Abiogenesis and Statistical Probability For Dummies (for Art Bulla and Aaron Kim)
RetroProphet
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
===
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life
Too Great to Accept?
by Richard Carrier
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
Art Bulla
don't create themselves. Even children can see this. Atheist mythology,
supported by anti-Christs. I would not be you for the whole world.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ
SECTION 14.
HOW THE WORLD HAS BEEN DECEIVED
EPISTLE refuting theory of evolution using mathematical and statisti苞al
analysis. Origin of man and when delineated upon earth. Trans計lantation
of perfect man and woman into a garden from another planet. Occurring six
thousand years ago. Earth organized from mate訃ials which already existed,
hence fossilized strata. Spirits cast out de衍ight in deception of mankind
by these things (evolution).
Dear Steve,
1Everything can be "as at first" as you say, and I know that you truly mean
it in your heart and mind to carry it out as far as you are capable, and
noth虹ng, believe me, would sat虹sfy me more than that all of our
differences could be done away, that we should see "eye to eye" on all
things and thus be苞ome united in all things that are ad赳antageous and
right.
2 It is in this "spirit" that I write to you.
3 I confess a certain amount of righteous indig要ation, as it were, at the
attitude of so many who have a degree of "learning" as they suppose , to
dismiss without further argument any attempt to explain our existence upon
this planet as anything but the result of mere chance, as it is popularly
taught in the classroom of the Universities you and I have at負ended.
4 I refer of course, to the theory of the origin of our species known as
evolution.
5 Whether consciously or un苞onsciously, most people who have any degree
of intelligence or ob虻ectivity in our society, believe, more or less, in
the theory of evolution as the explanation of all life on this planet or any
other.
6 At best, as an alternative, men confess the exis負ence of a Being who
brought men and women into existence on this planet only through the process
of evolution.
7 I tell you as a fact that I know that men were transplanted upon this
planet into a garden, the plants of which had also been transplanted, along
with every animal also transplanted as it were, from another planet, upon
which dwell Beings of a much higher order of intelligence, but who are
physically in the express image of ourselves.
8 This planet spoken of revolves around another sun and rotates on an axis
which in one revolu負ion is exactly equivalent to one thousand of our years,
so that one day unto them is a thousand years to us and a thousand years is
one day to them.
9 Let me tell you how I know that this is true.
10 It is because I have been caught up and have beheld for myself and
conversed with them while in the spirit of the Lord God of might, and their
glory defies description, and they have communi苞ated with me many time
through the medium of Spirit and I have receive visits from their
mes貞engers who gave me instruction.
11 I also testify that we are lit苟rally the offspring of these su計erior
Beings and that they desire that we become even as they are, and that a plan
was instituted for this purpose, whereby, by obedi苟nce to certain laws and
ordi要ances, man individually and nationally could obtain the same measure
of intelligence and power as they, for hath it not been done on worlds which
were formed before this one, the num苑er of which it is impossible to count
according to the finite in負elligence of man, which have rolled into
existence in the im衫ensity of space and time.
12 I was taken out of my body at one time and shown many things which are
true concerning these things.
13 There is a parallel universe to this physical one which is called
spiritual and which cannot be de負ected by the five senses, one which is
unknown to the carnal man, and which can only be dis苞ov苟red and measured
by a scien苞e known as Theol觔gy, and in赳olves the operation of beings
which are not physical, but who have wills and bodies which are composed of
the element known as Spirit which cannot be de負ected by science as we know
it, for science as taught in the class訃ooms of the Universities, deals only
with the physical uni赳erse and admits of this existence only. It is for
this reason that science falls miserably short in its esti衫ation of
reality, and these dev虹ls (spirit be虹ngs who have no glory but who
possess superior knowledge to humanity) do they not point in de訃ision as
they con負emplate these men in their mis苟rable and ignorant attempts, who
in their white coats and thick glasses try to challenge their mas負ery of
the human race?
