about three hours yesterday
expanding on
what he talked about
in a lil over Eight minutes.
Chuck Missler Genesis Commentary Session 6
(Genesis 1:20-21) The fifth day.
So if you wanna believe:
"left-handed electrons preferentially destroy
left-handed precursors of biological molecules"
"This selective destruction
could explain why life primarily utilizes right-handed structures..."
"cosmic radiation, which may have favored"
"nature favored one type of enantiomer"
"polarized cosmic radiation could have selectively destroyed"
"If our Universe hadn’t created..."
a matter-antimatter asymmetry early on..."
"If the inflation (Field)
treated right-handed particles
differently than the left-handed ones
then it could have
preferentially created particles
of one handedness over the other."
As opposed to:
"At some point in time one has to reach the logical conclusion that the entities themselves are not the ones making decisions/exercising preferences, but that the entities
CREATOR
is exercising his preference
for there to be life in the universe he created.
?????????????
THEN YOU JUST GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DO SO.
But
As for me and my household?
We will worship the lord.
Joshua 24:15
18:43 - 24:08
see there is
a hierarchy of design
we've talked about open loop systems
we talked about
closed loop systems,
then adaptive systems,
and self-modifying systems
this leads
18:55
as you build up the ladder you
finally get to intelligent machines
(Oh boy, here we go.)
machines that have intelligence
that's something that was
19:02
Unthinkable a century ago
and yet we live with it every day
(That was in 2023/24.)
19:08
see there is a concept of having a storage program some process taking place a knitting machines an example a very complicated program and the knitting machine will organize the threads to produce a pattern that's a typical example of a stored program machine but
19:20
the great Insight that we're indebted to John Von Neumann the mathematician for is a situation where in the storage you'd have where you have the program that's driving the machine giving the machine the opportunity to change the program that's what makes a computer different than just a complicated adding machine
19:39
you can have a very very complicated calculator that does very marvelous mathematical calculations but it's still a calculator
but if that Collective system
can change its own program
you have a computer
that's what they call the
phone Neumann architecture because in that storage you have not only the data you want to manipulate you can have the program the instructions to manipulate, manipulate the data and if you really clever you can include the instructions guidelines how to change itself to try other things if that doesn't work you can have programs that learn you can have programs that will try different things and it'll do it at incredible speeds
(That was over 20 years ago when he said that...
Think about it for a second.)
20:18
when I was in charge of the computer center at the Ford Motor Company I remember figuring out that we have calculating skills at about a dime a man year if you sit down with a calculator and figure out how much you could do working eight hours a day 50 weeks a year and you run that arithmetic in those days the computers we had then could do that same work for about a dime in a fraction of a second
but that's not the point and so and I can remember subsequent to that when I was in the computer industry I'd left Ford I I was among other things I was chairman of Western Digital for a while I can remember going around the country pointing out that I had more computer power on my desk at home that I was responsible for when I ran the computer center for the Ford motor company
so progressing
you and I take this progress for granted
but the net of it is, part of that is
because we've learned
21:10
how to make self modifying machines
(This is 20 years ago
by the former Chairman
of Western Digital goodness sakes.)
you take the processors from the storage add some Electronics so you can communicate with it keyboards or displays or whatever and you have a simple simplified diagram of a modern computer
when you get into intelligent machines these are self-modifying
21:27
but then the next step in the computer industry in the late 50s early 60s we realize that programming computer was incredible but it was accident prone because we're dealing in machine language so we started creating programs that would make the programming easier and so we had computers programming themselves we had self programming systems
21:46
(That was over 20 years ago.
This is why I keep trying to tell everybody:
"Things are so far more advanced
than you could ever believe."
AI, etc
This isnt some nitwit crackpot talking
on Joe Rogans podcast trying and keep himself relevant, or make a buck or two etc.
