Back to Creationism

 When I first discovered the podcast Let's Talk Creation, some months ago now at least, it was very exciting because they covered so amany topics I'd spent a fair amount of time thinking about on my own over the last twenty years.  I binged on their shows and wrote them a couple of emails they never answered.  It finally dawned on me that they were not at all welcoming toward my own thoughts on these subjects, and that was very disappointing to me beause for all those years I had no one to talk to about any of it and I tought they might at least have an opinion  they'd write me about.  But they didn't.   After hearing more of their podcasts I get the impression they really don't like my ideas.  It's of course tnot clear that they are responding to me but some of the topics are what I'd written about and they clearly had no interest in responding to my version of them.  Maybe my disagreeing with them about some of it wa off putting.  I guess that's possible.  Or j they just think my opinions are stupid or something.      

At the end of their latest pocdcast they coplain about people who don't accept their view of the Flood boundary, that is, of the point at which the Flood ends in the geologic record.  Some thjnk that although there are more strata of the same kind as found in the Geologic Column that they aren't nedcessarily Flood deposits but laid down after the Flood.  I guess there'a quie a bit of controversy about which blong to the Flood and which come afterward.  I have troubele with this whole line of controversity since I just can't accept that a layer of rock formed just as all those layers in rthe accepted Flood layers were formed, had some completely different kind of source.  It's got the same kind of sedimentary composition and the same collection of fossils and I can't see how it could have had any other origin than the Flood for that reason if nothing else.  What else could form such a layer but the Flood?  Anyway I guess there are scientiests who think it happened so I'm the odd man out as it were.  And I'm not persuaded by anything they said about it.  If it's go t the same basic propoerties as the Flood layers then it's a Flood layer and that's that to my mind.  

So I guess I'll remain at odds with them and they'll just try to ignore me if they even know my opinion, bwhich I'm pretty sure they do.    I probably take myself way too seriously for them, since I'm not a scientist, just a do it yourselver cretionist.  I've read a fair amount about geology and biology to come to my opinions, and spent twenty years off and on at debating evolutionists along these lines, so I probably do take myself a lot more seriously than tey hink  warranted.    So I'm without anyone to talk to as usual aboiut these things.  Not that I'd want to talk to someone who thinks my opinoins are just dismissible of course.

Besides telling anyone who has doubts about the Flood boundary controversy, they also clamped dsown on the idea that the Flood was a tectonic event, that during the Flood continents moved around banging and crashing into each other and so on.  That is to explain why we couldn't expect to see intact human settlements from before the Flood anywhere in the Flood frecord.  Well, I don't think we could either, but to my mind you don't need violen t tectonic crashings and bashing s to explain that, all you need is the Flood itrself, forty nights and days of rain all over the earth and the rising tides that washed up over the land and so on.  All you need to do is think about the recnet heavy rain in Washington and California which brought on floods which brlught on mudslides and washing   washed away cars and so on.   The water alone in the worldwide Flood would have been violent enough to to erase anything constructed by human beings on the land.  

However, I do think of the Flood as a tectonic event anyway, just not with all that movement and bashingds and crashings and mountbuilding and so on.  I don't know what brought on the Flood and nothing anywonwe has suggested makes that part of it clear to me, but something to do with the sea flloor which could be classed as a taectonic event would make sense as at least part of the explanation.  The Bible refers to "foundatains of th edeep" and I have no idea what that measn but that's the sea floor reerence  we have to work with from scripture.  dHow much water was stored in the atmosphere for it to rain forty days and nights continouously all over the earth, is another unknown but it must have been proigious.  None of this is easy to explain or understand.    But the sea floor no doubt had to change somehow as part of it and tha makes it a tectonic event in itself.  

