„The melodies in the language of music messages from space that lead to God.”
„A dallamok a zene nyelvén érkező üzenetek az űrből, amelyek Istenhez vezetnek.”
"A scale is a series of notes /tone ladder/ based on the non-tones of a single note. Scaling is the strumming, playing, singing, tapping, etc. of the notes of a particular scale in ascending or descending directions. If the notes that follow one after the other completely match a set of notes in a key, then without rhythm it is already a scale." /N1. Guitar Lessons/
If the notes of the scale are varied in different ways that we like, writing them down, adding harmonic regularities that occur in music - e.g. thinking of harmonic examples, relationships - then if we think about it further, it can become a symphony. /N1/ Possible does not mean that it happens by itself, but by the one who consciously and arbitrarily varies the notes of the scale according to freely chosen tonal systems, writing them down, supplementing them with harmonic regularities. If we compare the living organism to a symphony, we must assume the existence of similar laws and their conscious application.
Living things have organisational properties that clearly exceed the potential of their parts. This points to the careful and artistic design of organisms. The functional perfection of organisms is the main challenge of Darwinism, but also a clear proof of the Supreme Background Designer.
Just as a symphony is not a self-generating musical composition, neither is a living organism, but an organism is pre-organized by its organizer. Surprisingly, academic science attributes the organizational symphony of millions of living organisms to explicitly and emphatically self-organization without an organizer, except for the backing organizer, which is exactly like taking out the intelligent, competent composer who is evidently and necessarily behind the symphony and who is eminent in his field. These persons are recognised throughout the world, they are accorded due homage, their works are listened to with great pleasure and with great competence and enjoyment, and they are honoured with their attention.
Scaling can be used to visualise the variability of species in a wave-like manner, which is evident in nature and observable. This is due to their inherent genetic program, which writes them into a symphony of ready-made species that can adapt to their changing environment. Every living thing is in its entirety a ready-made symphony, including man, and even the universe, which is undeniably imbued with mathematical order!
Scaling
in musical terms translates into the field of biology as the adaptive
variability of organisms according to their program, as when the
finches' beaks change back and forth, thickening and thinning, in dry
and wet periods, like a musician scaling the notes on an instrument
or a singer scaling his voice. /This does not spontaneously make a
symphony, unless the composer puts it together by varying the notes
of the scale in any way he likes according to harmonic laws, or if it
is written in the DNA program with incredible precision. The composer
and the DNA writer are essentially doing the same thing. The
emotion-reflecting grimace-mimicry of the human face is like scaling,
but has nothing to do with the anatomical genesis of the face.
"grimace... Expression of emotions, opinions, moods by moving parts of the face in a slightly distorted way." /Hungarian Dictionary of Scientific and Colloquial Words/
The same variable andalternating movement can be observed in the living world around us, where populations of species move anatomically to adapt to their environment, as is the case for humans.
[According to the European classification system, four geographic major races are distinguished: australoid, negroid, mongoloid, and europid major races. There are other classifications, for example the Americans distinguish nine races. These are: amerids, polynesids, australoids, micronesids, melanesids, mongoloids, europid, negroid, indids (we classify them as Europeans).
The formation of ethnicities within the human family is, in musical terms, a rhythmless scaling/variation based on the sounds of a set of sounds /genetic base/ in a single key. The geographical difference is precisely due to adaptation to the environment in both cases.
The development of the symphony according to harmonic laws
In addition to the variation of the notes of the scale, what is needed is personal intuition, an instinctive feeling, a suggestion belonging to the human spirit, which, by listening to it, can be recorded in the language of music. In music, then, there is something supernatural, a transcendental manifestation in which the human spirit hides it, but also grasps it in an almost inexplicable way. It is not for nothing that where words end, music begins. The incredible, dazzling, sublime expression of man's being in praise of his Creator is a testimony to Him who endowed him with all these qualities.
