It's now a Happy Message but it's the truth and shouldn't be ignored: we are under God's judgment

 It isnot fun havig to write that the natio is under God's judgment.  I dread it, I try to avoid it, but I know it is the truth and avoiding it puts me at odds with god.  Writng about it probably puts me at odds with ltos of people I'd raher not be at odds with, some good solid conservatives, but I don't want to be the kkind of coward who wants the praise of men at the expense of god's praise.  If He is bringing judgmetn against America, and I know He is, it has to be said because there are things that can be done and unfortnatrely they don't always coincid witht e things the conservatives are doing right now, even though in a way the effort is to do something in roughtly the same direction.  That's the hard part.  Supporting Trum p is dsupporting a lot of right things, righteous thihngs opposed to evil thihngs, things that cry out to be done to protect the country.    The problem is that if those evil things are coming against us because we are under God's judgmetn for our sins as a nation then we aren't going to be able to succeed.  You can't fight God and win.  He is giving us mercy,  lot o f mercy and I inhope He continues, I hope He'll let us win the midterm elections, I hopep He'll let us keep Trump and let Trump continue to succeed.  But if we are under His judgmetn and we are not directly dealing with that fact, and we aren't, then we are going to continue to be under His judgment and all the effotts to right the wrongs can only have a very limited success and always be on the verge of being defeated.  We could very well be deaefeated becausae we are under God's judgmetn and nboody is taking that into account.  

The evils arrayed against us are real evils.  Real threats by real evils.  Islamic jihad is a real threat by a real evil ideology.  An Islamist nation is a real threat based on ahtat evil ideology, an ideology that wants to rule the world for its evil relgion.  Of coure all these evildoesers thingk they are in the right, they think they are the righteous ones.    Nine eleven was  God's judgmetn on us, a judgment we ignored so that's why it has continued , why Islam has only grown in favor and power over us sincew then, but that certainly does not make the perpetrators right and righteous, it just makes tem toolds of God to carry out His judgment against us.  They will be judged in turn.  When He broughtthe Assyrians and the Babylonians against His people Israel they were His tools of judgmetn against them and they did great damage to Isarael, but that didn't make them right in God's eyes, just tools for His puprposes.    There was nothing right about the flying of planes into the twin towers but nevertheless it was decreed by God as judgment against a sinning nation.

A nation that started out strongly Christain.  That makes a differentce.  GThe more you are given the greater your resonsibility.  We were once strong representatives of the living God, the God of the Bible, but over the years we degenerated until in the last half cewntury or so we must clearly be seen as having made ourselves Gods enemy in many ways.  Atheists think that's wonderful of course but then they are puaart of why we are being judgmed.   Supposedly we are growoing out of religion, it's just an oldfashioned or primitive idea once useful to the human race perhaps but fundamentally false and we can only benefit and become materrure human beings by giving it up.  

The problem is that that is falsek.  God is real, as real now as He ever was and He stil acts as He's always acted toward human beings.  It's all there in the Bible for us to learn from.   NOtrhing happens withiout God.  If evil things happens that can't happen without God just as good things happen because of Him.  Hes omnipotent, H'es omnisicent, He's eomnipresnet.  Nothiong happens withouit Godl  Even the evil that comes against us.  Satan may be its immediate agent, or proximate cause, or evil human beings, jihadists or God haters or America haters or atheists or whatever, but they are still all in God's power and not able to act unless He is willing that they act according to their own motives.  Yet in the end those with evil motives will be condemned for their evil motives.  Being a tool of God's dcertainly doesn't convfer righteousness on a person.  YToy u still have to repent and become a follower if you are to be saved.

Scripure says, I know it is in the prophet Amox but I couldn't get the right address from asking Alexis, just somewhere in Amos it says, "If there be ewvil in a city will not the Lord have done it?'  Yw YYes that is in the Bible.  God did the evil if there is evil in a city, and that scripture certainly describes the evil of the attack on the WTC, evil in a city and won't God have done it?

There is another scripture verse, in Isaeiah somewehre, in the fiftyies I think, chapters I mean, maybe the forties, where God says and I can't remember the first part, He does good or soemthing like that but I'm sure that's not the workdding, and evil:  I Am God, I do good and I do evil.  Somethig like that.    God is in charge.  Somewhow the Church doesn't keep that in mind or make the use of it that should be made of it.   Evil comes upon us because of sin .  ththere is no other reason for it.  Jesus could not die becauase He was perfectly righteous.  If you are perfectly righteous you cannot die.  Deahth is the wagews of sin.  Sin is why we experiencew all kind s of unpleasant things, not all physical but cerainly the pysical pains and injuries and calamities and death as well.  the wages of swin sin is death.  That 's what it says.    By one man sin entered thw wrold and death by sin.  GThat was Adam.  But by one mad now we can have eternal life if we acknowledge His sacrificewd, His death in our place to pay for our sins, then and then only can bwe be saved from our sins.  There is no other way.  Sin brings calamity anbd death.  Someone had to pay the price we owe, take on HImslef the calamity anbd death that we owe for our sins.  Jesus did that so that we don't have to.   

This happens to be ouhow reality is structured.  We live in a moral medium as it were, a soup, an atmophere, we are encased in it, it rules us every moment though we have no sense of it.  Righteous ness brings belessings, sin brings death or cursings.  That's what God tells us throygygh Moses too when He gave Moses the tablets of the Law on Mount Sinai.  Of course we enlightened aAMericans have gthrown them out, torn them down adn rid ourselves of such primitive stupidities, but they go on jdugmeing us nevertheless.    They should be posted in every institituion of the country, and eveyone should know them.  God said in giving the Law to His people the Israelities, that He was giving them a choice between belssing and cursing, life or death.  Obey the Law and you will be blessed, otherwise you will be cursed.

  Well, we are living iin a fallen world, a world damaged becaUZE OF  the sin of our first pparents, and we ourselves have inherited their sin nature as a result of that Fall.  We therefore have astorong tendency rtoward disobeying God.  As one result of the Fall we lost the faculty that they had had before the Fall, that was the means by which they were able to communicate dirctly with God.  Without that faculty it is as if God doesn't sexist at all because we have no way of apprehending Him sincew we lotst that faculty.   So we sin and sin and sin and sin.  nAnd if we rebelliously reject the whole idea of God we may si even more than the natural person does without any rebellious motive.  We are sinners and we earn all ikinds of calmaitieis and death  by it.   

And over the eyars America has become a place where some sins are perretty much a way of life.  Divorce for instance.  God concdemns diveroce.  Pornography.  Yes ALL KINDS OF SEXUAL SINS.  aBORTION BY WHICH MILLIONS ARE MURDERED VEVERY YEAR.   gOD hears their blood crying out from the ground as He heard the blood of Abel.   The travesty of same sex marriage is a big one.  We just put that on the record of national sins quite recentlyu.  It's bringing more of those evil things against us that we are trying to fight because  but can't fight forever als lon as we do nothing to correct the sins.   

We are under God's judgmetn.  Treum p is a mercy from God but Trump can't overturn God's judugmetn.  That takes  apisirtual change of heart on the part of a great number of Americans.   Read the prayer the prophet Daniel give in SDaniel Nine.  He repentsfor the sins of Israel that brought on their judgmetn of exile in Babylon.  He repents for his own sins fand for the sins of the nation, he acknowledges the sins and asks for mercy.  That's the least Chrsitsnians should be dowing.  doing.  I'm typing a lot of afalse letters, sorry.  My findgers seem to ahve some other message i mind.    But I am still trying to talk about God's jdugmetn and what we can do about it.  Ideally we would trun back our laws that are the legalization of sin against God, but at least we can pray and confess and repent of whatever our own part in them my be or may have been.

