Natural Selection Leads to Genetic Depletion Leads tro the End of Evolution, but Who's Goind to Notice, or Point to it if they do Notice

"The Engine of Evolution" as Dawkins calls it, Natural Selection, just runs out of goas? Something like that. I know it's highly improbably that even the truth that proves evolution wrong will never be recognize3d despite all the noble sounding declarations of sceince's commitment to acce3pting the truth wherever it lies. Some things are just to political even when it comes to science. And if evolution falls a lot falls with it, who would want that responsibility? I don't know, but it's up to God in the end. He could bring it to light or let people go on in the dark. ,br>
There was a member of EvC forum some years ago who liked my argument, who had a relationship with the creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise. He told Wise about the argument and then reported back to the forum that Wise just didn't think it would ever be accepted. EEnd of subjectr.t. I've always know it was right nevertheless. The scientific studies done by Wise and Austin and others no doubt also prove evolution false, but there's something about this observation the Lord led me to that does the job a lot better just because it's so much simpler. Br>

I SO want to see this demonic stronghold of the fallen world demolished.Please please please demolish it, Lord.

Natural Selection Makes New Phenotypes But That Makes Evolution Genetically Impossible

Might as well state it from time to time. This is my theorywhich I started laying out at EvC forum maybe twenty years ago or so. It evolved ocver time to get somre refined but it's the same idea. I calledc it back then "Evolution Defeats Evolution" and I still rather like that pithy way of saying it, but to be more precise it's Natural Selection, the supposed Engine of Evolution, originally proposed by Darwin and reiterated all the time by Richard Dawkins, that kills evolution. Or brings it to a stop.

This is the observation: The formation of new populations or subspecies of any sexually reproducing creature rquires the3 reduction of genetic diversity. The simplest way this happens is that alleles for competing traits drop out of the population as the new traits or phenotypes become established in the population. Another way to say tyhis is that you get more homozygosity in the new population than the parent population had. Fixed loci is anotherway of saying that. Paired alleles, the allele for the heterozygous form of that gene dropping out.

How do I know this? I inferred it originally from the examples of doestimc breeding, which is where Darwin himself got the idea of natural Selection in thefirst place, and then from the example of endangered species, the cheetah being the prime example. The cheetah i genetically highly comkpromkised, having many fixed loci or homozygous genes for its salient traits. this is what endagers it wlthough that's a side issue in this discussionm. The point is that you have the cheetah's traits or phenotypc because it doesn't have alleles that compete with those traits. Those all3eles no doubt belonged to the parent population from which it was isolated in the first place, but they didn';t make it into the new population of cheetahs.

In domestic breeding at least as it used to be done the whole point was to lose the traits for breeds you didn't want. You selected traits and bred animaols that had only those traits until you got a pure breedd, and when you have that breed you have an animal with many fixed loci for those traits and have lost the genetic material for competing traits.

Breeding and engangedred specieas are the extremes of the processes that occur at a much slower rate in the development of all variations in all sexually reproducing animals. There ids always, no exceptions, a reduction in genetic diversity that is necessary to the devleelopment of the new variation. Always.

I've answered how mutations don't do anything to correct this situation, and I've argued why Noah's family on the arik, and all the animals on the ark wren't endangered species. I don't have room for it in a post these days.

But the point is that getting a new "species" or completely new version of any animal, requires the loss of bgenetic material, that's is the opposite of what would be required if the theory of evolution were true. Itg's not true. Evolution is impossible from a genetic point of view.

This along with the fact that the strata are not time periods absolutely kills evolutionh. Gosh it would nice if someone came along who saw how this is true.

Eye for an Aye -- aAnother One They Mangle

Jesus said that was the old law and He was giving His followers a new commandment: not to retaliate at all. But I get very tired of hearing the old law made into something it isn't, people saying how if that were followed we'd be up to your eyeballs in violence.

Do they think at all? Any of them? Isn't it obvious on the fac e of it that to require an eye for an eye is nothing but perfect justice? Yes Christians are now not to retaliate at all but that doens't change the fact that as law that earlier law was perfect justice.

Many of the Old Testament laws were aimed at toning down the vigilante justice that people so often exacted in retaliation for wrongs against them. Cities of Refuge were established for instance because even someon who had accidentally killed someone would have been murdered by the family of the person killed. Same with eye for an eye. If someone's eye was put out in a fight, he was likely to retaliate by killing the person who wronged him. The law of eye for an eye restricted him to retaliating only to the level of thje offense. You lost an eye you may only take an eye in retaliation. You lost a tooth, you may only take a tooth in retaliation. ,br>
An example of the kind of overkill such laws were designed to mitigate would be the incident when a young man from a neighboring tribe raped Dinah, Jacob's daughter and the sister of his twelve sons. The youhjng man was in love with Dianah and wanted to marry her so it wasnt even your standard violent rape, though of course Dinah had no say in any of it in the culture of that day. Anyway her brothers murdered the young man and his family for the violation of their sister. Jacob was worried about what that would do to his family's standing in the neighborhood, but the point is that there was a tendency in those days to exact far more in retaliation than the crime warranted. Hence, boiling it down to "eye for an eye."

In general the Old Testament is attacked by antireligionists for things it actually represents a liberal humanizing influence on the wild culture of the day. That is also true of its dealings with slavery which was a universal practice that nobody would have given up in that context, but better treatment of slaves and requirement that they be released after a certain term of service were humanizing effects of the OT laws. Yes including the call on Abraham to sacrrifice his son Isaac. Today's self-rightesou judges hae no sense of perspective whatever.

The Virgin Birth and Its Enemies

No, the Hebrew word in Isaiah that is translated "virgin" in the Christian context, is not mistralslated. That's a common Jewish claim, and that claim goes back to the time of Jesus when the slander was floated among the unbelieving Jews that Mary's child was simply illegitimate, that she'd cheated on Joseph. That slander ended up in the Talmud too as I understand it, and was part of the reason that Luther had his conniption fit at the Jews.

However, that Hebrew word if translated "young woman" instead of "virgin" would imply that an UNMARRIED young woman had a baby and that just doesn't work in the Old Testament context. You just don't have an unmarried mother. Adultery was severelyu punished. No, the word is properly translated "virgin."
And of course the New Testament accounts of Mary's being visited by the angel Gabriel to announce her pregnancy are all lies according to this slander. God formed jesus in her womb. She was a virgin.

And Jesus had to be born of a virgin because if he'd had a human father he would not have been sinless and would ot have qualified to be our Savior.

But of course those with a vested interest in discrediting Christianity are going to go on promoting the lies.

Another Case of Misappropriating What is Not Evolution to Evolutionary Theory

Another one from Bret and Heather. They are talking about a discovery he made some years earlier about the length of mouse telmomeres, which were understood to be longer than in other animals but whicvh he determined were really only longer in laboratory mice, that is, mice bred for use in laboratories. The way they are selected and bred caused them to develop long temomeres. That is, these long telomeres are not found in mice in the wild, only in oaboratory mice, a consequence of the way they are bred for that role.

And this is important because the long telomeres confer a resistance to toxity and other things that means they aren't good models for laboratory experiments where the toxicity of say drugs is being tested on them. They would have resistance to toxic drugs that would give a false judgment of their toxicity for use in humans. Which of course could be very dangers.

This sounds like an important discovery with very important ramifications.

But of course that's not the point of my post. I have one little point to make. It odes NOT take "evolutionary thinking" to recognize such a problem. I have to make an issue of this because it's a mjor way evolution keeps getting validated based on a false idea of whart is really going on. They are al=ways coop coopting normal variation to evolution, microevolution as they think of it. It is not evolution at all. Variation is built into the genome of each Species orf Kind and it's as obvious to all of us as the fact that the offspring of sexually reproducing craetures, such as humjann beings, differ from their parents and from eacfh other. That's the result of sexual recombination, not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution, it has nothing to do with mutation. It does not take evolutionary thinking to recognize this obvious ordinary simple fact.

Selection works on normal variation. If you isolate a part of a population of any sexually reproducing animal, each separated part witll develop new characteristics. By isolating a small number of individuals you create a new population with a new set of gene frequ3encies which is going to bring about a new set of observative traits within some number of generations. This is not evolution at all, although I've used it to demonstrate that this process in producing new phenotypes requires the reduction of genetic diversity which spells death to evolution through its own processes. But that's another discussion.

The Lifting of a Great Black Cloud of Doom From Over the Nation

While I'd be happiest if more people realized that abortion is wrong based on understanding that it's a human being from conception, my main reaction to the Supreme Court decision is a huge relief that the nation is no longer under God's judgment for this sin of murdering babies to the tune of sixty million. It is clear from the Bible that a nation is judged on the righteous or unrighteous acts of its leaderrs and removing the federal government from that responsibility which threatens all of us with all kinds of calamities, is a relief I can hardly ddescribe. It's huge. The sun camed out. God may smile on thenation again. Oh there are still plenty of sins on the hands of the government but with this one lifted there's some breathing space and others may follow. Maybe we could even have a revival.

I Really Don't think There's Any Rational Argument on the Side of Abortion

Sigh. I wanted to leave Bret and heather alone for a while. they say good things about the curretn political insanities so although they are liberals who have some opinions I'm not going to like I'd rather not make an issue of them if I can avoid it.

But in their latest they get into this discussion about the Superme Court dicision that just came down taking the federal government out of Roe v Wade and sending it back to the states, and the thing is, even though they are moderates who object to some of the left's fanaticism on the subject they make arguments that are not logical.
It just makes no difference whatever that we celebrate the lives that were allowed to be born as long as we tacitly agree that it's ok to do away with others, meaning kill them. It also makes no sense to aregue that we shouldn't get all emotional about lost lives considering that there are so many ways for them to be slost and so many bazillions of sperm and egg combinations that never see the light of day etc, because golly gosh, there's a difference between nature's doing away with them, or the opperation of chance in preventing th4eir existence, and you know, like intentionalloy killing them. ,br> Tthey got into this by responding to an equially silly argument on the other side, about how aborion may be doing away with great people who could have been of benefit to humanity. Quite true but irrelevant. But the answer isn't that because that is silly reasoninjg it allows for abortion since we can't be required to make all those caluculations aboutg possibilities that are never going to happen.
br> Sigh.

The Dawkins Delusion

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist , is a very likeale man, genial, with a pleasant Brtitich accent. And he's very sincere about what he sees as the dreadful danger to humanity and especially science from "religion." That's what this movie "The God Delusion" is about, which is based on his booki of that title. It's pretty depressing for a believer of course. As usual it would take a book to answer it properly and I'm limited to a blog post or two. Oh well.

As usual with these atheitst , he lumps all "religions" teoghether as if it's all the same thing, which is THE most frustratiing thing about such presentations. He also has a scarily limited idea of the history of religion, how it made western civilization, how it made England for that matter. He laments the tradition of requiring respect for religion, which can only be because he has such an appalling lack of knowledge of how the civilized world deppends on Christianity. No, not on "religion," but on Christianity.

He targets his idea of "faith" as common to them all, and of course undderstands it as believing something without evidence, or too little evidence, which pits it against science, by which of course he means evolution in particular, which gets my eyeballs rolling madly in their sockets. Christian faith is based on enormous quantities of evidence, allt he witness accounts reported in the bible. As John says in his gospel he wrote his own accounts so that we might believe. ut of course if you approach the Bible with the modern sophisticated prejudice that wthe supernatural is just plain false, because, well, it's just plain false because we say so, or because science says so, which it doesn't, then you'll just erase the supernatural from the bible even if you like some of the other things it has to say. That's how Thomas Jefferson came up with his own denatured Bible. Just delete all the supernatural stuff. Leaves a pretty think bible. And these days there's Jordan Peterson who seems to appreicate the nbible enormously, but has to remake it in his own image. He'll quote part of it such as "Man does not live by bread alone," which enthralls him, but leave out the rest of the sentence which says "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Dawkins doesn't seem to like it at all though.

Some time I should write a little essay about faith because it is wrongly ascribed to any relig8ion other than Christianity, where it is cewntral and original. But all I'll say here is that Christian faith is about the tenets of Christianity, otherwise we are as rational, and I suspect more rational than he about everything else. I won't comment on Islam or catholicism which he lumps in with Christianity as offenders according to his standard. They are falsae religions, about which he knows nothing.

Oh well, it's the usual reversal of truth, attcking the true God while supporting his false science. I think I'll just leave it at that for now.

It's Literally True, Jordan, Terrifying Thought that may It's not Metaphorical

Lately my blog should be titled something like "Notes on Daily Wanderings Through You Tube." Anyway, here's another:

Jordan Peterson is very interesting when he sticks to comments on today's cultural degenerations and the task of psycho0logical maturation of the individual and that sort of thing, but this taking it all into the Bible, rewriting Christianity in this same psychological image as it were, he's committing a sort of murder of the truth. His thoughts become a desert of meaninglessness in this context, they feel like the Abomination of Desolation to me, truly desoating. I remember reading simlar metaphorizings of the Bible back before I was a believer. A lot of high sounding soul death. M

He has to reject the reality, the reality you get from just reading the bible as written. Somewhere he said that to really believe it would be "terrifying." That I can appreciate and in a way I think believers should have something more like that perspective because what we actually believe is truly earthshattering stuff, mindblowing, life transforming. Real life and death, not pscyholgocial metaphroical life and death. That comment reminded me of a review of a book I read years ago, didn't read the book itself, Annhie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, in which she was quoted asa writing that we should wear crash helmets to church. That's the These unbelievers seem to me to feel something of the true level of reality of what we believe that may escape us even the best of us. But instead of joining us as belieevers they treat us as stupid literalists or something like that and prefer their psychologizing vision of Biblical ruth and have the arrogance to think they are right and we wrong.

,br>
No, th3e truth is the reality of a man who really is both God and Man in the flesh, who chose to be born in human form so He could identify with our human condition even though we are sinners and he sinlesss. As sinners we are destined for Hell and in compassion God the Father sent His Son to die in our place so that we don't have to go to Hell. Gosh, how literal minded of us to believe that. GFoolishness to the Greeks, stumbling block to the Jews. He took on our sins, nailed them to the cross with his own body, poured out hisown blood for our forgivenessgave us his own righteousness in exchange for our sinfulness. Loved us even when we were still sinners.

How Bad Is the Current Poltiical Situation. I Agree with Bret Weinstein on This One

This is what I like about Bret Weinstein, and his wife heather although she isn't in this one, his, and their, sanity in assessing today's political scene, the censorship of those who disagree with the current political powers, undermining the American freedoms. The person he's talking to does agree with him that far, but he doesn't see the horrific depths to which those on the left have sunk in recent decades. Weinstein does. the other man, sorry I missed his name, calls himself an optimist and thinks in terms of an old fashioned sort of corruption he thinks is always present in polititcs. Weinstein knows this corruption is something far more pernicious than that. ,br> I'd say the underlying problem is that we are no longer the "moral and religious people" John Adams said could be governed by the Constitution they had given us, that it was inadequate for any other sort of people. I think we are there and therefore there is no solution to these problems unless that mentality somehow miraculously changes. And that would definitely take a miracle, an intervention of god.

But I'm a tiny bit optimistic myself today because of the Supreme Court's decisions on two major cases, yesterday their recuse of the Second Amendment from a "Progressive" attempt to so undermine it it would be as good as nonexistent. Thomas wrote that decision and it sounds like it's abso;lutely brillian. Then today they declared abortion not to be a constituional right and gave it to the states to determine for themselves. Both brilliant and Constitutional decisions. I'm happy for now but the "Progressives" are of course having their usual antiAmerican AntiConstitutional fits.

Anyway, here's Bret and friend:



Oh, I wanted to add that all the dire situations Bret sees looming over our heads are certainly dire if we are depending on fallen humanity to save us from them, but we'll never get out from under them unless we call on the God who is in charge of it all. but this is a fallen world, most people these days are unbelievers. tghere's no hope for the world under their governance.

It Needs An Answer and I Have An Ansswer for It

Yes I know creationists have gone a long way to proving the Flood but I still like my own proof best because I think it's simpler and more direct. So here's that cross section again:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

See all those nice parallel layers that make up the body of the image, aren't they just so neat and parallel and undisturbed looking? I mean there's a lot of disturbance on that diagram, both at the top and the bottom of it, and the whole area has been lifted as a block, up over a rise in the Grand Canyon area, and abruptly at the far left, at the north end of the Grand Staircase.

But it's quite clear that all those strata stacked from the bottom of the canyon to the topof the staircasze were laid down horizontally and then disturbed only as a block, not separately.

But wouldn't time periods of tens of millions of yeares have encountered something to disturbe their neat sedimentary deposition? Which isn't even to mention that it's absurd that they are characterized by a neat sedimentary deposition at all. And if you try to figure out how that sedimentary layer could have sxpanned the vast areas they do without killing everything in its path you'll turn your mind into a pretzel and get a severe headache.

But there is plenty of disturbance to the block of strata as a whole. The uplifted area of the Grand Canyon, the Great Unconformity at its base, the magma dike that pushed its way from the very bottom to the very top of the Grand Staircase on the far left, the carving of the cliffs that make up the Grand Staircase and of course the cutting of the Grand Canyon.

Lots and lots of disturbance to the stack as a whole after it was all laid down. Iisn't it a bit odd that if all those layers represent time periods the only time period in which any of the supposedly normal activities and violences that happen on this earth only happened after they were all laid down serenly one after another? Ove their supposedly hundreds of millions of years? Huh? Huh?

Well, the Flood is the best explanation. for the strata. And then after the Flood there had to have been all that violcene that must have occurrred in relation to it, probably during its draining phase. The tectonic plate movement that started the continents seaparating, a movement that would have been quite a jolt and pushed around a lot of land on all the continents, the sway we see it tilted and broken and cut into on this cross section. Volcanoes were released by the tectonic plate movement, all sorts of interesting formation s were carved by the draining water and probably also by the draining of the glacial dammed lakes that broke up some time later. The Southwesxt USA is a great tesimony to the Floo9d, all those shapes carved by the retreating waters of the Flood, all that land pushed around, uplifted etc. by the tectonic jolt etc etc etc. And yes I explain the angular unconformities all over the world and under the Grand Canyon as caused by the tectonic jolt which pushed a lower section of horizontal strata up against another stack of the same stack of strata after they were all laid down. but I have to end this post.

You Can't Verify of Falsify Historical Sciencces

So James Hutton pondered the angular unconformity at Siccar Point and concluded that the earth must be very ancient to account for it. He As he interpreted it, the lower section was laid down horizontally and then at some point titlted vertically, after which the upper section was deposited horizontally on top of it. I forget his reasoning but to his thinking that must have taken a very long time. And that concludion overturned the biblical time frame that had more or less prevailed until then. It took a while for his interpretation to be accepted but when it was it became as dogmatically fixed as any religious doctrine3. And then along came radiometric dating to clinch it.

The only way to argue against an interpretation is with other interpretations. There is no empirical scientific way to challenge it. It can't be falsified although that is supposed to be a tenet of science. And neithedr can radiometric dating. It has its logic for sure but since we can't go back in time to test it, just as we can't test Hutton's interpretation of the angular unconformity, it gets established as dogma and that is that.

that's how eveolution got established too. It's all a mental fabrication, a house of cards, but since you can't test it, verify it or falsify it, even if it's a great bamboozle, which it is, we can't prove it. We can only try to establish another explanation that fits the facts better.

Save the Planet? Think Flood for Your Explanatory Framework.

At the end of his talk David Montgomery says he thinks we should all be focused on the many problems of the earth itself, such as problems with water, air, soil, atmosphere, etc. I agree. He also thinks "religion" or "religions" need to deal with our conflicts with science. Well, it's got nothing to do with religions in the plural because the only true religion is Christianity and the only dealing I think we need to do is to be very clear about the fact that the Bible is not to be contradicted, that even if we can't reconcile it with what science thinks it knows, it is always science that is wrong and we should never give in to it.

However, I think we know enough now to say that the Flood is definitely the explanation for all kinds of things science has attributed to their ridiculous Old Earth and Evolution. I think my own two very simple arguments alonblow tall that to smithereens. And when I say they are MY arguments I'm aware that God has guided me to them so they are His arguments. ,
The problems Montgomery mentions need the Flood perspective to deal with them but the problem is the fallen mind. They like their Old Earth and Evolution too much and are determined to punish us all for their erroneous views, or at least the political part of the world has that in mind. But if we started thinking in terms of the Flood we'd have a much better chance of coming up with truly rational ways of approaching these problems.

. For instance, I rthink the ice age was the result of the Flood and that any global warming we are now seeing is just the result of the retreat of the icea age which was inevitable.

The Flood explanation of course means the God of the Bible must be recogniz3ed. For some time we were a Chridstian culture but now we're so far from it how likely is it we could revive it? Well, maybe if the fact, yes fact, that evolution is a big fat fraud got re cocognirzed we could have that revival.

A Couple More Objections to the Flood Given by Montgomery

The evaporation and rapid exit from the planet of so much heated water would also have brought on the ice age. the many huge lakes dammed up by glaciers that then broke later, such as the Missoula and others in the US and one Montgomery mentions in Tibet, would have been water left standing after the Flood. The channeled scablands of eastern Wasthington are the dramatic result of the Missoula flood. Geology according to Montgomery uses some of these events as explanation for all the Flood myuths around the world, but of course they are ridiculously inadequate. The Bibleical Flood was worldwide.

Another objection to the Flood he mentions is Da Vinci's idea that if the globe was completely covered with water it would t still water that wouldn't have done all the things ascribed to it. But doesn't that itnore the moon which causes tides and therefore would keep the water moving? Also, it would have been while the water was rising over the land, especially condsidering the enormous tides that would have been part of that, that would account for changes in the landscape, also the action of the drainaing Flood water whichI think carved out the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase. Again google Grand Staircase Escalante Cross Section.

The third objectgion Montgomery mentions is the extinction of some 99 percent of the animals in the fossil record. I don't know enough about what animals are involved, but first of all sea life wouldn't have been on the ark and at least the trilobites are mong the exinct and they are sea life. The other condsideration is that what are called "species" are not at all a clear category andmost of that 99 percent are probably variations built into the genome of Kinde. The extinction of a variation is not the same thing as the extinction of a species. It's like losing great danes but having all the other breeds alive. I'm guessing that most of thoxse extinctions are of variations so that the genome of their Kind contined to live and vary after the Flood.

The Objection of Not Enought Water for the Flood

Montgomery mentions visiting the Creation Museum in Kentucky and being surprised at an attack on Reason as the enemy of the Bible, even the argument that scientists had conspired to discredit the Biblical accounts. I'd respond that reason is fallen in this fallen world and there is no reason to think our own minds can be trusted to arrive at the truth about anything, especially something historical where we don't have independent evidence to support the theories. So I'm with those who distrust Reason, but I don't accept the sonspiracy idea. The problem is that iwherever reason can't affirm the Bible it is wrong to conclude arguments against the Bible. We should always distrust our own minds and suppose that we simply havven't solved the problem yet, because yes, Nature does definitely have to conform to the Bible in the end. The problem is that we put our falln minds above the Bible rather than the other way around. Scei Science keeps changing its mind, thew Bible doesn't and if we know the Bible is God's word it has to stand no matter what our fallen minds think we've disccovered No conspiracy, just misplaced trust which is to be expected in this fallen world. ,br>


He gives three reasons to doubt the Biblical Flood. The first is that there was not enough wawter to cover the high mountains such as the Himalyas. part of the answer to that is that the Himalayas and other high mountains weren't there before the Flood. How high the pre=Flood mountains wree I guess we can't know but certainly they would have been a lot lower than the current highest.

That's about tectonic plate movement, which he points out wasn't yet established when Morris and Whitcomb wrote The Genesis Flood. It does help put things together to have that fact available. It explains why there are now so much hnigher mountains than before the Flood, and I made use of it to account for angular unconformities, which changies the timing of Siccar Point and the Great Unconformity at the based of the Grand Canyon. Both occurred after all the strata were in place.

And that matters because it dramatically demonstrates that the strata could not possibly be time periods but sediments laid down in a much more rapid fashion. Just looking at the strata really ought to be enough to make that point, however. The idea that time sorted itself into straight flat rocks of separated sediments is absurd on the face of it, but apparently science got all carried away with the idea of the Old Earth and its allotmnet of enough time for evolution to have occurred. Especially once they got all carried away with the idea that there is an evolutionary order in the fossil record.

The cross section of the Grand Staircase to Grand Canyuon area is still my favorite way of demonstrating this fact of the lack of any disturbance ot the strata during their entire laying down. There they aare, all laid one on top of another straight and flat. Those are not time periods. Google Greand Staircase Escalant cross section.
Back to the Montgomery's objection that there isn't enough water on the Earth for such a Flood to have occurred. I don't know if I saw this anywhere else but I don't think so, I thin God showed it to me, that if there was so much rain at the beginning of the Flood, forty days and forty nights of it over the entire globe, that means there had to have been an extremely thick atmosphere of moisture overhead that broke up and fell as rain. Whatever the foundtains of the deep were that also broke up and added water to the Flood they don't seem to be there any more because at the bottom of the oceans we have thed Atlantic Ridge which demonstrates that molten magma is right underneath it.

Anyway, with the collapse of the moisture layer over the Earth the planet would have been exposed to the coldness of outer space,, and if any great heat was generated by the Flood and tectonic movement, it would have rapidly evacuated into that space, and that would include a huge amount of evaporating water. Whihere that is enough to account for the water that covered the eearth I don't know but I'm guessing it may very well bee.

The Geology of the Flood Discussed by a Respectful Nonreligious Scientist

In God's Providence a lecture in Geology came across my path at You tube and stirred me up again about the evidence for the Flood of Noah which recently got me to sit down and write 15000 words over one week off the top of my head. It needs three times that number of words to get the whole thing worked out but I have to believe that the Lord inspired me to do that much, just out of the blue.

This talk was given by a Geomorphologist named David Montgomery, who wrot4e a book about the history of Geology's dance with the Biblical Flood, which he doesn't just dismiss out of hand as so many sceintiests to. He eve3n appreciates Morris and Whitcomb's 1961 book on the Flood as serious science. I like his tone and his whole approach to the subject. I wish I could read one of his books, "the Rocks Don't Lie." ,br>


I've got thoughts galore about his comments but as usual my computer isn't up to a long dissertaion so maybe I'll try writing some of them in bits and pieces. over a number of pots.

The Most Deceptive Heaven Experiences Yet

Two of them came up at You tube recently, and I'm sure there are many more out there. These very earnest testimonies to experiences of heaven while apparently having died for many minutes. They are by "Christians" and even include Bible quotes, and they're all ab out how God iloves us and won't leave us and how all things work together for good (that's a Bible quote but the rest of it is left out about those who love God and are the called).

IN THE TWO I SAW SO FAR THERE IS NOTONE WORD ABOUT JESUS CHRIST OR HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS TO PAY FOR OURE SINCE. THEY ARE ALL ABOUT GOD LOVING US ALL AND HOW SECURE WE SHOULD BE IN THAT SUPPOSED FACT. THIS IS A LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL BUT OH HOW SWEETLY AND CONVINCINGLY IT IS PUT, BY A COUPLE OF WOMEN WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY SINCERE.

Ow. When the Flesh Swallows Up God We're in deep Trouble.

Another Jordan Peterson video fell across my path and caught my interest despite my determination to move on to something else. This is one of his Bible series, this one about the storyh of Jacob who becomes the father of the nation of israel. And as usual he says a lot of very interesting things about how chaaracter is formed and whatr should be nourished to develop the best character in children and that sort of thing. This is how he's treating the Bible, as stories about the formation of personaluity and character. He recognizes that the Bible is foundational to Western Civilization and he interprets its influence in these psychological terms. B,t>'

Which up to a point is interesting. But then it gets scary ads itbecomes clear that he's taking God's own revelation and dragging it down to our fleshly mentality, however high-minded his conception of the best in this life is, and in so doing he's blaspheming God and mangling God's purpose in giving us His Word. ,br>
This gets frightening when god speaks and acts in the accounts and Peterson treats Him as merely a part of the consciousness of the character involved. Although we know God is the Actor throughout the bible, Peterson treats Him as nothing but a mental state, an abstraction in his character's minds. The characters are fiction and God is fiction. Whereas we know that the characters were all living historical human beings and God is the true real living God who gave us the bible for His own purposes.

He reifies fiction and mythologizes reality. And God is not mocked. We live and move and have our being in God., He is not our invention, we are His crdeationb, and it's scary when modernity performs its reverse alchemy and turns gold into a base metal.

So the story of jacob's Ladder becomes an archetype. It is not God continuing to guide His people toward His ultimate aim, it becomes a mere elemtn in the development of conscioousness or conscience or something like that to Peterson. This is really really scary.

J. C. Ryle on End Times Prophecy

Valuable resource. J C Ryle on the Sercond Coming of Christ, a book of sermons on the subject written in 1879, or better to say, compiled. In his preface to the book Ryle lays out the elements of prophecy he's entirely sure of, and lists elemtns he doesn't discuss because although he has opinions about them they are too speculative and he wants to stick only to what he knows.

Among what he considers to be known from scripture are the certain return of the jews to their ancestral land, to be dealt with in the Great Tribulation; the identify of the Harlot Church, Mystery Babylon and the Antichrist with the Roman Catholic Church, although he thinks there will probably be a fuller expression of it by the time of the end; that includes the identify ot the Roman Church as the Great Apostasy; the resstoration of the Earth in the Millennium following the return of Christ when SWatan is bound for a thousand years. Among the things he won't discuss because he can only speculate on them, is the Rapture of the Church.

So far I've only heard the Preface. I' mm looking forward to the sermons.

John MacArthur on the Problem of Evil

Now I think this one is MacArthur's best sermon ever:

The Bible Means What It Says, Just Believe It.

Jordan Peterson does very much appreciate the bible as the foundational text of western civilization. It's a very important recognition:



If only he believed it. Early into this video he says he can't understand what believers in the bible mean when we say it is true. That is boggling to me. Perhaps he's absorbed too much of postmodern inability to recognize what truth is.

Seems so simple: What it says is true. Just as written. God made the heavens and the earth. Adam and Eve are really our first parents. Really. Cain really did kill Abel. They were both real people. Jesus Christ really was born of a virgin so that He had God for His literal father. That was so He would be sinless because only a sinless man qualified tro die in the place of sinners to pay our debt for us. He really did die. The text says He died. You lie about it whehn you insist He didn't really die because it says He died. And He came back to life. Really came back to life. But in a new body that would walk through walls. Yes really. We don't have any problem knowing what true means. It can only be that Peterson does because he simple can't believe what it says so he finds it "true" in some other sense than that it really is true in the sense that iwhat it says really happened.

When you read it, simply believe what it says. Very simple.

Jordan Peterson: Would you Tkae Seriously a Warning From an Obscure IBlogger About Psychologizing God's Wo?

It just hit me this afternoon and of course it will sound crazy to many people but I feel obliged to write about it. I'd send an email but I can't see well enough to do the research to find that kind of information any more. I can't read much and websites are usually a confusing chaoes of images and unreadable print.

JORDAN PETERSON: After doing a few posts on you and your Bible series it hit me that what you wree doing is actually blasphemy. I'm slow on the uptake, I didn't catch that for a while. but whenever a person adds to or subtracts from the word of God we are warned that plagues will be added to our lives. That part is what just hit me about an hour ago because I know you've been sick for some time.

I'm glad you are better, I missed your voice on the internet like so many others deid, but now that I've seen some of your Bible series I'm worried that there is a cause and effect hjere that you wouldn't suspect and I even missed it myhself until now.

If you really want to live as if God exists, as you've said, please take this seriously. God does not let us get away with this kind of sin. You are actually defending the Bible in many ways, but since you are refusing to take it as written and imposing your own interpretations on it, treating the actual meaning as myth and offering metaphorical meanings instead, you are tampering with the actual word of God and that is very dangerous. I just hope that since you do it in ignorance you may be forgiven.

I wiswh I couodld write this to you personally. I hope that somehow someone who sees it might get it to you and that you would take it seriously. I know that is not too likely with people who believe in evolution and have dismissed the Bible as the actual revelation of God irbelievers know it to be, but if you have a concern about your own wellbeing, PLEASE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. God is not mocked.

Then I started wondering if Chrisopher Hitchens' untimely death had a similar cause. He actively ridiculed the Bible and its central teaching of Christ's death in the place of sinners.

I don't know the timing of Peterson's Bible series but I rthink it preceded his sickness in a way that is suggestie r of a connection.

It's rReally Modernity Not the Ancient World, tthat's Build on Myth Rather than Reality.

Enough of Jordan Peterson for now. He's got some interesting and useful ideas for how to live one's life that are apparently benefiting many people, but making the Bible represent those ideas is a sort of blasphemy. he's attracted to the Bible, that's obvious, he likes some of its teachings very much and doesn't even have to doublethink some of them, such as leaving father and mother and cleaving to spouse. That's practical wisdom for life in his thinking. But the Kingdom of God becomes your highest ideal, as does God himself, the highest good, the ennobling aim and so on.

That's what happens when modernity has stolen your ability to believe the bible as written, which so many of the thinkers of the nineteenth century did to us. You either just throw it out and don't give it a second thought or like Peterson who appreciates it as an ancient text containing wisdom even for today however pincomplete or however he sees that, then you just double think it and put your own best concepts in its place.

So they think we believers are just reifying -- making read -- what is really only mythical or an abstranction. So unsophsticated are we. Funny, it's really evolution that reifies what is really nothing but an imaginative construct. The whole thing is a mental construction that has no solid grounding in reality. but people get convinced of that idea and must throw out the Bible as a consequence. It really isn't that hard, at least once you see it, to recognize the utter nonsense of evolution, but the myth holds them spellboudn. ,br>
So a real Godis too much for them now.

Later: It really IS blasphemy, it's been nagging at me. You don't take God's word and substitute your own earthly wisdom in place of its truth, no matter how good your wisdom is in its right context. The Bible has p has plenty of wisdom for our current situation, the woke insanity, the identy politics insanity, the COVID nightmare insanity, the evolution insanity, but it's to be taken on its own terms, you don't make it mean something else.

jORDAN pETERSON bIBLE SERIES 2

tHAT LAST POST IS A MESS BUT i'M PRAYING MORE NOW AND MAYBE THIS ONE WON'T BE. i HOPE. aNYWAY, THIS IS THE url TO THE WHOLE PAGE OF jORDAN pETERSON'S bIBLE SERIES AT yOU tUBE SINCE i'M NOT SURE i CAN EMBED ANY OF HIS VIDEOS SEPARATELY:

JjORDAN pETERSON bIBLE SERIES i'M SORRY, i REALLY CAN'T SEE WHAT i'M DOING. i SEE A WHITE EXPANSE WITH VAGUE GRAY LETTERS IN IT. mY EYES ARE BETTER ON SOME DAYS THAN OTHERS BUT TODAY IS A BAD ONE. nEVERTHELESS i'M GOING TO TRY TO WRITE SOMETHING ANYWAY.

iN THE FIRST TALK OF HIS SERIES pETERSON STARTS OUT TALKING ABOUT "WE" AS IN WE OF wESTERN cIVILIXATION BUT IT'S INTERESTING HOW HE DOESN'T COUNT bIBLICAL BELIEVERS AT ALL. "wE" APPARENTLY ISN'T US ALTHOUGH HE DOES THINK THAT THE bIBLE HASD A LOT TO DO WITH SHAPING WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND ONE OF HIS MOVIES, PERHAPS HIS MAIN MOTIVE, IN DOING THIS SERIES OF TALKS, IS TO EXPLORE WAYS WE MIGHT SAVE IT TODAY SINCE HE SSEEE S IT AS BEING DESTROYED. aS DO i. bUT OF COURSE TO MY MIND EXPLORING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE bIBLE ACCORDING TO HIS WAY OF THINKING IS NOT GOING TO DO MUCH TO SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION. tHAT WOULD TAKE A REVIVAL OF THE TRUE MEANING OF THE bIBLE AND A RETURN TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BELIEVERS. tHAT'S WHAT MADE THE WEST IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPING THE HUMAN PSCYHNHE, IT WAS ALL ABOUT BELIEVING IN THE gOD WHO GAVE US THE bIBLE, AND THE bIBLE AS gOD'S PLAN OF REDEMPTION OF US FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS. aLTHOUGH pETER'S PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS ARE INTERESTING THEY HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE bIBLE. tHE BEST THAT MIGHT COME OF THEM IS TO REACQUAINT WESTERNERS WITH THE BEST THAT DID CREATE OUR CIVILIXATION, BUT NOT IF ALL THEY GET OUT OF IT IS WHAT pETERSON GETS OUT OF IT. ,BR> hE WONDERS HOW "WE" EVER BELIEVED IN IT AND HOW WE CAME NOT TO BELIEVE IN IT. gOOD GRIEF, IS HE EVEN HALF AWARE THAT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US WHO DO BELIEVE IN IT? i GUESS WE JUST DON'T COUNT. wE'RE AS GOOD AS "DEPLORABLES" EVEN IN HIS EYES ALTHOUGH IN GENERAL HE'S NOT ON THAT SIDE OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL DIVIDE.

Jordan Peterson Shreds the b ible

NOTE: I'VE TRIED TWICE TO POST THE VIDEO OF pETERSON'S FIRST BIBLE TALK AND KEEP GETTING HE VIDEO OF DAVID ROHL'S TALK ON THE TIMING OF THE BOOK OF EXODUS. THAT'S INTERESTING TOO BUT OF COURSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POST. HERE'S THE URL TO PETERSON'S VIDEO. i HO

PE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&t=964s The thing about Jordan Peterson is that he's too interesting to dismiss lightly, although in some

tHE sense I want to rant and rave about how utterly vacuous is his understandeing of the Bible and Christianity. I end up having to recognize that what makes him interesting and een proflund is his psyuchological concepts completely apart from the Bible he hangs them on in his Bible lectures. ,br>

Those of us who believe the Bible as written he just sweeps away without the slightest sense that we have anything to contributge to the conversation at all. At all. He thinks the bible is an important document because he thinks such an ancient document must contain something valuable if only because he knows that it has played an important role in western Civilzat8ion. His idea of what is important is how the human psyche is put together, so he's looking for how the Bible must be a primitive source of the ideas that led to our complex personalities and culture today. He's looking for how it creates meaning and self consciousness for instance. He's very interesting at that kind of thing. He's just useless at knowing anything about the Bible's purpose.

He starts from evolutionarty theory so everything he says is run through that wrecking machine to begin with.

Corrected Egyptian Time Line Affirms the Presence of the Israelites in Egypt During the Exodus Period

On a few of the atheist videos Christopher Hitchens mentioned that there is no evidence from archaeology for the biblical period of the Exodus or the the years spent by the Israelites in Egypt between Joseph and Mosess. Since there is at least one Egyptologist who has questioned that standard evidence or lack of it, which I posted on before, I want to bring that post up again, but there's also been a second interview with the same Egyptologist since then whilch I'll put up here:



These interviews were done by my Great nephew C Jay Cox, and here is also a film that presents this new evidence, "Patterns of evidence.: that I found on Amazon at the time of the first interview.

Here's what I wrote at that time: two posts on the subject.

https://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/search?q=Rohl+Egyptologist

Heres a way to say it maybe\

He's got a God Shaped Hole the size of the Grand Canyon but he's trying to fill it with himself.

His own prejudices and profound thoughts that is. And I like a lot of his opinions very much. But right nng as a barrier to finding God.

I remember en reading about religion for a couple of years ievver I suddenly understood that the truth was where Jerry Falwell lived and I was very prejudiced against Jerry Falwell. He represented my barrier.

Jordan Peterson, the Perils of Doublethink

Knew I should leave well enough alone but I had to post this other video of Peterson in the previous post and of course I goofed something up and right now I can't even listen to it. Oh well.

The thing about someone who has the kind of appreication of the bible and religion that Petedrson has is that he has to doublethink everything. He can't let it be what it is, he can't accept it as it is, the Bible is this "strange old book" that needs his modern perspective imposed on it. That's deadly for ever coming to a true understanding of God but in his case he does such a deep and passionate job of it, as I said in the other post, it's compelling in its own right. He has a profound appreciation for the human condition and that is admirable. He has a profound understanding of the role of the Bible in shap8ing the best in western civilization and that is admirable. He has a profound understanding of the need for each human being to embrace the best in culture for the purpose of self understanding and living with wisdom.

But the problem is that the "strange old book"

has to be read in simple faith and trust if you want to know God. If you doublethink it and impose your modern assumptions on it you maty get some very interesting and useful ideas for life out of it but you'll miss BGod completely.

Just thinking from the human point of view and forgetting for the moment that God must act in leading all of us to himself, I just wonder what it would take to jolt him out of his doublethinjk into the simple trust needed.

Jordan Peterson Intro Probably More to Say Later

Jordan Peterson. He's a fascinating phenomenon. It's hard to know what to make of him, he's so utterly unique. Something inb him is straining toward God with such a passion his God-shaped hole is swallowing him up. But at the same time he's pursuing God from such a personal point of view I fear he's going to miss Him altogether.

Oh wow, I'm not up to this post right now but my eyes are so bad I don't dare just leave it for another time because I never get back to the place i left off so I'm going to post one of the videos about him and exit for now:?]

sten to this guy. On the Bible He's trying to "make it rational" but he has an amazingly deep appreciation of his own take on it. He's wrong but there's something so compelling about his thoughts they're of value in their own right. It's missing God, that's the problem, and it's hard to see how you get to God from where he is but, wll, God is the God of the impossible.

Peter Hitchens Blasts the Pro-Choice Sophistry

This is the kind of aggressive assertion of truth we need more of. This is Chrisopher Hitchens' Christian brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyffzNR2R5U

The Atheist Mentality

It's natural for fallen humanity to be atheist because they don't have the spiritual faculty to discern God. We lost that at the Fall, when our first parents disobeyed God. That was the first death, the loss of the spiritual connection with God. yes we are still responsi8ble to recognize God because of all the evidence around us in Nature, but with our dead spirits it's just too easy not to notice.
We have to be born again. We can't expect a Hitchens or a Dawkins of a Harris to beleive in God. It would take God Himself to draw them and turn their minds to consider the possibility. But in their own fallen conditon they can't apprehend God and since the flesh is at enmity with God have no desire to. What Jesus did and taught is understandable only through the regenerated spirit. Expecting the flesh to obey it is asking too much.

It's of course annoying to hear over and over how "religionb" includes Christianity and Islam and Roman Catholicism and all the rest of them because they have no spiritual ability to discriminate. It's also annoying to hear over and over how Christians are believers becaus we are looking for consolation or meaning or whatnot. Because that isn't why we believe. We believe because we know it is true. THEY can't tell it is true bbbut WE know it is true and that's why we believe. It's why I believe, that's for sure.

Hitchens' hideous accusation of the idea of Christ's sacrifice for us as a shirking of personal responsibility makes my jaw drop through the floor. Good grief. We can't pay for our violations of the Moral Law that runs this universe. We'd all go to Hell if God hadn't sent us His perfect sinless Son to pay our debt for us and yet that is denigrated by this Phiklistine as immoral. Yikes.

Evolution is Such a Fraud But The Sophsticates Wikll Browbeat Us Forever Over It

The more I try to think about the strata, those layers of sedimentary rock found all over the Earth that are equated with specific time pderiods of the past, the wackier it all seems that they were ever equated with time periods. The scientific creationists get into the rocks and examine their content and the fossils they contain and can show that way how the facts support rapid deposition of the sediment rather than slow incremental accumulation over millions of years. B But it still seems to me that just looking at the strata either in the reality of the Grand Canyon or any other actual situation, or on that cross secrion I like so much of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area, you have to see with a little thought that it's absolutely impossible that they could ever have existed as separate time periods for millions of years. The idea is ludicrous in the extreme. You'd think a Dawkins or any of the scientists dealing with these things would see it.
]
I always come back to noting that they are individual undisturbed. Whether you are to think of them as havingb been underwater during their supposed time period, as presumably those of the paelolithic part of the stack would have been since they are mostly marine creatures continaed in the ro rocks, or on the surface of the earth, thethey are straught and flat on their surfaces, they usually cover enormous areas, whole contine nts, are found on many continents, yes the same layers, and surely it's not hard to see that they couldn't have surfivied either underwater or on the surface for anyh time at all in that straight falt condition.
]
,br>
RThose observations and the work of the scientists show over and over again that the best explanation for their actual condition is rapid deposition under water and Noah's Flood fits the necessary conditions both for the structure of the rocks and for the condition of the fossils like no other explanation could. ,br>
And yet they are going to go on believing that nonsense aren't they?
]
And the nonsense that
eEvolution by natural selection" explains all the diversityh of life that exists. That phrase was said over and over again in the atheist discussions, lectures and debates I've been watching. And it's always described as a hallmark of intelligence and grownupness to agree with it. I'm not going to lay it out again here because my computer is already straining to hold this much of a post, but sselection requires the loss of genetic diveristy. Evolution can't be the result of selection therefore.

Another Creationist Proof that the Flood Made the FOssil Record

Sometimes I think creationists should just get ver loud and seek public attention because this stuff has been proved over and over again. Here's Andrew Enelling proving it again too:" ,br>

Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath Debate

The debatges between Another debate betwen an atheist and a Christian. Put it this way: these are debates between tghe flesh and the spirit. Hitchesns whole frame of reference is of course the flesh because he's a fallen unreddeemed man. He has no clue about the regenerated spirit. Christians don't argue consistently fro the spirt of course. But that's something to discuss at some latger time.
]

SO mUCH tO sAY aBOUT THE sILLY aTHEISTS tHAT mY hANDICAPS wON'T alLOW

Still wandering in the desert of the atheists at You Tube. Praying for the healing of my eyes and a more reliable computer so I could write something against them with some real clout. That would, or should, take fasting and prayer so it would be in God's will and by His direction. Oh how I'd love to do that.

Here's Christopher Hitchens at his most obnoxious

w

Hard to grasp how obtuse he is in this one when he can be so perspicacious on other subjects such as the rolse of the Roman Church in totalitarian politics. He also said something about modern bible translations I appreciate, I think in a four-way conversation with Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and nhimslef. How they've destroyed the English language. Something that really bugs me too. Not only are they based on bogus gREEK MANUSCRIPTS ABOUT WHICH HE PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW ANTHING, BUT THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ATROCIOUS eNGLISH.

aNYWAY, i'VE GOT ANOTHER OBNOXIOUS PERSON TO POST HERE: rICHARD dAWKINS DOING A ted TALK:

And H4e Flubbed the Cretion-Evolution Topic as Well.

Still talking about the debate between Peter and Christopher Hitchens mentioned in the previous post. Peter missed the whole point of one man's question about how he regards fossils from his Christian perspective. He made an inept affirmation of Intelligent Design but that's the best he could do.

Perhaps it's becamuse he's an Anglican. they are still way to roman ist.

the correct answer to how we should regard a fossil is to say that we see it as a creature that lived before the Flood and that died in the Flood, that the Flood deposited all those sedimentary olayers that are so ludi crously interpreted as time periods of milli8ons of years.

The Brothers Hitchens Debate. How the Real Locus of evil in the West Keeps Getting Flubbed and Muddied. The Roman Antichreist.

Debate between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter Hitchens, Peter representing religion, mostly Christianity, against Christopher's atheism. Again I'm impressed with Christopher's identification of Roman Catholicism in the murderous totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. tHIS STARTS ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF INTO THE DEBATE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjQs_QjSwc

pETER DID A DECENT JOB OF POINTING OUT THE PERSECUTIONS OF CHURCHES IN THESE REGIMES BUT OVERALL i WAS DISAPPOINTED IN HIS RESPONSES. wHAT IS NEEDED IS A GENUINELY pROTESTANT WORLDVIEW AND HIS POSITION IS FAR FROM SHARP. hE TACITLY ACCEPTS rOMAN cATHOLICISM AS cHRISTIANAND DOESN'T CHALLENGE IT AT ALL. cHRISTOPHER IS RIGHT TO POINT TO IT AS COMPLICITG UIN ALL THESE ATROCITIES, BUT THE MISTAKE IS TO EQUATE THAT WITH "RELIGION." rOMAN cATHOLICISM IS THE totalitarian Antichrist agent in the world and has been for over a thousand years. The Reformation gae it a good punch and weakened it, but now Protestantism has lost its perspective and its comibng back. Peter should have challeneged Romanismm from a Protestant point of view and he did not. That leaves the impression that we're talking about "rreligoin" that includes Protestantism. But we're not.

pROTESTANTISM SOUNDS LIKE JUST ANOTHER SECT BUT THE REFORMATION REINSTATED THE TRUE BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF cHRISTIANITY. rOMAN cAATHOLICISM WAS THE USURPER, THE gREAT aPOSTASY, THE REVIVED rOMAN eMPIRE, THE SEAT OF THE aNTICHRIST, WHICH WAS RECOGNIZIED BY THOUSANDS OF cHRISTIANS ALL DURING ITS REIGN IN THE "hOLY rOMAN eMPIRE." tHE rEFORMATION BROUGHT BACK GENUINE cHRISTIANITY. THIS PERSPETIVE HAS BEEN SADLY, TRAGICALLY, LOST

Atheist Christopher Hitchens Takes on the Antichrist Roman Church

If only the Protestant leaders were as indignant against this evil as this atheist is. \,br>

John MacArthur: God's Praechers, God's Pedople, are Prosecutors of the World

Maybe the best sermon he's ever preached

Maybe the best sermon he's ever preached.

Strange how He Thinks We're the Arrogant Deluded Ones

Didn't I just declare that Ai have no interest in thinking any more about what Sam Harris has to say? So why am I thinking more about it? Enough even to wish I could write a book debunking it all. \
]
It's really quite astonishing how flqatly assertive he is about what are nothing but his own prejudices. Jesus was nothing but a First Century carpenter who had the misfortune to get himself crucified and we're all just incredibly foolish to think he can hear our thoughts and our preayers. I guess he does believe that his assessment is the unassailable truth, but based on what?

when I read the Bible I hear the voices of human souls with intelligence and honesty. When he reads it he must have to dmismiss every other word basedc on his own prejudi ces. Prejudice against the content of what is said. He has a prejudice that there is no such thing as the supernatural so anything that suggests that there is just has to bbog. eventually he's left with a few bare bones facts such as that Jesus was a carpenter. His claims to have come down from heaven have to be thrown out. Th4e testimony of the disciples who saw him both dead and then alive have to be thrown out. The testimony of the disciples who saw him rise into a cloud and disappear have to be thrown out. All themiracles have to be thrown out. And that is because, to his way of thinking, it's irrational, and therefore false, to think of any of that is true. So all the disciples have to be liars. And Jesus himself. Or just deceived because after all they are merely Iron Age people.

Oh well.

Sam Harris and the atheist Refusal to Address what Christinaity actually Claims

I really really do not want to get far into this but it's hard to leave it completely alone. THing is I was skipping around You tube as I often do, inpursuit of comments on such things as evolution, debates and so on, and I wantdered into a thicket of atheists arguing against religion. All religions, as if they're pretty much all the same thing. the mainj one is sam Harris and I find it hard to listen to him because he misrepresents the whole hisrory so egregiously, and particularly Christianity. jesus was a carpenter who unfortunately managed to get himself crucified. ,br>
If he's going to talk about Christianity that way, how is it possible to talk about it at all? At the very least he should be required to respond to what the biblde itself actually says because that's what Christianity is, hot his ridiculouxs caricature.

Seems to me, in response to what Harris said, that the only way to talk to him would be to insist on what the bible says and on the orthodox theology that explains what it says. And just require him to respond to what it actually says and claims. It claims that Jesus is God incarnate. You can spell out the accounts of that. What can he say but that he just doesn't believe that. That's really all he's going to be able to say to anything the bible claims. well, we believe what it says and what he reduces it to is utterly irrelevant. Does h4e have anything to say other than that he doesn't beleive it and he thinks we're idiots for believing it? AProbably not. I think that's where the discussion ends.

Even TEven the Great Reset Can't Stand Against An Empowered Church. But We Aren't Empowered enough.

Who is this Philistine who dares to defy the armies of God?

We can be a Gideon Church, a Samson Church, an Esther Church, a Daniel Church or a David Church.

Speaking of satanic strongholds, the Great Reset is no doubt the biggest one we're up against these dqays. Instead of going back to my evolution arguments I would have expected to be inspired to pray against that one, but for some reason it's evolution in my case. And it's certainly true that if evolution got a black eye in our day among a great number of people that would go a long distance toward prying people loose from satan's domain and opening the door to Christ, so that's mmy focus as I keep plugging away against Darwinism.

but here's the most recent show by Jan Markell which is all about the Great RReset. And the thing that most moved me in this one is the clip toward the end of Naomi Wolf, leftist atheist I think, saying thast things are so evil these days she thinks it's beyond human evil into something satanic and if there's a Satqan there's a God. Yes indeed, the darkest times wake people up to God

https://rumble.com/v17vk6w-its-not-a-conspiracy-michele-bachmann.html

Think Big. No reason We Couldn't Pull Down the Stanic Stronghold of Evolutinon if we Stay Connected tgo the Vine

Seems a bit odd thta I spent two months immersing myself in things Christian from listening to my audio Bible to listening to Christian books online to prayying a lot more which can be exhausting, to lisening to hymns and so on, and then after two months of that I suddenly got back into my creationist arguments. Just out of the blue it seems I suddenly got inspid to write a Word document off the top of my head about as much of my arguments as i can put together that wawy. It had to b4e that way because *I can't see well enough to review what I've alreaddy written on the subject. And it was hardly an organized effort though at least in part I managed some organization.

Pangea

Watching geology videos lately. Watching them as a creationist means mostly that I have to ignore their dates or try to grasp the relative dates which may be accurate, that is, what preceded what. Their physical descriptions are pretty good I assume but interpretation is the problem. When they explain something tas caused by water it's not going to be the Flood so I have to think Flood where they are thinkinjg something else.

The idea of Pangea, the supercontinent that broke up from which all the current contine nts separated, is a useful idea. It was Alfred wegener who made the observations about how the continents had once been together, who came up with the idea of Pangea and that idea doesn't contradcit anything in the Bible so I'm good with it. I just have to reconsider the dating.

They usually have Pangea breaking up dsometime during the laying down of the Geological column, meaning the layers of sedimentary rooc,ls frp, from which they derive the order of the fossil record and evidence for evolution. Of course they have those layers forming over a few hundred mikllion years, but a creationist sees them as formed by the Flood of Noah in one year.

Because all the evidence I like to point to shows that all the layers wree in place before there was any appreciable disturbance on the Earth such as tectonic plate movement, volcanoes and so on, I put the splitting of the continents at the end of the Flood which is what laid down all those layers. There's room for discussion about the timing but it does have to be after ALL the strata were in place. It certqainly didn't occur during the laying down of the layers because there wouldn't be the neat stack of them we see in the Grand Canyon area, the Paleozoic in the grand Canyon and the Mesozoid and above in the Staircase to the north.

SCIENCE BAMBOOZLED

The whole Geological Time Scale is a farce. There are no time periods. There is no Cambrian time period, or Silurian or Devoniqan or Permian or Triassic or Jurassic. Years ago I drew a cartoon with several panels showing a straight horizontal line above which was a cartoon cloud and cartoon sun. I gave each the name of one of the time periods. They wree all identical, a straight line with a cartoon sky. The last panel was a cartoon picture of our own time showing hills and valleys rivers and mountains grass and trees with that same cartoon cloud and sun in the sky.

That's what the time periods are. Our own time is the only actual time period. All the rest are imaginative reconstructions fromn flat slabs of rock full of dead things that span gigantic areas of geography. that's it. It's all a farce. There is no Old Earth, it's a massive delusiohn.

tHE ONBLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE LAYERS OF ROCK THAT WERE FANASIZED INTO TIME PERIODS IS A WORLDWIDE WATER EVENT. gOLLY gOSH, THE fLOOD OF nOAH. iT KILLED ALL THE LAND LIFE AND MOST OF THE SEA LIFE AND THE EVIDENCE IS IN THOSE LAYERS OF ROCKI. tHAT'S WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

eVOLUTIONARY bIOLOGY IS ALSO A bIG bAMBOOZLE, WHICH i ALSO PROVED YEARS AGO. tHE WAY WE GET DOMESTIC BREEDS IS THE SAME WAY WE GOT MOST OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES. iT'S ALWAYS FROM SOME KIND OF SELECTION ALTHOUGH PROBABLY RARELY THE CLASSICAL nATURAL sELECTION. aLL SELECTION IS IS THE ISOLATION OF A PORTION OF ANY POPULATION TO BREED ONLY WITHIN ITSELF. tHAT'S ENFORCED IN DOMESTIC BREEDING, IT HAPPENS BY TRAGIC ACCIDENT IN ENDANGERED SPECIES, BUT ITS ALSO HOW ANY VARIATION IN THE WILD OCCURS. sOME MEMBERS OF A LARGE GROUP OF CREATURES GETS ISOLATED AND OVER SOME GENERATIONS OF INBREEDING PRODUCES A NEW PHENOTYPIC APPEARANCE. tHAT'S HOW WE GOT THE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS OF WILDEBEESTS AND EVERY OTHER ANIMAL THAT IS FOUND IN DIFFERENT FLAVORS IN THE WILDE.

tO GET THOSE VARIETIES, AND THEY ARE VARIETIES, IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, IT'S ALL BUILT INTO THE GENOME OF EACH kIND O, THE WAY YOU GET THEM IS BY THE LOSS OF GTHE GENETIC STUFF FOR DIFFERENT TRAITS. tO GET A BLUE WILDEBEEST YOU LOSE THE ENETIC STUFF FOR BROWN WILDEBEESTS. iT'S A PROCESS OF ELIMINATION AND IT'S WHAT SELECTION DOES AND YOU DON'T GET VARIATIONS UNLESS YOU ELIMJINATE WHAT ISN'T SELECTED. ,BR> i'VE ARGUED THIS A BAZILLION TIMES HERE AND ON THE FORUM AND ELSEWHERE. iT'S OBVIOUS. eVOLUTION MASSIVE
Later: Mutations are assxumed to make the difference, in fact mutqations are credited with having ceated DNA itself, gene by gene or base by base. Utter and complete fantastic nonsense. Even t3they admit they are mistakesw and that beneficial mutations are rare. In fact most so called beneficial mutations are simply assumed, made up, there's no evidence for them. Most are just rare combinations not mutations at all. Anyhway even if there were such a thing as a beneficial mutation, in order to get a new population with its own unituqe characteristics, you still have to have selection and it's selection that reduces the genetic variability and that is a killer for evolution.