14 The only thing more derisive in character to them are false re衍igions,
which are based on igno訃ance of even physical laws, and are the opinions of
ignorant and despicable men mixed with scrip負ure (the writings of true
scien負ists of the true dis苞ipline of the Universe-Theology, the Proph苟ts
and Seers of Israel, who are the most intelligent and greatest of
mankind-which writings these ignoramuses borrow at their whim and plagiarize
with no authority or permission from the author, who is that God of Jacob,
and pervert and twist the right way of the Lord from their intended mes貞age
and meaning, fabricating false theology that they may line their purses with
the money and no負oriety that follows them, all by the grossest of lies,
while the masses who follow after them are unable be苞ause of sloth and lack
of intel衍igence and a remarkable lack of desire to read the Bible for
them貞elves, depend on some hireling priest to interpret and say while
patting on the back with a smile all is well with thee my friend to assuage
the void which they feel despite their grove衍ing na負ures-and thus they
perish from the earth, while ignoring or per貞ecuting the true prophets of
Jacob who dare speak against them for their wickedness in these things!).
15 I, Art Bulla, have been shown in great power the opera負ions of these
beings and I have been shown their boundaries and limits and laws which
govern them.
16 It is for this knowledge that my life has been threatened many times, by
men who are under their control.
17 Indeed, the whole world is under their control, and they, the world,
know it not.
18 These spiritual beings are and have been known anciently as devils, sons
of perdition, fallen angels, and their aim is the complete de貞truction of
the spir虹ts who were faithful to the Fa負her thereof before the world was
made.
19 But one of the ways that the world is deceived into believing in the
non-existence of these be虹ngs, for they love mankind to be ignorant of
their existence, for in this way the torment of mankind is more exquisite,
is by the theory of evolution.
20 Evolution perfectly serves this purpose, for it turns the in負elligence
away from an investi茆ation of the purpose of our be虹ngs as well as the
exis負ence of Superior intelligences, for the glory of God is intelligence.
21 Now I would like to quote a relation of an ex計erience of a man who was
shown these op苟ra負ions also, named Heber C. Kimball, in the year 1837,
July 30:
22 "We gazed upon them about an hour and a half (by Willard's watch).
23 We were not looking towards the window, but towards the wall.
24 Space appeared before us, and we saw the devils coming in legions, with
their leaders, who came within a few feet of us.
25 They came towards us like armies rushing to battle.
26 They ap計eared to be men of full stature, pos貞essing every form and
feature of men in the flesh, who were angry and des計erate, and I shall
never forget the vindictive malignity depicted on their countenances as they
looked me in the eye; and any at負empt to paint the scene which then
pre貞ented itself, or portray their malice and enmity, would be vain.
27 I perspired exceedingly, my clothes becoming as wet as if I had been
taken out of a ri赳er....We distinctly heard them talk and express their
wrath and hellish designs against us..." Life of Heber C. Kimball by Or貞on
F. Whitney, pp.130-131.
28 (I have included a Revelation which I re苞eived detailing the origin of
these beings collec負ively referred to as devils, [the very term pro苓uces
ignorant derision in the minds of this gen苟ration.])
29 If the "theory" of evolution is a true explana負ion of reality, or fact,
then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and
proveable phenomenae.
30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is
false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.
31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific com衫unity, which is nothing
more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in
order to stub苑ornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their
pay苞hecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would
buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood
and horror upon this earth?
32 I have pointed these contra苓ictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa
and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and
truth, which I will demonstrate within this let負er to the satisfaction of
a child.
33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed him貞elf personally to mea
concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior
source of wisdom than any mere empiri苞ism, I re苞eived two blaring
con負radictions to the above named fundamental sciences.
34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals
upon which all sci苟ntific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was
a natural虹st who drew erroneous conclu貞ions from a loose collection of
facts.
35 I will show you how the world has been de苞eived:
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being
from a random chance collision of molecules in a "primordial sea" or "soup"
and that these admittedly simple or茆anisms "evolved"-a term coined by some
fat victorian natura衍ist-into more complex organ虹sms by an equally random,
chance process.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the
fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodyna衫ics, which states
that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which
is usu苔lly less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs
downhill, not up).
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called
entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that
has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words,
things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of
disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has in虐erently more energy, not less than
one than one which is dis觔rganized.
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this
organization.
41 Random chance cannot ex計lain the existence of such a monumentally
complex organi述ation as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an
absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am ca計able of mustering.
44 A specific example of this ab貞urdity, accord虹ng to the laws of
mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or
else be labeled as false, which it is is this: sup計ose we take the random
arisal of not an organ虹sm, but just one protein molecule (of which there
must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different
proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its
complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to
put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein
molecule of about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some
proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical prob苔bility, what are the chances
of this one spe苞ific protein which is necessary in the formation of an
enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just
for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any
elementary textbook on Col衍ege Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have
ac苞ess to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of
starch randomly aris虹ng in this primor苓ial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, sup計ose we say
that we give evolu負ionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their
claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is
estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let's be
gen苟rous and give not only one earth, but ten "earths" upon which this one
random chance protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total
number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each "earth" oceans the same size as the ones here which
are calculated by vol赴me to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So
the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the
"earths" in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the
69th power) molecules.
53 Now suppose for the sake of these poor evolu負ionists, we say that each
ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the buil苓ing blocks of
protein.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathe衫atical
calculations which do not lie, of 1069 amino acids from which this one
protein needed for the digestion of starch to "evolve".
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say
'poor' because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped
into believ虹ng their lies, for their eternities are ef苯ected), lets say
that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years
(both of which are absolutely impossible) but every sec觔nd of every year in
the 10^10 years which is esti衫ated by our brave brethren, the scien負ists,
to be the age of the uni赳erse, to form proteins all of them exactly 100
amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins ex苔ctly 100 amino
acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 bil衍ions of years There are 10^8
seconds approxi衫ately, in a year (actually there are a little less than
that num苑er).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imagin苔ble, there
would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 10^85 chances for this one protein to come
into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combina負ions of amino acids 100
in length which are pos貞ible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to
10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire
being) necessary for the di茆estion of starch to randomly form, as the
evolu負ionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for
all intents and purposes, zero.
61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael
Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or
three wit要esses shall every word be estab衍ished, saith the Lord God of
Is訃ael), who have found conclu貞ively to every one but bigots, that there
is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more ad赳antageous
strengths, why do they die?
63 And why is it that when or茆anisms die, does the law of en負ropy take
over, and the corpo訃eal substance dissolves or decays back down from its
organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this
death, saith the Lord?
64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants,
animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at
death, and this spirit is the spark, or cata衍yzing energy which effects
this organi述ation to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still
alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of
these "crea負ions" lose their organization, and hence de苞ay back to their
"native ele衫ent", because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of
activa負ion keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the
energy needed to maintain its or茆anization to begin with and to remain,
intact.
65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, com衫and all of these liberal ignora衫uses to go
back to school lest this Being who has revealed him貞elf unto me and spoke
with me, come out in anger that they per虹sh from the earth.
66 This of course, means that all so-called "sciences" such as Bi觔logy,
Psychology, Sociol觔gy, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises,
and that women's liberation and the be衍ief that the races are equal are
also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of
Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact
that there is a race of servants inferior from before the founda負ion of the
world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male,
full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked
society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been
deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets,
false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be:
"Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should be衍ieve a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure
in un訃ighteous要ess." 2 Thess. 2: 11.