I can't go with the idea that there was much if any tectonic activigty going on during the Flood just because of the cross sections I've seen that show that the strata are completely intact in manyplaces before any kind of disturbance occurs to them.  Ewven where the strata are broken up in a particular area you can still easily enough infer that they were all in place before the disruption ofccurred, whever it was that broken them up in a particular place.  In England and Tennessee we see all the time periods as it were, broken up and scattered across the land from one end to the other.  They're aLL THERE SO THEY ALL UNDERWENT WHATEVER     disruption hit them all at the tssame time.  All the strata were in place before anything happened to any of the stack anywerhe.  I think that can be well enough acrugued although it's onlyh obvious in a few placews such as the Grand Canyon area where the whole stack can be identified in one place.  So I've been working for yhears on the observation that the strata were all laid odwn horizontally during the Flood, all of them from bottom to top, beforte the kind of tectonic action occurres that pushed up the land here and there, formed mountains, broke up areas so that formations such as the Grand tarircaste in Utah were the result, formed canyons and so on.  That to my mind suggests that the tectonic jolts that caused and still cause earthwuakes and volcanoes began at the end of the Flood, perhaps after the water was drained or at any time during its draining or maybe just before it started to drain, in which case it was probably gthe trihgger for its draining.    This I can argue at great tlentgth.  And of course I've written about it either on this blog or the Fantasy of Evolution blog somewhere but it's hard to find anything any more because my eyes are so bad and I haven't been able to leave the usual markers to help out with it either.  

That's all the geological stuff I've thought about over the years, but I've also done a log ot thinking about the biologicl and genetic side of the questions.  jdd       I suppose I dshould go on to those here but as often happens I'm getting worn out  already  and have to stop.  Maybe I'll come back to this post later.

faithswindow@mail.com

A great miliary operation followed by thye usual smear tactics of the Left, just normal politics

 So they got  Nicholas Maduro and brought him to New York for justice.  And of course the principle I mention a few posts below is in action as awalways.  Whatever Trump or his administration do, or say, in this case do, is immediately attacked as probably a criminal act, or unconstitutional or the like, by the everlurking Left.  And protests by similarly minded around the world echo their sentiment.  Fortunately there are some protests on the right side that know it was perfectly legal, as with many such presidentaial actions questionsed and smeared by the Left it't's peffectly legal and has precedent in other actions by other Presidents.  They don't care.  If they can sow doubt in the mind of the unwary public, mostly o the left themselves because they listen only to the leftist media, they're happy wenough with their lies .   Here's where we can see how the nation has suffered from our loss of our Christian culture, such as in the posting of the Ten Commandments at court houses and that sort of thing, which midgfht remind such miscreants that a dire eternity awaits those who tell such lies.

faithswindow@mail.com

Think I'll note here that for some time I've heard the audio reader voice pronounce the word in the title as decidably, when I know I wrote  decidedly, because that is onle of my pet peeves and I would never have written it the way it gets prouncounced.   Well I've known I have a hacker for some time.  Guess that's one of the thinkgs it or he or she did.

jBret Weinstein Misundestands James Tour

 I'd already listened once to the Dark Horse podcast, was Darwin wrong? but had to listen again because it was rather a blur in my mind as I tried to recall the point of it.  I didn't listen all the way thorough and I'm hoping I don't need to but if I find out I made a mistake later I'll come back here and correct the error.  I've pretty sure, though, in fact very sure I did not make an error.  

The pocast isa response to an interview of creationist scientist James Tour as interviewed by Tucker Carlson in December, and after backing up a number of times bto be sure I was hearing correctly, and then going to the interview itself with Carlson, it's quite clear to me that Bret completely miun  misunderstood what Tour was saying.  He thinks he eeffectivelyt rebutted his argument but he was not rebutting what Trour actually said.   Tour was not as clear as he should have been.  He didn't grasp what Tucker was getting at so he didn't get the problem clarified but I think it's really clear enough.  It's a bit more clear in the original but I think it comes through in the podcast with Bret and Heather too.  

Tour is a creationist but Bret appreciates him as a scientiest and considers him worthy of a serious response.  He thinks Tour is only saying, however, that there is a problem  with the lack of transitionals in the fossil record, and that's the total misunderstanding.  Well, let's back up a bit.  Tour starts out saying that although we can see many permutations, has he calls them, we never see a body plan changhe ever.  The permutations he is talking about are the changes we do see in so called "miscroevolution" where many changes are observed all the time, including highly adaptive changes so that it is always used as foundational to the theory of evolution.  He is ONLY talking about this observatble form of "evolution" in living things, he is NOT talking about the fossil record at all, but he takes fatal misstep to the fossil record to say that many hypothesize these body plan changes from the fossil record but that in fact we never ever see them ... in the realm of observable changes in living things.  Bret misunderstand s him to be saying we don't see them in the fossil record.  But that is not what he is saying.  He is saying, though it could cewrtainly have been said much more clealry, that ALL WE CAN EVER HAVE from the fossil record is hypotheses, so ALL the claims that body plans have evolved come freom the fossil record and are nothing but hypothetical.  Where we never ever see such changes is in the observable realm of change in living things we see all the time which is miscalled microeveolution.  I'm the one saying it is miscalled.  It is not evolution at all, it is variation built into the geneome of a particular creature, variation buiilt into the structure of the genetic system.  He is not talking about the fossil record.  He simply made that one brief side trip to make the point that such body plan changes are hypothesised all the time but that in fact they are never seen in living things that nevertheless do show many changes.   The actual interview with tucker Carlson does make this cslightly clearer as he talks about microevolution specifically and that part was left out of Bret's excerpt, so with tucker it is cleaR HE IS REFERRING BACK TO THAT TOPIC OF MICROEVOLUTION.  hOWEVER, tUCKER IS ALSO CONFUSED AND TRIES TO PIN HIM DOWN TO FIND OUT IF HE IS REFERRING TO THE FOFSSIL RECORD AND THIS IS WHERE tOUR IS JUST NO T CLEAr enough.  I think if you listen very carefully you'll see that he is not talking about the fossil record at all, he is dismissing it as the source of nothing but hypotheticals in contrast to the actual changes we can observe in living things where his point is that nothing on the orfder of a body plan change is ever seen.

He chooses a huge body plan category, vertebrates to , sorry from invetrtebrates, and certainly that is never seen either, but I think it is very clear that we don't see body plN XHnfwa on  MUXH AXllamLLWE AXlw rhN RHr wirhwe.  Qw nwcwe aww NYRHINF     in the cat body plan blur into something in the dog body plan although thjey are verysimilare in their overall presentation .  You can tell a dog from a cat by their skeletaons I believe, without confusion.   Also a bird is a bird is a nitrd.  Look at the skeletons of every bird you can find illustrated in that form and thei are all clearly built on the same patern, limbs in the same place on all of them, etc.    A chicken is built like a penguin like a dove like a duck like a swan like an ostrich and so on.  There are some dratic differences such as in the beak and feet of the dubk and the long neck of the swan but the body plan is the basic proportions of tghe skelecton and those are superficial characteristics.

One clue that Tour is taling only about the living things and not the fossils is that he keeps using the term "genetic networks" as necessary to the changes we esee and all changes are dependent on those genetic networks.  I think this is the same thing as Steven Myeyeter says in his inerview with Joe Rogan some time ago, that you only get change where there is code of it and the change is built in  to the code itself.  To get a change FROM that built in chage requires a change in the code and changes in the code itself, which arte mutations, tend to degrade the code, they don't enhance it and eventually they lead to the destruction of the genetic ability to produce whever it was first designed to produce, it doesn't dhange from that first design to something else that is coherent at all.

Also he can't be talking about fossils because the evolution of body plans is assumed by evolutionists from the fossil record;  transitionals don't contribute anything to the formation of that hypothesis, and I think the first remark Tour makes is clear that they just look at the fossils and hypothesize that this or that feature, including body plans, evolved from this one to that one. Again, he's making the poit that it's all a hypothesis, so when he emphasizes that we don't see body plan changes at all somewhere, he's talking about in living things and not in fossils.  We see all sorts of changes of the sort called microevolution but they never involve a change in the body plan.  I keep adding that that's not evolution at all anyway, just variation built into the coded of the genome for that particular creature that possesses that genome, and it appears to be yrue that although many variations are seen in the populations that possess a genome among themselves that the body plan doesn't change.  In fact it is a sort of defintion of the creature itselfk.  I think this is all implied in Tour's comment.  In any case he's not talking about fossils at all.  Again, he only went there briefly to say that evolutionists hypothesize change in body plan from the fossil s but that it is never seen in reality, in what is called microevolution.   Then he himself gets confused when Tucker askes him a quetion about the fossil record and Tour doesn't clearly say that he's not talking about the fossil record at all, that was just a side trip for contrast.  

Anyway.  It's hard to get clear tabout this kind of misunderstanding but I hope I'm not oo far off. The Dark Horse Podcast where Bret and Heather are sidiscussing this is number 395 titled Was Darwin Weong?  A

faithswindow@mail.com

I'm legally blind and a family member manages the email.

I put the wrong episode number for the Dark Horse podcast.  I'll be very careful this time:  It's

305

I hope.  Cn't see it.  I'll go listen again.

evolutionary theory makes us all sick, certainly makes me sick

 KListening to cicaldi's Gloria as performed by the college of Northern Texas, or some such name, I found it under that name anyway, and it's such exquisite music it makes me discover once again how disusting the theory of evolution is.  No way coujld that ridicuous supposed system of mchanisms produce life capable of such music.  Or just about anythijg else this amazingly capable human being does  Ridiculous in the expreme    

Well, because of the Fall we are all born flesh, the spirit that connected our first parents to God having died with their violation of God's comand, and being but flesh we are easily deceived into believing we live in a universe that is purely phyiscal.  Our flesh is adaptted to this phyiscal universe and it seems to our limited minds that we must ourselves be a producet of it   But to think such a thing seems to require us to ignore such a plethora of evidence that we are something far beond the phyisical and its mindnumbingly Darwininan reduction to surviva iligy as to kill the very thought dead in the mind of any serious persons.  But  but but, but it doesn't.  It shouild.  It's laughable to hear intelligent people go on an d on about how this or that extraordinariyh exarted and nonpnyhsical expression oif uman life is just the product of adaptabiity to this or that environmental condition.    Byond laubhable into soul murder.    

A flshly being worships fleshly gods, thiknks flesly thoughts, reduces everythijg to thephyhsical, can't believe in God or anythig outside the phyhsical, must explaijn everthing by ikt.  Despite so much in our world that poits way beyond all that  

Music is only one obvious expression of it.  Sure they'll reduce even that to some adaptive function.  Yuck and yikes.  Especially high music like the Gloria or the Messiah etc etc  

I'm in pain at the thought.

This world a waystation to eternity

Even after years as a Christian it doesn't necessarily impress itself on your mind that a firm faith in bliclal theology presents a picture of this life in this world as leading to only one of two options at death, a blessed hapypy life for al eternity or a mserable life for all teternity.  That's it, no other options.  People who kow little or nothing about Christianity have their own notions that come from who knows where, about a happy afterlife for all but the most evil people or some such, or simple loss of all consciousness forever, as if one had never existed at all.  MaNY DIE IN SUCH EXPECTATIONS.  oFTEN SURVIVORS OF A RECENTLY DECESASED RELATIVE OR FRIEND SPEAK OF HIM OR HER AS BEING AGT PEACE, IN A BETTER PLACE, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON'S LIFE WAS LIVED FOR EVWEN HALF A MINUTE WITH ANY SUCH AFTERLIFE IN MIND, NOT A SHRED OF PREPARATION FOR SUCH AN AFTERLIFE, OR EVEN BELIEVF IN IT.  oNCWE IT HITS YU THAT THE cHRISTIAN OPTIONS ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS IT BRINGS A SHUDDER OF FEAR FOR THE PERSON WHO DIED, OR AT LEAST IT DOES FOR ME.   