Cheeky Crazy Lady Cretionist even argues with Other Creationists

Been watching some videos of Kurt Wise teaching on various aspects of the Flood. Just saw the one about sedimentology. Can’t copy the URL right now, maybe later. Lots of eye problems at the moment.

Wise thinks it was high velocity deposition that smoothed the top of the Great Unconformity. He also thinks that volcanism was going on during the Flood. He also thinks only the middle section of the strata wree laid down in the Flood, that beneath the Great Unconformity the rocks were pre-Flood, and at the top some rocks are post-Flood but I’m not sure where that section starts.

So far I haven’t heard him talk about exactly when he thinks’the Flood strata were deposited, that is, how long before the Flood started draining were they all in place.

I don’t understand how there could be pre and post Flood strata that look exactly the same in structure as the Flood strata, wree not laid down in the Flood. It just makes no sense to me. ALL of them had to be Flood deposites or none of them.

The high velocity deposition over the Great Unconformity is a very reasonable way to explain the flattening of the unconformity a as well as the erosion at that contact. It also explains the transport of the chunks of Quartite, one of which I mention in what I’ve already written. But I still like my scenario better. For one thing the Great Unconformity does stretch across the world, it’s not just confimed to the Grand Canyon area, as he points out, it’s even what underlies Siccar Point as I understand it though I may have that wrong. But then it has the tilted strata in place already before the high velocity deposition rushes in and lays down the strata above. Also, since that high velocity deposition lays down a sequen ce of very coarse to very fine cobbles and grains, I don’t see where that sequence is represented in the Grand Canyon. The sedimentary rock just above the Greqat Unconformity is the Tapeats sandstone, not a very coarse deposite. I must be missing something but I don’t know what. The quartzite boulders are found embedded in that sandstone.

Also I haven’t yet heard him discuss how the Great Unconformity got tilted etiehr, or how the igneous rocks got confined under the Tapeats layer. In my scenario the force that broke off the quartzitge, and in fact created it in the first place, was the tectonic movement that occurred worldwide and split the continents.. That’s what created the Great Unconformity and may have caused all the angular unconformities everywhere, not sure about that, but certqainly beneath the Grand Canyon. ,br>
He also hasn’t explained why he thinks there was volcanie activity during the Flood. This is where it matters when the strata were laid down, because4 on that cross section I’m so fond of we see a magma dike penetrating from the bottommost part of the area to the uppermost exposed part of the Grand Staircase. If it had occurred during the Flood, while the strata were being laid down, not yet all in place, the lava would have spilled out onto the durface of a layer somjewhere in the middle part of the column and would not have continued above that, or if it did we’d see some sort of displacement or distortion of the dike and at least on this cross section there isn’t any, it rises in one continuous movement from bottom to top. Also,br>
I suppose a high velocity flow could carry a great load of sediment up and over that rise into which the canyon is cut, but it just looks too evenly distributed for what I’d expose of that kind of movement. Surely some would collect at the start of the rise, create a different thickness, something like that. Of course we’re talking about a mere diagram but still that’s the sort of thing you’d expect to be illustrated. So I still like my scenario best:

The cross section makes clear what you can also see just looking into the Grand Canyon: the strata that are considered to represent time periods of tends of millions of years don’t show any of the disturbance one would expect to see on the surface of the Earth for any appreciably period of time let alone tens of millions of years. All the disturbance ot the column occurs after all the strata are in place. The only actual time period to be seen on the cross section or in rality is our own time period in which the Grand Canyon itself exists. There is no Grand Canyonj or even a convincing gully in any of the layers of rock that supposedly represwent millions of years of time. We have the canyons, the mountains, the rivers and so on, not one of the “time periods” shows any such disturbance. Again, ALL the disturbance to the column of strata occurs to the whole column as a unit, whether it is twisted into a pretzel, or split into an angular unconformity or broken into chunks or whatever. I’ve collected lots of evidence of this.

The Great Imcpmfpr,out jad tp jave beem fpr,ed after the F;ppd tpp. Mpt befpre as the estab;osjed theory has it. Whatever forces were involved in the Flood also split the contineents, causing the Great Unconfmiryt, pushin up land, pushing up the Rockies and the Alps and the Himalyas, and mopst likely triggering the volcanoes. The draining of the Flood which would have accompanied this tectonic movement is what eroded away the cliffs of the Grand Staircase shown in the cross section. Etc. etc. etc

And although the work being done by the scientific creationists such as Wise and Austin and all the others no dou t also proves the Flood, it seems to me that my simple scenario makes the case a lot more directly and comprehensibly. Once you see those simply cannot be time periods, that the only time period is our own, then what area they? Sedimentary depositions full of dead things. Waterborne deposits. Noah’s Flood. When ,br>
look into the Grand Canyon we are not looking at hundreds of millions of years of time, we are looking at part of the worldwide graveyard of the Flood of Noah.

School Shooting another expression of God's Judgment on America

Here's John MacArthur with a brief message on the biblical understnadijg of the school shooting and the general degeneration of our times. the mesage is right on:

\

I wondered about adding this following thought but I think it's important so I will. His message was marred for me by his cuse of his favorite modern Bible translation and especialoly the name of GOd that is used. It makes me cringe and even if others don't have any objetion to it I think it nevertheless has an effect on everybody who hears it. It downgrades the word of God, it muddles our minds and our spirits.

But to end on a positive note, this is the first time I've seen the music part of a service at Grace community Church and I've often wante d to see it. they have a full orchestra and a choir and it's nice to see them and hear them.

Hey Church! Don't We Have Our Marching Orders Already for a couple of Millennia?

What are we waiting for? Why are we just standing by and letting it all happen around us and to us, merely pondering where it fits into Bible prophecy as if there's nothing we can do? Why are we so passive?

It's not so much a time for action, though because this is Satan's work and he's got so many angles operating it's overwhelming. It can feel like there's nothing we can do, that's for sure.

But we can pray. And I don't mean those brief prayers that open meetings or topen our day, I mean pray every minute pf everu dau wjemever tjere s a breal om pir [repcci[atopms sp tjat we cam tirm pir ,omds tp Gpd/ O ,eam [rauomg fpr jpirs pm emd wjeemever [pssob;e/ Pr fofteem ,omites of tjat s a;; upi cam jamd;e/

We need to stop depending so much on ourseloves and our own understanding and lean on Him for everything.  Ask Ask Ask and you shall receive.  If we are asking for His guidance and His wisdom He will always answer that kind of prayer.  If we ask for personal ability to fulfill His commandments He'll give tht to us.    Wherever we see a weakness in ourselves, a weak faith, a lukewarm commitment to Him, a lack of understanding or  appreciation of our position as His people, all that we can ask for and expect to receive.  And that's what we need.  Less of ourselves and more more more of Him at every moment.  That's what prayer can do.  Prayer is our conduit to Him.  Prayer and Bible reading through the Holy Spirit will help us deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Him and that's what we need to do.




Simplify.  Simplify what we do with our time.  Simplify what we eat and how much we eat.  Fast howeeer we can.  Ask him for help with that too.   We don't need to focus particularly on specific world events as much as we need to focus on drawing the spiritual power we need from Him as the branches we are attached to Him as the vine.  It all has to come from Him.  The less we rely on ourselves and look to Him for AEVERYTHING, every bit of understanding of everything, the better.

The Great Reset Gallping Along to Totalitarian Globalism

Here's Jan Markell's latest. She always does aan esspecially good job mustering the news of the day and exploring its implications from a biblical perspective. This one is aboutr the Great Reset and how far along its agenda is, which is ... VERY far along indeed.: