Evolution Contradicts the LAW

"Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" by Kenneth Poppe

Chapter 11

THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW
Trying to neutralize the laws
of thermodynamics

Allow me to back up in history a bit to look at objections levied by the first group of modern scientists to drastically doubt Darwinism. Physicists have long been aware of the laws of thermodynamics and how they prohibit the type of random improvement claimed everywhere in natural evolution. I guarantee you these laws must somehow be neutralized, or "self-made" cannot even get out of the cosmic gate.

Let me start by saying it is rather rare to hear the word law applied to a concept. If something is called a law, it had better prove inviolate, or someone is sure to proclaim an exception. How many laws can you name? The law of gravity, of course. How about the law of supply and demand? I've heard of something called the law of diminishing returns, and then there's the infamous Murphy's law. Any more come to mind? I know there should be a longer list, but offhand, I can't think of another.

In science, laws seem the most difficult to come by. The reason is that in science, a law must hold true in all times, conditions, and locations, and must be validated by any independent investigator with no exceptions. I' would call that very stringent. Even the concept of atoms is still referred to in textbooks as the "atomic theory," despite the fact that the periodic table of elements graces the walls of almost every science classroom. Though all chemistry seems to operate on rock-solid principles, perhaps in its caution science will wait to grant atoms "law" status until we can examine an individual particle held in our hand.

I would say the best-known scientific law is the law of gravity. As long as you stay on our planet, Isaac Newton showed that what goes up must eventually come down, leading to the various laws of motion.

Moreover, Earth's gravity behaves predictably and reliably anywhere on the planet at all times. But are there any other scientific laws unerringly backed by science and never disproved by experiments, laws that are so dependable that science stands on them without even a modicum of caution? If you know your physics, you already have an answer.

The laws of thermodynamics are most assuredly written in stone, so to say. This set of laws explains relationships between matter and energy for which no exceptions are found anywhere in the universe. The first law, also called the law of conservation of matter and energy, basically says that the sum total of both matter and energy in the universe is always constant. In shirtsleeve English, this means that since the event that brought the universe into existence, no new matter has been generated from any other source. It also means you can't make any more new atoms, and you can never lose the old ones. True, new stars appear to be forming, but the atoms in the stellar gas clouds that condense and ignite have also been in the universe since its origin, and the rise in energy is balanced by the loss of mass.

Here is a simple example. The two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in a particular water molecule of H2O may travel the world over by condensation, precipitation, and evaporation, but it is the same three atoms. (I heard it once said that as many as four of the water molecules in each of our bodies once traveled through the body of a dinosaur.)

It is true that the water molecule may be fractured and the hydrogen and oxygen atoms become integrated into sugars, proteins, and so on, but the existence of these three atoms still coincides with the point of origin of all other particles. Furthermore, they can never pass out of existence unless a nuclear reaction changes them to energy, and then the sum total of matter lost and energy gained still remains unchanged. The first law can be summed up in three words-"creation has ceased"-and this no reputable physicist denies.

Entropy .

The second law of thermodynamics is an extension of the first. It says that since its origin, the universe has been in the process of winding down to complete silence. The pathway to its death could be explained in many ways-going from ordered to random, action to stillness, diverse to uniform, dynamic to inert, or organized to chaos. Again, in shirtsleeve English this means that energy expenditures in any closed system (closed meaning a system with no additional matter or energy input) will eventually leave it powerless, and it must wear out and die. The entire concept is captured by the single term entropy, and the degree to which a system has lost entropic energy is measured by the change symbol A (Greek letter delta).

This one-way path toward complete confoundedness is also called the law of universal decay, and is frequently compared to a newly wound spring as in an old-styled watch. When the watch is fully wound (or a reaction starts, or a star ignites), the first tick of time signifies the beginning of the descent from maximum order, and the last tick means the system is now fully disordered, silent and inert, never to be started again without an outside influence. Our sun is another example of entropy. At some past point in time it ignited and began to burn its fuel. At some future point (one estimate is 500 million years), the fuel will be expended, the sun will explode or wink out, and entropy with respect to the sun will have reached a maximum state-zero activity. Whether it is watches, chemical reactions, or stars, all these one-way paths to silence are irreversible.

I have found a perfect analogy to explain the second law to my students. I tell them to imagine their bedroom freshly and fully cleaned. There it is-bed made, all clothes put away, and everything in its place. All is dusted, vacuumed, and spotless. Then from that point, the entropy process seems unstoppable as disorganization slowly creeps in. A smudge here, a shoe left there, and so on. If an object were never put away, clothes never laundered, a bed never made, or a surface never dusted, eventually the result would be the room's return to the accustomed total teenage chaos. As any parent knows, this is an unstoppable process unless one intervenes.

Losses Everywhere

Important corollaries to the second law abound. One is that every time you change states of energy, there is a net loss. In my environmental science class I often use this explanation for how the sun is the ultimate source for all our energy needs, and how we work hard to use its energy as efficiently as possible. Consider the case of hydroelectric power that likely supplies some of the energy needs in your house. Water vapor in the clouds has to lose energy to condense and get back into the river. It then loses more kinetic energy as it flows downstream to 'the dam. The water expends additional energy as it drives the turbine to produce electricity, and returns downstream where it eventually reaches the ocean where it is finally at rest. Meanwhile, the electricity that reaches your house may power a TV that gives off the last remaining power in the form of heat and light.

Now we could use the sun's energy to directly power our TV, but the size of the required solar panel makes that impractical. So instead we have to deal with the pathway by trying to cut down the energy loss at each step (more reliable turbines, more energy efficient TVs, and so on). At any rate, the final result is the same. All this radiant energy from cooling water, hot turbines, and warm TVs drifts off into the cold of space, obviously not returning to the sun. Of course, as the sun continues to churn out more energy, the water cycle continues to renew itself and our TV keeps working. And yet remember-the sun is on its own pathway to death, so the water cycle is destined to cease if time continues that far.