He was chairman of
Western Digital for a while
for goodness sakes.)
you express what you want and the computer would generate the program we call those compilers and there's other names for them
21:54
it's the next step to make a computer
that can diagnose itself when something's wrong
you do parity checks but there's a lot more you can do where the if something goes first thing you do aboard ship or on a combat situation with computers if something seems strange
you run the Diagnostics
(Lil familiar with checking the log files for errors...yup
Former place of employment:
)programs will it'll check itself out to find out if it's working properly
there are such things they're not perfect but they're very skilled
22:18
the next step is self-repairing systems
we're not there yet
(We are way past there now)
but the next dream in the computer arts would be to create a computer see we can make computers that will correct errors the nfsq-27 was when you could take you could pull cards out while it was running and it would it would continue because it had error correcting Logic for it used 11 bits per byte rather than eight and with that you can do three party checks and tell the position of the error and have it correct so they built they actually are air defense systems who were built with that kind of uh design idea but getting those that have a problem that fix themselves is not something where they
were not there yet
(Again, that 20+ years ago.
We are past there now.
Way past.
What?
Did you think
they would just come out
and tell you this?
People plz.)
but if we could get there
what's the next step?
To make self-reproducing ones
(Now it gets spooky)
I can remember even as a kid I I saw a little cartoon a guy was showing a friend his Factory and in the factory had as far as the eye could see robots sitting on benches and other robots making them it was a factory where robots were making more robots and the guy was telling someone:
"I don't know where it's going to all end."
(It ends,
Here,
particularly vs 15
The second beast was given power to give breath to the image (synthetic souless humans) of the first beast, so that the image could speak (LLM's) and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
and soon.
Reference:
Point #3
The case for Superintelligence being here now
"About 738 of OpenAI's 770 employees, including Murati and Sutskever, signed an open letter stating they would quit their jobs and join Microsoft if the board did not re-hire Altman as CEO
and then resign."
THATS
SIMPLY
NOT OF
HUMAN
ORIGIN.
96% of em.
The 4% that didnt sign the letter?
Humans.
THAT WAS 14 months ago.
It was here before it displayed itself to us.
Compare:
"in the factory had as far as the eye could see robots sitting on benches and other robots making them it was a factory where robots were making more robots"
"About 738 of OpenAI's 770 employees, including Murati and Sutskever, signed an open letter stating they would quit their jobs and join Microsoft if the board did not re-hire Altman as CEO and then resign."
Also?
Reference:
Revelation 17:12-13
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are
ten kings,
which have received no kingdom as yet;
(Unaccountable, to big to fail, Tech bros yo.
Tech Oligarchs
Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, Altman, Thiel,
pick any ten you want. Still gonna end up the same.
This is hard to see these days?)
but receive power as kings
one hour
with the beast.
(That is us and where we are right now.)
13 These have one mind,
"About 738 of OpenAI's 770 employees...signed an open letter stating they would quit their jobs and join Microsoft if the board did not re-hire Altman as CEO and then resign"
and shall give their power and strength
unto the beast.
Always found it interesting:
Matthew 26:40-41
40 Then he (Christ) returned to his disciples and found them sleeping.
(Like the church today)
“Couldn’t you men
keep watch with me for one hour?”
he asked Peter.
That "one hour" was right before the end of his existence in the flesh, just like:
"ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."
Is right before the end of our age.
Truth.
)you know but the truth matter is we don't make a
self-reproducing systems
(Not 20 years ago we didn't.
But we have been for a while now.
And it uses a self-reproducing code
to be able to do so.
Opps.)
23:24
we're trying to we're starting to explore biological components
on the chip and in certain limited ways but what I'm trying to point out here
as you move up
the ladder of design Elegance
we have not even achieved the design elegance
we see all about us
whether you're looking through
a telescope or a microscope
("The more you know about your world on the subatomic scale and the large scale structures of the universe? The more you will begin to understand, not only can there be a God, but that there HAS to be one."
Yeah...
I know who likes saying that :-).
He was saying it well before he ever knew of Chuck Missler BTW.)
we are bounded by bewildering elegance
and skill in the designs around us and
the ultimate one is life itself
with all that we know about life itself
science has not been
23:57
able to create a synthetic one
every cell on the planet Earth has come
24:02
from a previous cell
they don't get created
they get they derive from an earlier cell
(That is still true to this day. AI can create a virtual cell, but no synthetic one has ever been produced in a lab for any length of time, has never replicated itself etc.
THE FACT THAT WE WITH ALL OF OUR SCIENTIFIC KNOW-HOW? CAN NOT TO THIS DAY CREATE A LIVING SELF REPLICATING CELL?
THIS IS EVIDENCE
OF THE CREATION OF LIFE
BEING THE SOLE PROVIDENCE
OF THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
Self replicating digital intelligence will bring about Gods wrath, you can count on it.
