Evolution

[Angrboda]

Well, that's one theory.  Another theory, favored by some Christians is that their God controls the movements of inanimate matter in such a way that the natural laws result.  Another theory is that things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so, that it is a brute fact requiring no explanation.

How do you know that your theory is correct?

Wrong once again yog.  

Even if as you say.........things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so..........that would prove you dead wrong anyway.

I said that this was one of several competing theories that seek to explain the behavior of these so-called "vibrations."  Claiming that I said that "things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so" is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.  Regardless, since the only thing that I asserted was that there were several competing theories that offer to explain these "vibrations," and did not offer my own opinion on the matter, it's a mystery as to what on earth you think I could be wrong about here?

Why?

Because plants are under the guide of mother nature or the so called instinct. (ever heard of?)  

According to Wikipedia, personification of nature dates back to the ancient Greeks, wherein they personified nature as a god or goddess.  Such personification of nature is not based on any reasoning or justification, and so is nothing more than a cultural convention.  The Greeks personified many inanimate and abstract entities as having personal natures.  Another example is the god Helios, whose traversal of the sky in a glowing golden chariot each day was the supposed explanation of the daily skyward journey of the sun.  It is no more reasonable to expect a god or goddess is behind nature on the basis of Greek mythology than it is to expect to see a golden chariot when we train our telescopes on the sun.  These are myths and stories, not an accounting of reality, and thus provide no support for your belief that your theory about vibrations and consciousness is correct.

As to your comment about instinct, it's worth noting that instinct typically refers to behaviors and inclinations that have a non-conscious or unconscious origin.  That certainly doesn't support your view.  Assuming instead that the word meant a behavior or inclination that has an origin in consciousness, it still wouldn't follow that this provides rational justification for believing that "vibrations" are a result of the effects of an inherent consciousness, as like personification above, the meaning of words is mere convention and doesn't imply any corresponding truth.  That we have the word "unicorn" meaning a horse-like creature with a single horn doesn't mean that our possessing such a word supports the belief that unicorns exist.

So neither the cultural meme of "Mother Nature," nor the meaning of the word instinct, provide any reason for believing your theory of the explanation of these "vibrations" over that of other explanations.

So you've yet to provide a good reason for believing that your theory is correct.

So who suppose to be this mother nature?
Father Christmas?
Certainly no because to run this universe a mastermind is needed.

Well, whether this universe needs a mind to run it is certainly the question of the day.  Merely asserting that it does so does nothing to further your arguments toward that end.  It is nothing more than a meaningless fart.  As noted above, the existence of a personifying mythos surrounding nature does nothing to support your belief that nature has such characteristics.  More to the point, as noted in my previous post, some Christians posit that there is a mind behind the behavior of matter in the universe, but the mind their religion refers to is not the same as the one which you propose, and for which, the universe is but a mental projection.  Thus with any support or evidence you provide, it is not sufficient that it support the existence of a generic, non-specific god, but that the support must lead inexorably toward your specific god and no other.

The entropy BS has already been rejected as the ultimate BS so is obvious that mother nature is an alive entity.

Not so fast.  You asserted that the energy to run the universe had to come from somewhere outside the universe.  I countered that entropy would do the job.  At which point you asserted that "universal" entropy did not exist because the universe is a mental projection of God.  At which point I noted that you were claiming the existence of God in order to support an argument for the existence of God, and that if you had evidence of God in the first place, you wouldn't need the energy argument.  At that point you made an abortive attempt to claim that mathematics and such provided evidence for the existence of God.  Upon asking for said evidence, you basically changed the subject and shut up about any such evidence.

So, you may have rejected the entropy argument, but a rejection based on nothing doesn't hold up.  So I'm still waiting for that evidence you claimed you had but didn't deliver.  Until you do, the question of whether the universe is a mental projection of God remains an open question.  Until you provide such evidence, the entropy explanation stands unanswered.

Regardless, I'm still without a credible answer as to how you know that your theory of these "vibrations" is correct?