"Consciously I am an absolute atheist, but I don't say it, because if I watch Bach, I can't be an atheist. Then I have to accept the way he believed. There is prayer at every moment... (...) In a Bach fugue there is the crucifixion... in music I am always looking for the angles... it's double vision. I certainly don't accept anything with my mind. But my mind is not worth much. That something is transcendental... it's always present for me." /György Kurtág, composer, pianist and chamber music teacher/
"Because what is music? Noise. It is a certain rhythm, performed at different pitches. But then why do some people cry or get goose bumps when they hear a piece of music? It is not just the effect of the sounds and the rhythm, but of the faith and devotion that permeates the music. Yes, our instruments are human, but we can expand through our faith. What more proof of God's existence do we need than music itself, art, or love?" /Szirtes Edina Mókus - HAVASI Symphonic Hungary/
[Supernatural is that which does not give a natural explanation of itself. In this sense, it can be anything whose parts do not give a reason for its existing complexity, since the parts do not carry evidence /self-evident obviousness/ in themselves, especially not in their complexity. Music is a typical example of this, in so far as the rhythmic grouping of notes according to a certain system, as a harmonic organization of parts that fit together, does not explain the musical composition as a musical whole.]
So scaling alone does not explain the symphony, similarly the anatomical sub-units of cells do not explain the organisational/anatomical complexity that they build up in a self-cooperating/co-operating system.
The Voyager Golden Record sound postcard sent into space, which proclaims Earth's natural and musical heritage to 27 musical numbers, was designed to demonstrate the vibrations of air molecules or frozen ice to alien civilisations? The sound effects, which manifest themselves in hissing, crackling and banging, are said to "make the ice play music": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXVSeCNAsDI
The probes contain an audio player with visual instructions, obviously so that aliens on distant planets can distinguish spontaneous hissing from sound vibrations of intelligent origin. Or are they the same thing? Or are they not the same? The transcendent difference between the two is called music.
If the sound of music is nothing more than a sneeze to soothe a sore nose, they might as well have sent a mechanical sneezing machine, and they would probably have figured out that the planet Earth is inhabited by unintelligent sneezing iron men. In the same way that millions of living things do not evolve from the spontaneous sneezing of cells, just as musical notes do not spontaneously evolve into symphonies.
Music is the linguistic expression of sheet music
"Sheet music is a system of signs used to record musical notes, rhythms and other additional information associated with a melody. The Latin term is derived from the word quota, meaning note, note, indication. The purpose of notation is to record and transmit musical expression. In musical notation, successive notes and pauses are marked, and various instructions may be used to prescribe their rhythm, playing style and tempo." /Writing music - Wikipedia/
In order to avoid a shift in value, it is necessary to establish the value system between the creator and the work created. How can the product created with the score be greater than the existing sign system, the score, that is, not created by the post-selection of random error rates, but by the intelligent intellectual entity, in this case the composer, the human being, who created the score and worked with it in a planned way? How can the product be greater than the author who created it /e.g. a computer than the designer who created it/? No way!
In the same way, the genetic code exists in living organisms as a system of signals used to record other additional information about the organism. The purpose of the genetic program is to record and transmit the internally controlled life of biological organisms /species maintenance-reproduction-adaptation/. Here, too, everything is written down with various instructions, just like in the musical score. However, these organisms can do so much more (like ready-made symphonic pieces) that they can flexibly adapt to changes in the living space and the environment (as if a piece of music were able to adapt to the acoustics of a concert hall for optimal sound).
God wrote the blueprints of living things in his DNA language, but not by accident, because "a single gram of DNA can store 455 exabytes of data, which is the equivalent of approximately 100 billion DVDs." - http://index. en/tech /2012/08/17/az_adattarolas_jovoje_a_dns/
What is the difference between a symphony of small steps and a symphony of big steps? If the small is predetermined /in living organisms in the genetic program/, then the large cannot be any different, because symphonies, musical pieces, are written by composers, whether they are small or large, short or long. Then there can be no difference between small and large symphonies, between the small steps of living beings and their supposedly large steps, everything is prescribed by the genetic program, it sets the margin, or the music writer who uses the signal system, the composer, or who programs the meaningful instructions that proteins can read /i.e. the performers who perform the musical works/.
"The genetic code is the coding system by which information in the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) of cells is translated into proteins." /Wikipedia/
Behind both processes is a conscious intelligence that communicates information! It makes no difference whether we talk about a small step or a big step, because the essence of the step is adaptability, the autonomous flexibility that is not present in symphonies, but is fixed by the score.
So the big step is not that new symphonies are spontaneously written by themselves, but that there is adaptability at all (scores of small and large symphonies, musical-biological expressions), that there is a genetic program, an intelligent code-signalling that controls intelligent processes. This is the real big step /especially from a materialist point of view, derived from the chaos of inanimate matter and not a product of it/, the intelligent design of the human brain, not any computer created afterwards. To take any man-made product designed and made by man as a big step instead of the human intelligence working in the background, and to place it on a higher level than that, is like placing the supposed spontaneous big steps of evolution above the control program written into the DNA genes.
In addition, to make the genetic signalling of DNA itself /in which the instructions are recorded/, the work of chance, is a complete departure from reality. And all of this in the guise of science - the academic embodiment of unintelligent thinking - based on preconceived worldviews.
The universal code system of the genetic code
And that the genetic code is universal /like the musical notation of notes/ is not evidence that all symphonies are mutually descendible and have a common ancestor, but that the composer who used the notation is the common, or in the case of living beings, the background entity that fixed the intelligent program instructions in the genes and through them wrote the symphonies he wanted, created the living beings he wanted. And into environments that he also had to design, creating homes for them. After all, Beethoven did not design his Ninth Symphony to be listened to in a pigsty or in the bustle of a street, but in an environment that was appropriate to the music and optimal for listening to it!
The point, then, is that the DNA instruction is perfect from the start, the meaningful and intelligible text, that it exists and functions like a conductor's baton that must be obeyed by the world of cells, by the living being itself.
The conductor controls the overall performance of the orchestra using a system of hand gestures. The role of the baton is primarily to clarify and magnify the hand movements, the indication of which determines the tempo and rhythm of a group of instruments, the basic character, the metre./The metre is a measure of time, tempo or beat; the rhythm of the music./ As a simple curiosity seeker, we will not understand exactly the meaning of every single conductor's twitch and grimace. It is not necessary, it is enough that the person who is to carry out the instructions takes the cue. If all goes well, the end result will sound beautiful.
The twist of Darwinism
According to evolutionists, Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientific enlighteners of our time, accurately determined the evolutionary descent of new species from a common ancestor through natural selection, without understanding DNA or heredity! Making him one of the world's greatest geniuses. Not many people can claim to control an entire science, but Darwin can. He recognised that evolution is a developmental process and that all living things share a common family tree.
He saw evolution by natural selection as a very gradual mechanism of change within populations, and assumed that species could be the product of the same micro-evolutionary process over time /changes in population allele frequency/, or in musical terms, scaling.
But Charles Darwin was a biophilosopher /his theory of evolution was not based on biological knowledge, but on economic calculations as a proxy for certain ideas/, and he built the imaginary achievement of evolution, the whole biological world, by natural selection. Behind which, a mechanism unknown to him - the random advantages of selected mutational errors - would provide the basis, since evolution cannot exist without mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic variation in the raw material.
"The genetic make-up of species changes, we call this biological evolution." /Szathmáry Eőrs/
But the problem starts there, the mutation cannot be applied to the creation of the DNA program in which the mutation occurs. Therefore, the living world has no evolutionary basis, but a created DNA basis, in which the mutation takes place subsequently, which would provide the raw material for evolution. Evolution requires living organisms capable of evolution before evolution can even begin. And mutation would first have to create the base in which to carry out the mutation, i.e. the working program base that it is intended to mutate. In both cases, the ability to run evolution afterwards is needed in advance. [Where it comes from is not discussed, but they elegantly skip over this gap.]
Darwin only stated that the existing species are mutable /an anatomical language expression of scaling/, which is evident, but mutation /scaling/ cannot produce what mutation occurs in /multi-movement orchestral form, the finished symphony/.
Plucking a string cannot create the guitar whose string is being plucked, but only the string of an existing guitar can be plucked afterwards. Darwin's genius lies in the fact that he created a DNA guitar by plucking strings afterwards in the form of an imaginary stem cell.
So the species /symphonies/ that exist today cannot be derived by subsequent mutational chance /a tweaking of the notes of the scale in an ascending or descending direction/. [The reflection of a human face cannot produce the image of which it is a reflection. A mutant mirror image can be created from the original image, but not the original image.] Scaling tones floating in air /not of identified origin, just existing by themselves/ do not assemble into a symphony, they cannot be derived from scale tones taken as self-evident existents, but only from a pre-existing notational sign system /sets of tones in one or more tonalities/ that provides a certain margin for scaling.
Poor people in the big world without money should not boast.
DNA contains the program of a finished species, it has the built-in possibility of variability in response to changes in the natural environment, but the DNA program /finished symphony/ has nothing to do with subsequent mutation /sound scaling/. The living world is based on the DNA program, not mutation, so Darwin was being silly when he attributed the entire living world to evolution based on underlying mutation /essentially the variability of the finished species/. [According to him, it was post-scaling that created the musical material /a masterpiece written in the language of music/ the complete symphony that provided the basis and framework for post-scaling.]
Mutation can only occur in the finished DNA program, so only mutation can exist in the genetic program of the finished organism, finished organisms cannot be created by this process afterwards! To create something afterwards by deriving it from something previously assumed to exist, which it then theoretically creates, is not science, but mindless pseudoscientific schizophrenia. Darwin put the second step /evolution by mutation, the symphony by scaling/ first, which is a fraud, a sham. Evolution /music/ may have a basis in mutation, but it is only microevolution /sound scaling/ that takes place in the species created at the beginning. /According to rules fixed in the musical notation base created by the musical score./
Evolution is a process whereby the genetic content of a population changes over time - so evolution has nothing to do with the content of the population before the change, but only with the change afterwards - that's what we're talking about.
Darwin constructed the imaginary result of evolution, the whole biological world, from the random advantages of mutational errors selected by natural selection /essential to evolution/ that he did not understand. However, a mutation cannot be used to create the DNA program in which the mutation occurs. Thus, there is no basis for living things in evolution, but there is a basis in the DNA created, in which the mutation occurs afterwards. /Without a precisely written note-base obeying harmonic laws - the notes of a musical scale in a musical scale - there can be no scaling./
In every organism, every genetic trait was initially the result of a mutation - which is absurd! A mutation can cause a genetic trait change in the base that fundamentally determines the genetic trait.
You can't reverse the order so that what comes next /the later exploitation of a theoretical possibility/, you create from it all that you derive from it /the whole population/, and completely spontaneously. From many false squeaks - programming errors - we create usable sounds, which are selected and built up by some process that we take for granted.
The point of Darwin's theory is to show how random and purposeless processes in nature can replace intelligent design. Unable to understand this struggle for survival, he instead substituted the survival of the fittest for the Creator, which is the disruption of the originally harmonious biological order by human criminality.
"For the created world was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it. In the hope that the created world itself will be freed from the bondage of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the sons of God. For we know that the whole created world groans and groans together until now." (Romans 8:20-22)
The question is, if the process of natural selection is intelligent in its manifestation, why does it build on mutational errors /the necessary essence of evolution/, why not on good steps? And in nature this is what we have, millions of good steps, perfect reproduction, because there is a built-in error correction program in the DNA that keeps the species healthy. To suggest that this is not what keeps the species alive, but that a good step after a million bad steps is accidentally introduced, and not a sequence of steps, is a cunning and subtle retroactive method to eliminate the pre-designed methodology of good steps from the explanation of the origin of species.
That is, that the basic species are ready-made with their full repertoire of survival, which make good moves en masse, not bad ones /bad mutations/, and build on the good, i.e. adapt to environmental changes. /Microevolutionary processes that are built in and can be observed./ Genes have built-in information that they have a self-regulatory mechanism that allows them to adapt this information to changing environmental conditions.
The word "evolution" is extremely flexible, which people are falsely led to believe means that in a small field, if there is credibility /scaling as racial variability/, it means that the broader statement is equally credible for macroevolution. So from nature's war, from famine and death, the survival of the fittest as higher order organisms evolves.
There's a special purpose background explanatory consciousness built in here, and anyone who doesn't see that obviously doesn't want to, because they're committed to the principle that "Nothing in biology makes sense unless it's seen in the light of evolution." /Theodosius Dobzhansky/ In other words, everything in biology makes sense only in the light of evolution.
That evolution gathers and multiplies the extremely rare good steps of mutations, enriching the organism in the continuation of survival - which is captured by the law of natural selection - why not discuss the harmful effects of negative mutations, that does not fit the concept?
What we know about mutations, however, makes them completely unsuitable as any "raw material for evolutionary development". Mutations in fruit flies have been shown to result in extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness and other serious defects. Such mutations place an increasing genetic burden on a species.
Genetic load thus becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists who try to explain the huge adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For every conceivable beneficial mutation, a species must pay the price or burden of more than 1,000 deleterious mutations in a gene. In this background of 'genetic decay', any hypothetical beneficial mutation in a gene is always linked to deleterious changes in other genes. As the mutation load increases over time, the survival of the species is threatened as mating produces a higher percentage of offspring carrying severe genetic defects. Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution", Scientific American, V. 239, 1978, No. 3, 56-69 - Pai, Anna. Foundations of Genetics New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, 248-249.
In
her genetics textbook, Anna Pai makes it clear that:
"the word burden is deliberately used to mean some kind of
burden" that
drags down the genetic quality of a species. Foundations of Genetics
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, 248-249./
Mutations only modify what already exists, they do not create what they take place in. The simplest cell we know of has about 600 kilobytes of information. Human cells have about three gigabytes of information. We need to ensure that the information content is increased, and the methodology of evolution cannot provide that.
Modern genetic and microbiological research has shown that the most basic unit of life, the cell, is a complex system of subsystems that cannot evolve in a succession of small steps: either all the subsystems are in place at the same time, working together, or the whole living cell is not functioning. Man is the cooperation of 120 billion cells!
According to the principle of evolution, "Anything that is even slightly suited to one function is sufficient until there is no better." Except that any organism owes its survival not to one function, but to an incredible number of functions, all working in harmony. There is no living thing with a simple structure. It is said, for example, that when single-celled organisms in water began to run out of food, "a few pioneering cells eventually figured out a way to move on." The adjective "simple" can be misleading, however, because all living things, even single-celled microorganisms, are incredibly complex.
It took 128 computers to model the world's simplest microbe, yet they could not fully understand how it works. As they noted, "... the depth and breadth of the cellular complexity proved almost unbelievable and difficult to manage." /See: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Darwin said in The Origin of Species:
"If it could be shown that complex systems cannot be created in small sequential steps, my theory would be completely demolished. But I can find no such case. "
In every organ of the human body, there are irreducibly complex systems that contain thousands of interrelated, specifically encoded enzymes. At an absolute minimum, the incomprehensible self-assembly of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA are fatal flaws in the concept of mutation and natural selection, given the origin of life and DNA.
The notion of irreversible complexity suggests that all elements of the system must be present simultaneously, rather than evolving through incremental, sequential improvements. Complex properties, whose separate parts would have no survival value, because in complex properties the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts. How does the occasional and incremental evolution of any part know that it must progress towards the complex, composite entity if the process is not organized?
But if he knows, then why would he use random mutations to do so, with their error rates in the millions, instead of creating them?Painters don't paint with random movements of their elbows, if they can grab a brush with their hands to make their work! And composers don't use a cracked flute in the hope that some sound will come out of it and they can incorporate it into the music they create!
Is life a set of strictly biochemically interacting chemical systems!?
Enzymes optimised to copy DNA with high fidelity are also optimised to create DNA itself, which means that the cell is essentially optimised to create itself - which is obviously the evolutionary story of how living things are optimised to create themselves. On this basis, life is just a collection of chemical systems, just as the vase is just porcelain, nothing more. But china is not a vase! Wood grows a tendril, but a tendril does not spin a rope ladder. The necessary basis of Darwinism would be the spontaneous growth of chemical systems into trees, which self-educationally weave the ladder of the stem cell, on which all living things then cling according to Darwin's draughty theory of phylogeny.
And the score of this dazzlingly diverse symphony of biology is a post-selection of matching notes, a completely natural process. The composers can all go to the saltworks. As Richard Dawkins says: "...Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise insoluble mystery of the origin of information." /Delusion of the Divine/ Which means, without scaling, there is no point to the symphony. When it is precisely without the pre-written musical rules that there is no point in scaling the notes afterwards! /You can't depend on the tail to wag the dog!/
Mutation can only be the second step, the first step is the actual existence of DNA. Evolution only causes the diversity of existing species programmed by DNA, so species can change, which is a flexible adaptation to changing circumstances, nothing more! As much and to the extent that they are allowed by the programming of creation!
And as for their main message of minimal information created by evolutionary biologists, if its ten letters testify to a personal, intelligent origin: "there is no God" - which is obviously one of the most striking examples of scientific inconsistency, which can safely be called the delusion of Darwinism - what can we say about this:
The actual length of DNA tightly coiled in a single cell of the human body is roughly 2 metres. Since there are about 10 trillion (1013) cells in the human body, the total length of DNA is 20 trillion metres, which is incomprehensible. /John C. Lennox: The origin of the genetic code/
In musical terms, the universal adaptive variability of species can be understood as a scaling of sounds /as in the 'species concept' of the car, the variations of Mazda, Opel, Fiat and Škoda, etc./, but to 'mature' into a symphony /real species/ requires pre-compositional programming /design production line/. Beethoven's Symphony No. IX, for example, is like the language of creation:
"And God said, Let the waters swell with the swarming of living creatures; and let birds fly above the earth, on the face of the firmament of the heavens. And God created the great aquatic animals, and all the creeping things that swarm in the waters after their kind, and every flying thing with wings after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; let the bird also multiply on the earth. And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle, creeping things, and land animals after their kind. And it was so. So God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good... And God said, Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every living creature that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:20-27)
Are you enjoying the symphonies of creation around you because you are made in the image of God? If so, it is clear evidence that you have a place in the earth-shattering musical enjoyment of the Great Composer's cosmic symphony of which we are a part. As listeners, but also as participants.
"God, who created the world and all that is in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is he honoured by the hands of men, as if they were destitute of anything, though he gives to all life, breath, and all things; and of one blood he created all the human race to dwell on the face of the whole earth, having determined their appointed times and the bounds of their habitation; that they might seek the Lord, if they might search him out and find him, though he is not far from any of us: For in him we live, and move, and are; as some of your poets have said, For we are his seed. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a carving of human craft and invention. For God, therefore, seeing the time of this ignorance, now commandeth men everywhere to repent: for he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he hath appointed, testifying to all men, by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:24-31)
* * * * *
All the experts of the world's music academies, do you hear the many beautiful melodies that pour from your ears into your hearts? Then you are close to God, who covers you with His love, as the light of dawn covers the Garden of Eden, which will soon cover the whole world, with a heavenly mantle of blessing.