Judgment is deaht and edestruction.  It couldn't be happening to us if we were in the right wiyh God.  Obviously we are not. Obviously we have a long list of sins by now that are bringing itg down on us.

faithswindow@mail.com

Rapture or Death

Qhen I was a child my family would take a trip to Canada every soummer where my father had grown up.  He would get us up at four A M becue he didn't want to spentd two nights on the road.  On one tripp he took a diferent route than usual I guess so we could have some varied scenery, a winding foad through mountains which passed alittle tow called Bend, Oregon.  As we approached the town I was looking out the window down into the valley and it was bathed in a special light at that time of day and sruck me as something otherworldly, heavenly.  We never went that route again bugt that lovely sight stayed with me.  

A couple nights ago I dreamed about it, being on that road and looking down at that town from the road.  It wasn't as beautiful as I remember it in reality but I knew it was the same place and I asked whoever was driing the car if we were on the Bend road and he said yes.  

 PRETTY     idea of what Heaven might be like.

Then I've had other klittle death thoughts happen too lately.  The saong "I'll Fly Awqa" which I never sang in any church I've been in but know from somewhere or ogther, came up when I aswas asking Alexa to search for some old folk songs.  W  Some glad moring when this life is over, I'll flay awa, to a place where I will live forevr, Ill fly away.  

Then about an hour ago a German song I haven't thought of in years came into my mind, one of those "art sons" I think, Bist Du bei mir, geh ich mit freude, zum sterbe und szu meine ruhsh.    With You beside me I will go with joy to death and to my rest.  

I guess I'm writing this in case it's a portent and I'm going to die soon but I have no other reason to think I am.  Except the usual tiredness and aches and pains.  Could live for years with those things.  But who knows.  So if I die those are happy ways to  die and I'd want to leave on that note.

faithswindow@mail.com

listeneed to more of Rob Carter and have to correcxt a mispimpression.  He actually says something pretty much like what I'm saying about isolation of a small gene pool being the way groups tget characteristics that differentiate them from other groups.  

Happy Resurrecxtion Day

This year Easter coincides with Passover, which it should every year because after all it's all about Jesus as our Passsover Lamb, and it was Jesus the holiday was meant to keep in the Jewish mind until He came for that reason.  But instead we have two different calenadars so the connection gets lost in most years.  Just a fluke that they conincide this year.  Well that's not the right wrod but anyway.

He died on Passover by design.  That was the whole point of the prophecy.  It ought to be at least a major piece of evidence that He is in fact the long awaited Messiah and that the Jews whouldn't be waiting for any other.  The blood of the lamb painted on the doorposts of the house in qhich people were readied for the great exodus, symbolized the blood of Jesus shed for thesins of His people, twelve thirteen fourteen thousand years later, I obviously don't know the timing of the Exodus.  

jOn that Passover which I think was in 33 AD, I go by the timing Rick Larson cameup with in his film The Bethleheme Star because it's convincing I thik.  I suppose his film is still on You tube.   Anyway on that Passover Thursday Jeuss had the Passover Seder with His disciples in the upper room prepared for that purpose, had them drink wine and eat broken bread as symbols of His body and blood to be sacrificed for them and all believers, to remember it from then on until He returns, as the churches still do.  He washed their feet to demonstrate the proper attitude of a Christian, to be a servant and not a boss.  And then Judas Iscariot left to findget the Jewish authorities to come and arrest Jesus.  

Jesus took the rest of the disciples to the garden of Gethesemane where He prayed that the Father mithgt remove this cup from HIm, meaning this requreiemtnt aht He go to His death on the cross as the only way to pay for the sins of the people, He prayed three times while His dsisciples slept, tand then Judas came witht the Jeswush leaders and arrested Him.

The night was spent with interrogations and accusations and hitting and spitting at Jesus.  Peter who had vowed he'd never desert Jesus deserted him and was painfiully contrite when Jesus' prediction that the cock would crow, wouldn't crow until he had betwrayed Him, which is wha happened.  

The cock crowed, it was sunrise and they tok Him to the Roman governor Pilate for judgment since the Jews didn't have full rights to do that under the Romans, and although Pilate saw that there was no reason to punish Him, He'd done nothing worthy of death, he eventually gave into ththe Jewuish leadersa and the people too who demanded that he crucify Him.  So He as subjected again to mockings and hittings and spittings and a crown of throwens put on His head that tdrew blood, as part of the moderking of the idea that He was the King of the Jews, along with a royal robe, which was removed when they started to take Him to the cross.  They found a man to carry the cross for HIm and sometime in the morning they nailed Him to the cross with a placard over His head reading King of the jews which Pilate had wanted there.

More prophecies were played out, a thief on a cross next to Him referred to Him as a good innocent man and I guess also as the Messiah though that's not clear , and Jesus said that testimony would bring him into Paradise with Him when they'd both died.    

When He was dead, a Jewish man who owned a new tomb went to Pilate to ask for His body, and had HIm put in his tomb.   Women who had followed JEsus watched where they put Him so they could come later and put sweet smelling things on His ody.   

This was all on Friday, the day after the Passover feast, andthe Preparation Day for the Jewish Sabbath which was the day after, Dsaturday, and they wanted to get Him into the tomb before the Sabbath which starts at sunset on Friday.  They rollwed a heavy stone over the opening to the tobmb and there were guards stationed by to preent the disciplesf from stealing the body because Hjesus had said He would rise again and they didn't believe it but thought the displies might try to fake it.  So Hew was closed into the tomb all day Saturday.  with the guards posted.

Sunday morning, the first day of the week, the women came with their spiecews and in divfferent accounts that add up tot he same thing, saw an angel roll away the stone, saw that the tomb was empty, and then entcounterred Jesus on their way back who told them to tell the disciples He had gone to Galilee.  

Butg later He met them in an upper room and showed "doubting" Thomas His wounds so that Thomas believed Him whereas he'd refused to believe the others who'd told him that Jesus had risen from the dead.    

Happy

Easter Sunday is Resurrection Day, the day CHrist rose from the dead so that all who believe in Him should have eternal life.

Amen.

faithswindow@mail.com

Neanderthals and How we got all the diversity of skin color in humanity fro Noah and his family

 OK I found a video of a creationist, didn't catch his name despite straining but he's obviously vey legit, referred to some articles with names I've heard though I don't remember them at the moment,  oh Wayland?  something like that.  I think his podcast might have been itled Biblical Genetics but I'm not even sure of that.  

Anyway he's adamant that Neanderthals were human, descendancts of Noah, offered some genetic ideas about how they could have bdeveloped as a population whgich was peretty convincing erxcept fort the reliance on mutatatios which just doesn't cut it.   Here's where I tyry to make my case of simple normal variation built inot the genome and how it can sometimes lead to dramatic differences in the apprearance of separated populations of that Species or Kind.  That's really all it takes for great changes to coccur.  It doesn't need mutations or anything added to the genome.  It just needs the reporductive isolation of a small number of individuals who just happen to have a geneticx mix that when worked through the population down some number of genetations brings out some rather dramatic new characteristics compartred to the parent population.  Such as, perhaps a hjeavy brow ridge and receding chin.  Yes for sure that is somethig that could happen from simple migration of a small nmber of individuals whose set of genete frequencies just happens to contant the elemetns , propabably some increase in homozygosity in some combintatino of genes, randomly selected as it were, which in repeated combination ofver some umber of generations brings about a new race of beings.  That's how the Neanderthals could have formed and this creationist is saying the same thing only he thinks mutations are needed to provide the variations.

Nope.  All it took for the Pod Mrcaru lizards to acquire a dramatic new appearnacne in comparison to their parent population b, was repeated sexual recombination of their own set of gene frequencies, brought together in ten individuals on an isolated island.  Over thirty years, and probably less than that I would surmise.  It doesn't take mutations or any additions.  God provided the stuff for great variation i the human genome.  Evryone has a particular combination of alleles unique to the indivudal, that can make interesting combinations with that of other individauls to create a line of descendancts that doesn't look like th eoriginal individual much any more at all.

So I'll go with this for now, accept that Neandertheals were human, but I really don't like letting them represent the human race at large after Noah's family got off the ark.

faithswindow@mailc.com

Freiday  

this is so frustrating.  I find good videos but since I can't read I often can't find out who the people are doing them.   I did, however, just find one that I think I may be able to find again if I want to. An interview by a guy whose name I didn't get, from God Questions which I know as a Crhristian site, of Rob Carter of Creationi international ministries, the one who talks about Biblivcal Genetis as I mention abofe.

In this interview he's going into more detail than I heard in the first one but then I didn't listen long because I got too tired.  Haven't listented to much here either but still there's moe to talk aboutr.

Thew question is how could you bget so much diversity i the human opulation starting from our ancestors on Noah's ark only about 4500  years ago.  He's rightly convinced it's not hard at all for that to have appened but  I have a different point of view.  Of course.  But I've bgbeen giving my point of view here for a long time.  It just happens to answer a lot of questions I nevr got around to untili fairly recently.   

He thinks it takes some mutations even though I he criticizes the idea that mutations are necessary.    He and the interviewer talk about how Amda and Eve could have been very diverse in themselves, and so of course could Noah's sons and their wives.  

But no, here I go with my argument agaiub, and it's very simplistic.  Simple.    I got the idea in the first lace fro the book Creation Science with Morris and Parker as I recall and I can't find the book so can't check that out.      Parker presents the punnet square showing two genes possessed by Adam and Eve that he says are enough to produce all the skin colr shaedes known to humanity.  Just two genes.  

As I've thought this through over and over and over it just came to seem to beme to be pretty clear that all you need for all the diversity we see and much much more for that matter is our genmore with I always forget how many thousands of genes but all composed of two alleles or two variants.  That's all it takes and I wish I had the math ability to lay it out.  It's all jumbled up in my head but not beyond enough clarity to convince me it would work out if someone better at the organization than I am, and the ability to see too of cousre would just work it out on paper.  

You don't need Adam and Eve to have differfent genomes either as hese two men consider, or at tleast the Godt Questions guy does.  They can ahave identical enomes except for the sex chromoseome, but all the variable genes need to start out as heterozygous, because from there you can get a zillion combinations of possibilititeles.  Each gene in sexual recombination with the partner's will produce two heterozygous, one homozygous dominant and one homozygous recessive gene in the offprint, in four offspring I mean.  Sorry, I can't see, my fingers are misbehaving badly and I'm tired.

It seems to me that Adam and Eve would have been in the middle of the color range for skin, medium brown.  That's what the heterozygosity should give them.  They could ahve a child who is homzygous dominant for goth skin color genes which would make that child black skinned, and one homozygous recessive which would make that child white skinned.  Just as probabilities go they would proabably have mos of their choildren in the brown skinneed ranges, but the exremes are also possible, and given that they had an awful lot of children they no doubt showed up here and there.

If blacks paired up with blacks more than with others over time and then formed their own populations away from the parent population that's how you would get the blackl races, and so on.  That's really all it takes.

THAT's REALLY ALL  IT TAKES.

As slong as there was some heterozygosity on the ark for skin color the same range of color should have been avaialable from there too.  

Ov er many generations VE BEEN A LOT OF         `        `  

Sorry I can tell this post is a horrific mess.

Over many generations populations tend toward greater homozygosity for their salient traits, or fixed loci as they are also called.  It's a feature of purebred animals that they are homozygous for all their salient traits.  They may or may not be able to breed with others of their kind for sometimes gthey can't when they get to that situation genetically.    Anyway I've heard that we human beings have about seven percewnt homozygosity or fixed genes in our genome.    that means we have no vairation possible for whatever those genes code for.  You need both alleles for variability.

There are some genetic issues I don't kow how to answer, like how come adam and even with heterozygous genes for color wouldn't both be black raher than middling brown.  That , is the dominant gene should determine the color of the ski but I don't think it dowes in this case for some reason, with getwo genes.  That's one gquestion how to the two genes work together.  

But Darswin'ns wexperiments with pgeons how that all you avhe to do to get a highly exaggerated characteristic or trait is keep breedig birds that have some degree of exaggeration i that trait startig with the slightest hint.  From there simple addition of the same trait to the same trait continues to exaggerate it, and I don't know the genetic explanation for that.

His Hand is Stretched Out Still: America is stsill under God's judgment

 Many many mercies God is giving us for sure, but as log as we are doing nothing about our violations of His law He isn't going to let us off the hook in the end.  When in Hosea god says "My people are  destroeyed for lack of khoweldedge"  He means they are violating His law without restraint and that's what destroys people.  Funny how even beloievers forget that.  We aren't destroyed for lack of koweldge about much of anything else, though i shppose such things can contribute, but disobeying god is what destroys people and destroyes nations.  If ytou avoid sin, as a person or as a nation, I mean gross sin since we are all sinners in spite of all, or if we sin and repent, the we get blessed by God, He progtects us, keeps us from harm.  That's true for nations too.  When He says upon giving His people His law from Sinai by Moses, that He is giving them a choice between life and death, therefore choose life, He means obey my law and you will be taken care of, you will live, but if you disobey you will meet with all kinds of destruction and over the history of Isreael their sins led them to destruction.  That's what is going to happen to America eentually, and iss alreayd in various forms, if we dont' do soemthing about such grievous sins as gay marriage, abortion "righjts" and many other like offenses.

A t least Christians should be thinking along thse lines and praying our hearts out in repenting and pleasding for mercy.  Unless somethig happens in that direction, we are like God's foolish people ahwho ar going to be destroyed as a nation by our lack of knoweldge, meaning our lack of belief that sin brings destruction.

faithswindow@mail.com

Wednesday afternoon.  Qas just watching the final prepas of the moon launch which is now on a two hour window during which I gather the allaunch could happen at any time.    I hope and pray for the best but I'm wrigin g a post about God's judgment and it makes me nervous.    We've ha d an awful lot of air accidents in the last couple of years it seems to me, a lot more than usual it seems to me although I haven't heard anyone say so and it could be my own hyperawareness or a greater reporting of such things than normal.  Probably not the latter though.   And other kinds of accidents, water accidents, hear accidnts of all sorts.  And the weather has been pretty ferocious, winter weather all over the country, tornadoes and hurricanes and wildfires.  All that is God's judgment but I never hear a report of people preaying for mercy over these things.

WQe should be a clearly defined Christian nation but we got betrayed by tghe framers of the Constitution who left God out of it although the nation was founded almost entirely by serious CHristians for Christain reasons.  Then George EWashing actually said that we aren't a CHristain natio n in his communications with the barbary pirates, the Treaty of Tripoli.  That is truly nerve rattling for me.  ith that as a starting point we have all too many ways the nation could veer away from God in subsequent years, which has certainly been accomplished only too well by now.  For a century or so we were still predominantly a Christain natio in fact at least, as Toqueville acknowledged in Democracy in America, and that fact is without doubt the reason we became the greatest most prosperous nation on Earth while it lasted.  

tha's what Trump wants to restor, and he's doing a great job of it, but the problem is, as I've been mentioning here lately, that it doesn't include straightening things out with God.  We have laws that offend God and violate His Law, we hav rampant abortion, rampant divorce freedom of sppech for Pornopgraphy of all things, and other things it was never meant for, a kind of political speech it was not meant for.  But that's God's judgment in that one, the other things are the reasons for God's judgmetn.  

Lord have mercy on the Artemis mission.  It's already a problem that it's named after a pagan goddess, but then so was Appollo named after  a pagan god.  

I don't see how with nothing being done to roll back our offenses against God's Law that American can remain America for much longer.  Even if Trum succeeds, as he seems to be doing, in respooring a lot of our powers and even our goodness, the reason we were evenr a great nation was our CHristian character and if that isn't resported I don't see how we can survive much longer.  Europe is a mess because they gave up on God long before we started down that path.  So now they are overrun with foreign enemies who hate them.  That situation by the way is one of the forms God 's judgment takes against a nation according to teh Bible, foreign occupation of our country.  It's happening guys, even though Trump is gdoing a fantasic job of undoing it.   