67 Now since evolution is false according to the immutable laws of
mathematical probability, which to my amazement, man虺ind throws away in
order that they may raise their heads in wicked要ess as before the flood,
(and the liberals, do they not foam at the mouth at these things in their
wickedness and desire my death as Him whom I legally represent, even Jesus
of Nazereth who is mightier than I for these same things were taught at that
time, saith the Lord, and "As in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of
the Son of Adam be."), and deny the Father that begat them, the
al負ernative, I say, is the Science of Theology, the keys of which knowledge
I hold in the name of Je貞us of Nazereth.
68 I defy the whole world in its stubbornness and hardness of heart and
unbelief to refute these say虹ngs of mine, for they are ver虹ly true, and if
they (the world) do not know it now, the will know when they and I stand
bef觔re Him whom I have seen with my own eyes in that daye, and I, Art
Bull
--
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
Concerning quotes (out of context): these are distortions, taken out of the
context of
the blasphemies and insults placed upon me by the vilest of traitors and
foul wretches
imagineable. Jesus kicked their asses out of the Temple and I do the same to
all god damned liars and hypocrites. I make no apology. God is my judge. If
this fellow (Manning) were honest he would include these, and all would see
that I am
justified by the Lord in my responses. The word of the Lord is given on
the matter in the following:
Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice,
and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys
of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according
to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
Let no one, therefore, set on my servant for I will justify him. saith the
Lord your God.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall
be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
36 For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim,
wherefore they shall be plucked out.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 64:35 - 36)
"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d8e05...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Manning
> Streets don't pave themselves, cakes don't bake themselves, and creations
> don't create themselves. Even children can see this. Atheist mythology,
> supported by anti-Christs. I would not be you for the whole world.
Bulla ignores the posted information because
he's unable to refute it. Instead, he posts
stuff he made up himself, and claims it's
from God.
HA HA HA... What a dopey clown!
Aaron Kim
Ho, ho, leftist nutjob. Art posted the 2nd law of thermodynamics and
the mathematical improbabilities as refutation of evolution. Anyone
with common sense will know after reading it that evolution is false.
But schools teach this for the following reason:
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Ephesians 6
Aaron
John Manning
>
> John Manning wrote:
>
>>Art Bulla wrote:
>>
>>>Streets don't pave themselves, cakes don't bake themselves, and creations
>>>don't create themselves. Even children can see this. Atheist mythology,
>>>supported by anti-Christs. I would not be you for the whole world.
>>
>>Bulla ignores the posted information because
>>he's unable to refute it. Instead, he posts
>>stuff he made up himself, and claims it's
>>from God.
>>
>>HA HA HA... What a dopey clown!
>
>
> Ho, ho, leftist nutjob. Art posted the 2nd law of thermodynamics and
> the mathematical improbabilities as refutation of evolution. Anyone
> with common sense will know after reading it that evolution is false.
> But schools teach this for the following reason:
You just don't know that Bulla refuted
nothing. You're an indoctrinated hillbilly
that doesn't have a clue.
Art Bulla
to opinion, you fat jerk.
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:11amsbq...@news.supernews.com...
Art Bulla
slander from a complete sociopath and monomaniac with no life.
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:11an42d...@news.supernews.com...
RetroProphet
>
>Mathematics don't lie, ignorant fool. I know the math.
>Math is not subject to opinion, you fat jerk.
>
>
You are wrong. Math and Statistics are man-made
descriptions of reality, and being so, are subject
to error and misrepresentation just as anything
else man-made is.
A case in point, and the reason for my original post,
is the mathematics and statistical probability assertions
made by you in your "Revelations of Jesus Christ,"
which embody a number of conceptual errors of a sort
commonly encountered in other "Creation Science"
literature, and which are really merely parroted by you.
The linked articles I provided confront these types
of errors, and demonstrate why they are errors.
In short, they demonstrate that you
DO NOT "know the math."
There is only one way for you to honorably defend
your work. You need to respond to the sections of
these articles that take issue with what you have
written. You should have no problem finding the
applicable sections, since you are well-versed in
mathematics.
