O que é Gulo gene e porque isso aconteceu?

Explain hundreds of different primates all having the same mutation breaking their GULO gene thus preventing them from being able to manufacture vitamin C which is essential for multicellular life. Explain how an intelligent designer copies this same mistake only into a particular branch of primates.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to hunting4them (Show the comment) 40 minutes ago

XXX

The Edison who said “what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.” Sounds more like a deist or pantheist, definitely doesn’t sound like the Abrahamic god.

fangednekoyasha in reply to Al3jandr0101 (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

XXX

Darwinists immediately try to brand anyone who questions Darwinism a “Creationist”, they pull another subtler, less logical trick: They claim we have no basis to argue against Darwinism unless we can adequately replace it. “However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime. How does strategy squares with any notion of “scientific inquiry”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

xxx

THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

“It is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the truth to doubt, investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever this doubting and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand unquestioning belief — there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned had truth on their side, they would patiently answer all questions.

alfadrone 12 minutes ago

xxx

Bom para ID/Creationism

Copernicus was a Catholic bishop when he discovered heliocentrism and Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk who studied genetics. The psalms talk about observing and exploring the creation of God. The book of Job talks about “dividing the light”, which may have led Newton to experiment with optics and glass prisms. Science needs morals to make progress; example: Adult stem cells have successfully treated 72 diseases, but embryonic stem cells are known to cause cancer at the site of injection.

Angela Pearce in reply to AspiringCommentor (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sôbre o Vídeo/Debate:

  • My biggest problem with the video is the following. The gist of the video is: don’t let your children question evolution because it will stifle innovation. Am I the only one that finds this ironic? Really? Absolute loyalty to this problematic theory of speciation can’t or shouldn’t be questioned? If by evolution he means gradual change in species, even AIG acknowledges more radical changes in species than evolutionists do. What’s really his beef with believers?

    doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

  • His beef with creationism–not with believers, a term that can encompass people who accept evolution–is that evolutionary biology is the fundamental basis of biology. Trying to learn biology without it is like going through a semester on kinematics without addressing the concept of mass. The conceptual problems that arise for students when they are miseducated in the subject are myriad and hard to fix, as I know all too well from being a grad student TA who has had to fix fundamental errors.

    Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 1 hour ago

    • I had no problems learning biology. What particular problems did you have to try and fix?

      doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 12 minutes ago

    • The main problems I’ve seen are:

      Not getting that evolution is a population-based process, the belief that “transitional” means a step in metamorphosis of one individual, no ability to conceive of what a transitional would even look like based on a thorough understanding of what evolved from what and when, essentialist thinking when dealing with populations, and the inability to think of things like biochemical processes in a functional and evolutionary context, which harms their understanding.

      Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 7 seconds ago

      Agreed. However, Bill Nye in this instance is crossing from the realm of science into the realm of ‘this is what you should not be teaching your children because this is what I know to be false.’ Because Bill Nye is now discussing not scientific matters but worldview matters, I have followed suit. My arguments are not strawman because they are not scientific. If Bill Nye is an honest scientist he should show us the evidence that a differing worldview stifles innovation.

      doctordemando in reply to whiteowl1415 1 hour ago

      This is not a matter of worldview. The claims that species are separate creations, that the world is 6,000 years old, that all humanity arose from a breeding population of 2, and that there was once a global flood that also reduced all non-human species to a population between 2-7 and humans to a population of 8 are all false. They are hopelessly at odds with all of biological and geological reality. Thus teaching these falsehoods as truth prevents students from getting a grasp on reality.

      Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 1 hour ago

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx