hARD TO kEEP mY mOOD uP wHEN THE wORLD IS FfALLING aPRART

 Maybe I'm bipolar.  My mood shifts a lot these days.  I'll get a surge of energy to pursue the issues involved in the political war, or those involved in evolution versus creationism, and go for some time energiezed and involved, and then sucddenly I crash.  I can't stand living in this world another minute, we're all going down under a \n avalanche of lies and ther's no way we are going to be able to get those who belive in the lies to change their minds.  It isn't going to happen.  Ijust want to die or, preferably, be raptured,  I just don't want to be here any more.  

this mood just descended on my after hearing the first part of an interview of Jerry Coyne by Coleman Hughes in which Coyne thinks displaying the range of supposed human skulls from millions of years ago to the present is to his mind absolute proof of evlution, followed by the wisecrack that there's no way kangaroos could have gotten from Ararat to Australia ha ha ha.

No chn No chance of cose do I hVE OF CONVINCING HIM OF ANYTHING OR ANYBODY ELSE COMMITTED TO EVOLUTION, DREARY FACT.  fIRST OF ALL THERE ARE NO MILLLIONS OF YERAS, IF YOU THINK THROUGH THE STRATA IN WHICH THE FOSSILS ARE EMBEDDED YOU SHOULD IF YOU HAVE HALF A BRAIN BE ABLE TO REALIZE PRETTY SOON THAT THE EARTH IS NOT MILLIONS OF YERAS OLD AND i'VE GIVEN THREE DIFFERENT ANGLES ON THAT PHENOMENA TO PROVE ITG.  tHE TIMING OF THOSE SKULLS IS BOGUS  sOME HAVE TO BE ABPES AND SOME HUMAN AND THER'S NOTHING TO SAY THEY DIDN'T ALL LIVE ON EARTH AT THE SAME TIME, AS ALL THOSE FOSSILS IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN MOST SURELY DIDD, LIVED BEFORE THEf  fLOOD AND DIED IN THE fLOOD.  hE WON'T SKIP A BEAT THOUGH, HE'LL JUST LAUGH IT OFF AND NOT GIVE IT A THOGUTH.

aS FOR KANAOOS GETTING FROM THE ARK TO aUSTRALIA i'VE ARGUED THAT THE TECTONIC PLATE MOVEMETN THAT SPLIT THE CONTINENTS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE fLOOD AND BEGAN JAT THAT TIME, WAS NO DOUBT THE CAUSE OF THE RECEDING OF THE WATERS.  tHAT BWINGS THE CASE THERE AWAS PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE ANIMALS TO SPREAD OUBT CFROM THE ARK ONTO WHAT WOULD BECOME OTHER CONTINENTS.  i'VEW GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT TO ALL THESE THINGS.  iT WOJULD BE FUN TO GET TO TALK TO SOMEONE ABOUT IT ALL BUT i'LL NO DOUBT BE DEAD FIRST.  oR RAPTURED.  tHAT WOULD BE MUCH NICER.

+++_\HE DESTRUCTION OF MY NATION IS GETTING ME DOWN, THE IRRATIONAL EMBRACE OF EVOLUTION THINKING IT'S SCIENCE WHEN IT'S NOT IS GETTING ME WDOWN.  

wELL, IT FITGUREES.  tHIS FALLEN WOLD IS COMING TO ITS EINEVITABLE END.  tHE RPATURE SURELY MUST BE JUST AROUND THE CORNER, FOLLOWED BY THE HORRORS OT THE gREAT tRIBULATION WHICH i QWOULSN'T WISH ON ANYWAYHONE BUT NOBODY LISTENS TO ME SO AL Li CAN DO IS CRY FOR THEM.  

mISSNG LIN?  NE OR TWO CREATURES THAT HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO SPECIES?  GOOD GRIEF.  dO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY GRADATIONS OF CREATURES THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE A TRANSITION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER?  yOU GUYS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT THINKIO AND YET YOU THINK YOU ARE THE THINKER AND CREATIONISTS ARE NOT.  tHE INSANITY IS REALLY GETTING TO ME.

i'VE RPVED THAT EVOLUTION COULDN'T HAPPEN, WITH THREE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMETNS AND THREE GEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.  yEAH i HAVE.  aND i'M SURE OTHER CREATIONISTS HAVE RPVOED IT IN THEIR OWN WAY TOO.  

\\

_

Two Different Kinds of Scientific Problems Requiring Two Different Kinds of Scientific Methodologies

 Just sitting here pondering my last post about Coyne, his take on religion, the fact that he judges th empirical claims of biblical revelation to be false based on the science he follows although that science is really limited in exactly the same way  it is limited for followers of the bible.  You can't study the past the same way you can study the facts of life, the laws of nature and so on, tht exist continuously in the present.  Whether you like to think so or not you have to resort to a lot of speculation and interpretation rather than anything you can point to as objective fact.  Again I refer to the fossil record:  it is established by fact entirely based on plausibility and not aon anything empirically testable.  Same with natural selection beyond its observable operations on or within a species population.  

If yo ca observe it or have direct expreience of it you can do the kine of science he thinkshe's doing on evolution but isnot because evolution isn't observable or directly experienceable just because the main claims made for it are in the pst where nobodey can observe them happening.  Science of the sort we think of as science depends on seeing or experiencing, things we can repeat over and over again and see over and over againas they do what we are ob  studying.  

If we are studying something that happened once in the past, such as the Flood of Noah or the evo;ution of fish to amphibian we can't do that kind of science on it.    We need eighther some kind of phyiscla observable facts to point to or we need witnesses to the event.  actually we have both in the case of the Flood, but we have neither in the case of evolution from fish to emphibian.  Neither.  It's ALL sepculation.  Yert we are told to treat it as fact.  Supposedly it's that well supported.  By what though?  The fossil record?  But that itself isn't well supported and as I keep trying to make clear is belied by the fact that the sedimentary layers fossils are found in can't possibly represent time periods.  

  But my point is that we are talking about two different kinds of scientific study, one bsed on observation and repeatability, the other on witness testimony or interpretation of clues.  I'm still looking for a way to get this said more clearly.

Later.  Tuesday Sept 24

There is a major sdifference between belief in scripture and knowledge gained by science of course that needs to be answered.  Faith is approriate for scripture because we believe it to be the word of God.  Therefore it can't be contradictioed by anything science says.  What happens then if we are true believers in scirpture and are faced with a scientific sconstractiion is that we believe the science is wrong and could be shown to be wrong.  In other words we don't just believe scripture is right although what they is actual rfact is wrong, we do believe that it could be shown to be wrong, by scientific methosds.  That is why I spent so much time over the last twenty some odd years trying to disprove the claims of evolution.  I believe it to be founded on error and that error can be demonstrated.

The prblem of course it aht sevolution is not pbased on the kind of empirical science they like to think it is, the kind that is practiced in physics, in the lab etc., where you have continuous observation by many people possible at all times.  that's why I'm talking so much about the fct that it is historical science that isn't eamenable to such methodology.  It is true that because I believe sciprture to be the unchallengeable word of God I'm not going to change my mind about it, and that is not a standard scientific attitude to say the least, but it is approrpieate tot he metrial involved.  For my own purposes I have proved over and over again that my faith bears fruit, I learn more and more because I have faith, I learn about the things I'm told about only in the Bible, I've had what can only be called spuupernatural experiences that confirm parts of it.  

I couldn't be able to persuade Coyne of any of that of course.  He certainly insnot inclined to trust anything i would say abourt it as he isnlt inclined to believe the Bible itself.   But I would say that although he is theoretically open to chanignign his mind about what he belives about evolution, in fact he really isn't beause it's just as irrationally founded as he thinks my belief is.    I've tried to say how above.    besides trying to show that what he acrually believes, about the fossil record and about the mechanism of natural selection are really just imaginative constructs and not at lall established by scientific methodology.

I'll just say it again here tht he's outrageously unfair to accuse those of us who have faith in the Biblical revelation of using that same kind of thinkoing on any sort of truly scientific question.l;  it belongs to the revleation of God and that alone.  We believe the witnesses who wrote the Bible and the witneseses they wronte about and that gives us knowlege of the things they wrote about and claim to have experienced.  Yes knowledge.  If it is true of course which we believe it to be.  If it is true we acquire knowledge of those things by beliveing them to tbe true.  Actual knowledge.  

But again we do have the job of trying to prove evolution to be false which is not easy because whether they like to acknowledge it or not they believe it to be true based on similarly irrational means, which are irrational because they have no foundation for them at all except their own imaginations.  We do have the foundation of authority, of a revelation sattested to by millions down the centuries.  Yes that is a great deal.  But I don't expect him to accept it.  he's delucdded that he's convinced of his evolutionist belivefs by science although he is not.  He's confinced by plausible speculations and that is it.  

Just think about the actual physical fact of the geological column, Mr. Coyne, you are taking things for granted about it that are not ture.  Then think about how natural selection would get you from one species to another, you know, step by step, mutation by mutation or whatever, exatly what would have to happen for transform one creature into another over a few million or so years.

All sorts of wonderful variations of a single species are possible just from the genetic possibilities built into the genome of that species, because there are two versions of any given gene that can show up in the offspring, and many genes for just one trait.  Enormous variation is possible that way and can be seen both in the wild and in domestic breeding.  Huge variations.  but your jiob is to tprove that there is wany way to bring about the sort of change that is needed for your claim that the change can continue from the species to something entirely different, and that is ismply impossible.  there is no physical genetic foundation for that.  

the microbiologist Keven Anderson I mentioned in the next post down being interviewed by TDel tackett, is saying pretty much the same thing.  

I think I said this wrong:  There are two versions of each gene, one of which is selected at random by the process of sexual recombination to determine the trait of that offpsring.  This kind of built in fvariation can procduece enormous changes in a population over time, not a million years, that much isn't needed, but a few generations even though   or more.

A Couple of Christian viseos

This wekks Understanding the Times radio show hosted by Jan Markell is about the infiltration of Christian churches by the current leftist ideologyk indlucing wokeism.  She has as guest Megan Bashan who wrote a book about it titled Shepherds for Sale, and so recommends the film Enemies with the Church.

I also want to mention an interview by Del tacket of microbiologist Kevin Anderson who talks about how mutations are a problem for evolution and how the new knowledge we have of the human genome favors creatinionist rather than evolutionist ideas.   

Both arfe on YOu Tube

****

New email managed by family member:  

faithswindow@mail.com

For explanatory note, put Contact Possibility in search box at upper left

Thanks

Coyne on Religion: he Doesn't Have a Prayer

This is evolutionist Coyne again but but speaking on a different topic, this time on different ways of knowing other than the empirical mehod of science.  It didn't much interest me until he got to religion.  Before tht I probably would agree with a lot of what he had to say, I don't know though becaue I was only half tuned in;  maybe I'd agree with all of it, not sure.  Probably not though, I'm nost not interested enough to find out.     Drat, I wish I would stop hitting all the wrong keys.  Oops, hyperbole, not all, but too many of them.

This is the title of the video .. a talk he apparently gave to an Indian audience:

Jerry Coyne on ways of Knowing:  Science vs Everything Else

But of course, what he has to say about "religion" does inerest me, especially Christianity.  In fact I'll probably notsay anything about any religion except Christianity.  He starts out saying that the methods of knowing by religion are Dogma, Scripture, Revelation and Authority.  .  A little odd as applied to Christian claims since they are pretty much synonymous.  Dogma is just the codified body of knowledge glened from scripture.  Scripture is the source of all Christian knowledge, there is no other source, and it is both revelation and authority.  External authority is valid only if it is true to scripture.  

His min claim is that "religion" is not a source of truth about the universe though all three of the "Abrahamic religion" say it is.  His first example is the New Testament lcaim that we treat as fact that Christa was raised from the dead.  

You nharldly call yourself a Christian in America if you do not believe in the resurrection, he says.  Well, not just "hardly" .. you simply are not a Christian if you do not believe in the resurrection, it says quite clearly elsewhere in scripture.  

Some epirical claimsthat "religion" makes about the way the universe is, include that there is a God, a personal God in the scase of Christianity, that jesus is the Son of God, that He rose from the dead, that there is a heaven and a Hell, that there are angels and demons.  These are empriical claims about the universe.  Yes they are.

He flatly claims they are false.

These empirical claims are claims that in principle could be tested by science, and says that prayer has been tested and disconfirmed by science.    Funny I get a lot of answers to prayer, but anyway.   Could these claims be tested by science?  A one time historical event such as the resurrection fo Christ?  How could you test that?  Or the relatioy of God or the existence of heaven and hell.  Angels and demons perhaps but sinc ethey are sentient beings who probably wouldn't want to cooperate with your scientific efforts that's not a very good subject for testability either.  

and here comes one of the biggest mistakes atheists make about Christianity:  Faith is belief without any evidence behind it, he says.  Which is just plain false.  It's a kind of evidence he rejects, that's all, but it is evidence.  It is not physical evidnece, it is witness evidence.  And the kind of knowledge it gives us is often of things we could not know by any physiccal means.  "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." is one way sciprutre puts it.  We can't see god or heaven or hell or angels and demons unless they choose to manifest to us, which does occasionally happn so itn that case some of us do have our own experience that counts as evidence although we can't show it to anyone else.  Then we become witnesses and you either believe the witness or you don't.  One time events, historical events need witnesses of come sort, written testimonies for instance, and good grief hewe have plenty of that although he presfers to dismiss it, different witnesses of the same events.  A few seeming contradictions would get him to dismiss them all.   

When we believe the witnesses we then have faith in what they reveal to us about what they have witnessed.  

One we beleieve we often receive personal revelations thta confirm our belief too, but they are personal and more esily dismissed even than the scriptural witnesses.  

This isn't the kind of evidence that is replicable and testable in the usual scientific scense but it certainly is evdience, and the only kind of evidence it is possible to have for one time historical events.

He ss he can't understand how cosomeone could be a believer and also a scientist.  ut we're talking about two different kinds of evidence for one thing and for another we're talking mostly about two different kinds of objects of knowledge, that is, the things I believe in through scripture are invisible things and one time events.  It is hard to prove either.  You either believe those who claim to have knowledge of these thigns or you dont'.  

When he sys he doesn't understand how anyone could be religious and also a scientist he seems to think that we use faith for science or think we should but  thta's a very strange idea.  Faith is appropriate to scripture, to unwitnessed things, invisible things, but the methods of science are what we must use with observable physical repeatable events in science and the lable.  Why\\\  There is no conflict.  

then he lists some beliefs of Christians he says are simply false:  creationism, The exodus from Egypt, The age of the earth as ten thousand years, the Great Flood, and prayer.  Except for prayer these are all historical events for which the best evidence we could possibly have is witness evidence, and in the case of the Cretaion Revelation from God.   These are the kinds of knowledge that aren't amenable to the empircal methods of the lab.  We have to use historical methods for historical claims.  

There are some empircal tests you can do of course, as Archaeology has done with the Exodus ccount, but because these are one time historical events on this list you still have to rely on   you have to rely on methods that themselves can't be tested.  In the laboratory you can test things over and over again and correct for errors in a way you mjust can't with historical facts.  You have to rely on dating methods for instance that may seem quite reasonable, and are, but can't themselves be tested.  There are creationists who have gone a long way to show that radiometric dating isn't anywhere near as reliable as it is claimed to be, and when it dcomes to the kind of dating done for a historical event such as the Exocdus it's even fmore iffy.  

n fact there is a n Egyptologist who questions the standard dating applied to the Exodus by the firld of GEgyptology in general, and he's not a Christian and has no dog in this fight as it were.  He simply reviewed the facts available and concluded that they'd dated that whole period of history  I think hundreds of years later than the events spelled out in GenesisThe following is the beginning of a different post I started and don't want to give up yet but hav no way of disposing of it so it's going to stay here for a while.

There are a couple of interviews of him on You Tube but I'm not sure I could find them.  His name is Rohr, can't remember hisfirst name, and I think his reasoning is impeccable.  there is also a film about hiswork.  I wrote a couple of posts about it a few years ago.  Sorry my eyes just make it so difficult to track anything like this down.    But he was interviewed by my great nephew  C J Cox if that helps.  

Anyway, Rohr's reanalysis of the timing of the Exodus story is pretty compelling I think including the fact that there is a courtyard in Egypt that has twelve tombstones, one of which contains a status that appears to have once been colorfully decorated, as a "coat of many colors" which you may recall is how Joeph's coat was described, the one his father gave him.  So this could well be the tomb of Joseph and the others his eleven brothers who did join him in Egypt.  

There are of course many things about Creationist assertions that would be hard to prove although I do think Creationists have gone farther to do just that than they are given creatit for, and I wuld add my own simple efforst that I keep laying out here.   The age of the earth is contradicted byu radiometric dating but I think it's so obviously true that the sedimentary layers in which the fossils of the so called Fossil Record are embedded couldn't possibley be time periods and that they dhow absolutely no signs of any sort of wear and tear that you would expect to find on this active planet even in a hundredyyears let alone the millions claimed for these time periods     I think all this goes a long way to showin gthat the Earth really isn't lal that old at all.

As for evidence of the Great Flood which he claims does not exist I see such evidence everywhere myself.  the whole Earth has a sort of tumbledown appearance, a wrecked appearance.  If you look at the Middle East from the stsatellite overheard it looks like the AuSaudi Arabian peninsula is all swirled  on it ssurvface as if by a huge amount of water.  That's how it looks to me anyway.  And then there is of course the geological solumn which shows no signs whatever of being made up of period of time of tends of millions of eyears and for which ithere is no eaway to account for their each being punctuated as it were by a huge thick slab of sedimentary deposition which differs from the deposits above and beneath it.  No way was the surface of this earth, or even a layer of it beneath the surface made up of such a horizontally straight flat slab of rock that spans thousands of square miles and a whole series of them at that.  

That is first of all evidence agiainst the fossil record interpretation of the geological column, but I think it is also great evidence for the Flood as such sedimentary deposits fit with what we know about smaller scale deposits by moving water.  See Walther's Law for one example.

Coyne claims that  what scripture teaches as fact is simply false because scien ce has come to other conclusions.  But  again the kind of science he'd have to use to discover facts about anything in the past is just as iffy as what we have to use as creationists.  There is nothing any more scientifically complelling about his billions of years than our six thousand, or his datses for the Exostud versus Rohr's, and certainly he's just obtuse about the evidence for the Flood which is everywhere if you just open your eyes., and especially in tthe geological column which is found in some form or other all over the earth.

Remember:  Evolution is historical, it's not a hard science like physicals .  You have some facts to work with but they need to be interpreted and can't be replicated for the usual kinds of scientific testing.  And   So you get one interpretation of say the fossils and it can't be answered because it's an interpretation and not something tht can be tested.  And when you really look at the physical facts ofg ghthe goloegical column surely you have to realize that the whole thing is a ridiculous piece of wishful imagination.  And nothing more than that.     

Same with the biological claims such as Natural Selection.  It sounds good but they really don't try to test it at all, they just assert it as the mechanism that makes evlution possible.  Again, sounds good, plausible, but as a matter of tfact if you try to think it through as a real proecess in a real wphysial world, considingering real genetics, there is no way it works at all to get beyond what is already in the genome of a species.  You can't get from one species to another.  Period.  You are stuck in the genome of any given species.  

Go on, try it.  But they never do.

Then he goes on to show some conflicts between religions and sects and says There is no way to tell which religion is true.  Well, for me there is:  the bibleis the foundational authority and if a religion deviates from it that make sit a false relgion.  Evolution for instance can't be true because scripture shows that the Creation world was populated by creaturees that were imortal;  death entered when sin entered.  That makes liberal sects of Christianity that embrace evlution false.  Scripture is also clrea that the leader of a church must be male;  that makes those sections of Christianity that have women priests and miniteers false.  And so on.  In the end there is one true religion and that is Biblically pure Protestant Chrsianity.

he goeson to show that science has a lot more integrity than this motley collection of confused religions, and of course that is correct.  Scienc is a great thing, it's brought us marvelous knowledge and technologies.  It just doesn't work with historical facts such as evolution and I wish they'd just acknowlege that simple fact.

He goe o to the idea that religions deal with the so called big questions about the meaning of life, suffering and so on, while science deals with facts about the physical world etc.  That's a big rabbit hole I don't want to go down here, but I'd say two things:  Where he claims that religion can't answer questions about why we suffer, he's wrong, and maybe that's because Christains are just not very clear about that shwhen we talk about it, but the answe isthat this is not the original created world which was perfect and in which we were immortal.  This is the fallen world, and we are fallen creatures, that is we have lost our connection with God as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve to Aa command God gave them, so this world is subject to all kind s of subffering as a result of that act of disobedience whichw e inherit from our first parents.    We do have answers to all those questions becaue of the Fall.    The other thing I want to mention is his claim that the Bible is not sufficient as evidence because it's just "one book" but ahatis false.  The bible is a colleciton of writings , sisty six of them over more than two thousand years by some forty different writers who did not know one another in many cases,k at least in the Old Testament becaue they lived at tidifferent times.  The books fwere chosen as cannonical based on their spiritual uthenticity as judged by the spiritual leaders of Israel for the OT and the Church for the NT.  These are different witness accounts by different people.  This is NOT one book in the sense he is using it.  You can compare the writings of the different people.

I wish I could talk to Jerry Coyne about a lot of his beliefs.  I don't know why I wish that, it's kind of unudual.  Must think he is reaonable enough to change his mind if I could make a good enough case.  Which of course means I think I have such a case.  Hm.  

Come to think of it, I also wish I could talk to Elon Musk about a few things. And Richard Dawkins.  Hm.   

Oh well.

Later:  CORRECTION:  I got the name wrong of the Egyptologist I mention abofve:  it's David Rohl, not Ror  Rohr.   I don't think he's Jewish either, by the way, which would give him a personal motivation.

by the way, Listening back to the post I discovered that I had sandwiched a piece of the text below the asterisks into my discussion of Rohl, sorry about that.  It belongs at the top of that other text.  Not able to see well enough to find it and move it, yadda yadda.

*   *   *   *   *   *   

\\\keep repeating myself, keep hoping maybe I'll say it in some new way so definitelvely and clearly that anybody reading it will be persuaded on the spot and tell everyone they know that I've succeeded in demolishing evolution.  Well, eah, not in this world I'm afraid, but I still hope.   

So I'm talking about evolution again, Jerry Coyne again.  You Tube keeps throwing up the same people over and over once you've shown an interest in listening to them so it turns out there's more of him to be heard.   Saying of course mostly the same things, but I see he's got a new talk, wel new to me anyway, about ways of knowing which is a different subject and I'll try to get to that one before I finish this post.  

IIn an iterview of him by representatives of the Freedom From Religion organization he gave the usual list of asupposed evidences for evolution, at least four of them:  the fossil record, embryology, biogeography and vestigial organs.  each of these categories can be interpreted from the creationist point of view just as well as from the evolutionist, and I think better of course.   

But starting with the fossil record, the first thing to say is that it can't be evidence of evllution because there is no evidence FOR it as a fossil record as they understand it in the first place.  He likes to claim that evolution is not a theory in the nonscientific sense or casual sense that it's just an upnproven speculation, but in fact that is all it is.  He can go on about how it's theory in the scientific scense all he wants bu t it is not a theory in that sense, it IS pure speculative imagination and that's all it is.    The fossil record is certainly just an imaginative construct and nothing else.  it just LOOKS LIKE it represents evolution from simple to complex but of course there is no actual evidence of such evolution to gaaback up that idea, it remains a simple imaginative construct that osort of looks like evolution explains it but it doesn't.  

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.