To claim that you have been given by revelation
from Jesus Christ 100% correct science and math,
but then to be unwilling to defend against objections
to what you have presented to the world, suggests
that you are not equal to the task, which would
be curious indeed considering that you claim to
be capable of accessing unassailably correct
knowledge at will from Jesus Christ.
Surely Jesus Christ knows that science is not
granted credibility by revelatory proclamation,
but rather is subject to methods of scientific
reasoning, and thus He could not possibly expect
that what He revealed to you would simply be
accepted by all the world without peer-review.
Surely this is what is expected of you by
Jesus Christ, and surely you would be superbly
equipped to serve as the one to represent these
truths in peer-review and, just as surely,
you would prevail.
How could it be otherwise? And yet...
Why then do we often find you assuming a
stance that this revealed science ought to
be merely accepted as if it were scripture?
Why should the fact that it is supposedly
scripture matter AT ALL, if it is verifiable
science?
Why are you intractably reluctant to engage
other scientists in serious and dispassionate
discussions of your concepts?
If you truly possessed what you claim to possess,
you would have no problem overturning the science
you claim to be in error, at will.
That you have been notably unsuccessful in doing
so, and additionally, have been cowardly in even
engaging opposition, demonstrate that there is
clearly something seriously wrong with your own
assumptions about the actual source and value of
the "science" embedded in your "Revelations of
Jesus Christ."
For your convenience:
===
John Manning
> Why don't you come here and say that to our face, you coward? More dopey
> slander from a complete sociopath and monomaniac with no life.
You're both ignorant hillbillys without a clue.
Aaron Kim
God, the One Mighty and Strong, more times that I can remember. The
scriptures testify of a latter day Messiah to Ephraim to gather Israel
to build Zion. I suppose if you think the argument presented in RJC
sec.14 is false which presents basic facts like the laws of science and
probability, you would argue with the laws of gravity if it opposed
your anti-Christ beliefs.
Aaron
Art Bulla
31 And wo unto the deaf that will not hear; for they shall perish.
32 Wo unto the blind that will not see; for they shall perish also.
33 Wo unto the uncircumcised of heart, for a knowledge of their iniquities
shall smite them at the last day.
34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.
35 Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:31 - 35)
6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus
saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your
abominations,
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in
heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it,
even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have
broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
(Old Testament | Ezekiel 44:6 - 7)
21 But Nephi said unto them: O ye fools, ye uncircumcised of heart, ye
blind, and ye stiffnecked people, do ye know how long the Lord your God will
suffer you that ye shall go on in this your way of sin?
22 O ye ought to begin to howl and mourn, because of the great destruction
which at this time doth await you, except ye shall repent.
(Book of Mormon | Helaman 9:21 - 22)
"Aaron Kim" <aaro...@cwnet.com> wrote in message
news:1118617329....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Art Bulla
off somewhere to some nitiwit who is under the law who is rebellion against
the Holy Priesthood of the Son of God himself, justifying his rebellion
against God and his legal administrator with his false science. The math
proves it is statistically improbable to the point of being 1 in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is
zero, given 10 billion years, and all the stars in the universe as written
by brother Carl Sagan in Cosmos, putting ten earths around each sun and
filling each earths oceans with amino acids instead of water, combining into
protiens every second of every year for ten billion years. For one protien
in question to form it is stilll one in
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and this is
not a human body ro randomly form in 10 billion years, but one protein!
That is for the entire universe which is a closed system. Now go argue with
a signpost and bother me no more, fool.
"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:d8gk8...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Manning
> I have been revealed by the Holy Spirit that Art is a true prophet of
> God, the One Mighty and Strong, more times that I can remember.
It has been revealed to me by the Lord that
Bulla often had sex with his mother.
RetroProphet
>
>Streets don't pave themselves, cakes don't bake themselves, and creations
>don't create themselves. Bring your reasoning in plainness here, fool, not
>off somewhere to some nitiwit who is under the law who is rebellion against
>the Holy Priesthood of the Son of God himself, justifying his rebellion
>against God and his legal administrator with his false science. The math
>proves it is statistically improbable to the point of being 1 in
>10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is
>zero, given 10 billion years, and all the stars in the universe as written
>by brother Carl Sagan in Cosmos, putting ten earths around each sun and
>filling each earths oceans with amino acids instead of water, combining into
>protiens every second of every year for ten billion years. For one protien
>in question to form it is stilll one in
>10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and this is
>not a human body ro randomly form in 10 billion years, but one protein!
>That is for the entire universe which is a closed system. Now go argue with
>a signpost and bother me no more, fool.
>
>
You can't be bothered to read two simple papers
that clearly criticize the way you misrepresent
Abiogenesis theory? Why not? Coward.
You want "reasoning in plainess"?
O.K. Here. Mommy will feed you...
Your entire premise is incorrect to start off with,
because in modern Abiogenesis theories the first
replicating "living things" are posited to be MUCH SIMPLER
than a protein, not even a protobacteria, or even
a preprotobacteria.
Yet, you only talk about "a protein." Why?
Isn't Jesus Christ aware of the theory He is
demolishing through you?
You are arguing against a theory that NOBODY claims
is pertinent except Creationists; Modern Abiogenesis
theories do NOT suggest the formation of bacteria directly
from simple chemicals, and yet this scenario is the entirety
of your "statistical analysis" argument.
Actual Abiogenesis theories posit a number of small steps.
Each step is associated with a small increase in
organization and complexity, and the chemicals
slowly climb toward organism-hood, rather than
making one big leap. You do not address this scenario at all.
Why is Jesus Christ unaware of this scenario? Where does
"Revelations of Jesus Christ" rebut actual theories
of Abiogenesis instead of being dedicated to
disproving a theory that NOBODY adheres to today?
I don't even NEED to demonstrate that you ALSO don't
apply concepts of statistical analysis correctly.
It's a moot point because you don't even deploy your
faulty argument against an actual theory.
Your roll-your-own scriptural science is dishonest,
a conclusion that cannot be escaped, along with the
conclusion that because of this, Jesus Christ could
not have anything to do with what you wrote.
You are a fraud, twice over for your cowardice
in confronting directly what I have written, which
is backed by linked analysis from reasonable scientists.
Upon the merits of the facts here, I could more
readily convince ANYBODY that Jesus Christ speaks
through me, than you can, so blatant is the
incompetence of your "science."
===
For your convenience:
===
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
===
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life
Too Great to Accept?
by Richard Carrier
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
===
Aaron Kim
Aaron Kim
put together a Cadallic. What a complete fool. LOL.
Aaron
John Manning
> Slander. Art did receive a revelation that you are a queer and a
> pedophile.
It has been revealed to me by the Lord that
Art Bulla often had sex with his mother.
RetroProphet
>>
>
>PetroProphet believes that a tornado can sweep through a
>junkyard and put together a Cadallic. What a complete fool. LOL.
>
>Aaron Kim
>
>www.artbulla.com
>
I, RetroProphet, believe that it is impossible for
a tornado to put together a Cadillac.
Now that we've cleared that up, how about taking
a crack at reacting to what I actually wrote
instead of parroting Creationist mantras?
Art's "protein probability" work in "Revelations
of Jesus Christ" is hopelessly flawed because
it doesn't address the theory it supposedly proves
wrong. You can ignore my assertion as you did,
but you cannot deny it.
But, let's get back to what you did write.
Tell you what, I'll be more than fair.
I will treat your response as a serious rebuttal to
the idea that greater order cannot arise from lesser
order spontaneously.
Let's say that the tornado represents the
forces of nature.
And the junkyard represents matter of various sorts.
And the Cadillac represents something more complex
than any of the matter of various sorts lying around.
Here, your analogy does not make clear exactly where
you draw the "complexity line" beyond which "natural
assembly" would be impossible.
But, you must draw it somewhere, because it is certainly
NOT true that more complex matter NEVER arises through
natural means.
Humans are very complex and one would have to be a
moron to believe that something as complicated could
arise spontaneously.
Abiogenesis theories do not claim this happens.
What they do claim is that there is no reason to believe
that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule
could not form by purely natural means.
So, I ask you where you draw the line AND why.
What is the most complex thing that CAN arise from
natural forces, in your view?
===
As a side comment, the originator of the "Tornado"
analogy was the great astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle.
He was not a Creationist. In fact, he believed that
Evolution was a FACT!:
"We are inescapably the result of a long heritage
of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution,
the product of a history which predates our birth
as a biological species and stretches back over
many thousand millennia.... Going further back,
we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates;
and going still further back, we share a common
ancestry with all other living creatures and plants
down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go,
the greater the difference from external appearances
and behavior patterns which we observe today....
Darwin's theory, which is now accepted without dissent,
is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links
with the simplest forms of microbial life are
well-nigh proven."
- Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe
from "Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe"
You look puzzled, Aaron.
How can this be that he believed in Evolution?
The answer is that Hoyle KNEW that Evolution correctly
explains the natural development of life-forms on earth.
His "Tornado" comment was not a denouncement of Evolution,
it was his way of demonstrating its incompleteness,
meant as part of his broader conceptualization that the
answer to the question of the origin of life in the
universe needs to take into account MORE than just
the evidences provided by events that took place on
our planet, that we need to broaden the inquiry to include
studying the question within its larger Universe context.
He did not reject Abiogenesis scientifically because it
is not in evidence that it is impossible. He also did not
reject creation by intelligence, in fact he embraced the
concept personally. Nevertheless, he considered the
open question to be the most important thing, far more
important than opinion, to be evaluated by evidence
and reasoning, not feelings or philosophical dogma,
be it religious or scientific.
This is in a nutshell is the philosophical underpinning
of the concept of Panspermia, the idea that the true origin
of life on earth is elsewhere.
There is much work yet to be done.
There always is in science.
I reiterate that you should check out www.panspermia.org
if for no other reason that you will find there some of
the best cutting-edge science that questions the current
thinking about Evolution.
And, a suggestion for you. In the future you should
distinguish between Abiogenesis and Evolution,
for clarity's sake.
Abiogenesis is obviously in opposition to Creationism,
but Evolution, which does not really speak to the
actual origin event, is not really incompatible
with Creationism.
Frankly, I find it hard to understand how anyone
who believes in deity-created life in the Universe
wouldn't consider Evolution to be Its greatest achievement.
Art Bulla
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:11as44e...@news.supernews.com...
Art Bulla
just one protein only 100 AA in length is impossible given all space and
time. That is what the math shows. Your circular firing squad of
"biologists" are all fools. Naturalist philosophy is not true science. Only
that which does not contradict the laws of Physics and Mathematics are true
sciences. Any fool can see this.
news:d8kss...@drn.newsguy.com...
Art Bulla
Cadillac, than a human body to spring out of nothing, even over ten billions
of years, you fool.
news:d8lfs...@drn.newsguy.com...
RetroProphet
>>
>
>It would be many orders of magnitude easier for a
>tornado to assemble a Cadillac, than a human body
>to spring out of nothing, even over ten billions
>of years, you fool.
>
>Art Bulla
>
Yeah, that's deep, Art. I'm not even sure what you
mean by that. Make a cogent argument.
And, quit dodging.
Defend the "divine" origin of your erroneous science:
Why doesn't "Revelations of Jesus Christ" rebut actual
theories of Abiogenesis instead of being dedicated to
disproving a theory that NOBODY adheres to today?
It CAN'T be divinely inspired because it employs this
devious tactic.
Do you even comprehend the argument I am making against
your book? You seem not to. Or do you understand it,
but are hoping that no one is noticing?