Another second law corollary is that heat always flows to cold. This means energy leaves a system that is more dynamic and travels to one that is less dynamic. For this reason we heat our cars in winter as the warmth escapes through the exterior and into the colder air. However, we air-condition them in summer as the heat from the summer day keeps working its way into the cab through the car's insulation.

This is also the reason animals in the food chain or web must con tinue to eat. Without the intake of additional calories in food, the body begins to run out of fuel and will cease to live. So tertiary consumers

like the owl eat secondary consumers like the shrew, but about 90 percent of the intake of shrew biomass is lost through the owl's waste products and energy expenditures, and only about 10 percent is used to support cellular components in the owl's body. At the same time, secondary consumers eat primary consumers-such as shrews eating grasshoppers-also with a 90 percent net biomass loss; and primary consumers eat primary producers-grasshoppers eating grass-at about the same rate of loss.

At that point, scavengers and decomposers consume dead bodies and release nutrients and gases back into the system to recycle the process. But since all food chains are anchored by primary producers like photosynthetic plants, and plants need that dying sun for energy, life on Earth is also on a one-way ticket, where the energy supply at all levels is destined to be exhausted-eventual silence being guaranteed.

One final corollary to the second law is, when chemicals interact, you end with less energy than was initially present, either in the molecular bonds or in the catalyst driving the reaction. If a chemical reaction is exothermic (giving off heat)-like burning wood, for example-the energy escaping is obvious, and the amount of energy potential left in the ashes is certainly lower than originally in the wood. If the reaction is endothermic (absorbing energy)-like your freezer making ice, for example-the outside power source recycling the refrigerant is doing more work than the refrigerant did to make the ice.

And of course the freezer's power source can be traced back to the electricity running the compressor, electricity that cannot be provided indefinitely. That is because hydro, solar, wind, wave, fossil fuel, and even geothermal generating systems are all linked to that entropic sun as the power source. Returning to chemicals, once the reaction is over (like the concoction quits fizzing), and the products are generated in full, nothing can ever restart unless something outside the system reenergizes it.

Applications and Analogies

So what is the overall application of the second law to the origins debate? It is as simple as it is powerful. The second law absolutely negates any type of random improvement-the backbone of Darwinistic thinking. For example, it prohibits a series of interacting chemicals from becoming more complex, like amino acids developing into proteins, without outside assistance. In fact, the law says the reverse tendency is true. If complex chemicals could somehow be intentionally made to exist, there is no way to keep them from reverting to simpler forms without intentional assistance.

The truth is, if inorganic chemistry ever naturally evolved into increasingly complex organic chemistry, then evolved into a living cell, and finally into a complex life-form, then the second law governing all reality would have been set aside, violated, and would be no law at all. Since physics says entropy never works in reverse, I would agree with many who say the debate over Darwinism and Design is immediately settled because advancing life is an impossibility. Disorder never goes to order ... unless, of course, intelligence is lending a hand. Have you ever heard the phrase "there's no free lunch" applied to the false expectation of getting something for nothing? In this case the phrase is a perfect description because life just can't organize of its own accord.

Time Enough to Monkey Around?

Perhaps an automobile analogy would help. What happens if you put this year's brand-new model in the manufacturing parking lot and wait upon the second law of thermodynamics to do its thing?

After one year, probably no observable changes. The second year, maybe a slight bit of fading paint. Five years? Cracking upholstery. Twenty-five years? Flat tires. A hundred years? Detaching parts. A thousand years? A growing pile of parts. Ten thousand years? You can't tell what model it was. A hundred thousand years? You can't even tell the pile of rubble was once was a car. A million years? Remember the song "Dust in the Wind"? Now if you were to return and find next year's model after the passage of any of those time frames, wouldn't that be quite a surprise?

But in all sincerity, this is not a fair analogy. Evolution is said to have a change mechanism (random mutations) and a driving force (natural selection) to retain positive changes for eventual improvement. Fine. Wheel the car onto the manufacturing floor to protect it from the

elements and add a random change mechanism for mutation in the form of our old friends, once again-a band of free-roaming chimpanzees.

Then give the chimps a copious supply of all the metals, fiberglass, wires, glass, and other necessary components-as well as the tools, computers, drafting boards, and art supplies humans would need for next year's model. And to be sure to create a closed system-supply the chimps with ongoing habitat maintenance such as places to raise young, unlimited food, and waste removal. Then lock the doors. Oh, yes-to add the factor of natural selection, provide the manufacturing floor with a team of ever-watchful engineers who will rescue any improved components, correctly typed instructions, or perfectly pressed quarter panels and set them aside for later assembly when the chimps feel inclined.

Now, how many millions of years before the chimps have an improved model ready to hit the streets? Is 4.6 billion years, the supposed age of the Earth, enough? How about 13.7 billion years, the supposed age of the universe? If you are calling "foul" in this scenario, then explain how the analogy is not being true to the theory of evolution. You have a change agent, a selection method, and huge quantities of time. If nothing is missing, you must say there is at least a slight chance the chimps could build that car. (And maybe even place a Darwin fish on the rear bumper!)

Random Rubble

I have actually heard people try to defend scenarios that possibly reverse the second law, like the chimp/new car example. Now I don't want to seem rude, but their rambling "what ifs" sound like they have been inhaling the wrong kind of secondhand smoke. I maintain that if the above scenario, or any others like it, were tried for an unlimited number of years in an unlimited number of settings, your chances of getting that new car are zero, zilch, nada. It's the law, you know. The second law says that without outside help (in this case, intelligence), there can never be advancement-ever-only degradation.

I've seen it firsthand. I once drove through an animal theme park in Europe that had a separate section with free-roaming monkeys. As soon as I made it through the screened gate, two or three landed on my car and began to pull at the windshield wipers, radio antenna-whatever seemed loose. On the car in front of me I saw one monkey pulling off a long strip of rubber window molding. And the ground was littered with broken mirrors, strips of chrome, you name it. (One monkey even reached through the window and slapped me when I rolled it down and tried to shoo him off the hood!) No, monkeys do not improve cars.