tHIS IS OF  COURSE WHY WE ARE EXHORTED IN SCRIPTURE TO BRING THE GOSPEL OF SALVATON TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CA, SO THAT AS MANY AS POSSIBLE CAN SEEK AND FIND THE HAPPY AFTERLIFE THAT COMES ONLY FROM THE SALVATION GIVEN THROUGH THE DEATH OF cHRIST OJ THE CROSS.  bUT MANY REJECT THE GOSPEL OF COURSE, AND MANY OTHERS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.  qWE CAN'T DO ANYTHIJG ABOUT THOSE WHO DOH'T KJOW EXCEPT SEND MINSSSIONARIES WHIC OF COURSE THE CHURCHES HAVE DONE SINCE cHRISTI'S CRICIFIXION, AND OTHERWISE TRUST THAT gOD WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR SUCH PEOPLE WHO NEVER HEAR, AND WE KOW THAT gOD CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING buT THEW RIGHT AND JUYST AND MERCIFUL AND KID TGHING SO WE CCAN SAFELY LEVE IT ALL TO hIM,.  bUT THOSE WHO REJECT THE GOSPEL AFTER HEARING IT MAY WELL RAISE A SHUDDER OF FEAR FOR THEM .  

i'M WELL AWARE OF Y OWN SPIRITUAL INFERIORITY AS i SELDOM HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ANYONE i TALK TO ABOUT THE GOSPEL.  i'VEW BEEN LEARNING MORE LATELY ABOUT HOW i AM NOT LIVING THE cHRISTIAN LIFE AS i SHOULD AND TRYING HARDER BUT AT MY AGE THAT'S HARD.  iF i HAD BEEN LIVING MORE AS i SHOULD ALL ALONG, MORTIFYIJG SIN ISTEAD OF FALLING INTO IT OVER AND OVER FOR INSTANCE, DAILY CONSISTELTLY PRAY8ING AND READING THE bIBLE     and so on, syruggling against sin instaeed of indulging in worldly  attitudes, I might have more infoluence on unbeievers, but being such a rotten example of a Christian myself makes me also a rotten evangelist.  I'm lately feeling thins very mournfully.    So many friends and family can rightly just brush off whatever I say becaue I'm not living in ay way apprecialy different from their way.   It makes me cr to think of it, but at least the Lord is letting me have an unexpectedly lo9ng life and if He continues to allow it maybe I'll improve.    I'm sure I'm saved, at least most of the time I'm sure, but saved by a thread I'm aftraid, not having doe the world to strengthen my spiritual qualifies, and it hurts to think of all those in my orbit who are goig to Hell and I have no ability to do aything to persuade them out of it.  In some cases I'm afraid to say anythihng agt all because I don't want to provoke anger at thew gospel, but even when I getget a polite hearer it seems to go nowhere.  That is certainly my  fault.  I listen a lot to realy good Christian gbooks but listening is't doing and I keep goning on as if I'd heard none of it.  I'm probaby exaggerating a lilttle, but not much.  Every day I see so much sin I comitted oand could have avoided if I'd been walking in the spirit, wrong words spoken, or unspoken good words, stuff like that.  

Yes this world is a waystation for immortal souls who should be spending all our time preparaing for it to end in the best possible way and it's scary to think how many don't.  Ifg you've heard and not believed over ammay experiences of it, well, you ade your choice, but others have not paid enough attention or been presented with enough information to make a reasonable choice and say the silliest thigs about what they expect of death.  Some even think they are saved algthough they haveb't the slightest notion of what salvation really means or how  it is brought about.  Just somethng vague like oh I haven't been such a pbnad person, of course I'm going to heaven  Of course they wouldn''t like heaven if they were going there but that's anoternther subject.

You have to be prepared for heaven.  GThe Christain life is a transformed life.  Even when it isn't obvious it's still a transformed life it it is real.  Chritiaity is the tranformation from the flesnly life of the Fall we inherite from our first parents Adam and Even to the regenerated cspirit that puts us back in touch with God that they lost when they disobeyed  If you do not have that spiritual renewal, that new borth, you cannot be saved, because that is what makes you fit for heae, changes you from a merely fleshjly creature dead in the psirit, to a living spiritual person adapted to the spiritual life of heaven, though even then if the psiritual life isn't ived as much as possible in this falen world the fit isn't going to be all that great eithet and God will have to do some lopping and pruning.  

Idon't think 'm writing this as clearly as I should, and I now I had the caps lock on for a long time too, sorry about that, but I think I needed to say something along these ines and hope it's helpful to someone somewhere.

faithswindow@mail.com,      faithswindow@mail.com,