The one thing you certainly are NOT doing is to
face my charges squarely. You asked for my "reasoning
in plainness" and I gave some to you, a small portion of
the science errors in your book.
You don't seem able to deal with it, preferring to
issue an odd non-sequitur.
John Manning
> Come down here and say that to my face, you cowardly wretch.
Tell us where you live, psycho boy.
Aaron Kim
ideas. They are better suited for writings of a science fiction novel.
Things as complex as human being or everything you see around you is
too complex to have happened by random chance. There is too much
symmetry and order
Aaron
RetroProphet
>
>All these theories, abiogenesis and panspermia are
>man made ridiculous ideas. They are better suited
>for writings of a science fiction novel.
>Things as complex as human being or everything you
>see around you is too complex to have happened by
>random chance. There is too much symmetry and order.
>
>Aaron Kim
>
>www.artbulla.com
>
Too much this, too much that, too incredible.
Aaron you are too uneducated. You toss about terms
like "random" and "order" but you have no understanding.
You are illiterate in science.
Abiogenisis and Evolution theories DO NOT rest upon
assumptions of things happening "randomly' but rather
it is just the opposite. Read and learn.
===
"The theory of evolution says that life originated,
and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a
better indication that the arguer doesn't understand
evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in
evolution, but this argument completely ignores the
fundamental role of natural selection, and selection
is the very opposite of chance.
Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic
variation, which is the raw material that natural
selection has to work with. From there, natural selection
sorts out certain variations. Those variations which
give greater reproductive success to their possessors
(and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations
will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful
variations are weeded out. When the environment changes,
or when organisms move to a different environment,
different variations are selected, leading eventually
to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out
quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of
beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due
purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves
not purely randomly, but according to their chemical
properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially,
this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously,
and these complex molecules can influence each other to
create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule
forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural
selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient
replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't
need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand
of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really
all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable
for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given
point (although they usually don't state the "givens,"
but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is
true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the
problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating
molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation
of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it
recognizes the immense range of starting materials that
the first replicator might have formed from, the probably
innumerable different forms that the first replicator might
have taken, and the fact that much of the construction
of the replicating molecule would have been non-random
to start with.
One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't
depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity
of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution
in the least.
reference:
RetroProphet
>
>
>Proteins are the building blocks of life, you nitiwit.
>The random arisal of just one protein only 100 AA in length
>is impossible given all space and time. That is what the
>math shows. Your circular firing squad of "biologists"
>are all fools. Naturalist philosophy is not true science. Only
>that which does not contradict the laws of Physics and
>Mathematics are true sciences. Any fool can see this.
>
>Art Bulla
>
Again, you demonstrate serious reading comprehension
problems, possibly curable by actually reading my post
before formulating a response, this being what you are
ignoring:
>> Your entire premise is incorrect to start off with,
>> because in modern Abiogenesis theories the first
>> replicating "living things" are posited to be MUCH SIMPLER
>> than a protein, not even a protobacteria, or even
>> a preprotobacteria.
Have you calculated for simpler precursors to proteins?
Have you calculated for the step-by-step scenario that is
in fact the crux of Abiogenesis? Of course not. You're not
even aware of what Abiogenesis theories actually posit,
so how can you even make a response, let alone prove it wrong?
Why doesn't "Revelations of Jesus Christ" rebut actual
theories of Abiogenesis instead of being dedicated to
disproving a fake, strawman "theory of Abiogenisis,"
invented by Creationists, that NOBODY is a proponent of?
And this dishonesty and error is actually claimed by you
AS ACTUALLY BEING IMPARTED TO MANKIND BY JESUS CHRIST.
"Revelations of Jesus Christ" is a scientific fraud on
the merit of the facts, and a de facto religious fraud
because it is a scientific fraud.
Your book is as useful to scientists as the Book of Mormon
has proven to be to archaeologists and historians.