Maher and Peterson

Bill Maher talking with Jordan Peterson, two men I like for some things they have to say but dislike for lots of others.  Maher is a liberal but he's the sane kind who see the bitg lie of wokeness.  Peterson has a lot of practical wisdom but his jungianism turns everything he thinks nto a strange twisted misrepresentation of reality.  Maher comes out with the popular cricisms of religion and Peterson defends Christianity from his weird revisionist admiration of it.  He psychologizes it, maybe that's all that needs to be said about it.

Listening just now I caught Maher calling trump a "monstrosity without giving any specific characterizations of him to  explain it.  Is he believing all the lies about him?  Is that why?  Or is there something I keep missing about this odd hatred of Trump that comes from something else that for some reason I can't see at all.  I don't get it.  I guess I can sort of get dislikeing him for his personality but how to you atively hate him and even go as far as some leftists to, wish him dead for that reason?   alling him a "monst

 dn't thnk I've heard one thing said about Trump from the Democrats, liberals, leftists, that's true at all.  I figure some of it they actually believe or some of them tdo , but there must be a few at least who know they are telling lies about him.   the vevidence is easily available in the case of most of the misquiotes.  The claim that he said something favorable about neoNazies is belied a few sentences later in that same speech theyh use for their lie, but the media cut that part off their reports and few bother to listen to the end.  The "bloodbath" quote was so clearly a statement bout how things would go economically for the auto industruy if Biden were elected, duie to Biden's politiceas and having nothing ehwhatever to do with Trumjp, that to misconstrue it as they do means they must be very very los IQ or lying intentionally, I can't see any other explanation.   Same with Trump's joke about spending his first day in office as a "dictator" it'sjust amanzing how they insist on taking that as a seirious trhnhjhreat, hard to believe anyone could possibly seriously take it that way.  They even turn his lovely gesture of raising his fist in solidarity with his fellow conservatives after nearly being shot to death as some kind of gesture of violence>  This makes me so sick, all of this, it's hrd to want to go on living in this world.  It makes me seek desperately for some way to get away from these crazy people, these dangerous evil people.

ow is he a"monstrosity to Maher?  How?

His policies are pretty solidly conservative, not all of them but most of them, ordinary conservative policies, nothing radical, nothing odd, nothing fascistic, and he showed in his first term tht he goes strongly after putting them in to  practice right away, which is a sign of the man's integrity, and his policies raised the general welfare of the nation for those four years.  But they on the other side are taking credit for it inteadk, it turns my stomach, they twist it all in ways I can't comprehend.  

Some of it is sheer ignorance though.  That ad where the woman says she's SO mad that biollionaires don't have to pay as much tax as she does is jut plain stupidity.  They don't understand the most basic stuff about economics on the left, and it's really wrietd to begin with to thinnk Trump would campaign on giving his cronies a tax break aginst the wellbeing of the people, crazy to think anyone could think anyone wcould be that straightforwardly self serving but they seem to believe it.  

They have n knowledge of the fact that when the welathiest get a tax break they expand business, which increases employmehnt, may evn raise wages, and that the amount of teax revenyue taken into the treasure after such a ploliciy is in place exceeds by a long shot the amount taken in under leftist policies that want to tax the richkinto oblivion.    Which just drives them out of the country if it's bad enough.    They want to kill the big corporations, usch as the big food chains by taxing them more and by stopping their "price gouging" which they are not doing.  they are gbaely taing ababove wter in these inflationary times but are being accused for causing what the biden administration impossed on them.  Prices have to go up or they'll go out of business when they are khit with the expenses imposed on them by the Democrates.s  Basic economics that even I understand, why can't they?    Then they pass laws permnitting shoplifting to add to the economic problems of the big stores.  Some have already had to close their doors.  All because of the idiotic leftist policies.  

How is trump oa monstrosity Mr. Maher?

I was going to try to get a few words in about his complaints about Christainity but now I'm not up to it.

More Coyne

Too many things to talk about, the crazy destructive political situation, Charlie Kirk talking with Tucker Carlson, Bill Maher talking with Jordan Peterson, and Jerry Coyne winding up his talk on evolution.  Which is where I'll start.  For one thing I do believe that if evolution could be dealt the death blow it richly deserves some of the other problems would probably straighten out quite a bit because this is one of the bigtgest lies we're living under and if it fell some of the other destructive lies might fall too.  

Yes Mr. Coyne, I believe in angels.  The ones who came in contact with people in the bible didn't have wings, they look like human beings and were accepted as human beings in man of the storieas batout ehm.  I also believe in demons, which are fallen angles who hate humanity and these we may actually sometimes see in our time though not very often because they swould prefer it i f we didn't believe in them, it helps them with their plans to destoroy us if we can be kept in the dark.  

One thing Coyne just said at the end of this talk I've been listening to from time to time, is that the vast difference between the wolf and the chihuahua is evidence of evolution.   He'd just said that the great variability in the genome is enough to explain evolution, but that's ridiculous.  All the genome can do is produce variations on the species that carries it and is built by it.   And yes there is such a huge amount of variation possible that getting the chihuahua from the worlf is indeed an example of it.  

I doub tthat the wolf is the original dog for starters, because any splitting of the population would change the gene frequencies of both populations and over time affect the salient characteristscs of both.  The smaller population would produce the largest changes no doubt, probably with more homoczygous dgenes than the other poulation, but the other population woudl also change over time becuase of its genetic change brought about tby the exit of part of its population.  And since the dog populatoin is enormous, with I don't know how many breeds of dog the changce that there is anything left of the original population whatever it looked like is highly improbable.  the wolf is just one of the kinds of dog.    and I doubt that they hav an genetic evidence to make their case, I think it's all the usual guesswork which they think seems reasonable.  

The body plan is where I would start these days.  Both the worldf and he chihuahua have the same body plan, meaning that if you look at their skeletons wyou will see that they are built with the same basic proportions, and details, and all other dogs are aldoso.  You can get some dramatic differnces like shorter legs and pug faces with drastic breeding techniques but the basic ridigity of the body and the feet and talks and so on should be erecognizable.    In the case of the wolf and the chihuahua there aren't even differences of those kinds, the small dog's skeleton shuould look like a miniature of the wolf's.  I can't see well enough to find the evidence so now I'm gussing too, but when I researched birds back when I could still see well enough for the task I was surprised to find that all the birds look the same in their skeletons, including penguins and ostriches etc.    So I came to the conclusion that body plan is something that doesn't change much at all diespite the immeense amoutn of variation that goes on in its many other traits.   Even the trilobite remains a trilobite in all its proportaions and basic structure through millions of years, according to them, not me, probably hundreds of millions of years according to them, of supposed survival on this planet.  They show lots of variation over those supposed time periods but they all remain the same creature in their pbody plan.  

And asual all Coyne ahas is assertion.  The variation in the genome is no varrier to his imagination, it can just gon on varying into all kinds of other traits that don't belong tho the species that possesses it.  He can't show this with even one example, he just asserts it.   But we have no problem whatever seeing that the chihuahua and the wolf are the same species down to their bark and howl and behavior patterns, all doglike and not catlike or anythingelseliek.  

A lot of what goes on in the formation of a breed is the elimination of the characteristics of toerh breeds, the reduciton in geneti vairiability that accompanies the development ocf new phenotypes.  Which generally means the increse in homozygosity for the main traits of the breed.  It loses the alleles for the variation of that trait.    And this reduction in genetic variability ought all by itself to make it clear that getting new phenotype s is not evolution, the genetic changes are not moving int eh right direction for the development ofof something outside the genome, or evcen, at some point, within the genome as when you get to a great number of fixed or homzygous genes no further change is possible, and that's when you have a real purebred animal that can't interbreed with any botut it's  its own breed.

Not a forumala for evolution.

He also said that junk DNA proves evolution.  Well, if you believe in evolution you are going to interpret the hjunk DNA as the former evolution undergone by the animal.  I don't think there's any way he can actually dow that.  Apparently they do know a lot about twhat those genes once coded for, and in some cases theyh seem to represent some otner kind of creature, but that's onlyh because they arent function now.   I've been arguing for a long time rththat the junk DNA reflects the processes of disease and dieath all living things undergo since our first parents disobeyed God in Eden, known as the Fall, or Original Sin.  With that act of disobedience they doomed us all to death of all kikinds and that includes the death of our original functions bit by bit over the millennia,   Certainly we were much stronger creatures in the original created world, not subject to deaht first of all but not subject to disease of any kind either.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed God the first story we read is of the murder of Abel by Cain.  death in its most violent form.  Nevertheless people continued to live for hundreds of years until the Flood, Some a little shorter than others due to sin fctors we have no way of tracing, and even lived after the Flood for a few hundred years as well, but eventually the life span was whittled down to our current seventy to eighty or so years with the occasional exception into the hundre range.  Djue to God's mercy as He has given us medical protections to counteract the natural assaults on our health.  

So he's wrong about junk DNA, biblical Creation explains it just as well, that is, the Fall that followed the Creation.

Just ave to add again, jut because, that the geological column, that stack of sedimentary desposits that extend for many thousands of square miles, can't pssibley represent time periods so that of course the time periods never existsed:  neithre the usrface of the earth nor the surface of the sea bottom, which are the only two possibilities for the location of these slabs of sedimentary rock, were ever flat and horizontal as these rocks are.  Nor could there have been any period of time, let alone during hundreds of millions of years, tht the surface remained undisturbed as these rocks obviously were until the whole stack was laid down.  There's plenty of disturbance to be seen after they were all in place but nothing during their laying down.  Thar simply cannot have been the case even for a few lthousand years let alone the millions claimed for these layers of rock.   Not to mention that there is no reasonable explanation of the fact that each sedimentary sdeposite is a genuine layer that differs from those above and below it by the kind of sediment that composes it.  this makes no sense whatever on anyh possible theory of how time played out on this planet.  

Ues. de[psotopm bu ,pvomg water pver a re;atove;u sjpwrt [eropd pf to,e. ,aube a few ,pmtjs [erja[s. ex[;aoms ot a ;pt better tjam amu ,o;;opms pf uears pr evem jimdreds pr evem tems/

*   *    *    *

Cine I can't read by Contact information, the Commens, or my email, I have a new email managed by my daughter:

faith'swindow@mail.com   if uou'd like to tell me how wrong I am, or how right or anything else.

i wrote a short explanation of the situation in the ostg Contact POssi ility, and if you put those temrs  eterms in the search bosx at the above left that post will come up.

Thanks

Belated Correction Evolution Timetable

 A while back, I don't know how many posts ago, I can't read well enough to find the post I'm thinking of, I believe I made a big mistake when I was arguing that the eroded material at the base of exposed blocks of strata should be an indicator of the time factor that would disprove the claims of evolution of millions of years.  That is,k the amount of eroded debris at the base of the walls of the Grand Canyon don't   doesn't seem to be enough to hae taken millions of years.

I think I ereferred to the entire age of the geological column as my reference point, hundreds of millions of years, but of course that is very wrong as the walls would not have been exposed until it awas all dlaid down and the canyon was cut.  The latest age I heard for the cutting of the canyon is seventeen million years.  That's still an enormous long time by comparison with the forty five hundred years since the Flood, which is what I think is the righrt time frame for the erosion of the walls.  Seventeen million years should ahve accumulated a lot more than iis there it seems to me, and I think someone is keeping track of the rate so maybe that figure is out there somewhere.  I'd like to know it.  

But my guess is that forty five hundred years is probably about right.  For the walls of the Grand Canyon and the monuments in Monument Fvalley as well.    Just a guess but any millions of years is way too much for the erosion to be so little.  

Evolution, One of the Many Ways this World is Bulit on a Lie

 Yeah, I know, the chance that anyone is going to take anything I say about ebolution seriouesly is pretty slim, but I have to say it's not for good reason.  I'm listening to this newer version of Jerry Coyne's talk, basically the same talk I blogged on earlier but with small differences here and there, and again what he calls evidence does not qualify as evidence as I said before, and I don't get how they can be so huffily certain about that.    

He treats the "fossil record" as evidence, but the fossil record itself has never been proved to be a reality.  Really.  It's never been more than this idea that they like a lot that they've impossed on fossilized cretures in a stack of strata of sedimentary rocks.  They look at it and go, Gosh that sure looks like how animals evolved from simple to complex to me" and that's the whole of what they are calling evidence.  It LOOKS LIKE it and that's it.  Their imaginations tell them it is so, kand that's it, that's all there is to it.  

To be so convincec by their own imagination they have to swallow a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, such as the fact that their time periods are each marked by a thick slab of sedimentary rock that in most cases covers thousand of square mils of land, all straight and horizontal and flat and each fitted into t astack of the same kind of layers of sedimentary rocks, very very closely pressed up against each other, with knife edge contact lines.  These are supposed to have formed during periods of tends of millions of years each, each time period with its own peculiar rock slab, one perculiar sediment nin most cases, and the next siwith its own peculiar and different rock slab.  All flat and horizontal and stretching for thousands of square miles.  And this is where those fossils are found that they assign to the Fossil Record.  This makes NO sense on any planet but they just go on blithely treating it as if it does.  

And of course he laughs at the idea that the worldwide Flood is a better explanation, calls it risible and refuses to try to explain it for that reason.  Well I'm glad he didn't explain it because he'd just mock it, but as a matter of fact it's a much better explanation than time periods containing fossils that prove evolution from one time period to the next.  All you have is dead things inside this lslab of sedimetnary rock.  They call it the fossil record, I\creationists think it fits the Flood far better.    Water is known to deposite layers of sedimenents for one thing, you find such layers in deltas and at the shoreline. Water separates out the sediments and deposites them in layers.  Sure fits the geological column better than any conjuring they could do to explain them as normal deposites in a normal world.  but he ignores all this, they all do, and I'm not going to get anything but a shrug and a mocking laugh for my trouble I'm sure.

He starts his discussion with five facts he says sconstitute evolution, the first one being that there is observable change in populations over time.  Well, this is true.  But the observable change is only variation within the genome of the species, it's not evolution at all.  To get evolution new genetic material would have to be added at some point and it can't be, all there is is the genetic material dfined by the species genome.  Whatever its genes code for is what you're going to get, variations on them but the same traits and nothing but those traits.  You aren't going to find a gene for bear's claws in a chimp genome and so on.  The chimp has genes for making a chimp and that's it.    if you think you can get from the chimp genome to something else you are going to have to imagine some drastic new change mechanism which doesn't exist.  All change occurs within the genome of the species.  This is bovious but they'll deny it.

 So there is no variation outseide the species genome and there is no fossil record because there is no way those slabs of rock were laid down each in a particular time period over tend of millions of years all flat and horizontal and covering thousands of square miles.   

B they'll deny that too.  

and laugh at me for pointing it out.

eah I know I keep repeating myself.  Oh well.  

Well, it looks to ME like those strata had to have been laid down by water, aassive amount of water that covered the whole earth, becuaduase I know that's what water tends to do, it lays down sedimentary  deposits 

CCharlie Kirk and jerry Coyne and some depressing tsutf

 It's so depressing.     Charlie Kirk having arguments with college students , in some format I dn't grasp where they fight to get tot he chair across from him, but anyway, their point of view, which is obviously shaped by their leftist professors, is depressing.  They believe and try to prove that abortion is justifiable apart from the usual exceptions for mother's health and so on, and it's just depressing that killing your child is regarded as a right by these kids and the fact that it is the killing of  a human being means nothing to them.  It's also depressing that they refuse to accept the obvious distinctions between men and women, the biological distinctions and try to jstify calling a man a woman who simply wants to be walled a woman.  this is all dperessing to an abysmal level.   And of course they have to prove that there is still systemic racism in America although for decades we've done so much to rid ourselves of it and succeeded.  they are believing lies and it is abysmally depressing.

Oh, also the Econ student never studied Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell.  Of course.

then anothr ejJerry Coyne video came up where he's giving the same speech but to a different audience adn that is depressing.  of course.  What he calls evolution is not evolution, it's variation which is built into the species genome, and this variation is limited by the genetic possibilities already available and you can't ge any kind of change that is not dependent on those genetic possibilities  You also reach a point in small populations where further variations becomes impossible too because of the number of fixed enes or homozygous genes that have occurred in the making of the race or breed.   And yes you can get different populations with different characteristics if they split and vary in isolation from each other.  happens all the time in nature.  All variation limited to the genome, not evolution.   And then he goes to the fossil record to prove that life began with simple organisms and proceeded to more complex ones, exepct of course that the fofssil record doesn't exist becaue the strata they exist in can't possibly represent time periods as I've shown over and ove again.  

Deressing beyond depressing.  I hope the Rapture somes soon.

Later:  I hadn't finished his whole talk and of course he covers the other stuff like vestigial organs and biogeography and all that as he did the first time too , and I have the same answers now that I had when I heard it the first time:

Vestial orgns are probably best explained as fnctions we once possessed in our originaloly created form, that we've lost over time because of the Fall which brought all kinds of diseases into our existence.  Mutations have to be a disease process, they are random and make no sense as a process useful to life in any way at all despite scientist's attempts to make them useful for evolution.  they can't be, they are random destructive mitakes in the replication of DNA, they may be insignificant enough to do no hardm in some cses, but they often create genetic diseases and we hve thousands of those we have to deal with.   

So I figure that once sueful functions, for which we have evidence in the "junk DNA" which Coyne doesn't call junk DNA but that's what it is, evidence of dead genes that once had functions we no longer possess because those genes have been destroyed by mutations.  He talks about this but of course from the evolutionistic perspective which says they were once useful when we were not yet human and we logost them later because we no longer need them.  That gives mutation a useful function, which is fidicuilous.  It's random, it has no useful function, it just maims and kills and that's all it does, it's a  an instrument of the Fall, an instrument of destruction and disease and it's killed of an enormous nmber of onece useful genes in the human genome, and also in animal genomes.    So vesgial organs are no doubt whatever is left half functioning in our makeup or not functioning at all because the genes that code for the function are dead.   A yok sac for instance might once have contained the hyoulk he says is coded ffyor by three genes that are all now dead, was likely once useful for noursighing the embryo before the planecent a fully defeveloped.  that would be my guess.  Apparently we can do awithout it, sort of, so we go on without it, as we do without an appendix and a functioning or fully fiunctioning gallbladder, other organs we more or less easily do without.    That were once probably very useful for some facet of our strength and health.    Vitamin C is no longer functioning and Coyne explains that as due oto our getting it in our diets, I just figure it was killed as part of the Fall and we do better if we take C supplements which shows we do need it and don't get it in our diets that easily.  That's how I would explain most evestigial orgnas, and some of them would need a lot more thought, such as the hind legs of whales, which proabbly have a dozen or so more genes associated with them that are now dead.  And so on.

I still dnot get this biogeography argument at all  Creationists are accused of avcooiding it because it's supposedly so teeling for evolution but I just don't get it and sdon't see why creationists would have any problme at all with islands being populated by creatures tht could float there and not by animals whathat have no easy way of getting there.  What on earth is so evolutionistic about that?  I don't get it at all.

I also don't see why creationists should hav a problem with natural selection.  It must operate in some cases and his example of the finch eak is proably a good enough example of it.  It would operate on the genetic material of the species genome jut fine, no need at all for any kind of evolution in the official sense of the term to operate.  

One thing I think must e the case is that there are many design features that are repeated in the genomes of the diferent creatures, that is it can be design and not evolution that explains them.  

He says vestigial organs can't be explained except by evolution and this is false.  the Fall with its mutational disease processes goes a long way to explaining them.

I forgo to mention his example of the supposed evolution of horses.  There are fossils of different kinds of horses in the so called fossil record which of course he explains as one type evolving from an earlier type, but to a creatinist therese are merely different kinds of horses what all lived before the flood and died in the Flood, and that's the case wilth all the creatures we find fossilized.  Some variations were preserved on the ark, but many others died.

Whateve we find in fossil form was alive before the Floode, amany odd variations of creatures that are still living but many that no longer exist at all.  You don't need to postulate vrarious extinction events, the Flood killed them all.  

I'm sure he's right that it's becaue of our Christianity that we reject evolution.  I had problems with evolution before I became a Christian.  I'd tried to think through some ways a particular feature might have evolved over long periods of time and just keept being unable to imagine it all going in the right direction to produce something coherent.  I still acan't imagine it.   but when I became a Christian then it began to matter in a new eway because evolution contradicts the Bible.  There was no death in the orginal Creation, that ws the consequance of the Fall whichn made edeath seem to be a normal part of life.  Death is built into evolution and that can't be reconciled with the Bible.  theistic evolution is a sham.  At lest it's not biblical.  Anyway when I became a CHristian in my late forties I read some books on creatinism and started tryhing to think it through for myself.  It can't be easily dismissed, it has to be thought through.  And I think I've done a decent job of that.

Although I had issues with evolution before I became a Christian I didn't pursue them and just figured evolution myust be true even if I culdn't see how, but when i became a Christian then I had the motivattion to think more acarefilly about it.

Two Forms of UncivilizationWoke and Multicultural

 Soon after the end of the Olympics Matt Walsh objected on his radio show to the American gymnasts who had won silver ahnd bronze medals, bowing down to the gold medal winner from Brazil, becaue he believed it to be a woke racist expression.  He also thought the fact that the bronze winner, Jordan Childs, a black girl as were the other two, had not won her medal fairly but that it was given to her because eshe is black.  

I had taken it all straight myself, thought she had been awarded the bronze fairly and also that the bowing down she and teammate Simone Biyle engaged in was just a nice gesture and genuine.  Why make an innocent gensture into a woke expression anyway.   

I guess I didn't explain here that originally someone else, a rumanian girl, had won the bronze, but that the American coach had objected to the judges that they had wrongly assessed the performance of their girl Jordan Childs, and that led to the elevation of Childs to the Bronze, making the Rumanian the loser.    That's what I had assumed was done fairly.  And maybe it was, but apparently there were other problems.

What Walsh reported is that they had again reviewed the performances and found that Chidls had not won, but belonged in fifth place, which put her behind two Rumanians, one of whom got the bronze.  So now this seems to be the correct assessemtn.

But Childs is protesting that it is because she is black that they took the medal away from her.  NOW we've got a woke situation and I accept Matt Walsh's judgment of the istuation.  I guess I was wrong about the whole thing and he was right so this is my apology.  

I'd rally like to think lback competitotrs could be gracious losers as well as winnders but it doesn't look like the times we live in are going to allow that civilized attitude to develop.

And seaing of civilized behavior, Matt Walksh also corrected the uproar against Trump for mentioning that he'd heard that the Haitians in Springfield Ohio were eating the pets, the casts and dogs, that belonged to the citizens there.  People had been denying that Trump was right, saying that he'd fallen for a hoax and that the Haitians were not eating pets.  

What Walsh did was find audio proof that the townspeakple had been complaining about the Haitians catching and eating geese and ducks and other aniamsls for some time.  He also pointed out that in Haiti they do eat cats so that even if there isn't any evidence that they have in fact done so in Springfield, they wvery well might if the could.  

Anyway, thanks to Walksh for correcting me on both points, well in the second case correcting the rumors since I hadn't bought into any o fit yet.  

It is hard to fathom the evil mindset of those who would bring uncivilized people into a civilized  ountry and imose them on the citizens.  if these evil people win this upcoming election we are doomed in more ways than one.

May God have mercy on us.

Your Cities Are Burned with Fire, Your Land Is Devoured by Strangers

 That should sound familiar to us in America right now.  It's a picture of a nation under judgmenet by God, a nation God has described a few verses earlier as

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquities, a seed of evildoers...

It's the same message given by the prophet Hosea later when God through him says My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, after describing them as Swearing and lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery, all the sins of the second table of the Ten commandmentsl.

 There is no doubt we are under God's judgment and it's going to get worse as long as we fail to acknowledge our sins and repent of them.  That's the part that seems so utterly hopeless.  Once they've got it into their heads that it is a Right of all things to kill your unborn baby in the womb, or to marry your homosexual partner, or to turn yourself into the opposite sex , and of courese they don't believe in God who think those things... h,m well, sorry to say that's not necessarily so as I do know of so called Christians who embrace such abominations in the name of Christ.

It's so easy to sink into hopelessness in the fa

ne think I know, even if I forget it from time to time, is that as long as we are putting our trust in human beings and human institutions there isn't much to hope in.  "Teh arm of flesh" as scripture sometimes dcalls this trust is definitely hopeless.  Our trust has to be in Gode, only He has the power to reverse these things.  We're under His jugment for our sins, but He is merciful and still might relent, but ONLY if we see that we've brought this on ourselves.  Yes even if it's the "other party" who have done the worlse t of it, we are accountable along with them as members of the same covenant as it were.  We have to repetns for all the sins that have brought this situation upon us, as the prophet Daniel did on behalf of his nation Israel although he was a righteous man himself.  

Tryi to built up some hope I listened to a talk about the great revival of eighteen fifty seven that started in new York City, started by one businessman, a mamber of the Dutch Reforemed Church, who called a parayer meeting for the lunch hour and handed out flyers.  Only six responded the first day but little by littlerle as they met every week at noon more joined them until eventually, after weeks and months they had prayer meetings all over the city and ten to fiftyeen thousand men participating.  I suppose there must have been women too but it's the men that are the most in evidence for some reason.   eventually the meetings spread across the country and then into Europe and then into Asia until it had encompassed the entire world in prayer.  Thousands upon thousands were saved, people made restittuion for wrongs they had committed , under confiction by the Holy Spirit.  

But we've prayed for revival, mahy of us over the last few decades.  Why haven't we had a revival?  A few phony revivals, yes I call them phony, they were phohney, Toronto, Browsville, Lake.and, phony revivals.  W need a real powerful Holy Spirit revival.  

od told Solomon soon after he had finished building the temple for God to dwell in, that He would by merciful in judgment:  If the people would humble themselves, pray and seek His face and turn from their wicked ways, the He would forgive their sins and heal their land.  In the midst of His judgmetn against them, when He had shut up the rain or sent locusts or a psestilence as punishemtn He would yet hear from heaven and heal their land.

We alsoways howp for this, it's one of the favorite verses of the Christain churches, but somehow we never get revivla and it is very discouraging.  

till, 'mraying for it again.  if we don't have revival the nation is going to go under for sure, burned with fire, given over to strangers, full of violence, famine, murder, extreme poverty.  That's where we will end up if we continue on the current trajectory and get the Democrats in office again.  

Seeing what's coming I feel like I'm losing my mind, I can hardly breathe, I can't sleep, 

Help, Lord.