One team of researchers sought to bring this analogy into reality. They actually placed a group of primates in a room with functional computers to see if they could ever accidentally create something on the various monitors. The best result ever achieved was that one chimp depressed one key for several seconds and typed long strings of the same letter before losing interest. But the experiment was stopped after equipment was destroyed and keyboards became nonfunctional when covered in excrement.

So my apologies, but at any location at any given time, your manufacturing floor will look like the bottom of a giant chimp cage desperately in need of a new liner. And going back to your new car on that floor, you can be sure that the chimps will beat it to rubble quite a bit faster than did the elements in the parking lot.

Printing and Pennies

If you are still not convinced, imagine a series of violent lightning strikes hitting an old-style printing business, as mentioned in chapter 6. Some say it could produce a dictionary as bindings, glue, paper, ink, and letter type are flying through the air. Okay, I can envision an A covered in splashing ink smacking a blank sheet and leaving an impression. I can even imagine another A hitting right beside the first letter a split-second later. Then an R followed by a D and a V and another A and an R and finally a K. There-AARDVARK-the first complete word in the dictionary, and we're on our way.

But if this doesn't exceed the universal probability boundary from chapter 7, nothing will. No, even the "chimp-made car" scenario sounds like a better bet because a dictionary, like a single cell or 30,000,000 life-forms on Earth, has more variables to account for than a car. Finally consider that both car and dictionary analogies represent just the assemblage of finished components. There has been no mention of the complexity involved in accidentally producing metal or paper-or amino acids-from their raw sources. (No doubt about it-whether it's biochemicals, books, or Buicks, any imagined probabilities are in actuality impossibilities.)

Perhaps the complexities of building cars and assembling dictionaries is too removed from everyday life. I suggest doing a simple hands-on experiment to test the second law of thermodynamics. Place 100 pennies on a tray, all showing heads. (Of course the first law of thermodynamics says that all the copper atoms in the pennies came into being by a one-time process.) The array of 100 heads would represent minimum entropy and complete order. Now give the tray a slight flip.

The winding down process has begun-a few tails represent a slight loss of order. Flip the tray again, and more tails appear. Now, depending on how aggressively you flip the tray, it may take as few as seven flips, certainly no more than ten, to achieve total randomness or maximum entropy, where the original set of 100 heads is completely unrecognizable. From here, more flips only give a different arrangement to the disorder.

At this point, it would be proper to note that occasionally a flip might produce a small cluster of pennies all showing heads. In fact, this not just likely, it is certain. However, this is no closer to ensuring a return to 100 heads than the few amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment are sure to become a protein. those clusters of pennies will disappear, or at best appear elsewhere, with subsequent shuffles. This would be the same result as Dawkins's weasel scenario (chapter 9) if he had not smuggled a good bit of intelligence into the computer program.

In the same manner, any amino acids in Miller's flask, or in the ancient ocean, will be fractured by the same reconfiguring forces long before they can even reach the polypeptide stage. Remember my analogy back in chapter 8, where you throw all the Scrabble letters on the table at once? Assuming they all land face-up and properly orientedundoubtedly a huge assumption-might you find a few simple words? Of course. But if you keep kicking the table, will the words begin to get more sophisticated and then arrange themselves into sentences? Then, assuming unlimited letters, will sentences become paragraphs and finally a book? Consult the second law.

It is an unfair question, but I'll ask it anyway. Now that your pennies are in a random jumble of maximum entropy, how many flips of the tray will it take to return to the 100 heads? Give it a try. Any progress? Probabilities say that you have one chance of success only if you give the tray a fair flip 2100 times. That is about 1021, or one thousand million million million flips. To get a sense of that number, imagine flipping the tray once per second for 32 trillion years, waiting for a chance for success. Such is the challenge of nullifying the second law for just one "small" event.

And yet the pennies dilemma is child's play compared to the odds of constructing that previously mentioned medium-sized human protein (1 in 10360) out of the approximately 100,000 proteins needed in our bodies, not to mention additional proteins for an estimated 30 million species worldwide. Again, the universe itself isn't big enough to contain such probabilities.

Therefore, allow me to suggest an easier way to restore your pennies. Use the same way the cars, the castles, the jetliners, the houses, and the dictionaries-and the proteins for the chimps, aardvarks, and humans-were made in the first place. Apply intelligence and intent. For the pennies, physically turn them all back to heads. For the rest, seek to understand the Designer who is superior to the laws of thermodynamics and responsible for their existence.

In summary, physics says that complete order always goes to complete disorder. And examples can be found everywhere, from deep space to your own bedroom. (Christian theology is like-minded, saying that man began in perfection only to fall into imperfection-and examples can be found in every civilization and every individual.) In contrast, Darwinists say molecules kept improving into cells, but they have no verifiable mechanisms to back that claim. Then they say cells evolved

into today's modern species, but have woefully insufficient fossilized examples to provide as proof. (Just how woeful will be shown in part five.) Doesn't anyone have respect for "the law" anymore?

Moving on, Darwinists say it wasn't a big explosion at a printing press that outsmarted the law-it was a bigger explosion in outer space that supposedly blew the universe into existence. Let's take a look at the big bang.

Refuting the Big Bang Theory

"Reclaiming Science From Darwinism" by Kenneth Poppe

Chapter 12

CELESTIAL LUCK
A place in space for everything, and
everything in space in its place

One interesting application of the second law of thermodynamics that has most certainly occurred in a closed system is the settling of the cosmos. According to theory, the big bang of some 17.6 billion years ago started it all from a pinpoint explosion of unimaginable force, which first blew atoms into existence, and then blew clusters of matter out into the void of space. This started the expansion of celestial objects one from another that continues to this day. (To get a quick sense of this expansion, get a balloon and with a pen draw a few galaxies and solar systems on the skin. Then blow the balloon up, and as you do, you will see the "universe" expanding.)

Following that immense explosion, particle clouds with sufficient mass began drawing together by increasing gravity and ignited to become stars. Meanwhile, smaller clusters with insufficient mass began losing their heat, cooled, and became planets. (The molten inner core of our Earth is often cited as evidence that our planet was a once hot and violent place that has now been in the cooling process for billions of years.) Besides stars and planets, other big bang curiosities have randomly appeared over time, such as quasars, black holes, comets, moons, and asteroids-all in their respective and expanding locations.

It follows that if the big bang is a totally random process, then the resulting layout of the universe has to be completely accidental as well. If intelligence has nothing to do with physics, how could cosmology be anything but unplanned and therefore unintelligent? Of course this randomness has to apply to our own little corner of the galaxy as well. And yet anything less than "impossible" is too benign a term for the fact that our Earth exists as it is, and that I am here to write this, or

you to read it.

An Explosion of Good Fortune

Many astronomers and physicists who have studied the big bang event, people of faith or not, have marveled that it happened at all. Hugh Ross is among those who have seriously studied the origin and settling of the universe. In his books, such as Big Bang, Refined by Fire, Ross gives many factors of physics so finely tuned that it shows the tenuously balanced structure of our universe. On one such list, Ross includes over two dozen "either/or" factors (either it worked or it didn't), such that if any single one were out of balance, the "bang" would have been a nonevent.

Without getting too technical, here is a sampling of the "luck" to which we owe our existence:

If the electromagnetic forces present at the big bang were either a bit stronger or a bit weaker, any elements with more atomic mass than boron (periodic table element #5) could not have been formed. This means 96 percent of the elements, starting with the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in our bodies, would not exist.

If the ratio of the mass of the electron to the proton or neutron were out of balance, either too high or too low, no atoms of any kind would have ever assembled, and obviously no molecular bonding or chemical reactions would have taken, place either.

If the ratio of the number of available protons to electrons was off, either too many of one or too few, electromagnetism

would have nullified gravity, and no objects in space would ever have formed.

And once you add to the list the perfect speed of light, the exact subatomic decay rates, the correct distance between stars, and even the proper total mass requirements of the entire universe itself. .. well, you get the idea.

Here is an analogy that seems to help bring home the idea of the fantastic nature of the big bang. Who can argue that the flying of the Space Shuttle is a delicate undertaking? Any little prelaunch factor out of place scraps the countdown, and once in flight, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, known worldwide as NASA, keeps track of a myriad of transmissions, any one of which could indicate impending disaster. It's true-the shuttle is a flying bomb with seven souls aboard riding on a razor-thin edge of safety. Physicists know that the big bang is similarly fine-tuned, miraculously having managed to avoid either fizzling to a stop or incinerating itself.

"Lucky" Breaks

However, the above list pales in comparison to factors that were necessary to form our own little solar system with our own little planet and its multitude of life-forms. This time Ross has identified 68 separate "either/or" factors, many of which are more easily understood than those governing the universe as a whole. Here are a few phenomena that could lead to either the prevention or extermination of all planetary life. These factors, some simple and some technical, are some of the blessings we take for granted every day.

It's a good thing that through random thermodynamic settling, the Milky Way galaxy attained the right size, shape, and distance from other galaxies. Otherwise, stars like our sun would never have been formed, or would have been incorporated into a different cosmic mass.

It's a good thing our sun is in a single-star configuration. Approximately 70 percent of all stars are binary, trinary, or complex systems that revolve around each other. This causes intense gravitational forces that

make stable planetary bodies of any kind nearly impossible. Fortunately, our sun is one of the remaining 30 percent of "lucky" stars that exists as a single body. It is also the right size, age, location, and strength for our solar system-or else planetary orbits would be unstable, heavier elements drawn to Earth from space could have easily been over- or undersupplied, or luminosity could have been too bright or too weak to power photosynthesis. Even the gravitational forces of the other planets are necessary for Earth's stability. For example, the mass and location of Jupiter is especially fine-tuned to balance the orbits of the four inner with the four outer planets.

It's a good thing our planet revolves about the sun in a relatively circular orbit instead of an exaggerated egg-shaped one like most of the other planets. If Earth's path were too elliptical, the temperature extremes at perihelion (closest point to the sun) and aphelion (farthest point from the sun) would make it difficult, if not impossible, for life to have the necessary flexibility to survive.

The variation in orbital extremes of Earth is only about 1.7 percent from the mean, making its path around the sun a near-perfect circle. Compare that to Mars, everyone's favorite planet for extraterrestrial life, with a 9 percent variation (which is close to the average of all nine planets at 8 percent). Because of Mars' orbital elongation variation over five times as great as Earth's, NASA will have to be very careful as they develop the landing date for a manned Mars mission.

Think about it. Because of the alternating extreme closeness and remoteness to the sun in the orbital path of Mars, an astronaut in a space suit or space station would only have windows of nominal temperatures between hot and cold cycles. It should be obvious most types of Earth life would not survive if our planet were unlucky enough to have such an elongated orbit. And these extremes on Mars are exacerbated because of its slow revolution rate, making the annual trip around the sun in 687 Earth days instead of 365. By comparison, our Earth is "lucky" enough to have a near circular orbit and an optimum rate of revolution that avoid such extremes.

It's a good thing the Earth is tilted at precisely 23.45 degrees on its axis, which gives us the perfect balance of true seasons from the Equator to the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, and on to the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. Imagine if Earth had no appreciable tilt at all, like Mercury at .01 degrees. We would not just lose the refreshing rotation of seasons, but hosts of species would not exist whose life cycles follow the changing climates as you go toward either pole.

What if the Earth were tilted, like Pluto, at 32 degrees past perpendicular, pointing its northern and southern poles almost directly at the sun in their respective summer and winter seasons? If Earth were laid this far over on its side, the annual melting and refreezing of both polar ice caps would play unbelievable havoc with habitats by the wildly fluctuating temperature ranges. And then imagine what would happen to levels of water in the oceans, precipitation rates, and plant and animal life cycles. The violence of seasonal extremes might even negate the possibility of complex terrestrial food webs.

Then there is one other possibility that Earth was "lucky" enough to avoid. It is the "barrel roll" of Uranus spinning on an axis parallel to its orbital plane, rather than perpendicular like the rest of the planets. What difficulties this would present to life here at home can hardly be imagined.

Finally, it's a good thing our Earth is the right size and shape, rotates at the right speed, and is the right distance from the sun. If any of these were out of proportion, a whole host of problems loom. Our atmosphere could be too suffocating or too thin, our day-to-night temperatures could be too hot or too cold, our gravity too intense or too insufficient, our wind velocities too severe or too inadequate, or our air components too heavy on some gases or too light on others.

Also, consider that Mercury completes less than one revolution around the sun for every two rotations on its axis, making one of its "days" equal to less than half of its "year." There is no reason Earth couldn't be like Mercury (though it would be disastrous to life), but instead we properly make 1/365 of our annual journey in close to 24 hours. Overall, you could say we were very "lucky" that the interplay of forces from universe to galaxy to solar system to planet were perfectly fine-tuned. To quote the late Jackie Gleason, "How sweet it is!"



Physics Did It?

Call it a case of "a place for everything in space, and everything in space in its place." I'm impressed. But I know others are not. They say with the possibility of a nearly inexhaustible supply of potential planets in the universe, physics was bound to give us one body with this combination of distance, size, orientation, and motion factors. And in the same manner, life was able to adapt accordingly and settle into this cozy "third rock from the sun." Perhaps, but if so, there are still a host of other "lucky" parameters right here on Earth that still must be perfect. While these did not necessarily govern the physics of planetary origin, they still could severely limit or deny life.

For example, earthquake activity must be within tolerable limits. Imagine if we had the seismology of other planets. Remember how the world properly agonized over the December 26, 2004, tsunami in the Indian Ocean that instantly wiped out over 200,000 lives? There is no reason why such geologic events couldn't be commonplace on Earth. Yet as devastating as it was, the tidal wave did not affect animal and plant life to a disastrous extent, only human life because of the way we live.

Just as earthquake activity typical of other planets could be knocking down our cities as fast as we build them, there is no reason why violent storms could not also make our planet a scene of constant destruction. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September of 2005 were disasters to Louisiana, Texas, and other parts of the Gulf Coast, and yet the bulk of our country experienced no change at all. However, if Earth had the same ongoing storm as on Jupiter-the red "eye" shown on almost every photograph-we would have a continuous cataclysm cutting a lethal swath across our planet. Instead, we sit rather comfortably here at home. Lucky for us.

Next, consider that Earth's water-to-landmass ratio must not be out of bounds. With the near-complete lack of moisture available on other planets, if anything, shouldn't we be one-quarter water and threequarters land on the planet's surface instead of the reverse? In fact, we should be nearly, if not completely, bone-dry.

And this list goes on. The minerals in the soil must be optimal for all sorts of biological and commercial reasons, the Moon's tidal effects

must not be extreme, ocean salinity and ion concentrations must not be unduly toxic, and ... well, isn't that enough to make the point? Also consider that with respect to tolerance levels, any one of these factors, like those that doomed two Space Shuttle flights, could be so prohibitive to life that the rest become a moot point.

So let's apply a bit of math. If you visit the lottery Web site for multistate Powerball, you will find all the probabilities of winning those multimillions that are sure to bestow peace and happiness. Here, the odds of winning the elusive jackpot are listed as "1 in 146,170,692." You could read this as "one winner for approximately every 150 million tickets sold"-which places you in the ritzy neighborhood of 108 individual purchases to provide hope for success.

By comparison, if we give all 68 of those planetary criteria previously mentioned a 50/50 chance of being in a range tolerable to life-a winor-no-win ticket-and multiply all the 1-out-of-2 odds together, you get a figure upward of 1022. Once again, going back to the strength of exponential numbers, our odds of getting a suitable planet Earth are (22 - 8 = 14): 14 increases of 900 percent beyond what it takes to win a Powerball jackpot. (No wonder they call the lottery a tax on people who aren't good at math.) And then after this, we must face the even more prohibitive odds of getting life to self-organize.

With this lottery example in mind, perhaps now the contrasts in the vocabulary I've been using will make more sense. In case the words went by too fast, let me repeat them. On the random side we have words like unstable, excessive, insufficient, intense, inadequate, difficult, extreme, fluctuating, exacerbating, severe, unbalanced, nonexistent, fragile, erratic, freezing, boiling, prohibitive, noxious, toxic-and, as a fitting end-impossible. And I dare say that if you set foot on any planet outside Earth, one, if not most-if not all-of these factors would negate the possibility of life.

On the other hand, we describe our planetary conditions with words like proper, balanced, refreshing, optimal, flexible, correct, exact, complementary, proportional, and-as another fitting end perfect. As we stand here on Earth, we easily see how all these supposedly fortuitous accidents allow the miracle of life. In the end, how many times can the word perfect be repeated (perfect this, perfect that, perfect everywhere you turn) until your faith in luck runs out and you admit that Someone was tinkering with physics?

Nothing to Shrug Off

As lengthy as the list of fine-tuned factors is, evolutionists shrug them off with the same comment almost every time. Like I earlier said, they would say that instead of a Designer adapting Earth to accommodate life, life adapted to the pre-existing conditions it found on our planet. For example, if Earth had a stronger gravitational pull, our creatures would have developed lighter bodies and stronger legs and wings. Or if Earth's air were one-fourth nitrogen and three-fourths oxygen instead of the reverse, animal lungs would be restructured, plant photosynthesis would follow different pathways, and so on. In fact, they say, our present gravity may actually be deadly, and our air toxic, to life evolving under conditions on another planet.

However, such people seldom realize the depth of this assumption. The fine-tuned features in the majority of these factors are not a matter of alterations but eradication-not just conditions to adjust to but conditions that bring death under any circumstance. First of all, many of the factors from the physics of the universe could completely negate the possibility of carbon-based chemistry, and other conditions on Earth would instantly be lethal to any type of life based on the carbon platform. (The song "Nothing from Nothing Leaves Nothing" comes to mind.) Remember that we are not just talking about whether gravity and air are optimal, but whether we even have a planet, a sun, a solar system, or a universe.

The skeptics also need to realize that some of these factors are more complicated than at first glance. Okay, so the Earth accidentally stopped closer to the sun. Just imagine that birds evolved with Space Shuttle-like heat tiles on their underbellies so they also could fly in the hot sun. If the Earth stopped farther away? Imagine birds with feathers a foot thick.

Yet in what possible location would you place the Earth and still have a water cycle? How far from its present location can you move the planet before precipitation, condensation, and evaporation collapse? (Ask the life that supposedly used to live on Mars.) The amazing water molecule is so essential to organisms that it is everybody's favorite indicator of possible extraterrestrial life. But how could water complete its inter- or intra-cellular travel if it were continually evaporated or frozen? By one estimate, if the Earth's orbit averaged a half of a percent closer or farther from the sun, we would have permanent vapor or permanent

ice. No water cycle, no fluid homeostasis for cellular activities-no life of any kind.

In my opinion, you have to accept Design, even if only by default. But I go even farther and say some "interesting touches" were added. I say there are some amazing displays of technical science included just

at the Artist's prerogative. I call it His "personal signature" on a fine piece of creative work. For example, we get to see only one side of the Moon because its rotation rate. on its axis and its revolution rate around

A Touch of Art

If the Moon's strange synchronous movement does not impress you, here is one you can't chalk up to anything like tidal pull. Who would not admit that solar eclipses are cool? Be in the right place on Earth at the right time and the disc of the Moon interposes itself to be perfectly congruent with the disc of the sun-a total solar eclipse. The alignment is so exact that the massive corona of the sun makes a beautiful halo, and the central darkness gives scientists the best chance to study the effect.

But isn't the perfect overlay a bit odd considering the chance sizes and distances of the two "unrelated" celestial objects? Yet the dazzling display is only possible because of the unbelievable equal ratios of diameters and distances. The Moon has a diameter of 3476 kilometers (2160 miles) and has a distance from Earth of 384,467 kilometers (239,000 miles), for a decimal ratio of .009. By comparison, the diameter of the sun is 1,390,000 kilometers (865,000 miles) at a distance from Earth of 149,600,000 kilometers (93,000,000 miles), a decimal ratio of, you guessed it, .009! In simpler terms, while the sun is about 400 times bigger than the Moon, it is about 400 times farther away-hence the stunning effect of the total solar eclipse, something that to me looks very "planned."



the Earth are exactly the same, a precise 27.3217 Earth days for both. (Check it out by going around your family globe with a ball on a stick. If you walk just as fast as you turn the ball, the "Earth" sees only one side of your "Moon.") Now it is true that tidal pull from a larger object on a smaller object begins to mitigate orbits over time, but no such preciseness exists anywhere else in a solar system filled with planets. Call it a bit of curious mystery thrown in just for fun.

A touch of art also extends to a last point. Any map of the Milky Way galaxy will show our sun and solar system to be about three-fourths of the way to the outer edge from the center of the flat spiral disc.

From a scientific standpoint, this is a stroke of "luck" that provides the perfect location for our "evolving" life-forms. If our solar system

were at the outer tips of the galactic arms, the rotational speed of the "crack the whip" effect would cause a rapid expansion of our planetary orbits, making for rapidly fluctuating conditions on Earth to which life could not adjust. If our sun were toward the center of the Milky Way, the intense gravitational attractions and the constant radiation of supernovae from so many stars in proximity would again make our Earth unlivable.

But the fact is, our sun lies not only at the proper centricity, it also lies in the open area between two spiral arms at the proper co-rotational radius where our speed remains relatively constant and our solar system will not be swept into either adjacent arm. Once again, we should celebrate our good fortune. Yet the artistic piece is that if our solar system could somehow survive in the galactic center or within one of the arms of densely packed stars, the cosmic clutter would prevent us from even looking out into deep space to see those distant wonders. It is as interesting as it is ironic. Darwinists use the very beauty afforded to us as we look into the heavens as justification to reduce our existence to "luck."

Tough Customers

As I said earlier, astronomers and physicists have always had a harder time buying into the random-chance scenario. Knowing what they know, they have not made the best Darwinists because of the weak philosophic argument that everything just fell into place without intelligence. Consider the well-known quote from Wernher von Braun, an astrophysicist of no small repute:

I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And to show it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to have the same opinion, hear the words of astronomer Alan Sandage:

I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but it is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing. Or how about Princeton physics professor Freeman Dyson, who said, "As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together for our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."*

Here is a man of longstanding reputation who has earned 21 honorary degrees by applying his knowledge of physics in almost every other scientific discipline, such as astronomy. He has also won the prestigious Templeton Award, given to individuals whose achievements in one professional field have simultaneously advanced the humanitarian benefits of religion. Therefore, I would say Dyson's use of the word almost in the quote above is a shot aimed at the Darwinists with whom he has debated all his life.

To sum it up, it may take faith to "move" mountains. But so many giants of science believe it takes much more faith to "make" mountains through natural processes.As Ace Ventura, Pet Detective, says, "Well, alrighty then." Let's assume we lucked out and got a universe and a suitable planet-perhaps several of them-ready for life. Having won the lottery for life here, many are convinced it has happened elsewhere, and have devoted their lives to prove it. Let's look at the ongoing search for life beyond our planetary home to see what the experts can now saith certainty.

Announcing Radio Program this Sunday, 11/11

This Sunday on 11/11 at 7pm (pst) (our normal time is 3pm) we will be broadcasting on the topic of the apostasy of Christianity and the modern tax supported religion of Darwinism. We invite calls at (718) 664-9754.

--
Rescuing liberal pagans from the reprobate mind. Romans 1:29.

www.artbulla.com

Our Blog: http://www.artbulla.com/zion/blog/rjc.html

Listen to Zion Redemption Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on Sunday from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to call in live at (718) 664-9754, email at art@artbulla.com, or by MSM artbulla@hotmail.com. This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can also listen to archived shows.

My Testimony of a Living Prophet: http://www.artbulla.com/zion/Aaron's%20Page.html

26 Even so, come unto me and learn of my ways, and I will give unto you, even as many as shall come, that peace which surpasseth understanding, and if ye shall inquire of me concerning these things, will I the Lord manifest by the influence and power of the Holy Ghost that these things are verily true and are of me, saith the Lord.

Revelations of Jesus Christ sec. 6:26

The Kingdom of God or Nothing

The Near Death Out of Body Experience

In a debate with an atheist on usenet:

Me:
>>The law of gravity is provable. Darwinism is not.Darwinism is not a science but atheist propaganda.

Him:

>Now he's Mister Science all of a sudden and scientific proof is so important to him. >Wheres your scientific proof for teaching this?: "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 catalyzing energy which effects this organization to >begin with,an d keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and >without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these "creations" lose their >organization, and hence decay back to their "native element", because the spirit, >saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization >supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to >remain, intact."

114 And now, thus saith the Lord, all things were created spiritually before they were temporally.
115 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew was created in the spirit, yea even the earth upon which thou standest had its creation before element combined with matter, saith the Lord God, for the foundation of all matter is spiritual, saith the Lord God.
116 And that spirit which is in man which was with me from the beginning which separateth from the temporal body upon the death thereof, goeth to dwell with other spirits who also move and have their beings, and do not die but go to the spirit of the earth upon which thou standest to await the resurrection, for the resurrection cometh to all men and women except them who cannot repent, even sons of perdition.
117 And they await the resurrection of the just or the unjust, according to the deeds done in the body, saith the Lord God of Israel, my chosen.
118 And the spirits of all men and women were arranged in races and grades according to intelligence from before the foundation of the world and according to their performance in that war fought in heaven.

Revelations of Jesus Christ sec. 3

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

(Moses 3:5)


Haven't you ever heard of the near death out of body experience ?

A Scientist who had a near death experience:

Joyce Hawkes, a cell biologist with a PhD, had an accident that forever changed her life — and her view of science. She suffered a concussion from a falling window. "I think that part of me — that my spirit, my soul — left my body and went to another reality," she said. She was surprised at the experience.

"It just was not part of the paradigm in which I lived as a scientist," Hawkes recalled. "it was a big surprise to me to have this sense of something different than the body — a consciousness different than the body — and to be in this wonderfully healing, peaceful, nurturing place."

"I think what I learned was that there truly is no death, that there is a change in state from a physical form to a spirit form, and that there's nothing to fear about that passage," she said.

Some Near Death Questions that scientists need to grapple with:
Numerous people have had Near Death Experiences after their hearts stopped, or they have stopped breathing; and 10 seconds later the EEG (measure of brain electrical activity) - goes absolutely "flat". If so, how can any scientist say that this NDE is a conscious experience? Also, there have been numerous blind people (blind from birth) who reported Near Death Experiences. And for most of these their NDE's are "visual" experiences. How can these be? It is thought that over 10 million Americans have had Near Death Experiences. Why do "scientists" not study these more? These are not drug induced hallucinations. How can so many people report nearly the same details in their experience if they were due to drugs chemically acting on brain cells? Most people who undergo NDE's say that they are not "dream-like" events, but instead, very real and structured "visits". Also, for most people, an NDE is a "life changing" experience.

http://bibleprobe.com/nde.htm

The Big Bang a Big Bust ?

Here is the definition of the Big Bang theory:

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

It says the "universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion". So that means there was no universe, no life, just absolutely nothing at least as far back as 20 billion years ago prior to some sort of explosion. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that matter has always been in existence and more cannot be created. So it is the Big Bangists who contradict science by saying THERE WAS NOTHING and suddenly a cosmic explosion happened that sent matter flying everywhere. Plus, as I have pointed out before recently which not surprisingly no one replied to, there is another huge hole in this theory big enough to push Jupiter through. Big Bangists believe that the universe happened around 13.7 billions years ago. But it's been observed by the Hubble Space Telescope that the universe has an observable radius distance of 46.5 billion light years. But since the universe is 13.7 billions years old, shouldn't the distance be no more than 13.7 billion light years ? No the universe has been measured or to the extent the Hubble Space Telescope allow us to see to be 46.5 billion light years meaning matter must have traveled faster than light which is impossible!

On the Plurality of Gods

On alt.religion.christianity, someone posted that there is only one God in response to a post that I wrote that there are are numerous Gods. I replied:

There are many Gods but there is only but one God to each earth. I know this to be true having the Holy Spirit as a testimony of the veracity of it.

6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

(Ps 82:6-7)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(John 10:34-36)

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

(1 Cor 8:5-6)

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I
unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

(Moses 1:32-35)

Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.
* * *
The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good. In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through-Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth. Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God-he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself-"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.371-372)

Who Created God ?

On alt.atheism, someone posted:
> FWIW in at least one sense, God _IS_ life. If we ask who created life, then
> we must ask who created God.

Verse 6 plainly shows that our God has a Father too.

5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

(Rev 1:5-6)

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist-two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."
If Abraham reasoned thus-If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.345)

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.
Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.346)

Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness.
(Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887)

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Ede, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation."
(Brigham Young from Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51 1854)

Eliza R. Snow: "When Brigham Young proclaimed to the nations that Adam was our Father and God, and Eve, his partner, the Mother of a world--both in a mortal and a Celestial sense--he made the most important revelation ever oracled to the race since the days of Adam, himself." Women of Mormendom; p.196-7.

The Ultimatum of Human Life

Eliza R. Snow

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation He arose to be

Clothed with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And What to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest or Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtained the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the Earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

Whether by fools, considered small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she'd prove her worth--

She's now the Goddess and Queen of Earth.

Should Darwinists Be Straitjacketed ?

In a debate with an atheist on alt.religion.mormon, he said in regards to Mormonism:

"In sanity we are taught that fairy tales aren't reality, and that people who believe that they are aren't sane."

Kenneth Poppe in his book "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" called evolution a fairy tale for grownups. I doubt YOU are sane at all.

(excerpt from Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):

These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open container developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a flask sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life gives rise to life. And to be sure that the impressionable young reader understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the author is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:

1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
3. All cells come from other cells.

The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new cell can only come from a preexisting cell.

"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.373)

To add on top of Louis Pasteur proven law that only life comes from life meaning that spontaneous generation is false something the Prophet Joseph Smith knew of even before Pasteur, we know that the first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy has always been in existence and more cannot be created. The second law of thermodynamics also known as entropy says that all matter and energy has a natural inclination to disorganize itself. That's why people get old and die. That's why things like cars and houses deteriorate unless you take constant care of it but they are always in a ceaseless process of degeneration. So to claim as Darwinists like yourself believe that lifeless atoms by a random process over billions of years formed the first cell which scientists are increasingly becoming appreciative of its amazingly complex molecular structure is an absolute lie because it directly contradicts the 2nd law. That's like saying water flows uphill not downhill. It would be easier for a person to throw up a deck of cards into the air and land as a house of cards. Or a tornado to blow through a junkyard and put together a Cadillac. It's completely absurd.

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 or­ganisms "evolved"-a term coined by some fat victorian natura­list-into more complex organ­isms 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 thermodyna­mics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usu­ally 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 in­herently more energy, not less than one than one which is dis­organized.

40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.

41 Random chance cannot ex­plain the existence of such a monumentally complex organi­zation 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 ca­pable of mustering.

44 A specific example of this ab­surdity, accord­ing 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: sup­pose we take the random arisal of not an organ­ism, 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 prob­ability, what are the chances of this one spe­cific 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 Col­lege Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have ac­cess to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly aris­ing in this primor­dial 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, sup­pose we say that we give evolu­tionists 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 gen­erous 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 vol­ume 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 evolu­tionists, we say that each ocean is filled not with water, but amino acids, the buil­ding blocks of protein.

54 This means that there are a total according to our mathe­matical 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 believ­ing their lies, for their eternities are ef­fected), 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 sec­ond of every year in the 10^10 years which is esti­mated by our brave brethren, the scien­tists, to be the age of the uni­verse, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.

56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins ex­actly 100 amino acids long would be formed.

57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 bil­lions of years There are 10^8 seconds approxi­mately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that num­ber).

58 This would mean that over all the space and time imagin­able, 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 combina­tions of amino acids 100 in length which are pos­sible 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 di­gestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolu­tionists 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.

Revelations of Jesus Christ section 14

(I thought this would be interesting to note that Joseph Smith and the early Mormons knew of the first law of thermodynamics even before scientists formulated it:)

You ask the learned doctors; why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352; DHC 6:309)

"There is not a hint in all the Bible that God created this or any other world out of nothing. The work of creation was to take the materials that existed from all eternity, that never were [28] created or made out of nothing, to take these self-existent materials and organize them into a world. This is called creation." (Apostle and scientist Orson Pratt, JD 16:315)

President Brigham Young:

If I were a sectarian, I would say, according to their philosophy, as I have heard many of them say hundreds of times, "God created all things out of nothing; in six days he created the world out of nothing." You may be assured the Latter-day Saints do not believe any such thing. They believe God brought forth material out of which he formed this little terra firma upon which we roam. How long had this material been in existence? Forever and forever, in some shape, in some conditions. We need not refer at all to those who were with God, and who assisted him in this work. (JD 18:232)

My Response to a Typical Anti-Christ

"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:m9pvg3d4quchcq67uerm4chuanam1tqs08@4ax.com... On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:27:56 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Art Bulla" wrote in <5n8bebfh19ohu1@mid.individual.net>:
-Refuting the false doctrine of atheism is extremely on-topic, you fool.

-You have never refuted any 'false doctrines'. "Is not" does not count as a refutation.

-Do you have evidence that any gods exist. No? Of course not. Until you do, you cannot refute atheism.

No one can prove that God does not exist so it's impossible or disingenuous to the extreme to say that God does not exist. Art is an eyewitness that God exists having seen God face to face close to an hour similar to Paul's vision and others in scriptures.

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

(2 Cor 12:2-4)

17 And it came to pass that the disciples whom Jesus had chosen began from that time forth to baptize and to teach as many as did come unto them; and as many as were baptized in the name of Jesus were filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And many of them saw and heard unspeakable things, which are not lawful to be written.

(3 Ne 26:17-18)

There have been thousands and thousands of people with near death out of body experiences like in the following example:

http://www.artbulla.com/zion/ella.html

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30:44)

Being an atheist undoubtedly your religion is evolution. Darwinism is a theory that can never be verified by experiment. That's why it's called a theory not a law. It's the LAW of gravity not THEORY of gravity. We can drop a rock and watch it drop and know gravity is true or observe the circular motion of the planets and see that gravity is real. What proof is there of Darwinism ? All your scientists as much effort as they have made have failed to create life. You never saw evolution happen over the supposed billions of years. Where are the transitional fossils? Agenda driven ax grinding atheists enforce their philosophy ramming it down our throats through government enforced misappropriated tax payer money at the point of a gun in our school systems, grade school, high school, and colleges. They use their propaganda in all avenues of mainstream media. For example in movies like the popular comic book based "X-Men" movies where there are mutant human beings born with super powers like the ability to read other people's minds, telekinesis, instant healing, starting fire and ice, etc. to give examples of some the movie character's powers because they are more "highly evolved" beings feeds people's imagination that people can actually evolve. Mutations don't "evolve" new beneficial genetic information unless you consider sickle cell anemia, cerebal palsy, Down Syndrome, cancer, Dwarfism, etc. to be signs of evolution. Real supermen there. Mutations are genetic copying errors, they are destructive to the DNA not productive. A good analogy of mutation is an earthquake. It disrupts and causes chaos to the structure of a building not add order It's amazing to believe someone like you could exist.

You do not believe not because God does not exist but your deeds are dark.