Life forms not of Gods creation?
That aren't supposed to be here?
Bring about destruction.
Genesis 6:1-4
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God
came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them,
the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown.
“Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.”
~
Chuck Missler
And even if man could?
Recreate a
"simple cell"
in a lab?
IT TAKES AN OUTSIDE AGENT
(Human)
to have done so.
Set up the process so to speak.
So what makes you think
the first cell(s)
life
etc
didn't need an outside agent
to create them?
If attempting to recreate them does?
Ill be waiting.
Good luck.
um there's another thing they don't tell you about
(This one is huge,
were gonna take a detour
bring in some extra points
and be here for a few minutes.)
is that these complicated molecules because it's carbon
hydrogen and oxygen and some mix of some kind
are asymmetrical
they have a shape
and that shape when it's in a fluid will cause polarized light to polarize a certain way if it polarizes to the right they call that a a right-handed molecule
every right-handed molecule has a symmetrical
image that's left-handed
the same molecule but in the reverse order will give you the mirror image of the first
30:49
one you with me they call that property chirality you and I would call it left or your headedness left or right-handedness and if it's right-handed it's natural rotary and it's level rotary if it's left-handed now the point is they are toxic to one another
31:03
all the DNA or RNA molecules and
nucleotides are right-handed all the amino acids
in living proteins are left-handed
(Sounding like an accident yet?)
there are molecules that are the wrong ones
and they are toxic
strychnine is the wrong-handed
kind of molecule
31:28
now the point that's interesting here
they never tell you if these molecules happen by accident
whatever cause it might be
if it's a true chance
you're going to get half of one
and half of the other right?
31:43
we don't get half of one
and half the other
we get right-handed ones for DNA
we got left-handed
ones for the amino acids
31:49
that fact alone
tells you that there is
selection
going on
someone is guiding the process
("Equilibrium is the enemy of selectivity".
That is such a great point.
This is at the molecular level,
(actually lower than that
we will see here in a minute.)
not an organism,
so you can just throw
natural selection
out the window as having caused this
And the thing to ask yourself is,
WHY DOES THAT GET
LEFT OUT
OF THE EQUATION?
Pun very much intended
for those that got it :-)
You simply never hear about it.
Why?
Satanic world system much?)
you follow me okay see if we have a room full of people here some are left hand some right hand and if I ask all the left-handed people
32:08
to go down that Hall and all the right-hand people to go down that way and you ended up doing it right
32:16
it wasn't by chance somehow you had some checking going on you follow what I'm trying to say okay it's about probably a bad example but I think you follow my logic
(Its what they don't tell you that gives them away.
WHY DONT THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW ALL OF THE STORY? WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH SCARES THEM SO MUCH?
And?
That clearly shows Satan is in charge of this worldly system.
Because these are all things
we all should all know by now,
but they never see the light of day.
Because it violates the religious orthodoxly
of their faith-based belief system of Scientism.
Side Notes/Detour etc...
Why is the DNA helix right-handed?
Registro Dominio
Studied Molecular Genetics & Molecular Biology
at University of Pennsylvania (Graduated 2022)Dec 17
Introduction to DNA Chirality
DNA is a chiral molecule, meaning it can exist in two structural forms that are mirror images of each other: a left-handed helix and a right-handed helix. The most common form in living organisms is a right-handed double helix, known as B-DNA. Understanding why this particular structure is dominant requires exploring molecular structure
and historical scientific assumptions.
(Like the Steady state model etc were?
Gotcha.)
Chirality and Molecular Structure
DNA's chirality stems from its building blocks, the nucleotides, which are themselves chiral. This means they can exist in two enantiomers that cannot be superimposed on one another, similar to how the left and right hands are mirror images but not identical. In the case of DNA, when the double helix is viewed as a spiral staircase, if you descend while turning right, you are following a right-handed helix; conversely, turning left indicates a left-handed helix.
B-DNA is the Dominant Form
B-DNA is dominant in all known life forms
for the following reasons:
Stability and Functionality: B-DNA has structural features that make it stable under physiological conditions. Its right-handed twist allows for optimal hydrogen bonding between base pairs and facilitates interactions with proteins involved in replication and transcription.
(Oh so it was designed that way then?
Gotcha.)
Biological Roles of Z-DNA:
Although Z-DNA exists in a left-handed form under certain conditions (e.g., high salt concentrations), it is less stable than B-DNA. Studies suggest that Z-DNA may play a role in specific biological processes, but these situations do not challenge the dominance of B-DNA.
Historical Hypothesis on Chirality:
The Vester-Ulbricht Hypothesis posits that
polarized cosmic radiation
may have influenced
molecular chirality on the early Earth.
Studies have shown that
left-handed electrons preferentially destroy left-handed precursors of biological molecules,
including those that lead to the formation of DNA. This selective destruction could explain why life primarily utilizes right-handed structures, such as B-DNA."
(Okay so now were getting to the heart of the matter.
What makes anybody think
Electrons could have a preference?
"a greater liking for one alternative
over another or others"
That is deliberately making a choice.
Only an intellect
or at a minimum
a living organism
with can choose
one alternative over others.
Electrons (subatomic particles) don't get to have selection capabilities people.
That is just complete idiotic nonsense.
I dont care if you
"Studied Molecular Genetics & Molecular Biology
at University of Pennsylvania"
Or anywhere else.
What other choices do electrons get to make then?
Surely its not just limited to this right?
(Pun intended yet again)
Why dont other subatomic particles get to make selections then?
Just on and on and on...
WHY?
Because the logic/reasoning is flawed!
I mean if you have logic and reasoning skills
to make a choice/selection?
Surely it wouldn't just apply to one situation, or one sunatomic particle would it?
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.”)
"This selective destruction could explain why life primarily utilizes right-handed structures, such as B-DNA."
Once again.
Selection
"a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of ORGANISM thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.
requires an intellect or an organism.
("A living thing,
such as an animal, a plant,
a bacterium, or a fungus.")
Were not to an Organism yet lol.
And if you are eliminating
the competition beforehand?
How could you not:
"thrive better than others"?
Its got nothing to do with improving your chances
and everything to do with getting rid of the competition
so to speak.
SO HOW DOES AN ELECTRON KNOW
TO DO SO?
We live in a causal universe.
Everything has a cause.
So what cause the electron to do that then?
IT'S DESIGNER!
Honey these people geez louise...
Experimental Evidence Supporting Chiral
Bias: Recent experiments have shown that circularly polarized light can influence electron behavior in ways consistent with the Vester-Ulbricht Hypothesis.
(More on that in a minute.
See also: Homochirality)
These findings lend credence to the idea that environmental factors play an important role in establishing chiral preference during molecular evolution.
Evolutionary Significance:
The persistence of chiral bias over billions of years may have enhanced the prevalence of right-handed DNA through evolutionary mechanisms that favor stability and functionality in biological systems.
Conclusion
In summary, the dominance of right-handed DNA can be attributed to its stability and functional advantages in biological systems, as well as the historical influence of cosmic radiation, which may have favored this configuration during molecular evolution on the primitive Earth.
("...cosmic radiation...
favored this configuration"
Well you know?
Again
We live in a causal universe.
Everything has a cause.
So what caused:
"Cosmic radiation"
to
"Favor this configuration."
???????
I know what I am going with.
Yup...
And One more here only because this is big, because you never hear about it and lets face it, electrons don't make decisions and radiation doesn't favor without a cause regardless what any brainiacs might believe or say.
Left-Handed DNA: Is That Right?
Ken Doyle PhD,molecular biology
"Although they observed only a small effect, the Vester-Ulbricht hypothesis gained in popularity as an explanation for why nature favored one type of enantiomer when it came to biological molecules like sugars, amino acids—and DNA."
(Ive been doing this a while,
you see this a lot
"Although they observed only a small effect,
the (fill in the blank) hypothesis
gained in popularity."
Translation?
"Hey we got what we wanted.
Never mind the meagerness of the results
Lets get this published
and convince others of its worthiness."
Here is but one example of what I am talking about below.
And believe me these types of examples are everywhere.
An interstellar visitor may have changed the course of 4 solar system planets, study suggests
"Using computer models of the four outer planets, the team carried out 50,000 simulations of such flybys..."
"Although most simulations
(more than 99%)
created conditions very unlike the current solar system, the researchers found that in approximately 1% of the simulations,
(means less than or they would have said, "In over 1% of the simulations)
the visitor's passage altered the giant planets' orbits to approximately their current state."
(See the built in bias there?
"Most simulations"
not:
"More than 99% of the simulations"
vs:
"in approximately 1% of the simulations"
not
"in less than 1% of the simulations"
Think thats an accident?
You know better.
What they are really saying is this:
"Our shit didnt work out right
in over 49500 attempts out of 50,000."
But that doesnt generate click bait or ad revenue.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand.)
"Over fifty years later, researchers at the University of Nebraska provided evidence that supported the Vester-Ulbricht hypothesis (3). They studied the chiral molecule bromocamphor and observed that polarized β-radiation preferentially dissociated one enantiomer of bromocamphor in the gas phase.
That is, left-handed electrons preferentially destroyed left-handed bromocamphor enantiomers. Once again, the magnitude of this “chiral bias” effect was small, but it suggested the intriguing possibility that, in the distant past, polarized cosmic radiation could have selectively destroyed the precursors of left-handed DNA.
(This is the faith-based belief system of scientism at work.
"Suggested possibility"
Eventually gets treated as essential dogma.
"Anything but God."
Is not logical,
nor is it good science,
or good for future scientific endeavors
So now we got electrons making decisions
and polarized cosmic radiation favoring...
I just laugh at how idiotic the whole thing is,
I really do, you should as well)
"A review of further research in this field
suggests that,
although the chiral bias observed is small,
(see above about the 50000 computer simulations)
it can be persistent and have a major impact through billions of generations (4).
(Still doesnt generate information BTW)
Further, chiral bias also applies to RNA precursors, consistent with the “RNA world” hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth."
(To bad they cant even get
RNA to even exist/replicate
in the sterile conditions of a lab
even under a guided process
directed by an outside agent.
Reference:
It kinda don't like water,
isn't very stable etc....)
All this reminds me of:
"If our Universe hadn’t created
a matter-antimatter asymmetry early on..."
5 “what ifs” that would have changed cosmic history
Ethan Siegel
(Love ya my friend, cant wait to meet ya someday.)
Or
"If the inflation (Field)
treated right-handed particles
differently than the left-handed ones
then it could have
preferentially created
particles of one handedness over the other. "
November 2, 2023
Asymmetry Detected in the Distribution of Galaxies
Myriam Wares
So thats:
"left-handed electrons preferentially destroy
left-handed precursors of biological molecules"
"This selective destruction
could explain why life primarily utilizes right-handed structures..."
"cosmic radiation, which may have favored"
"nature favored one type of enantiomer"
"polarized cosmic radiation could have selectively destroyed"
"If our Universe hadn’t created..."
a matter-antimatter asymmetry early on..."
AND
"If the inflation (Field)
treated right-handed particles
differently than the left-handed ones
then it could have
preferentially created particles
of one handedness over the other."
Now you understand why they don't tell you about any of this?
How many inanimate entities do you have to have making decisions/exercising preferences before you realize what an entire crock of shit all of this is?
Organism (Living things) decide on selection,
not radiation, electrons, "the universe" or nature.
Note: That was four different articles on two different subjects, cosmology and origin of life.
At some point in time one has to reach the logical conclusion that the entities themselves are not the ones making decisions/exercising preferences, but that the entities
CREATOR
is exercising his preference
for there to be life in the universe he created.
(See Occams razor,)
not multiplying entities etc.
I got one transcendent sentient intellect designing all four inanimate entities
(The Electrons, polarized light, matter, and the inflation field mentioned above)
four different people
have four different
inanimate entities
each deciding
selection/preferences
independent of one another
all ending in the same common result.
Life in our universe.
To put it as simply as I can?
What is more likely?
One makes complete sense.
Doesn't multiply entities ect
One is complete Satanic Horseshit.
Violates Occam's Razor etc
Choose carefully.
Eternity is at stake.)
The universe can decade to create?
But nothing created the universe?
That decides to create?
Bad logic is bad science.
It will never yield a completely
truthful conclusion.
Psalm 139:5
You hem me in behind and before,
and you lay your hand upon me.
Translation?
Gods got you comin and goin.
You will not be able to fit
your square pegs into his round holes.
It just wont ever work.
No matter how hard you try.
Obviously.
Your minds
(that like to think
what you want them too?)
Had better start listening
to your BRAINS,
that know what's what.
Goes to mind body duality etc.
Meanwhile lol...
No comments:
Post a Comment