]Note:  A talk on that revival is titled Revelation TV Presents The Lanphier Revival of 1857

.......I cn't see well enough to read Comments or my usual email so I now have a new one bing managed by my daughter:

faithswindowQmail.com

I wrote an explanatory note you can access by putting Contact Possibility into the search box at the upper left.

Thaks.

God Says, Choose Life, but We're Choosing Death

 I set before you this day blessing and cursing, life and death;  therefore, choose lif.That's how God summed up the Law He gave the Israelites through Moses, as path to blessing if obeyed or cursing if disobeyed, life or death.  The theme is repeated throughout the Old Testment, particularly in the Psalms and the Proverbs.  Psalm One starts out, blessed inss the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scorners, but his delight is in the Law of the Lord and in His Law he meditates day and night.  he will be like a tree planted by rivers of water who brings forth fruit in his season and everything he does will prosper.  His leaf also shall not wither.

God's Law respected and obeyed is the path to a peaceful and prosperous life. The principle is extended to a whole nation:  Righteousness exalteth a nation ...

The psalm goes on, The ungodly are not so but are like the chff driven before the wind...

And disobedience of the Law leads to the cursings listed in the passages about the Law of Moses as the nation is to be defeated by enemies, subjected to economic disaster and so on if it fails 

This is a theme God brings me back to from time to time, sometimes with a jolt of surprise as my mind was so completely somewhere else.  this time it took a whle to recognize it.  I was listening to a speech by a fairly well known "public intellectual" as they are called these days, someone I like and enjoy listening to, a gay man but politically on the right side in my opinion.  He was talking about the situation in Israel and described some acts of heroism on the part of Israelis, concluding with the quote of my title and saying "they chose life."

Of course right away I knew he had misused the quote, in the same way I've encountered another quote from scrip;ture being misused a number of times:  in the book of Hosea God says "My people are destroyed for lack of kowledge" and this is often misused to refer to some temporal sort of knowledge such as knowledge of the plans of an enemy just as Jihad, or a virus that could break out and destroy millions and that sort of thing.    But the scripture is really referring to god's Law, saying that it is the people's disobedience of the Law that is destroying them.   they've been described already as committing various sins, swearing, lying, killing, lying, committing adultery, as the reason for their destruction.  

the quote is misused in the same way "chhoose life" is misused to describe the Iasaraeli heroies.

Wdon't seem t want to learn about God's law, or for some reason we are dearf to it.  Knolwledge is relegated to all kinds of things rather than the Law, and life is imputed to heroic actions instead of to obedience of the Law.

In botgh examples of this misunderstanding I've mentioned I nearly missed the very important fact that the destructive actions put in the place of the knowlege of the Law and its consequences , such as jihad or a virus in thecamese of the Hosea quote, and the war on Israel by Hamas in the other, are themselves consequences of disobedience of the Law.  I hate to say this because the Islamists are vicious malicious killers and nothing can justify their murderous cruelty against Israel, which is the subject in both of these examples, at least one of them, the Hosea quote has often been misused in toehr ways, but jihad is certainly a reference to the Islamist attack on israel, and the West too for that matter.    

 God uses our enemies as punishement for our transgressions of His law, that's what the blessings and cursings ar all babout in the passage from which I took the title of this post.    The attack on the twin towers which we are babout to commemorate his welek is another example of god's judgment in this case on the US, from which we have never repented whichn is why we continue to be under judgment, threat from our enemies, the overruning of our brorder, devastiating eweather conditions now violations of our Constituion that threaten to destroy the nation altogehter.   

Instead of repenting and correcting our acts of disobedience we rely on our human strengths to try to defeat the judgments that are coming from God and can't be defeated.  I don't kow what sins Israel may have committed besides rejecting their Messiah, but that may be enough, otherwise I have no idea why god keeps threatening the mwith the Islamist designs on annihilating them, but in the sacase of America I know a lot about how we deserve the judgmetnn we are under and I wish I could be optimistic about  escapting it.

Assaiah nine says, instead of repenting and changing our ways, like Israel we resort to defying the judgmetn of God.  He destroys buildings, we rebuild them better;  he destroyes trees we plant hardier ones.  Jonathan Cahn ointed to this passage in his first book to show that we are deinfg God's judgment against us that He brought through the attack on nine eleven.  

Mor unborn babies are being aborted since Roe v Wade was overtuned and abortion law sent to the states, their blood is on the nation, now perhaps more on the individual states.  We have defended pornography i terms of free speech which si a horrific travesty of our Constitution and I'm sure we aren't going back on that, we've perverted our laws to that extent.  Good fo r evil and evil for good.  We threw the Bible out of schools and prayer although that is initself a violation of our laws, also misconstrued in terms of the Constittuion.  We've legalized gay marriage which is a horrible travesty of God's ordinance regarding the marriage of man and woman.  Now we're legalizing the mutilation of children who think they got born into the wrong sex.    And all this is going to ge twrose rather than better if the Democrts wiln this coming election.  

There were a couple of bits of good news recently in the posting of the ten Commandments in schools in some state, I don't remember which, , and I forget what the otehr state is doing, soemthing lalong the lines of teaching our Christain history I think but I could be wronjg.   That's hopeful stuff but it's very little compared to how much we've done in the opposite direction for the last half century or so.   

the tide of evil is very strong right now, I dn't see any way out of it.  Prayer of course but such persistent and rightly done prayer I doubt it could happen.  

Looks to me like we've chosen death and even if we get ta temporary reprieve that's the trajectory we're on until Jesus coesmes back.  that's the way it looks to me right hnow.

We reallyh should commemorate Nine Eleven with a day of fasting and pryaer.

Rocketing Through Some of the Aruments Agianst Evolution as Coyne Presented it

 I think I answered Jerry Coyne as i went through his video earlier but I just reviewed some of it and now I'm not sure if I did.  So I just ant to sketch out some of my answers here, again if I already did.

Evolutionj occurs he evidenced by the fact that populations change over time.  But that occurs because of the variability built into the genoe of the species, that's not evolution.  All sorts of even quite ramatic changes can occur in a population ocver a number of generations as each generation varies slightly fromj the parent generation ayway.  And if the ppulations split into a numbe ro poulations of smaller populations you get a new gset of gene frequencies in each new population which change their genetic picture to one degree or anothner from that of the oirginal pooulation.  A very small population is likely to produce a very dramatic new trait poicture because of the great differences from the original.  Butr this is all changes that occur within the species genome.  This doesn't prove evolution at all because you can't get species to species tchange this way, you can only get variations on what is alreay in the geneome which is the set of traits characteristic of tht particular species and no other.

he tijks the fact that the change is often gradual but can someting be fast proves evoltuion.  I don't get this at all so it's hard to comment.  It's gradual if the opulation is large enough, an faster if the population is smaller.

then specieationj of branching .  But this happens a lot in nature as different parts of a wild population split off and go indifferent directions, findi cdifferent niches and sometimes get somepletely idsolated from the original population.  New gene frequences bring out difdferent characteristics in the new population and if there are more then a two that split off you can get a umber of very different looking populations all of the same species.  All from that species genome.  Nothiern gthat has anythihg to do with evolution fro that species to some othe speicies.

Then biogeography is a category he claims proves evolution and again I don't see how.  I don't see why a creationist wouldn't recognize that whateer can get to a remove idisland would become the population on that isoland and if some animals don't have means of gettihjg there they wouldn't be there.  What this has to do with evolution I have no idea.  And then of courlse becaue there would be the same sitaution with new gene frequencies in the small nmber of migrants to the new island you could get very crastically different populations of the reatures in those remote places.  All from the species genome.  othihg to do with evoltuion.

Then naturl selecitn.  Again it seems to me if this occurs it can be recognized as well by creationists as evolutionists because it would be operating on the pecies genome to bring out traits that are already there and over time exaggerate them quite a bit in some cases.  That's what happened with Darwin's fins   sorry, pigeons, and those of other pigeon breeders of his time.  It's what happened witn the pod mrscaru lizards wthat developed the strong jaws for eating roughter food than they'd been used to in the original population.  it doesn't have to be the food selecting the trait, though and I figure it usually isn't.  the trait is alreayd there and it leads the creature to gravitate to the kind of footd it is suited for.  then the habit of eating that food would act as a selective factor as well.  But really, in any small population genetics seems to me to be the main actor as the variations just keep turning up in the offspring due to the gene frequencies which favor a certain trait picture.   Nothihg to do with evoltuion.

then he gets into vestigial organs and limbs and so on.  Some I can't explain but the hok sac for the human embryo seems to me to be the remnand fo a former provision for its hnourishment that gotr t destroyed by mutation which is a major weapon of the Fall hich has usbjected us to all kidns of diseases and deficiencies and death.  Perhaps the vestigianl legs of the whale are also somehow related to the Fall but I don't know how off the top of my head.  An organ of cuntion that would ahve developed into something more specific if mutation hadn't destroyed a bunch of genes connected with it or something like that.   Certainly something like that hs to do with the prostrate problem.  the problem is that the Fall explains a lot of things that people don't think of beause they wrongly think of this world ads the same as the cratred world but it's not.  We are mere shadows of our created selves, we've lost ninety nine percent of our genetic strengths due to the Fall to judge by the amount of junk DNA in our genome.   We mut have been quite sowonderful craetures at the Creation.  Animals too since they avhe lost much of their own strengths and protectsion in the same way.

And then there is the fossil recorod.  No matter how intuitively congenial it seems to be as a record of evolution from simple to complex, if in fact the whole thing couldn't even exist then that is revealed to be an illusion.  And if the strata they are found in coudln't possibly represent time periods that would of course destroy the idea of a fossil record.  Which I think it does.   there is no way a gigantic slab of a homogeneous sedimetnary rock covering thousands of square miles could have existed in  erth's history as a natural deposit from some natural source ofr other, lets alone characterize that time period.  It's a flat straugthight horizontal object.  Nothijg could live on or in it.  If it's merely the base of a sea scape or landscape that somewhow or other remained after the next one started to eeposit on top of it, another wholly different sediment covering a huge territory as well and so on, which is ludicrous in itself, you have to account for how any of this makes sense and it simply does not.    then I point out that the same stack of rocks start out as seascapes since they contain sea life fossils and then in the upper layes become landscapes, that too is ridiculous.  These are not time periods and that is not a fossil record of evolution.

It's just a bunch of dead thihgs that for some reason got sorted into layers of sediments, all a physical mechanical phenomenon, nothing to do with evolution.  The earth was folooded and bazillions of things died and ot buried and sincemoving water is known to form separate tacks of seiments that's outr evoplanation.  

If you try to think thgough the morpholoigcal or genetic steps that would have to be taken for one species to evolve into another  you just can't ge anywyere, or at least I can't.  What exactly is being changed, a gene ithin the specie s genome?  that gene is then incapacitated as a new function takes over that somehow is beneficial to that species nevertheless as long as it's ihntthe one where the changes are taken place?   But you've gdestroyed a gene.  the new trait replaces it?  Alreayd i"m lost.  this just can't happen.  You ahhave to invent a whole new genome to rpelace the existing one.  this just can't happen.  

ButI don't see anything by scientists trying to do anything at all along these lines.  It's all how we see change happenieng withnout recognziing that this is only within a species geneome, it's all the result of natural selection withiuout sepcfiyijg what exaftly it is that is being selected and how that something got there in the first place, and it has to be something that is not part of the current species trait picture if it's really going in the direct oion of true evolution to a new species.  they never try to identify the pecifics.  What changed and how to get from here to tehere.  

It's really trule y as if they think their ability to imagine soethijg plausible that continues to seem plasible for a long time is enough to declare it a fact without doing one thing to find out if itit in fact is actualy true and could happen in the real world.  that wouldn't happen ihn the lahard sciences where you can always test things but in a historical science you just end up relaying on your imaginaitoion and end up baptizing some likely story into evolution just ecause it seems so gocongenial or whtnot.     

Where would a rhinoceros start to change to become a whale?  Remember that the entire animal has to change and that mutation occur in genes and there are thousands upon thousands of genes that would have to change and that mutation tends to destroy rather than enhance the function of a gene.  Send it to the junk yard cemetery instead of give it life in a new species.  

It's weird but OCoyne seems to have no idea that he's talking bout plausibilities and generalities and then declaring them fact.    

And that no REAL evidence has enered into his discussion at any oinjt that demonstrates his claim that evolutionj xexplains all these thingins.  

I'm sorry, my typing seems to be getting worse.  I feel it happening as I type and all Ica can say is I'm sorry.  I don't knmow what to do about it.  I don't want to have to give up this blog, it's really the only thihgning I have left that really engages my intersest.  

I keep working on the evolution problem because although I belireve we are very close to the end of time and that Jesus will be returing soon, hopefully taking me in the rpture along with many others as part of that scienario, still Ikkeep hoping that if there is still time this world could be steered off its suicide courase, which is really what it is with all this marxist political devastateion that will happen if the wrong people get into the American government, which I'm afraid is going to happen.  It will be God's will of course but He doesn't want us just to lie down and take it, we should be working against it no matter what.  Anyhway if evolution could be blasted to smitherweens and people reocgnize that fact I think it would have to make a big difference in how people are thinking, it would cautch them up short and turn themr minds away from some of the destructive trajectory we're on and maybe toward something that could save things at least for now.  So I would love to be one of God's instruments for the pulling down of the evolution stronghold as I would love to see people have to stop and say Qhoa maybe we need to rethink a few thiings here.  Oh Lord let it be.  but give me the dstrength to accept whatever You will instead.  Not only would things settle down on earth but thousdans of people would be saved.

Ament 

Latr  I left out a couple of things from the Coyne discussion.   One of the ways I've argued from the strata got left out, which is thta the strata were all originally laid down straight and flat and horizontal and show no sign whateever of any kind of disturbance during their laying down.  the cross section of the Grand Staircase area show a stack of layers one n top of the other without a ... without an irregularity of any sort within that whole stack.  it's only after the entire column was in place that we see all kinds of disturbances, a folcano erupting beneath the stack sand send up magma from the bottom to the very top of it, and the lifting of the stack over the Grand Canyoj area also .  All that happened after the entire stack was laid down, and that is evidence that those are not time periods since we know this erth to be a very acive planet what with weathering and earthquakes and volcanoes and tectonic jolts and all that should certainly show up in any period of tend of millions of years while those sedimentary layers were forming.  But there inot ta single ripple in their placid recumbance   ... is tht the workd I want?  Well it popped into my head and I hope it is.  Ayway no disturbances whatever to the supposed evidence of former time periods of milions of years.    NO TIME PERIODS, folks, taht's what that means.

the other thinkg I left out was Coyne's fourth constituent of evolutin which is tht two relted poulations all have a common ancestor.  so tey look for something that seems to be a transitional, a creatur that shares the characteristics of the two populations and they say they've found some, such as the transitiaonl between birds and reptiles.  It occurs at the right place in the fossil record to be the transitional , the common anestor they are looking for.  

The problem is that ll this stuff is totally subjective.  ther is no way to prove a common ancestor that far back.  We can prove ti within a species as poulations split off from the main population and vary quite a bit from it through the new gene frequencies, bt  betwen species?  Couldn't be possible to tra ck it down even if it were true whic it isn't.  It's all wildly imaginative and this is over and over again what gets called fact in the commuity of evolutionist scientists.  you'd think they'd know better.    This isn't evidence.  When ordinary people make such mitstakes in reasoning we get laughed at but if you're a scientist it's just find toe to trust your imagination like this, you don't need to verify it despite the time honored idea that this is what science does.

Anyay.  No time periods, no fofssil record, no way for genetic variation to do anything but fary the scpecies itself, no way to get from species to species at all.  I'd say this has been proved and evolution has not.

It ain't a rabbit in the Cambrian, but.

Even Lter.   I've been watching anothre video on evolution, this one a film about the hitory of the earth tht touches on which cretures lived in which time periods.  I mentioned trying to find out extly what and how many of the different creatures are found fossilized int n ehiwhich strata nd haven't been able to get a definitive lit of these,, but this sort of film at least gives me a rough notion.   And what I just noticed is that somewhere in teh Ordovician period while it's all mostly about sea cretures and how they supposedly evolved, mention is made of plants becoming terrestrial.

Notw what is interesting becuase all this is of course taken from the fossil record, that is which aimals were alieve when and their characteristics.  I nnoted the change from land creatures from sea creatures in the upper layers of the sedimetnary rocks as a rathr inexplicalbe occurrence.  That is, how did the environent just change from sea to land like that?  In the same place, in the same part of the stack?  but this is even more difficult to explain.  All teh fossils are apparently of sea life with the exception of some terrestrial plant life.  So how did that get into this particular laye of rock?   Isn't it the idea tht the creatures lived in this time period and when they died they got buried and fossilized where they had lived?  So how could we hve sea life and plant life buried in the same rock?  

JustIt ain't a rabbit in the Cambrian but something in the same class of falsifiers, woudln't you say?

 another bit of anomalous factuality to confound the evolutionist if any evolutionists ever bothered to notice.

Andet later:  Watching the History of Life series eisode on the Devonian period and finally I'm getting more of a sense of what creatures were fossilized in a time period, and it includes bogth sea cretures and land creatures.  Plants are the main terrestrial living things but now some aimal life is gettig up on the land too.

And what continues to bemuse me about this is how they are represented in the so called fossil record, the sedimentary rocks in which they are found.  How can you find both sea life fossils and terrestrial life fossils in the same layer of rock?  Apparetly not in different areas of the rock but just scattered through the whole layer.  At least this belies the usual idea tht these re living things that got buried prettymuch where they lived, if some lived on land and some lived in these esea.  this whole lime period thing is a weird delusion no matter how you go at it.  

tRYING AND fAILING aGAIN TO fIND A pATH FOR sPECIES TO sPECIES eVOLUTION

 TAT tHERE'S A POINT i'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THAT i DON'T THINK i DO A VERY GOOD JOB ON.  THIS TIME i WANT TO TRY AGAIN USING THE THEORIZED EVOLUTION FROM A LAND ANIMAL TO WHALE, SOMETING LIKE A RHINOCEROS TO WHALE.  

wITHIN A SPECIES VARIATION FOLLOWS  SET PATTERN, IT'S BUILT IN TO THE GENOME, ONE OF TWO ALLELES FOR A GIVEN GENE COMBINE WITH ONE OF TWO FROMT HE OTHER PARENT TO PRODUCE A PTRAIT IN THE OFFSSPRING, A VERSION OF A TRAIT THAT MAY BE THE SAME OR DIFFER SOMEWHAT FROM THAT OF THE PARENTS.   

bUT EVOLUTION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER HAS NO SET PATTERN IT PRETTY MUCH HAS TO MAKE A NEW GENOME SINCE THE ONE IT STARTS FROM HAS NOTHING BUT GENES FOR THAT PARTICULAR SPECIES.  tHESE CHANGE FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION ACCOREDING TO THE PATTERN i MENTION, AND IF THERE'S A MUTATION THAT GETS TREATED LIKE AN ALLELE SO THAT IF IT PRODUCES SOMETHING AT ALL USEFUL IT WILL BE PRESERVED BUT MOST OFTEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE OUTCOME AT ALL OR IT MAY PRODUCE A GENETIC DISEASE.  iF TIIT SHOULD BE USEFUL THOUGH IT WILL JUST DETERMINE THE TRAIT AS ANY OTHER ALLELE WOULD, THAT PARTICULAR TRAIT THOUGH PERHAPS IN A NEW VERSION.  bECAUS THAT IS WHAT THAT GENE does AND YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THAT AS FAR AS i CAN SEE.  iF i'M WRONG THEN i HOPE TO FIND IT OUT SOON.

bUT OUTSIDE THE GENOME AS IT WERE, IT'S ALL RANDOM, IT'S ALL CHANCE AND IT'S ALL MUTATIONS.  tHAT BEING THE CASE HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THE FACT THAT MUTATIONS ARE JUST GOING TO PRODUCE IRRELEVANT CHANGE AFTER IRRELEVANT CHANGE, CHANGES THAT DO NOTHIJG USEFUL OFR THE ORGANISM AT ALL LET ALONE LINE UP WITH OTHER UCH CHANGES TOWARD A FULLY EVOLVED END PRODUCT LIKE A WHALE FROM A RHINOCEROS.   a CHANGE IN A GENE WOULD ONLYU FFECT ONE TRAIT, YOU'D NEED COMPATIBLE CHANGES IN ALL THE GENES FOR THAT TRAIT WHEN THERE ARE MANY THAT CODE FOR IT WHICH IS OFTEN THE CASE, HOW ARE YOU GEOING TO GET COMPATIBLE MUTATIONS EVEN IF YOU BAZILLIONS OF YEARS FOR IT TO HAPPEN?   

eVLTIONISTS AS FAR AS i'VE SEEN DON'T EVER DISCUSS THE HOW OF ALL THIS.  tHEY SAY GENERAL THINGS LIKE SINCE EVOLUTIONIS TRUE ACCORDING TO THEM THEREFORE SOMETHING LIKE A RHINOCEROS SIMPLY EVOLVED INTO THE WHALE, AND IF THAT SEEMS UNLIKELY WELL YOU JUST HAVE TO LEARN TO THINK IN HUGE SPANS OF TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS.  bUT MILLIONS OF YEARS DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT AVOID THE QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT MECHANISMS HAE TO OCCUR FOR THE EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN?  aND THAT'S WHAT i DON'T SEE THE SCIENTISTS ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH.  oH NATURAL SELECTION DOE ALL THE WORK.  wELL, BUT TELL US how YOU THINK IT WORKS, WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO SELECT FROM?  aNDWOULDN'T IT HAVE TO HAVE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF CHANGES IN THE ORGANISM TO SSELECT ASSUMING THEY WERE ALL USEFUL AND THEREFORE SELECTABLE.  bUT AGAIN WHAT MAKES IT AT ALL LIKELY THAT any WOULD BE USEFUL AND THEREFORE SELECTABLE IF WE'RE TALKINGA BOUT RANDOM MUTATIONS.

tO MY MIND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.  aND AS LONG AS THE SCIENTISTS TALK ONLY IN GENERALITIES AND DON'T TRY TO ADRESS THE SPECIFICS OF HOW IT COULD WORK IT'S ALL A MAGIC TRICK OR SMOKE AND MIRRORS, JUST A \N EMPTY SHELL OF N IDEA.  

i DN'T KNOW IF i'M BEING ANY CLEARER THIS TIME AROUND OR NOT, MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN IMAGINE THIS OUT BETTER THAN i CAN, BUT NO MATTER HOW i THINK ABOUT IT ALL i GET IS ENDLESS MISTAKES IN MUTATION THAT GO NOWHERE THAT COULDN'T GO ANYWHERE EVEN IF YOU GIVE THEM A TRILLION YEARS TO DO THE JOB.

nO, i'M NOT SAING IT VERY WELL.  gOOD GRIEF.  yOU NEED A WHOLE NEW GEOME, TAHT'S TH PROBLEM BUT THE ORIGINAL GENOME CALLS THE SHOTS AS IT WERE.  TO GE A NEW GENOME YOU'D HAVE TO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL ONE, i SUPPOSE GENE BY GENE.  bUT ALL TAHT DOES IS PRODUCE JUNK dna.  

yOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE, THT'S JUST A FACT.  THERE IS NO PATH TO WHALE FROM LAND ANIMAL, OR FROM DINOSAUR TO BIRD.  iT CAN'T HAPPNE.  aND THE FACT THAT SCIENTISTS DON'T EVEN TRY TO SKETCH OUT A PATH IS HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE OF THE POSSIBLITIY THAT THEY KNOW THER IS NO WAY TO GET THERE SO THEY LEAVE IT ALL IN GENERAL TERMS.  tIME AKES IT POSSIBE.  nATURAL SELECTION DOES IT ALL.  ETC.

sOME mORE iNCONVENIENT pHYSICAL fACTS cONCERNING THE sTRATA AS rECORDS OF TIME pERIODS

tHIS IS A GREATION i'VE HAD FOR SOME TIME AND i THOUGHT i'D HAVE BEEN BLE TO ANSWER IT BY NOW.  i KEEP TRYING OUT VARIOUS yOU TUBE VIDEOS ON THE FOSSIL REORD AND PALEONTOLOGY AND SO ON BUT SO FAR i DON'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER.   

hERE'S THE QUESTION.  hOW MANY DIFFERENT FOSSILS ARE REPRESENTED IN EACH OF THE TIME PERIODS.   iN THE CAMBRIAN THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY THE CAMBRIAN "EXPLOSION" I WHICH A HUGE VARIEYT OF COMPLEX CREATURES SUPPOSEDLY SHOWED UP MORE OR LESS ALL AT ONCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, A GRET EXPLOSION OF LIFE AS THEY THINK OF IT.  sHOULDN'T WE THEN SEE THOSE SAME CREATURES IN ROUGTHLY THE SAME NUMBERS SHOWING UP IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT STRATA OR TIME PERIODS AS WELL?  aLONG WITH WHATEVER NEW FOSSILS ALSO SHOW UP?  aND THEN WITH THOSE NEW FOSSILS SHOUDLJ'T THE WHOLE COLLECTION KEEP SHOWING UP ABOVE THAT TOO, ALL BEING CARRIECDD THOUGH ALL THE STRATA AND TIME PERIODS TO THE VERY TOP OF THE GEOLOGICL COLUM?  

tHE SUPPOSED EXTINCTION EVENTS OF COURSE WOULD HAVE HAD AN EFFECT.  tHEY JUDGE SUCH EVENTS BY THE ABSENSE OF PARTICULAR LIFE FORMS IN STRATA ABOVE THE SUPPOSED OCCURRENCE OF SUCH AN EVENT.  aND THER HAVE EEN MANY OF THEM, ALL OF COURSE SUPPOSED TO HVE HAPPENED BECAUES OF THE ABSENSE OF SOME FOSSIL OR ALNOTHER WHERE THEY EXPECT IT TO SHOW UP.    sO i DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING EVEN STILL EXISTS TO ANSQER MY QUESTION.  wAS THERE AN EXTINCTION EVENT THAT WIPED OUT THE FOSSILS IN TEH CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION?  tHEY'D ALL BE THERE ABOVE THAT ROCK IN COMPARABLE NUU,MBERS OTHERWISE WOULDN'T THEY?  

i SUSPECT THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IN THIS QUESTION OF COURSE, THAT'S WHY i'M ASKING IT.  iF EACH SUPPOSED TIME PERIOD IS MOSTLY POPULATED BY FOSSILS OF THE PARTICULAR CREATURE SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM EARLYIER PERIODS TO BECOME CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS HIGHLY POPULATED PERIOD THAT CASTS DOUBT ON THE THEORY RIGHT THERE.  bECAUE PERSUMABLY EVERYTHING THAT LIVED BEFORE CONTINUED ON INTO THE FUTURE.  bARRING AN EXTINCTION EVENT.    aRE THERE AS MANY OF A GIVEN SPECIES PRESENT ABOVE THEIR SUPPOSED FIRST APPEARANCE IN A LOWER ROCK  AS SHOUJLD BE EXTPECTED OR NOT?  iF NOT THEN SURELY SOMETHING OTHER THAN EVOLUTION IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THESE STRATA AND THEIR SUPPOSED TIME PERIODS.

aaNOTHER QUESTION IS HOW COME WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH ALL SEASCAPES IN TEH LOWER ROCKS OF THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN N AND LATER ON IN THE UPPER ROCKS WE START TO GET TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPES WITH LAND ANOIMALS.  i'M THINKING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES AGAIN AS USUAL.  tHESE ROCKS ARE ALL STACKED ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER ANDYYET THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGES FROM BOTTOM TO TOP?  hAS THIS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND HOW?    sHOULDN'T THERE ALSO HAVE BEEN A LOT OF LAND AREA DURING THE PERIOD OF THE LOWER ROCKS EVEN IF THERE WASN'T ANY LAND LIFE TO SHOW OF IT?  bUT WE DON'T GET EMPTY STRATA, ONLY STRATA FILLED WITH FOSSIL SEA LIFE, RIGHT?   tHEN IN THE UPPER ROCKS OF CCOURSE THERE WERE ALSO SEAS, OCEANS IN THE WORLD DURING THOSE PERIODS TOO BUT ALL WE ARE GETTING IS THE LAND ANIMALS IN THOSE STRATA, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH.  tHESE STRATA EXTENTDFC ALL OVE THE EARTH.  bUT THE EARTH DIDN'T CHANGE FROM ALL SEASCAPE TO ALL LANDSCAPE EEVER THAT i RECALL ANYTONE THEORIZING.    i HOPE MY QUESTION MAKES SOME IND OF SESNE, i MAY NOT BE ASKING IT ALL THAT CLEARLY.R 

tHERE AREN'T ANY LAND ANIMALS IN THE LOWER STRATA BUT THERE ARE SOME SEA CREATURES IN THE UPPER STRATA ALONG WITH THE LAND ANIMALS AREN'T THERE?  oR ARE THER?  hWO DID THEY GET THERE IF SO?  

mAYBE SOMEONE HAS SADDRESED THESE UESTIONS SOMEWHERE, i'M JUT NOT ABLE TO FIND IT.  i'VE LOOKED AT VIDEOS ON PAELEOGRAPHY AND EVEN STRATIGRAPHY, NOT A LOT BUT SOME AND SDON'T SEE ANYTHING RELEAVNT.

bY THE WAY i PRAY TO GET ANSWERS TO SUCH QUESTIOJS.  lABTELY i'VE GEENGETTING THE     UESTIOS THEMSEVLES TO ASK LIKE THESE.  

dRAT, i KNJOW i'M GETTING OLD AND MY MEMORY IS BECOMING IFFY AT TIMES AND M FINGERS DON'T WAN T TO DO WHAT i WANT THEM TO DO AND IT'S ALL VERY FRUSTRATING.  dRAT.  

oOPS THAT WAN'T VERY cHRISTIAN OF ME, i'M SORRY lORD.  i'M SUPPOSED TO REJOICE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THESE, BECAUE ALgOD ALWAYS BRINGS GOOD OUT OF ALL THINGS FOR THOSE WHO LOVE hIM AND ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO hI S PURPOSES.  eVEN MY FAILURES.  IN FCT hE LIKES TO USE PEOPLE WHO ARE FAILURES TO DISPLAY hIS EXISTENCE AND POWER, AND i MUST BE A GOLDMINE OF FAILURES FOR hIM TO WORK WITH SO THANKS yOU lORD.

kEEP FORGETRTING TO ADD MY NEW EMAIL IN CSE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME AROUND AND UPGBRAID ME FOR MY FAILURES OR WHATEVER TOERH FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT MAY BECKON.

FAITHSWINDOW2MAIL.COM

tHERE IS AN EXPLANATORY NOTE ABOUT THIS YOU CAN FIND IF YOU PUT IN cONTACT poSSIBILITY IN THE SEARCH BOX TO THE AOVE LEFT.  THANKS.

Nibdat

Monday Sept nine

I mention in  a later ost that I did get more of a sense of what fossils are grouped together in different time periods and one thing did become clear, that there are both land and sea creatures buried int he same rock aka time period apparently fairly close together.  And this should by itself blie and disqualify the whole idea of time periods since according to the idea that they are a record of living tings tht lived in that period and were buried in those rocks you obviously couldn't have both land and crsea crfeatures buried in the same place.  

The questionj I'm asking above sounds pretty stupid ow that I know the answer since of course anyone who has studied the fossil record would know that there are both land and sea cretures in many of the rocks aka time periods.    they must have some way of accepting this as reasonable but I can't figure out how.  

Through most of this discussion I've contented myself with pointing out the wrojgn ideas of the evolutionists, but I might as well from time to time mention the right eidea of the creationjists, which hisch is that you can have both land and sea creatures i mone layer of rock if it was deposited by waves thta washed over the land during the Flood.

gOD sHOWED ME THE cAUSE OF TEH iCE aGE AND sCIENCE kIND OF aGREES bUT of COUSE THEY AHVE THE CAUSE ALL WRONG

 qOW, HOW INTERESTING.  i'VE BEEN WATCHING, OR MORE ACCURATELY, LISTENING TO A VIDEO ABOUT THE SNOWBALL EARTH AND THE SCIENTIST WHO HAS BEEN STUDYING IT, AND HE THINKS HE HAS PROVEN THAT THE GLACIERS DID AT ONE TIME COVER THE AREA OF THE EQATOR, TURNING THE WHOLE PLANET INTO A SNOWBALL AS IT EWERE.  

tTHEN THEY ASK THE QUESTION WHAT CAUSED IT, AND IN MY HEAD i'M GIVING MY ANSWER AS i WROTE IT OUT IN THE LAST POST,  WELL, THE fLOOD DID, AS IT DENUDED THE ATMOSPHERE OF ITS MOISTURE CANOPOY AND EXPOSED THE PLANET TO COLD SPACE, CAUSING THE GREAT HEAT BUILT UP BY THE GREAT UPHEAVAL i ALSO PUT ABOUT THAT SAME TIME, OR THE SPLITTING OF THE CONTINENTS AS THE TECTONIC PLATES STARTED PULLING APARET.   GREAT HEAT SUDDENLY EVACULAATED WOULD BRING ON AN ICE AGE.  i FIGURE gOD LED ME TO THIS UNDERSTANDING.

wELL, OF COURSE THIS SCIENTIST DOESN'T HAVE THE WORLDWIDE fLOOD IN HIS SCHOLARLY ARMAMENTARIUM, BUT HE DOES COME UP WITH SOMETHIG QUITE SIMILAR TO WHAT i CAME UP WITH.  hE TALKS ABOUT ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE GASES THTA IN THE RIGHT PROPORTION KEEP THE PLANETE'S CLIMATE TEMPERATE BUT CAUSING WARMING IF THERE ARE TOO \\\\\\       IF THE GASES ARE TOO MUCH, ND COLLING IF TOO LITTLE.  hE SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT cARBON dIOXIDE, i DON'T KNOW WHY HE FOCUSES ON THAT ONE BUT ANYWAY THAT'S THE ONE HE FOCUSES ON.   i'M SURE HE MUST BE RIGHT WHILE i JUST THINK IN TERMS OF GASES PLURAL AND MOISTURE CANOPY FOR THE EARLIEST SUCH CANOPY AS THEY CALL IT IN THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE.

aNYWAY SO HE FIGURES THAT FOR SOME REASO THERE WAS A DROP IN THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATOSPHERE AS THE AUSE OF THE SNOWBALL EARTH ICE AGE.  gOD TURNED ME INTO A REAL SCIENTIST i THINK WHE hE LET ME UNDERSTAND HOW THE GASES WOULCD HAVE DISAPPEARED AS A RESULT OF THE fLOOD AND ALLOWED SUCH COOLING.

HIS SCIENTIST, HOWEVER, SORRY i HAVEN'T CAUGHT HIS NAME YET, i'LL TRY TO GET IT, ANYWAY HE EXPLAINS THE REDUCTION IN CARBON DIXIDE AS THE RESTL T OF EWEATHERING, THE COMBINING OF CARBON DIOXIDE WITH WATER VAOR TO FORM ACIDE RAIN WHICH BINDS THE co TWO IN SOME FORM THAT TAKES IT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, THAT PART i HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW.  iN THE SEA IT FORMS LIMESTONE, THAT OO IS INTERESTING.  THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF LIMESTONE IN THOSE STRATA.  

NALLY WAS ABLE TO MAKE OUT THE TITLE OF THE VIDEO:  a sNOWBALL eRTH:  hOW THE iCE aGE nEARLY wIPED oUT aLL lIFE / cATASTROPHE.

tOO MANY SCIENTISTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE STORY AT THES POINT SO i DON'T HAVE HAT NAME BUT THE TITLE OUTHGT TO HELP.

S STUFF IS INTERSETING BECAUAE i ALWAYS THINK IN TERMS OF THE BIBLCIAL EXPLANATION AND TRY TO FIT IN WHAT SCIENTISTS KNOW WITH THE BIBLICAL RECORD.  tHREE ARE ALWAYS SOME ELEMENTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC  PICTURE THAT FIT AND SOME THAT DON'T FIT.   iN THIS CASE THERE WESEEM TO BE AMANY ELEMENTS THAT WFIT WITH TEH WORLDWIDE fLOOD AND A FOLLOWING ICE AGE AS i'VE BEEN RECONSTRUCTING IT INN MY HEAD.  aND BY THE WAY, AS FAR AS i KNOW i'M THE ON;LY ONE WHO HAS THOUGTH IN TERMS OF WHAT BROUGHT ON THE ICE AGE, i THINK gOD SHOWED IT TO ME AND i DON'T THINK EHTHERE ARE ANYC REATIONISTS OTHERWISE WHO HAVE MADE THE CONNECTION.  YES i WANT CREDIT AS \\FOR WHAT i DO ACCOMPLSIH HERE, i KNOW NOBODY WELL KNO i DON'T KNOW THAT BUT i FIGURE NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO NOTICE ME AND i'LL NEVER GET CREDIT FOR ANYWAYRTHING AND i DON'T WANT THE CREDIT AS MUCH AS i JJUST DON'T WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO GET IT WHO DOES'T SDESERVE IT.  i'M HAPPY ANONYMOUS AND i NOW IT'S GOD WHO GETS ALL THE CREDIT ANYWAY.  bUT YES IT DOES BOTHER ME THAT i KEEP PUTTING OUT MY THOUGHTS IN THIS PUBLIC WAY AND ANYONE COULD JUST STEAL THEM.  i WULD HOPE THAT cHRISTAINS WOULN'T BUT i'VE ALREADY SEEN SOME OF MY STUFF TAKEN UP BY cHRISTAINS.

aNSWAY, IT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED ABOUT THE EARTH DOS FIT INTO THE BIBLICAL PICTURE IN THE END.  iF IT WERE EVER RECOGNIZED THAT THE BIBLICAL STORY IS TRUE AND EVOLUTION A BIG FARCE THEN THAT'S WHERE THE SCIENTIFIC WORK WOULD WGO, TO UNDERSTANDING THE ARTH BEFORE , DURING AND AFTER TEH fALL AND THE FLOOD.  

aLTHUGH THIS SCIENTIST DOES THINK HE'S SHOW TN THT THE GLACIERS DID ONCE COVER THE EQUATOR, APPARENTLY IT HASN'T BEEN DFINITIVELY PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN THE CASE.  bUT THE DEATH OF ALL LIVING THINGS OR MOST OF THEM DOES FIT IN WELL WITH THE fLOOD STORY OF COURSE, SINCE IT WS THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT CATASTROHE TO KILL OFF ALL LAND LIFE, AND MOST OF SEA LIFE S WELL.  tHAT'S WHAT ALL THOSE FOSSILS ARE IN THE SO CALLED FOSSIL RECORD, AND THEY SHOULD BE A TREASURE TROVE OF INFORMATION AOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIFE ON THE PLANET BEFORE THE fLOOD IF SCIENCE EVER GOT SANE AND REOCGNIZED THT'S WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.    

gING BACK TO THE VIDEO NOW i'M WONDERING ABOUT THE TITLE SINCE SUPPOSEDLY THIS SNOWBALL EARTH OCCURRED SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION YEARS AGO BEFORE EVOLUTION BEGAN AND THERE WS ONLY CYANOBACTREIA LIVING ON THE PLANET.  iS THAT WHAT THEYARE TALKINGA BOTU?  

tHEY ALSO GIVE OTHER REASONS FOR THE COMING ON OF SUCH A CATASTROPHIC ICE AGE HAVING TO DO WITH THE REFLECTIVE PROTERTIES OF ICE AND WATER AND OTHER SUCH THINGS.   BUT IT STILL SEEMS THAT THE MOST BASIC REASON HAS TO HVE BEEN THE COLLAPSE OF THE GREENHOUSE CGAS CANOPY AS IT WERE AS BACK THEREN IT IS DECRIBE IN SCRIPTURE AT LEAST IN TERMS OF A WATER OR MOISTURE LADEN BELT AROUND THE PLANET WHICHN WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT GREENHOUSE GASEES TO, KEEPING IN WARMTH AND SO ON.  sO THAT WHHEN IT COLAPSED INTO THE HEAVY RAIN THATHAT BROUGHT ON THE FLOOD IT WOULD ALLOW HET TO ESCAPE AND AN ICE AGE WOULD HAVE EEN THE RESULT.  jUST ONE, THOUGH, ALL THT TIME AND MULTIPLE EVENTS EVOLUTIONJARY SCIENCE COEMS UP WITH HAS TO GO IF THEY WNAT TO TFIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON THIS PLANET.

iHAVE TO PICTURE nOAYH AND FAMILY NOW HAVING TO BUNDLE UP TO KEEP WARM AFTER TEHY DISEMBARKED FROM THEIR YEAR LONG SHELTER  RIDING ON THE OCEASN.  i DO WONDER HOW LONG THE WORST OF IT WOULD HAVE LASTED.  aLL THOAT COULD BE SCTUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY TOO i'M SURE.  NOT MUCH IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE ABOUT THE IMMEDIATE PERIOD AFTER THE fLOOD.  NOAH IS TOLD TO START EATING MEAT WHEREAS BEFORE THE PREDOMINANT DIET FOR ALL LIVING THINGS WAS PLANET LIFE, AND hE GAVE THEM THE RAINBOW AS A PROMISE THAT HE WOULD NOT fLOOD THE EARTH AGAIN.  THEN WE SEE THE FAMILIES OF HIS NSONS SPREADING OUT IN TH EARTH AND THEN WE JUMP AHEAD A FEW HNDRED HYEARS AT BEGIN THE STORY OF aGBRAHAM.  sO IF THERE WAS A LOT OF SNOW AND ICE IN THE mIDDLE EAST DURING THAT PERIOD IT ISN'T MENTIONED.\\\

i KEEP CONTINUING TO LISTEN TO THIS VIDEO ABOUT THE SNOWBALL EARTH.  iT GOT BORING IN THE PART ABOUT THE CYANOBACTERIA BUT NOW IT'S INTERESTING AGAIN, ALL ABOUT VOLCANOES.   hERE'S MY SCENARIO AGAIN:  aFTER THE fLOOD OR TWOARD THE END OF IT, i REALLY DON'T KNOW THE TIMING BUT IT COULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE DRAINING OF THE fLOOD OR IT COULD HAVE OCCURRED IN STAGES,B UTBUT IN ANY EVEN ALL THESE THINGS HD TO HAVE EEN RELATED AND RELATED TO THE END OF THE fLOOD.  THE TECTONIC PLATES SPLIT APART, THE aTLANTIC RIDGE WAS FORMED, MAGMA RISING UP FROM BENEATH THE SEA FLOOR IN THAT LONG RIBBON WE SEE TACED ON SOME MAPS AS IT WIDENED THE SEA FLOOR AND THE CONTINENTS SLID APART FROM THAT RIDGE.  THAT SPLITTING APART WAS OF COURESE ONE HUGE CATASTROPHIC VENT AND i EXPLAIN ALL THE ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES AND IN FACT ALL THE UNCONFORMITIES AND THE BREKAING UP OF THE STRATA WHEREVER WE SEE IT AND THE RISING OF THE MOUNTAINS EVERYWHERE, TO THAT EVENT, SOME TAKING TIME TO GET NDERWAY BUT ALL TRIGGERED AT THAT SAME MOMENT.  tHE fLOOD NEEDED SOMETHING TO CAUSE IT TO DRAIN.  wHERE WAS IT GOING TO GO?  sOME THINGK THE SEA FLOOR DROPPED.  pERHAPS IT DID.  pEHRPAS THE FLOUNDTAINS OF THE DEP THAT WERE THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE fLOOD BEAGAN CAME FROM BENEATH THE SEA FLOOR LEAVING A VACCUUM THAT WAS THEN THE SPACE THE SWATER WOULD DRAIN BACK INTO BUT THE SEA FLOOR WOULD HAV ETO DROP FOT HAT TO HAPPEN.>  tHAT WOULD CERTAIN FIT WITH THE TECTONIC SPLITTING.    

aND THEN OF COURSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN VOLCANOES, THOUSANDS OF THEM AS THE CONTININETS STARTED MOVEING AND TRIGGERING THEM, AS THAT MOVEMETN STILL DOW ON THE WEST COAST OF nORTH AN sOUTH aMERICA.  tHE MOVEMETN NOW IS EXTREMELY SLOW BUT IT BUILD S UP PRESSURE THAT EVENTUALLY GIVES MAY TO A BIG EARTHQUAKE AND THE ERUPTION OF VOLCANEOES AND SO ON.  wELL, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING WHEN THE CONTINENTS EGEGAN TO DRIFT APART, WELL PRETTY FAST AT FIRST BUT LATER MORE LIKE DRIFINTING, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT O VIOLENT ACTIVITY GOING ON.  sINCW THE ONLY LIVING THINGS WERE THE PEOPLE AND ANIMALS ON THE ARK AND EVERYTHINGELSE WAS SUPPOED TO DIE ANYWAY WE CAN SAY THERE WAS NO THREAT TO LIFE IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD REPOPULATE OVER TIME.  sOME SEA LIFE CONTINUED TO LIVE BUT MOST OF THAT DIED OFF TOO.  

aNYWAY THERE WULD HAVE BEEN ALL THESE VOLCANOES TRIGGERED BY THE TECTONIC MOVEMETN AND IT'S INTEREST THEN TO HEAR ABOUT ALL THAT VOLCANOIC ACTIVITY BEING PART OF THE PICTURE AS THESE SCIENTISTS DISCUSS IT IN THIS VIDEO ABOUT THE SNOWBALL EAERTH.  tHE IDEA IS THAT THE VOLCANOES SAVED THE DAY AND CAUSED THE ICE TO RETREAT.  sUPPOSEDLY THE ICE REMAINS FOR SOME TWETNY FIVE MILLION YEARS IF i RECALL CORRECTLY AND THEN THEE VOLCANOES ERUPTED.  wELL, i ONT' PAY MUCH ATTENTION TOH TO THE TIMETIMING FANTASIES OF THE SCIENTIEST.  yES i APPRECIATE SCIENCE WHEN IT DEALS WITH THINGS IT CAN REALLY SEE AND STUDY BUT TIME ISN'T ONE OF THEM.  aNYWAY.  iN MY SCENARIO ALL THIS WAS HAPPEING PRETTY MUCH AT THE SAME TIME.  THE ERATH STARTED SPLITTING, THE CONTINENTS STARTED MOVING THE VOLCANOES STARTED BLOWING UP AND SO ON.  a LOT OF HEAT WAS BEING VGENERATED DURING ALL THAT ACTIVITY AND MOST OF IT EXITED INTO SPAC3E.  tHAT'S WHAT BROUGH T ON THE ICE AGE WHETHER TO THE SNOWBALL DEGREE OR NOT, AND ONLY ONE OF THEM.  IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT OFVER TIME THE VOLCANOES COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WARMING THAT CAUSED IT TO RETREAT PERHAPS MORE RAPIDILY THTN IT WOULD HVE.  THERE WERE BOTH WRMING AND COOLING EFFECTS GOING ON.  iN THE END THERE WERE GLACIERS EXTENDING PRETTY FAR FROM THE POLES BUT RETREATING OVER THE MILENNIA BIT BY BIT.  vOLCANOES WOULD HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS AT FIRST BUT SLOWING DOWN SO THAT WE SEE ONLY ONE OR TWO NOW AND THEN TOGEDAY.  THE CONTINENTS ARE STILL DRIFINT APART BUT AT A MINUSCULE RATE.   THE "GREENOUSE GASES" HAVE BEEN RECONSTITUTED, PERHAPS MORE THAN WE WANT.  

tHE SNOALL VIDO GOES ON NOW INTO THE IDEA THAT THE RESULT OF ALL THIS IN THE END WAS THE GRETA EXPLOSINON O LIFE ON EARTH AS IT PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS FOR LIFE TO EVOLVE FROM THOSE EARLY BACTGERIA INTO MORE COMPLEX FORMS.  oF COURFSE THIS IS ALL POPPUYCOCK AND EVOLUTION IS GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BUT IT'S INTEREST ING TO THINGK ABOUT THE CHEMICAL CHANGES THEY THINK THEY CAN DETECT AND HOW IT ALL MIGHT RELATE TO THE fLOOD PERIOD.  nOT THAT i HVE ANU IDEAS AT THE MOMETN.  

tHE NATURE OF dna , OR EREALLY THENATURE OF THE GENOME OF A SPECIES, IS THAT ALL VARIATION IS VOCONFINED TO THAT GENOME.  aS i KEEP SAYING.  oH THEY DON'T THINK TOS, THEY ALL CARRY ON AS IF IT'S ALL OVOPENENDED YOU CAN JUMP FROM ONE GENOME TO ANOTHER SUCH AS READILY AS YOU CAN GET A BLUE EYED CHILD DRFROM BREOWN IEYED PARENTS.   THEY JUST AROUDN'T THINKING THESE VERY HIGH iw SCIENTIESTS.  tHEY JUST AREN'T THINKING.  hOW DO YOU GET OUTSIDE THE GENOME?  THEY DON'T EVEN REALLY ADDRESS THE     UESTION, THEY JUST TGO ON AND ON AS IF THE FACT THAT THERE IS ANY CHANGE AT ALL MEANS THAT CHANGE IS GOING TO GO ON AND ON UNTIL ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH HAVE COME FROM A SIGLE CELLED CREATURE.  tHIS IS ABOLUTE SCREAMING POPPYCOCK BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

ySTER DAY i THINK IT WAS i SAW ANOTHER VIDEO IN WHICH dARWIN'S GREAT GRANDSON INTERVIEWS ANE EXPERT IN PIGEON BREEDEDING, WHICH OF COURSE WAS A FAVORITE PASTIME OF dARWIN'S, AND THEY TALK ABOUT HOW IT WAS dARWIN'S IDEA THAT SINCE HE COULD GET ALL THESE WONDERFUL VARIATIONS IN PIGEONS FROM SIMLY SELECTING TRAITS TO BE REPRODUCED OVER AND OVER ATGAIN THAT THE SAME THING MUST BE WHAT HAPPENS IN NATURE AND PRODUCED ALL THE CREATURES WE SEE.

bUT REALLY, MY DEARS, BREEDING PIGEONS IS A MATTER OF BRINGING OUT WHAT IS ALREADY IN THEIR PIGEON GENOME.  yOU CAN'T GET THE ELABORATION OF A TRAIT UNLESS THAT TRAIT IS THERE IN THE GENOME AD IN THE CREATURE ITSELF IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN BEING TO SELECT IT.   aLL THE TRAITS THAT ARE GOING TO SHOW UP ARE PIGEON TRAITS.  THE WHOLE PIGEON GENOME HAPPENS TO HAVE GEENNES FOR GUISESS WHAT, PIGEON TRAITS.   sURFE ALL KINDS OF INTERESTING AND DRAMATIC POSSIBILITIES THAT YOU'D NEVER ASSOCIATE WITH YOUR TYPICAL PIGEON BUT STILL POSSIBILITIES WITHIN THE PIGEO THAT DO COME OUT UNDER SELECTION PRESSURE.   fANCY FEATERING, EXSPANDED CROPS AND CHESTS WNANDWHATNOT, WHATEVER PIGEON CHARACTERIISTIC YOU WANT TO ELABORATE YOU CAN ELABORATE UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.  bUT ALWAYS PIGEON AND ONLY PIGEON CHAARACTERISTICS.   

i WISH MY FINGERS WOULDN'T KEEP TRYING TO TYPE SOMETHIHNG OTHER THAN i WANT THEM TO TYPE.

bUT THEY TALK AS IF THEY AREN'T CONFINED TO THE PIGEON GENOME.  dAWKINS TALKS THT WAY TOO.  dARWIN DID OF COURSE AND i GUESS WE CAN GIVE HIM A BREAK CONSIDERING THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT GENETICS IN HIS DAY, BUT dAWKINS SHOULD KNOW BETTER, AND cOYNE AND ALL THE REST OF THEM.  

sLO THERE IS THIS FACT THAT OVER MANY GENERATIONS OF REPRODING ONE TRAIT TO THE EXLUCION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ALLELE, THAT OTHER ALLELE WILL EVENTUALLY DROP OUT OF THE POPULATION ALTOGETHER AND LEAVE ONLY THE ONE FOR THE TRAIT, IN HOMNOZYGOUS FORM, TWO OF THE SAME ALLELE ON THE ONE GENE FOR LOTS OF TRAITS THAT MAKE UP THE NEW BREED OR RACE OF WHATEVER HAS COME BACK THROUGH SELECTION DOMESTIC OR NAUTRAL.   wHEN YOU GET HOMOZYGOSITY FOR SO MANY TRAITS AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE IN A WHOLE POPULATOIN YOU HAVE COME TO THE END OF THE POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER CHANGE, FURTHER EVOLUTION AS IT WERE, VFURTHER VARIATION.  yOU HAVE YOUR PUREBRED TAIT, YOUR PUREBRED ANIMAL.  aND THAT IS THE END OF THAT.  iT'S COME TO AN END INSIDE THE SPECIES GENOME AS IT WERE.  yOU NEVER GOT ANYWEHRE NEAR LEAVING THE GENOME AND YOU'VE ALREADY RUN OUT OF GENETIC MATERIAL FOR FURTHER EVOLUTION AS IT WERE.

eVLTION CAN'T HAPPEN mR. dAWKINS, mR. cOYNE.  nO, IT ISN'T TGRUE, mR. cOYNE.  yOU ARE LIMITED TO THE CREATURE'S GENOME.  aND  yES EVEN IF YOU ADD MUTATIONINTO THE MIX BECAUSE ALL MUTATION DOES IS AT BEST ADD A VARIATION TO THE TRAIT, CHANGING ONE GENE THAT IS ALREADY IN THE GENOME TO DO SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BUT IT'S STILL THAT GENE THAT BELONGS TO THAT GENOME AND NOTHINN   NOT SOMETHING ELSE.  

hey.  lISTEN UP.

nOTHING EVOLVED AFTER TEH fLOOD THOUGH LOTS OF ANIMALS VARIED ENORMOUSLY AND MOVED OUT FROM THE AREA WHERE THEY DISEMBARKED IT VARIOUS NIGHES ALL OOVER THE PLANET WHERE THEY DEELOPED THEIR OWN POPULATIONS OF SUBSPEAKCIES OF EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN SAVED ON THE ARK.  

sCYANOBACTERIA NEVER BECAME ANYTHING BUT CYNANOBACTERIA.

tHEY NEVER EVEN ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM OR TRY TO ANSWER IT, WHICH MAKES ME THINK THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS.   cOME ON, YOU GUYES, YOU HAVE ETO EXPLAIN HOW YOU GET THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT CREATES A WHOLE NEW GENOME FROM AN EXISTING ONE WHEN IT'S SO CLEAR THAT ALL YOU EVER GET IN ALL THE MULTITUDINOUS VARIOANTS WE ESEE IN LIVING THINGS IS VARIATOINS ON WHAT THEIR PARTICULAR GENOME HAS ALREADY CODEND WITHIN IT.  cOME con YOU GUYS.

cREATIONIST aLERNATIVE VISION OF aLL THAT sTUFF THE eVOLUTIONISTS aPPROPRIATE TO tHEIR sUPERIOR UNDERSTANDING

 iT'S ESY TO GET DISCOURAGED  AS A CREATIONIST BECAUSE THE EVOLUTIONISTS HVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ELABORTING THEIR THEORY AND STUFFING THE LITERTURE WITH THEIR STUDIES OF ALL THE FACETS OF BIOLOTY AND GENETICS AND GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY SO THAT THE CONTRARY VISION OF THE CREATIONIST CAN'T GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE AS IT WERE.

iT'S EITHER AMUSING OR FRUSTRATING DEPENDING ON MY MOOD TO READ OR LISTEN TO THE USUAL DESCRIIPTIONS OF EARTHLY PHENOMENA FROM THE EVOLUTIONIST POINT OF VIEW, AS THEY GO ON AND ON CONJURING UP HISTORICAL SCENARIOS ABOUT OF SCANT CLUES AND JUST ABOUT NEVER EVER DESCRIBE THE CLUES THEMSELVES SO THAT A PERSON COULD APPLY A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION TO THEM.  oR AT LEAST QUESTION THEIR EIINTERPRETATION.

sO WE HEAR ABOUT HOW A PARTICULAR CREATURE DEVELOPED A STRATEGY UNDER CERTAIN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, AND HOW THE CILIMATE WAS CHANGING IN THIS OR THAT TIME PERIOD FROM DRY AND HOT TO WET AND COOLER OR SOME SUCH, BUT IT'S THE STORY WE GET, NOT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF, NOT THE LITTLE CLUES ON WHICH THEY BUILD THEIR HISTORY.   sO cOYNE FLATLY ANNOUNCES THT THIS OR THT EVOLVED FROM THIS OR THAT IN SUCH AND SUCH A TIME FRAME AND BRANCHED OFF OR WHATJOT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND THEN TELLS CREATIONISTS WE BETTER BELIEVE IT OR ELSE.  cUZ HE BELIEVES IT, AND HE BELIEVES IT SO INTENSIVELY THAT HE DOESN'T NEED TO BOTHER TO TRACE OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT LED HIM THERE.  sI GE;S GIT  sO HE'S GOT A CREATURE THT IS FOUND IN DIFFERENT VRIATIONS IN LAYERS ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER, SOME LARGER AND SOME SMALLER AND JUT CDECLARES THAT  THEY REPRESENT THE EVOLUTION OF THE SAME CREATURE AND THT IN SOME TIME FRAME IT WAS SMALLER AND IN SOME LARGER BECAUSE OF THE EINNVIRONMENT OF THE TIME, WHICH OF COURSE HE DOESN'T EXPLAIN IN ANYH CASE.  

tHIS CAN BE AMUSING, SOETIMES EVEN MAKE ME LAUGH OUT OLOUD BEAUE OF COURSE i HAVE MY OWN PRETTY SOLIDLY FORMED IDEA OF HOW THINGS HAPPENED THAT IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS.  THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CREATURES IN THOSE LAYERS BY MIY LIGHTS, NOT THE EVOLUTION OF ONE SPECIES BUT ENTIRELYDIFFERE VARIETIES OF THE SAME SPECIES THAT ALL COEXISTED AT THE SAME TIME.  THEYH KJUST HAPPENED TO GET BURIED IN DIFFERENT LAYERS.  hE'SLL POINT TO OSMETHIHNG HE IS CERTAIN IS THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF TWO SPECIES BUT BASED AS FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY ON THE FCT THAT IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE IT MUST BE THAT ANCESTOR IF YOU BELIEVE THE THEORY BUT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE THEORY IT'S JUST ANOTHER CREATURE THAT EXISTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ONCES HE IDENTIFIES AS ITS DESCENDANTS.    

aLL THESE GUYS FIND A LOT OF CTIVITY IN THE STRATA.  i FIND A LOT OF DEAD THINGS THAT GOT WASHED UP ON THE LAND IN THE FLOOD.  

iT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR ABOUT THE PHENOMENA NEVERTHELESS, A LOT OF THINGS DID HAPPEN IN THE PAST THAT i WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ALTHOUGH i HAVE TO IGNORE THEIR TIME FRAME, MAYBE USE IT TO SEE IF OSMETHIGN CAME BEROFORE OR ANFTER SOMETHING ELSE BUT OTHERWISE FORGET THE MILLIONS OF YEARS.  aND SO ON.  sO i'M INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY CALL sNOWBALL EARTH FOR INSTANCE.  wHEN THE GLACIATION SPREAD FROM THE POLES TO VERY NEAR THE EQUATOR.  VERY INTERESTING.  tHEY THINK THERE WER EABOUT FIVE ICE AGES, i FIGURE THERE WAS ONE AND IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FORMED SOON AFTE THE END OF THE fLOOD.  THE PRE fLOOD WORLD WAS PRETTY TEMPERATE AND HUMID TO JUDGE FROM SCIRPTURE REFERENCES TO IT, THE THTHEN THE fLOOD OF COURSE WOULD HVE DEVASTATED THE ENTIRE PLANET AND LALAID DOWN ALL THOSE LAYERS OF SEDIMENTS WITH ALL THOSE DEAD CREATURES IN THEM.  THEN AS I FIGURED IT OUT SOME TIME AGO, AND YEAH i KNOW YOU THINK i'M A NUTCASE BUT SO WHT, ANYWAY AS i FIGURED IT OUT IT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME THAT THE CONTIENTS SPLIT APRAT ND STARTED THEIR DRIFT WITH A BANG THAT HAS SLOWED OVER TIME TO ITS CURRENT HARLY PERSCEPTIBLE RATE.  i WOUJLD ALWAYS GET A LOT OF OBJECTIONS TO SUCH A SCENARIO BECAUSE i HAVE IT ALL HAPPENING FAIRLY VIOLENTSLY AND THE CONTEINTENTS MOVING TOO FAST ACCORDING TO THEM AT THE START OF THE SPLITTING, BUT THEN , THANKS TO THE lORD'S PROMPTING i HAVE NO DOUBT, i REALIZED THT PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE GREAT HEAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY ALL THAT ACTIVITY WOULD HAVE RAPIDLY EVACUATED INTO THE \\\\SPACE BECAUSE THE CANOPY OF MOISTURE THAT HAD COVERED THE EARTH BEFORE THE fLOOD HAD FALLEN IN FORTY DAYS AND IGHTS OF RAIN AND WOULD HAVE LEFT THE EARTH EXPOSED TO SPACE.  METEORS TOO, LIKE THE ONE THEY LUAGHABLY THINK KILLED THE DINOSAJURS.  METIORS WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE UPHEAVAL.    aNYWAY THE APID EVACULATION OF HEAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ON THE ICE AGE, one ICE AGE, THE "SNOWBALL" EARTH THAT EXTENDED SO CLOSE TO THE EQUATOR.  hOW LONG IT LASTED i DON'T KNOW BUTG CERTAINLY NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS.   i FIGURE IT'S BEEN GRADUALLY RETREATING EVER SINCE IT WS FORMED, IN SMALL INCREMENTS WITH OCCASIONAL ADVANCES FOLLOWING RETREATS AND SO ON UNTIL IT'S PRETTY MUCH OVER WITH BY NOW, NOT COMPLETELY SINCE WE STILL HAVE SOME GLACIATION AT THE POLLES OF COURSE, BUT ALMOST, AND IF YOU NEED A N EXPLANATION FO CLIMATE WARMING THERE YOU HAVE IT.

tHE SCIENTISTS ARE VERY DETAILED IN THEIR STUDIES OF THE FOSSIL RECORD , WHERE EACH FOLSSIL IS FOUND IN THE PARTICULAR SLAYER OF SEDIMETN AND SO ON, SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT EVOLVED FROM WHAT IN WHAT TIME FRAME .  THEY'VE AMASSESD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DATA.  i THINKA LOT OF IT WOULD TURN OUT TO BE VERY USEFUL TO A CRETINIST BASED SCIENCE IF WE EVER GET THAT FAR BACK TO SANITY, BUT i SUPPOSE SOME OF IT WOULD REMAIN PECULIAR TO THE EVOLIUTIONIST FRAME OF REFERENCE AND NOT USEFUL.   BUT IN A CREATINJIST FRAMEWORK WE'D STILL WANT TO STUDY ALL THE LIVING THINGS THAT LIVED BEFORE THE fLOOD ADN THERE WERE LOTS OF CREATURES THAT NO LONGER LIVE AMONG US.  LL VERY INTERESTING STUDIES.  J  yOU KNOW, LIKE THOSE DINOSAURS THAT LIVED BEFORE THE fLOOD AND GOT KILLED OFF IN THE fLOOD, NOT BY A METEOR.  

oH WELL.

jERRY cOYNE tHINKS hE'S pROVED THTA EVOLUTION IS TRUE

 Jerry Coyne wrote a book titled Why Evolution Is True which I read many years ago by now and have oforgotten completely, but I just ran across a presentation by him on You Tube on the same subject as his book.  And as usual I find him claiming things are facts which right before our very eyyes show themselves clearly NOT to be facts.  Funny how tht is with these scientists who are so committed to evidentiary proof and scientific reasoning etc etc etc.

Capturing URLs is very difficult for me byut you can find the talk at Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne if you want to check it out.

The first point he makes that I want to address is that "evolution occurs" which he isllustrates with the fact that "populations change" meaning they change genetically over time .   So a herd of something or other ove time will coe to look a bit different than it stat out looking and mayve eventually quite a bit different and so on.   OK, no problem.

But my problem is that this is not evolution.  This is variation, genetic variation that is built into the creature's genome wnand which is completely confined tot aht genome.  I've talked about this in previous posts.  Each generation is slightly different from the previous because of sexual recombination of the genes, or alleles which are alternate versions of a gene.  father donates one allele, mother donates the other and together they produce a trait in the offspring tht slightly differs fromn the same trait in the parents, not always but usually.  Over many generations these changes can add up to very big differences especially since different individuals come into the reproductive line and contribute alleles.  

this is not evolution.  You can't get from one species to another this way, youi can only get variations on the same species this way.  that is because the variations occur within the existintg geness and those casame genes are inherited from generation to generation, only with different varersions of them show ing up in greater or smaller numbers by chance.   

Evoutohnj guys like Dawkins and Coyne talk as if this sort of change is open ended, that it goes beyond the collection of traits belonging to that particular species or organism.  They seem to take it for granted without giving it a second thought.  but how could it?  The change occurs withint he given properties of the genoe, it needs nothing new added to it for the change to occur.  if mutationj should occur, which is the usual idea of how you gent something new, the mutation is a change to the gene that is built into the genome so whatever change the mutation adds stays withint tht genome for tht species or orgnaism and it is a change in a particlar trait, it doesn't change the trait itself, just gives it a diffdfernte color or texture or other characteristic tht pertains onoly to tht trait.  Whatee is already in the genome defines the limit of what sort of characteristics are possible.  It's already there in the genome.  You can't get something brand new tht isn't alreayd potential withinjt he genme.  So it isn't evolution.  You can call it microevolution, or some do, but it isn't evolution, it's merely built in variation, what Mendel showed could make peas with blue flowers or pink flowers, what we all know can make for blue eyes or brown eyes and so on.  It's there already and that is all that is there.

Anher way change is limited to the genome is in the fact that if a particular trait is heavlily selected over many generations it will become genetically fixed or homozygous as one allele will be paired with the same allele and the variant allele will cgradually drop out of the poulation.  When you get a lot of homozygosity, which is what greeders get when they get a purebred animal, which supposedly could also occur in the wild though I think it's really only seen in the cases of bottleneck suck as the cheetah,.  Anywayh this is often the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Variation, or "efolution" sotops happening when you get homozygosity to a great degree in a population.  So at the point when you are geetting the most well established traits, as in a sdomestic breed, that's when you stop getting vevolution as it were.  Youj can never get outside thegenome.

So, no, evolution does NOt OCCUR, OR AT LEAST THIS IS NO PROOF OF IT.

cO cOYNE'S FIRST OINT IS THAT EVOLUTION OCCURS, THEN HIS SECOND OINT IS THAT IT OCCURS GRANTUALLY, USUALLY, NOT ALWAYS BUT USUALLY, WHICH HE GOES ON TO SAY MEANS THAT YOU DON'T GET A POPULATIO OF DINOCAURS SUDDENLY TURNING INTO TA POPULATION OF BIRDS, IT HAPPENS GRADUALLY OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME.  

eXCPET IT CAN'T BECUASE DINOCAURS CAN ONLY VARIY ACCORDING TO THEIR DINOSAUR GENOME, THEY CANNOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE TRAITS OF A BIRD THAT ARE NOT ALREADY POSSESS ED BY THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN TRAITS.   yET cOYNE JUST BLITHLELY CARRIES ON, AS THEY ALL DO, AS IF IT'S JUST A FACT THAT REPTILES GRADUALLY CHANGED INTRO BIRDS OVER TIME.   fUNNY HOW THEY THINK THEY ARE APPEALING TO EVIDENCE.  wHERE IS THE EVIDENCE HERE?

THE HIS POINT THREE IS SPECIATION.  THE BRANCHING OF A SPECIES INTO TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES.   hIS NEXT POINT IS GOING TO BE THT SUCH BRANCHED SPECIES CN TRACE THEIR ANCESTRY BACK TO A COMMON ANCESTOR, REVERSING THIS PICTURE.   

hIS FITH POINT IS THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS WHAT CAUES EVOLUTION, IT'S THE EMCHANISM THAT BRINGS ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THE CREATURE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

hAVING LISTED THE FIFE POINTS HE CONSIDERS TO BE CONSTITUENTS OF EVOLUTION HE IS NOW GOING TO GO ON TO GIVE THE EVIDENCE FOR THEM.  i CAN HARDLY WAIT.

i THOUGHT HE AS GOING TO GO BCK THROUGH HIS LIST AND START WITH SHOWING EVIDENCE FOR POPULATIONS CHANGING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE FROM SPECIES TO SPECIEAS.   wELL, HE GOES INSTEAD TO THE IDEA THT THINGS EVOLVED FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX AS SUPPOSEDLY SHOWN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, WHICN HE CLAIMS IS VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD NOW, THEY KNOW ALL THE DIFFERENT LAYERS AND THEY KNOWN THE DAING OF THEM AND SO ON.  aS FOR EVIDENCE OF SIMPLE TO COMPLEX WELL THAT'S A PRETTY SUBJECTIVE THING BUT IT'S GOOD ENOUVHG FOR HIM APPARENTLY TO DECLARE IT A FACT.  iT ALL JUST looks LIKE WHAT WE WOULDE EXPECT OF THINGS EVOLVING FROM ONE KIND OF CREATURE TO ANOTHER.  jUST LOOKS THTA WAY TO US.  THAT'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.  

fROM SHICH HE MAKES THE SUDDEN LEAP TO THE DECLARATION THAT THIS VIOATES THE CLAIM THAT LIVING THINGS WERE ALL MADE AT ONE TIME.   wELL, SURE IT DOES IF IT'S TRUE BUT HE HAS'T REALLY PROVED IT THOUGH HE THINKS HE HAS.   

sO NOW i HAVE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THE LAYERS OF ROCK IN WHICH THE FOSSILS ARE FOUND COULD NOT POSSIBLY EVER HAVE BEEN ON THE EARTHLS SURFACE DURING SOME LONG PERIOD OF MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, OR EVEN FIVE MINUTES FOR THT MATTER SINCE NOTHING WHTEVER DCOULD LIVE N OR ON SUCH A SURFACE, A HOMOGENEUOUS SLAB OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRAIGHT AND FLAT AND IN SOME CASES MANY HUNDREDS OF GFEET THICK COVERING THOUSANDS UPOHN THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES, SPANNING CONTINENTS.  i GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS FACT HAS NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS.  iT ALMOST DIDN'T EVEN CROSS MINE.  NOBODY EVER BRINGS IT UP, EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW THE ROCKS REPRESENT TIME PERIODS IS JUST DECLARED AS FACT AND THEIR PHYSICAL CHARCTERISTICS ARE RDLY CONSIDERED AT ALL.  VERY ODD BEAUSE WHEN YOU DO CONSIDER THEM YOU CAN'T BY ANY AMOUNT OF CLEVER REARANGINGS OF THIGS MAKE THEM FIT INTO THE SCENARIO OF A TIME PERIOD ON PLANET EARTH.  yOU CAN'T.  yOU CAN'T.  IT ISN'T POSSIBLE.  tHOSE ROCKS DO NOT REPRESENT TIME PERIODS.  THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THERE NEVER WERE ANY TIME PERIODS.  tHOSE ROCKS WERE ALL LAID DOWN BY THE SAME PROCESSES, WHATEVER THOSE PROCESSES WERE, AND MOST PROBABLY ONE AFTER ANOTHER IN A FIARLY SHOT PERIOD OF TIME.  THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THEM THAT SUGGESTS LONG PERIODS OF TIME OR ANY KIND OF HABITABLE ENVIRONETN WHERE ON LAND OR IN SEA.  tHE Y ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS.  THEY ARE ROCKS IN WHICH ARE BURIED BAZILLIONS OF LIVING THINGS FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX, FROM SEA CREATURE TO LAND CREATURE.  

tHERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF GOING ABOUT THIS WHICH ISN'T QUITE SO DRASTIC AS THE WHOLE THING COMING DOWN TO A SLAB OF ROCK, AND THAT'S THE IDEA THT EACH TIME PERIOD DID HAVE A NORMAL SURFACE, IN MANY OF THEM IT WAS A SEASCAPE SURFACE, AND THE LAND SURFACES COME KHIGHNER UP IN THE STRATA.  aNYWAY WITH A NORMAL SEA SCAPE THIS ROCK THAT ENDS UP IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN WOULD HAVE BEEN FORMED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, COLLECTING THE DEAD CREATURES IN IT.  fOR SOME REASON THIS PARTICULAR SEDIENT COMES TO AN END, QUITE STRAIGHT AND FLAT NEVERTHELESS, AND ANOTHER STARTS TO FORM ABOVE IT, AND THIS NEXT ONE FOR SOME REASON CAPTURES A SDIFFERENT SET OF CREATURES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE EVOLVLVED FROM THOSE IN THE EALIER TIME EPPRIOR WITHHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE SEDIMENTARY ROCK BENAEATH IT.    tHEN THIS NEXT PERIOD COMES TO AN END TAND A NEW SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITION STARTS AON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ONE, A NEW SEDIMENT AND A NEW COLLECTION OF CREATURES GET BURIED IN IT THT LOOK LIKE THEY EVOLVED FROM THE CREATURES IN THE ROCK NOW BEENEATH IT.  

eVENTUALLY WE START GETTING LANDSCAPES AND NOW IT'S HARDER TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SEDIMENT CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE AT THE BOTTOM AS ALWAYS, ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ROCK, BUT JUST TO LOOK AT THE STRATA YOU HAVE TO CONCLUCE THAT THEY AREWERE ALL FORMED BY THE SAME PROCESSES.  nOW WE'RE GETTING LAND ANIMALS INSTREAD OF SEA CREATURES.

iN THIS SCENARIO AT LEAST THERE IS A LIVING SCPACE FOR THE ANIMALS RATHER THAN JUST WROCK BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THAT IT WOULD ALL COME DOWN IN THE END TO THAT ROCK OAND ONLY THAT ROCK STACKED ON THE ROCKS FROM THE PREVIOUS SIME PERIOD.    aND THERE IS STILL THE QUESTION WHY ON EARTH WOULD TIME ON THIS PLANET SORT ITSELF INTO LAYERS OF ROCK ANYWAY?  wHY WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR ERA OF EVOLUTION BY A PARTICULAR ROCK?  nONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL AND YET THEY GO ON TLAKING AS IF IT MAKES SENSE.  

 cOYNE SAYS A LOT MORE THAT i'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT SO i SUPPOSE i'LL AHVE TO LISTREN TO IT AGAIN AND COME BACK TO IT. bUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS i CAN TOUGH CH ON AT THIS POINT. 

hE CONSIDERS VESTIGIAL ORGANS TO BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.  HE DOESN'T USE THE TERM JUNK dna FOR SOME REASON BUT THAT'S WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT BROKEN GENES THT CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE ONCE CODED FOR A LOST FUCNTION OR VESTIGIAL ORGAN.  hE THINKS CREATIOMNIST CAN'T ACCOUNT FO R THESE THINGS BUT ACTUALLY i THINKI i CAN AND i'VE BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS NOW.  wE LIVE IN A FALLEN WORLD, AND EVERYTHING IS DETERIORATING.  oUR BODIES ARE SUBJECT TO ALL KINDS OF DETERIORATION PROCESSES, DISEASES AND DEATH.  iT'S SEEMED TO ME THT WHA TJUNK dna IS IS A RECORD OF MANY FORMER FUNCTIONS THAT WERE POSSESSED BY US BEFORE TEH fALL WHEN WE HAD GREAT STRENGTHS AND POWERS AND PROTECTIONS OF ALL SORTS THAT WE'VE SINCE LOST.  hE MENTIONS THE ABILITY TO MAKE vITAMIN c WHICH MANY ANIMALS HAVE BUT WE DON'T, OUR GENE FOR IT IS BROKEN.  hE ALSO SAYS THAT HUMAN EMBRYOS AT FOUR WEEKS HAVE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A OK SAC ONLY IT'S EMPTY.  hE SAYS THERE ARE THREE GENES, ALL BROKEN, THAT CODE FOR YOKYOYOLK.  iNTERESTING.  sO i'D SAY THAT IS PROBABLY A PROVISION gOD BUILT INTO THE EMBRYONIC STANGE FOR NOURISHING THE NEW BABY THAT SUCCUMBED TO THE DISEASE PROCESS OF THE fALL, MUTATIOHNS BEING A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL OF THAT DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS.  tHERE ARE MANY THINGS WE SEEM TO BE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT THAT NO DOUBT WE'D BE A LOT STRONGER IF WE HAD THEM, WOULD LIVE LONGER AND BE LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO DISEASES AND ALL THAT.  a YOLK SAC IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE PROTECTIVE DEVICES WE NO LONGER HAVE.  

i DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN OUR GETTING A THICK COAT OF HAIR AROUND THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS IN THE WOMB THOUGH.  a GENE GONE CRAZY?  aN ADAPTATION TO THE ICE AGE WE NO LONGER NEED?  nO IDEA REALLY.  oR THE VESTIGIAL LIMBS OF WHALES AND DOPHINS.  bUT i'LL PRAY ABOUT IT.

aPPARENTLY WE ALSO USED TO HAVE MUCH MORE POWERFUJL SMALLING ABILITY AS THAT IS ANOTHER CAPACITY LOST TO BROKEN GENES ACCORDING TO cOYNE.

wHAT HE CALLS EXAMPLES OF BAD DESIGN, OR MAHY OF THEM ANYWAY, ARE ALSO EXPLAINABLE IN TERMS OF LOST FUNCTIONS DUE TO THE fALL.  iT'S REALLY TOO BACD THAT SOME CREATIONJIST APPARENTLY DON'T THINK OF THIS WORLD AS FALLEN, SO THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR PERFECT DESIGN AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THIS WORLD IS FAR FAR FAR FROM THE PERFECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD AND THT  FACT SHOULD EXPLAIN A LOT OF THINGS THAT OTHERWISE EVOLUTION EXPLAINS BWETTER.  

mA6YBE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE EXAMPLE HE GIVES OF THE OCEANIC ISLANDS WHICH MADE NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL.  i CAN'T SEE HOW CREATIONISM HAS ANY HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THAT SOME KINDS OF ANIMSAL WOULD BE FOUND ON DISTANT ISLANDS RATHER THAN OTHER KIDNS.  THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK EVOLUTIONH EXPLAINS THAT BETTER AT ALL.    

i

to  e congtinued