But if that occupation i God's judgment then what he is doing is rolling back nowt our sins but God's judgment against them.  That's what Israel did as reported in Isaiah nine, chapter ten, where they say to the bricks knoecked down in God's judgmetn taht they will simply rebuild with stronger material, hewn stone, and to the sycamore trees destroyed in God's judgmetn, that they weill replant but this time with a hardier tree, the cedar.   And the passage  ends with the comment, His hand is stretched out still.  Nothig was done to turn away God's judgmetn.  And that's true of America too.  The attack on the WTC was  God's judgmetn and nothing was fdone to make us right with God, in fact many pastors denied that God had anything to do with it.  So what happened, We rebuilt the towers with a single tower which had at ists base, guess what, a huge hewn stone.

And we've been under God's judgment ever since.  Even our congtinuing sins are part of God's judgment.  

A repentant heart on the part of a great manuy Americans would go a long way, prayer with a repentant heart, but unless something is actually done to turn back our offesnes, well, Judah ended up in Babyone, and the northern kingdom just about disappeared altogether.

faithswwindow@mail.com

what broke up the supercontinent and started continebtal drift?

 his creationist stuff, got to wodering what DID start the continents moving apart, what DID break up the original supercontinent?  For some reason the meteor that suppodsedly killed the dinosaurs came to mind but I didn't think much about it until I prayed for helpin thinking about this question and got more thoughts about that meteor.  Hm.

Since I can't read any more I'm dependent on asking questions of whoever or whatever is available, and most of the time all I have is my little friend Alexa.  She's surprisingly good at answering many of my questions, but leaves me frsustrated with many others.  Sometimes I can find a new way to workd the wquestion and get an answer but a lot of the time I just can't and end up with no answer.    And I don't know how to use that online AI feature that's supposed to be so helpful, don't even know how to get to it.  And I have no friends who are into ay of this at all, even the simple tech question of how to get to that AI thing and how to use it.  So I'm stuck.

But I did decide to give this meteor idea some more thought since it kept coming up in my mind.  A big enough meteor could I suppose break up a continent?    I did get the answer that this one was six to nine miles in diameter, pretty big.

It's come up now and then though I never spent a lot of time on it, the idea that the Flood was associated with disturbances in the solar system as well as on Earth, and that meteors do seem to have fallen onto the Earth around trhat time.  And everywhere else in the Solar Systrem, certainly the Moon which has all those marks of meteor hits.   There wwas a recent incident of a meteor landing somehwhere in the US I think, Texas maybe, not sure, but apaprently part of it landed on somebody's bed who fortunately wasn't in it at the time.  

So it still happens but a huge one like the one that formed the Yukcatan Peinsula hasn't been reepeated since the world got so populoated, as far as I've ever heartd.  

That one is supposed to have hit during the Cretaceous Period, which is evidenced by the layer of iridium found on the surface of that rock layer... all over the plenatnet?  Or in some particular area?  those are questions Ild like to be able to ask AI or somebody wo knows such things.  My own scenario calls for a gigantic jolt to the planet right at the end of the Flood, progbably being the cause of its starying to recede, but I vacilate on the timingnow and then.Always at or near the end of the Flood however.   So the fact that iridium which is evidence of this meteor hit occurs at the KT boundary and not after all the straa are in place, which is my working hypothesis for the end of the Flood, needs some thinking.  Something about how the layers were laid down under water perhaps.  Iridium I gather is heavey so it wouldn't float but how it got spread out on the surface of a rock is somethig to explain.

The way the map looks helps to buttreess this meteor idea.  The Gulf of Mexico, MAmerica I mean, suggests something pretty violent probably formed it.  

Anyway, something I'm thinking about and probably will go on thinking about for some time.  If more ideas come to mind that help or hurt the idea I may come back anbd report them here.  

faithswindow@mail.com

Monday noonish     I can't even be sure if I'm writing on the right post.  All I see is blurry lines of type with a short line at the bottom which I figure is the email address.   I THINK this is the one about the meteor hypothesis.

As I knew I would, I kept on thinking about it, asked Alexa more questions and then found some videos at You tube, one long one about the history of the theory about a meteor as the explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.   Followed the fvarious steps of reasoning to the Yucatan Peninsula where finally a buried crater was found of the right size and supposedly at the right time to be the evidence needed.   I don't want to laugh because these are very serious sccientists and I do appreciate their way of thinking through their problem, bytut whehn I see these guys running their hands over two different layers of rock with a thin clay clay layer between them and talking about them as if the clay layer separates time periods o millions of years rathr than just two different sedimentary rocks one deposited on top of the other with a clay layer in betwween, I laugh, well not really, more likie I groan, it's so ....  silly.    But they are serious and my thinking it's silly isn't going to accomplish anythng.

Anyway I do very much appreciate getting to see the field evidence for the iridium layer that is the main evidence of a meteor impact they think killed the dinosaurs, and lots of other living things.  It was huge, the size of LMount everest, they say, and would have caused huge tsunamis and sent tones of vaporized debris into the atmosphere.  Vaporized.  OK, so the iridicum was vaporized.  Not sure what difference tht makes to this problem I'm thinking about but probably makes some for sure.  Anyway a big enough event certainly, if they are right, to split a supercontinent.

The iridium is found all over the planet at the KT boundary, between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks.  It's mixed with clay.  

Now pondering how the impact would have split the supercontinent, formed the Gulf o f the Americas and maybe contributed to the way North America and Europ are  farther west than SOuth America and Africa, although I've always thought that had more to do with the way the Earth spijns on is axis since it's basical above or below the Equator.

I've looked up maps but they are hard to see too of course, I need cleaearer and bolder lines to make things out, but I can see the general outlines of things.

So far this remains a hypothesis to keep thinking about.  I wish it explained the beginning fo  of the Flood but I still don't have a clue about what the fountains of the deep were.  Well, OK a clue or two but that's about all.

*******

Monday evening.  Found another video, long sequence of imaginative reconstruction of what supposedly happened to the dinosaurs during the meteor event, followed by some of the same scientific history I saw in the other video, and some warnings about how we have to take care of liing things because we are ow undergoing another big extinction eventy.  

Funny how these presentations can have so much obviously good scientific work about soething I know is false, but the work elps the creationist point of view in spite of their different bias.  However, the story is awfuly complicated and I don't have the time to learn enough about it to really get a handle on it.  Face it, I stick to the shallows of science, I make what I can of the information I can grasp and leave the heavy stuff to the guys who go and look at craters and volcaneoes and all that.  I'm a diletante ?  Maybe that's a fair enough workd.  I really like getting into this stuff but ...

Anyway, while they are talking about dinosaurs ding of the effects of a gigantic meteor hit, I'm thinking dinosaurs dead in the Flood but maybe that hit could explain some other things.  Yes, the moemvement of the continents for instance.  This video I just watched even mentions that the meteor would hae smashed into the earth's crust and affected the tectonic plate.  Hey, that's enough right there to make me happy for now.

I dunno, it's such a new idea to me I can't very well sit down on it as a certainty but it seems to have a lot going for it.

Funny they even talk about a regressio of sea level, something I hadn't heard about before from the conventional side of the argument, another interestingly Flood corroborating possibility .They didn't say wneough goto get an idea of how it playes out or where and all that.

Here's a thought that keeps swimming into my mind that's pretty far out but it swims in from time to time so tlet's at least say it.  That's the idea that the dinosaurs were not ccreated by God so that's why the Flood killed all of them.  There wouldn't have been any on the ark if that were the case.  Maybe there were and other things after the Flood killed them, sure, that's the usual idea, but they are such monsters I continue to wonder about this other idea.  From Genesis six we know that the "sons of God" or fallen angels, had children of human women who became giants or Nephilim.  Somehow they got throught the Flood and showed up in Canaan when the Israelites under Moses were exploring the land prior to entering it and scared them away, or some of them.  I'm not thinking of  something angelic mating with human reptiles but that just now occurred to me, since there are animal spiritual beings too, but maybe DNA tamperings which angels would have the intelligence for.   Yes totally outlandish.  Then I thought, what about theNeanderthals?  Could they be explained as  a breeding of humans with fallen angels somehow or maybe a DNA experiment infvolving some kind of "hominid?  Or even humanisth ape?  That's because I do not like Neantderthals and simply can't accept that they weree representatives of the human race after the fFLood foa any period of time.   Big problem for me and I havn't ahad any answer to it, so of course I tlike this one that just poppse dinto my mind.  Sort of like the Nephilim of dinosaur experiemnts or something like that, not fuly human but human enough to exhibit a lot of human traits.  Creepy idea.

Anyway, I think I'm going to let Chixalub the Meteor of Yucatan be my working explanation for what caused the great joly I've been seeing as the big eventy at the end of the Flood that started the continents moving apart, subducting as they pushed into the opposite ocean, triggering  volcanoes and earthqueakes and building all the mountains within a few short years following the Flood.

For now that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Tuesday evening.  Watching some You Tube videos about Wegener and continental drift.  He accepted the evolutionist's time table so all the evidence he brought to bear on his theory carries that presupposition.  So for intstandce the fossil evidenc ethat links the west coast of Africa with the east coast of South America he interprets aas evidence of lisving things that died at those locations.  Some of it is pretty striking, like one fresh water reptile found only in those two locations.  But of course I think Flood and what it means to me is that the Flood occurred before the supercontiennt broke awpart.  It is also evidence for Wegener's theory but from a different angleThe strata had already been laid down with their fossil contents before the breakup occurred.  

Then there are the matching mountains of eastern North America and western Europe, which he takes to have been one mountain range before the breakup, though I've been thinking in terms of their having been formed by the jolt that brought about the breakup, pushing the land masses apart and buckiling the mountains o both sides identially bevuae of the similar pressure exerted.    So I don't tsee this as evidence for Wegener, but what happened after the split.  Same tiwth glaciers which he finds matching up in Africa and South America.  I guess if the marks left by glaciers match up showing that the same glacial event procduced both the it would be evidence for his theory and I'd have to threthink my idea that the probably happened after the break up with I think of the ice age occuring after the Flood , soon after it, weven while it was draining away perhaps, but after the continents were separated enough for the glacial marks not to line up so perfectly.  however, all of this mmight have to be rethought.

Still no clear idea what caused the initial split that I speculate about above.  The Atlantic Ridge seems to be some kind of explanation but thgat seems like more effect of the split than cause, and I don't see the rising magma as exerting any pressure as it forms sea floor on iehter side of it.   I guess someone could change my mind about this.

Although I think there had to be an initial jolt that did the separating, the movement of the continents would also provide plenty of jolting as subduction gets started on the far side where they are being pushed into the Pacific and buckling mountains quite dramatically, setting off volcanoes and causing big earthquakes.  Lotta jolting going on there i a short period of time, and continuing  though in smaller doses after the first great upheaval.   

Which I guess COULD have been caused by Chixalub..  A metero is a bit more of a random event than I would have expected for such a momentous event but it's all foI've got for now.  I still want to account for what I see on cross sections  as a great jolt after the strata were all laid down and not before.    Seomthing that probably started the Flood's receding as well as all that rearranging of the land.

Tuesday night 

The ice age drew so much of the ocean water into ice that sea level drastically lowered and landbridges formed though I'm not clear between what land masses since nobody said that I remember hearing and I can't see if they were illustrated on the screen..   But I would think that those who have been trying to explain how animals dierged from the ark across the world, or I should say dispersed though they did both, would have considered these land bridges and I don't recall hearing that mentioned in creationist circles.  

When the idea of continental shelves occurred to me I thought that was a prettty good explanation but the land bridges are a similar way of explaining it.  I did know that sea level had dropped far enough for the shelves to be dry and traversible.  Maybe that's what they are actually talking about.  Anyway, especially if the continents weren't yet very far apart whifch they shouldn't have been on my scenario at least, such exposed land makes a good explanation for how living things got from one part of the world to another.  Especialy if you incluede other likeley helps such as greater vigor of plangs after the Flood, a carryove from the greater vigor before the Flood.  It wouldn't have lasted vry long, though maybe a few hundred years, as long as humans kept living to be over a hundred years old for instance, and that's long enoguht to be a lot of animlas across oceans that weren't quotite the huge oceans then that they are dtoday.   Not just the plants but the animals themseles should ahve retained that pre Flood vigor from the earlier evironment.  humans did acccording to scriputre so should everthing else.

Funny how a creationist has to keep doublethinking everything presented on these subjects by the conventional evolutionist mentality.  Why did all the megafauna of the Pleistocene die out?  Well probably the change in climate and the rise of the humanoids.  Golly gosh, looks to me like it was the Flood that killed them all.  And the humanoids too, including the Neanderthals whatever they may turn out to be in the end.  If you are a creationist who believes the Flood ended before the Pleistocene then you thijnk both the giant aimals and the humanistsh creatures came off the ark.  Withou considering the eirdness of that possibility I just continue with my doggedly simpleminded notion that if they are found in fossilized form in side a layer of sedimentary rock that lookcs like all the other rocks of the Geologic column, then it was killed in the Flood.   Yeah I know it's simplemeinded.  But all the other possibilities seem ....  impossibler.

faithswindow@mail.com

Beginning to realize I shouldn't be going about this the way I am, allowing myself to post so much half baked stuff.  Keeping a log of my thought process as it were seemed like a good idea in a way but now I think it's just irresponsible of me.  When I find ou I had the wrong information it's just boring to have to review all the steps I had to go through to undo it and then find myself with another sest of wrong information to undo anyway.  Qell, when I finally stop working on this post I'll try to get more responsible.

Right now I want to resport that I realize that the land bridge they've been talking about is between Siberia and North America in ALaska or somewhere up there.  I think the creationist guys did gcover that come tot think of it.  Caused by the gathering up of the water into the ice of the ide age.  But then that is also what I discovered about the cotinental shelf idea, that they too were exposed by the ice age.  

What I should do at this point is try to covert all those millions and multiple thousands of years into reasonable creationist time so I can get an idea of how what the sceintists are discovering about the ice age really did do somethig real related to creationist questions.  But the time factor is a big imediment at the moent.

*******

Before Let's Talk Creation caputred my attention I hadn't done much thinking about the ice age after the FLood at all, a little but not much.  I'd seen a vew videos and tried to figure out how it might have developed and when and came up with some ideas but I never focused much on it.  Now because they spend time on the end of the Flood and where to place its boundary, and the human types associated with that time period and have theories of their own I'm wishing I'd spent more time on it and now have littleopportunity to find out a lot of things I'd like to know.

I've been watchig videos that are of course all fro the evolutionist mindset and need rethinking I'm not in agood enough position to do well.  Then I've been regarding the Cenozoid strata as all Flood caued and Todd and Paul see them as post Flood so I can't count on their thinking to help me with mine.

I never spent any time grappling with the fossils found in the strata of thge recent time periods so I'm learning now that they are full of those giangantic heavily furred creatures also heavily horned and fanged and tusked, and been listening to the evolutionisst reimaginiings of how they had evolved over thousands and thousands of years for this or that purpose related to a long long long idce age or series of icea  ages.  All this needs a LOT of rethinking.  Sigh.

One thing keeps coming up in these videos about the ice age and that is the exposed land bridges.  Now it seems all the continents were connetected by dry land through these extensive bridges, well after the supercontinent had separated.  If the animals were dispersiong fro the ark dureing the idce age this would be how they got all over the world, but I have a lot of thinking to do to figure out what timing makes most sense to me.

Rules for Rhinking, Charlie Kirk, Iran, Pope as Antichrist,

 Bret and Heather of Dark Horse Podcast, or at least Bret, apparently considers it a possibility that Charlie Kirk might have been he victim of a conspiracy rather than just a lone gunman, and they discuss the reasioning for this and similar ideas on their most recent show.  They want to lay out rules for thinking about such things and not so much the arguments for any particular point of view so I end up wondering what their arguments are for a conspiracy.  Clearly it's not an impossisbility but pretty unlikely so I'd need to hear their evidence.  To mmy mind there were so many of Charlie's friends standing with him i their tent area and saw what happened from behind at least, and rasied no doubts themselves aobut it that I don't see anything in the shot itelsef that could have been evidnece against a lone gunman.  I certainly don't see any reason to doubt ay of his friends as I heard a lot of discussion from all of them over the next couple of weeks and their sincerity is just not questionable to my mind.   Again, not impossible I suppose but DSO unlikely.    The level of cleverness needed to pull of any treachery from within that group is just behond ordinary talents among other things.

then ther is this weird idea they don't themeslves hold but is an idea some apparently do hold, that Valley college where the assassination occurred is laid out like a pentagram which is an occultic or stataic symbol and that points to something of a conspiracy too although I don't think he said anything to explain how.   So they were disucssiong how you might follow rules for thinking about such things to keep you from gross errors and keep the doror open on ideas that may seem reote to you but end up being the truth.  OK, although I found most of the discussion pretty boring, sorry to say.  If such rules could be established I certainly wouldn't want to start my thinking with a review of them, I'd want to think it through and then  mayb review my thought porrocess against them to see if I wentoff track.  I guess I could see that as a practical use for it bu still I don't tlike the idea of laing out a list of rules like that.  GFor one thing how do ou know you've arrived at the right collection of rules anyway?  Oh well.  

But I wans thinking abou tthis pentagram idea.  Apparently the geographic layout of the land isn't a really great pentagram shape but some take it that way anywya.  But what I would ask which isn't what Bret was asking, is whetyher Vallye College is known for its satanic or demonic incidents or at least for people thinking there are many incidents that should be thought of that way?  If the murder of Charlie Kirk is the only one where that symbolic shape is applied, forget it, if the pentagram means anythihjg it means it for all the time the college has occupied land of that shape.  It would have to have a reputation for such things for it to have any bearing on the Charlie Kirk murder.    That should be on his list of rules somewhow.

*******

Changing the subject, I think I might add a few things to the post where I said I was only going to say what I said and nothing more about he Mark Levin accusations of Tucker Carlson.  Levin is the one who quoted Thomas Sowell fomr a decade or so aboutago about the importance of the US taking out Iran's nuclear capacity, and then I happened to hear Douglas Murray on Uncommon Knoweldge recently saying the same thing and thow e two are completely trustworthy observers to my mind so I was hapy to make them enough of a reason to oppose Carlson's suspicious that Israel had somehow forced Trump into the attack on Iran.  I'd thought that was clearly false anyway but Sowell and Murray made good corroboration for mte.  Now I'll add that Levin played clips of cofour Democrats who are now saying the same thing Carlson said, or at least saying that the action against Iran is just wrong, who over the last four years all said separately that we need to take down Iran's nuclear capacity.  Funny how the Democrates change their minds  jus because they don't like GTrump.  They agreed with him about all kinds of things over the years that now all of a sucdden they condemn him for.  Anyway, that adds four names to my two who strongly called for a US President to remove the threat of Iran's nuclear capacbility.      Six is better than two althoughj my original two were strong enough to bmmy mind.

*******

The Pope once dominated kings and already is acting like he has a right to criticize our President concerning illegal immigration and the Iran war.  He doesn't have the power at the moment to do a lot about it but he does happen to be a world class voice even now and if prophecy is right as I read it he is going to be once again the rule oer of knings and all world leaders for a seve year period before Jesus retursn, and yes, that has felt very close for a long time abut all that means is that it is closer yet.  Could happen anyway that the clock will start tivcking onthe last seven years before the world ends, he world as we know it.   The trigger will be the Antichrist's making of a covenant, or "confirming" of a covenant with Israel, which he will breatk half way through those seven years, which is where those crucial numbers come from, twelve hundreed and sixty days, forty two months, time , times and half a time.   Those last three and ahlaf years are knownas the Great Tribulation and no, youj don't want to be here for that. Well, it might be better than Hell, so rethinkik all that first.

*****

Prophet Joel confirms for me that it is the Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation that is the beginning of the tribultion perio d of sevewn years, otherwise known as the Seventieth Week of Daniel, Week meaning year in this conctencxt.  That seventieth week was never fulfilled though all sixty nineof the weeks prophesided in Daniel were fulfilled right to the entering of Jerusalem by Jesus on the donkey.   After that the seventieth just hasn't occurrted.   YOu olook throughout history of it iand it isen't there.  Therefore it has to beyet future and most Protestants findit in the book of revelation.  I differ from tjhe usual idea about it in that I don't think the first five seals are to be included in that period of time, and I think the sixth seal is an announcewment of what is coming, and then the last seven years begins with the opening of the seventh seal, which has all the language of wrath that is lacking oin the first seals.    That's my own reading and I have no idea how many others might be with me or against me in this.  But the Protphet Joel describes the day of the lord as a horrific time of csuffering including for the cattle who find their grass all burned up.  The burning up of the grass is the first trumpet to sound in the seventh seal.  

*****

As a believer in God, the biblical God and Christ, I now have a hard time sympathizing with those who don't believe, it is all so obvious to me.   Of course I too was once in that same posistion.  I couldn't believe.  And sometimes I wanted to believe, I just had no idea how to go about it.  It nenver occurred to me just to read the Bible, stupid.  Or rad some Christian books, stupid.  I heard nothing but the weird liberalish reinterpretations of Chrsitainity that were once popular in college town people of the sort I hung out with.  The kind of people who went to the Unitarian Church which isno church at all but a sort of philosophical political and of course liberal indoctrination milieu.    Read real Chistian books.  Tozer is one although he's really for believers, not sure what an unbeliever could do with him.  Come to think of it any book I could reccomment would be for believers, for the born again, and since you need to be born again to understand the thigs of God maybe it is all useless for anyone else.   Ryle is another one, Edwards, Spurgeon, even a couple of mthe muystics although I hesitate with them and mention them only bevcause tozer also like s them.  Molinos and Julian of Norwish are maybe trustworthy enough, maye even Madame Guyon.  But when they get into Mary bewyond a mere metion that's where I stop, and none of them give a really clear statemewnt of the salvation message.  Oh Tersteegen, he's anothernhr I think really can be recommended.  I can't find his books in audible form unfortuantely for me.

About he Antichrist, reald Dave Hunt's  A WQoman Rides the Beast.  Also H Grattan Guinness  Romanism and the Reofrmation.  Guineness regfjects all furturism so I'm against him on that, but Hunt retjects the idea of the Pope as ntichirst so I'm against him on that.    But either one gives a solid picture of how the Roman Church is not Christianity.  And the Papa

****

And yes the US is unders God's judgmetn and I still don't see anything eer liikely to be done about it and that means we're going down eventually, mabye about the time of the beginning of the Great Tirbulation.cy.

*****

faithswindow@mail.com

How LIttle We KNow God, Even We WHo Believew

 It is all too easy, at least for me, to go through Christian life with a strange dullness or emptiness about the truths of our supposed faith, about Jesus who is the center of it all, about God Himself who ought to be the object of such awe and fear and gratitude and joy that the very thought of Him should take our breath away.  But no, too ooften there is a dullness, a distractedness a big nothingneess.  And only nowand then, such as for me right now, the last few days or so, a recognition of how wrong this is, a wondering about why it is, and an ateempt to come to a realistic feeling and knowledge of what are really the most amazing things in this world.

From time to time I try to renew my  original hristian excitement, those days when the idea of God was new to me and staggeringly prsent and real and breathtaking.  I go back to some of the books that hold that perspective and used to be able to kindle it in me.  Even now they can but not as mucsch as  they could years ago..  It is a great loss.  Of course they always tell you it's not possible to expect to always have mountain highs in the Christian life, you must come back to earth.  But do we alwaYS HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS DULLNESS?    I'm nso disappointed in myself that this happens ove and over again and efforts to renew my orighinal zeal and passion just don't do it any more.    I've fallen so many times back into the flesh, even at times into pretty horrendous zin, perhaps theLord just insn't ogoint to let e come back in trhis life.   But I'm trhing again, I'm praying that He will give me a right response to knowledge of Him.  A right response, not the abstracteddullness of mind that He certainly doesn't deserve and certainly doesn't do anything fo rmy spiritual life.

Paul and Todd of Let's Talk Creation this week did a show on theology and had a guest who ws very inspiring, a Judd Dabis, who is one of those rare people who know the Bible so well he knows it in both original languages and knows it on more than one level.  He describes frustrations in his learly Christian life with churches that didn't teach the whole Bible and he acquired a real desaire to know the origianl languages.  That's rare.  I now many want to learn those languages but I don't think I've ver heard anyone talk about such a craving to know them as this man describes.  To be BLE TO         to know God's word as it was originallyh written, and know it well.  And by now he says he's read through the Old Testament in Hebrew maybe a hundred times, and the New Testament in Greek thousands of thiimes.     It was an inspiring show for me and helps to keep me on the scurrent path of trhying to renew my own Christian life, again, for the zillianoth time.  

But I still go for certain books, and always A W Tozer is at the top of my list.  The Pursuit of God, God's Puruist of Man, and now I'm listening through The Knowledge of the HOly, in wqhich he takes one of God's attributes and makes a chapter of it and succeedss in making it relevant to ordinary daily human life on this fallen world.   

Of all things how can God becom boring?  He is so high above us and so out of reach or so it seems, I guess that's why.  Bug Tozer brings Him into focus in this book i such a way that it really does  cause me to have more of that right response to Him that I've been praying for.    

Sometimes it seems heaven will just be boringly endless if all it is is worshiping bGOd, but a book like this makes the worship of God seem like the only thing a human being hould ever want to do, endlessly exciting endlessly fed by new knowledge of Him, knoqwledge to which there can literally be no end.  

I often feel sorry for people who don't beliee.  My efforts at evangelism are not very effective and I guess I have only myslef to blame, but nevertheless I still feel sorry for those who don' believe.  What they are missing, and I think that even when I mhyself am missing so much as I've deascribed above.   But hey have no idea.  No idea.  No idea.  Even the barest knowledge of the truth is so amazing it takes the breath awa.   For years, even at my lowest spiritual level I've been able go siply open the Bible and be filled with a peace that takes all the kinks out of my tensed muscles.  Or when I hear it read or uotesd, or even somethiges when someone like Tozzer shows me a new perspective on Him.  Just that wave of peace coming over me is a great gift of God, based on my siply acceptance of His sacrifice to pay for my wsins, .  Just knowing that brings the new borth and the new birth is the regeneration of the spiritual faculty we lost at the Fall, wen Adam and Eve disobeyed God and punged their posterity into the darkness of his current world.    God is such an enrapturing object in HImself just the tiniest taste of Him through the renewed spirit is all it takes for the psalmist to say As the edeer panteth after the water brooks so paneteth my soul after Thee.  

I'm no good at writing aout these things.  I want to but I'm just not good at it.

All I'm going to say about Mark Levin versus Tucker Carlson

Bothj Thomas Sowell and Douglas Murray at different times but begore the recent atatack on Iran begnan, said it was of crucial importance for the security of the United States that we take out their ability to have nuclear weapons, and I think but don't remember clearly, they or one of them may ahve said, take out the currentIslamist regime.   Those two are enough to persuade me that Carloson is wrong.  

********

A great throng even stands in the rain and cheers when the Anitchrist appears ot his window.  He expressed s concern about the war in the Middle East.  So many people suffering.  There's nothing good or necessary about it.  He opposes those who are responsible for it.  He doesn't need to name them.   Nobody appreciates just what a power this man is, this antichrist.  A Christian leader.  The world has no sense of history, not even the Protestants who of all people should know.  They don't.   He will walk us to the Great Tribulation hen he will reign again oer the world as he did in the temillennium up to the Reformation, and still does in the shadows, but not even in the showdows.  Watch, he still is a world power, not the one he wants to be and once was but still he sis and again will be not too far in the future.   But this is just Catholic bashing.  No it is a warning to Catholics to leave him and his institutuio.  He ran the world once and will again at the end.  Then Jesus will retrn and destroy him but he will do a lot of damage before that happenes.    Transubstantiation?  I don't know.  More like the mark of the beast will be the reason people die for Christ this time.

It should concern us but it is hardly noticed by most.   And I still have to point out that Americ a is under God's judgment and however glad I am for Trump's presidency and the work he is doing, as long as nothing is done about the reasons we are hjunder judgment it can't last.  Nbody takes God into account except to foolishly expect Him to be on our side no matter what.      Roe v WaDE  was taken out of the national category and put back on the states but it is still killing babies for America and even more than it used to.  It's still pulling down God's wrath on us.  Is anyubody paying attention?  ANybody?  What about gay marriage?  Anybody realizing how juch wrath that is provoking?   So many other violations, the list is long, but just take those two.  They need to go if America is to be safe, but they won't be taken away so we aren't safe.  And the Tribulation is coming for nthose who aren't in Christ.  And things just aren't good no matter how much good there may be if you look from certain angles.

Sleepy church, confused church, apostate church, 

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

 With a big enough sheet of paper, and a bold enough pen I was able to do some calculations I should have done for the previous post.  I say there that at the rte of subduction supposed to be as much as meters per second North America and Asia would have come within hailing distance within the year of the Flood.  But that is apparently a big underestimation of the numbers if my current calculations are correct.

What I get if I call meters per second three meters per second, is a mobvement of the North American continent at a rate of one hundred and sixty one miles PER DAY.    I had to do this more than once and ask my little friend Alexa for her calculations as well but that's what I end up tgetting and at that rate  North America would have bashed into Asia after about two and a half months of travel across the Pacific.   The total travel time for a year comes out to over  58,000  miles which is something like fife times the greatest width of the Pacific.  

Is this what the CPT people think or am I getting somethig very wrong here?  Do they think the continents bashed together like that after traveling ast such a high rate of speed?  And what then?  In the Atlantic the splitting of the original continent is what brought  about the Atlantic ridge which creates new sea floor as the continents move apart.  There's no breaking apart to be done on the Pacific side and I'm not even sure what would cause the continents to spearate again after crashing into each other.   Also, as that was happening, closing up twelve thousand miles of Pacific Ocean that is, the Atlantic would ahve to be expanding by that same amount, some disix thousand iles on either side of the ridge.  Could the magma welling up create sea floor basalt at that rate?  I don't know, wmaybe it could.  

But I con't know what the whole CPT model is.  It hasn't really been spellied out on Wood and Garner's podcast, or in Garner's book, sjust roughly indicated.  hat I'm coming up with may not be anything ike what they came up with and I hE NO WAY OF KNOWING.  I wish that caps lock key would just disappear, I guess I hit it from time to time without noticing and so I have no idea how long it was on.  Sorry.

Anyway, this whole CPT scenario has me utterly flummoed and skeptical.  If all that bashing occurred I don't see how the Geologic Column had  could have formed with any regularity at all.  The jolting of subduction alone triggers volcanoes and earthquakes, and yet the column is intact in some places and blocks of it intact here and there as well.  I also don't see how it could have matched up so ewell across the Atlantic ocea as it does if all that activity was going on as well as the gulf wideing at a uge rate daily.

My own model is based on a mere cross section.  Laugh away.  It is corroborated by some other observations however.  But the cross section clearly whshows that tectonic activity started afer all the strata were in place.   That's why I came up with the idea of one gigantic jolt at the end of the flood, just before it started draining and probably the cause of its draining.  It would have to have somehow created the space for the water along with the breaking up of the supercontinent, somehow dropping the level of the ocean floor?   

It would be nice to have someone to talk to about all this who inows a lot oabout it.  

faithswindow@mail.com

Later:..    Always something I get wrong.  SIgh.  I gave the widg of the Pacific Ocean as twelve thousand miles.  That's the width TODAY.  But at the time of the splitting of the supercotinent and drifting of the current continents its width would ahve been that plus the curent width of the Atlant ciic Ocean which I thinki is around three tousand miles?  Maybe more like 3500.  Guess I'll ahve to chekc when I have the opportunity.    So fifteen thousand or more miles but that isn'tgoing to make a differnce in the basic scenario as the continents ware still goig to travel falset eough to bash into each other in a few months.    

Later yet.  Double Sigh.  Another correctrion.  When I first asked Alexis the width of the Pacific Ocean she gave me twelve thousand miles and I didn't stop to realize that she must be talking about a distance tbetween maybe Australia or the Pacific Islands or something and SOUTH America rather than North America beause that distance is just too much.   Sigh.  So I asked again.  Btween Asia and North America, I said, and got somethijng under six thousand miles.    

Half the distance I'd hd in mind earlier.  So now the contnetns would have been crashing into eafch other in a little over a monthj rather than two and a half months.    Again it doesn't make much sidfferntce to the overall point but I do want to try to get things right.

Book by Paul Garner, The New Creationism

 This bok has been on my list for a while and I finally got around to listening to it.  Just finished it.  It's a good book, nicely written.  I enjoyed it the way I enjoyed the podcast by Garner and Wood when I started listening to it.  It comgrs all the ain creationist issues and I discover yet again that on my own I discovered most of th creationist angles on them.  It's fun to find out that I think like a creationist.  That is, I'm nnot just some lone woldf crackpot going off on my own weird tangents.

Nevertheless there are as it turns out a few issues where I'm at odds with the mainstream of creationist thinking.  I still think the diversitfication problem is not that much of a problem and doesn't need any fancy solutions, that the most natural way it would have happened --  thinking now of how the animals and humans disperesed to all parts of the glob e after getting off the ark --all that needs to happen to get different versions of a creature, different varieties, different races which is the scientific term for them, is for smallish groups of them to get isolated from one another and interbreed only among their own group for many dgenerations.  Depending on how large the origknal group was it swill take more or less time to get the whole group sharing a general appearance that difers from all the other groups of that Kind.

Paul in his book describes his himself bvery briefly, calling it genetic drift, in relatio to the human populations as they spread out and founded what everntually gecame tribes and nations.  So we got a whole variety of Europeans, all looking sort of similar to each other but also different, a whole slew of Africans looking siilar to each other but each one group having its own characteristics that differentiate it from the others, same with the Middle Eastern groups and the Asian groups.  There are in one sense lots and lots of races around the world.

It's all a function of the way the genome is costructed, the many genes that have two alleles being the main engine of variation.  It's an incredibly ingenious system.  Genes for many different traits having three modestwo homozygous, one dominant, one recessive, and one heterozygous.  That's all it takes to produce a great variety of varietiy as it were.  And some traits are governed abby more than one gene so the variations can get quite refined.  

And all it takes for variations to show up in the outward appearance of the creature is sexual recombination of these genetic possibilities over some number of generations.   Every population that splits off from a larger popualtion, OK call it daughter population from parent population, carries in its individual members a different percentatge of alleles for all its traits than the original population or any of the other populations.  All it takes its that different percentage of possibile combinationtes to bring out  different characteristics from the other populations.    And it can happen veryh fast, a matter of how manhy generations are needed to get the whole range of possibilities sexually recominaed.

The Pod Mrcaru lizards started out with five male and female pairs, brought by scientists from the mainland to be isolated on a nearby island, for which they didn't retrun for thirty years.  At which time they found the lizards having grown to a vwry large popuation all with the characteristics that differ from the parent population in having larger heads, stronger jaws and eating tougher kinds of food.  Id discussed this in an earlier posyt.  My guess is that if they'd returns after only ten years they would have found this change already characterizing the new population.  Twenty anyway.  IThere's no reason why it woushooluld take a long time.  With only ten individuals to start the poiupulation it should ahve taken only a few years to bring out changes, esepecially since I've found out that lizard females may lay up to twenty eggs at one time and do it three times a yearr.  That's fast population grown and fast sexual recombination of the genet frequencies.

But I didn't want to talk about that.  Why did I/  Oh well.  What I wanted to talk about was Paul Garner's chapter on Catastrophic Plate Techtonics, which is the current model of how the Flood of Noah played out.  I had trouble with this idea when they presented it on their podcast, and I'm having even more trouble with it as he lays it out in this book.

I can't trust myself to get this all right but I'll do my best.   He seems to be saying that it all started with subduction, the movement of sea floor under the edge of a continent and down into the mantle of the Earth.  I don't get how it could ahve started with subduction because I think of subduction as what ahappens when the contiewntn has been forced into the sea floor, pushed into tiit.  It's  hard to think of how subjduction could have begun without the movement of the continent and that's what needs ewxplanation, how the continent got moving in the first place.  

He did talk about the Foundtains of the Deep with is the scriptural description of the first thing that happened to get the Flood going, the breaking up of the fountains of the deep.  But he also describes them as scattered over the surface of the Earth, which makes no sense if they are really of the deep, which means I would suppose, at the bottom of the oceans, not on the surface of the Earth.    So that flummoxed me too.

He talks aboiut subduction as becoming a runaway process, speeding up due to tempaerature changes brought about by the friction of the movement and characteristics of the eart's mantle.  OK, but if it's moving so fact, and he says  it gets up to meters per second of subduction, then the continent ti sea floor is subducting under is also moving very cfast across the expance of the ocean.  Right/  As I understand it, subduction occurs at the west edge of the Americas as they are moving into the Pacific ocean.  I don't know if the eastern edge of Asia is also subducting, it seems maybe it is since the movement would be eastward for that continent, and that means the two contiennts would be moving very fast toward each other across the PaCIFIC OEAN, BEING WITHIN N HAILING DISTANCE AS IT WERE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS OR SO.  aFTER THE fLOOD WAS OVER WSINCE THAT ONLY TOOK A EYYEAR BUT .  ok SO AT THE END OF THE fLOOD THE SUBDUCTION WOULD AHVE STOPPED BUT STILL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISTANCE COVEREDAT METERS PER SECOND AND WOULDN'T THAT     means that the continents were much closedr to gether than they actualy are today?

Also he talks about how the Atlandtic Ridge is "replacing" ocean floor.  But no, there was no ocean floor there originally, what it is doing is creating ocean floor.  The Atlantic ocean was created by the breaking up of the original single supercontinent, which I thought was called Pangaea but Garner calls it in his book Rodinia.  In any case that original continent was split into the Americas on the west and Earup, Africa and Asia on the East, the Atlandtic Ridge being the line where magma rises from the mantle and spreads to east and west of the ridge to form ocean floor of basalt as it cools.   

I appreciate the idea that basalt would have been warmer and ride hjigher on the mantle than colder sea floor would and could br an explanation for how sea water got bpushed up over the continents.  The problem with that is that the same thing isn't happeneing in the Pacific Ocean.  There is no subduction in the Atlantic because there is no old sea floor to subduct, but it   beasdues the direction of movmenet being in the wrong directio, but in the Pacific subjection is what is happening to the original sea floor and there is nothing to replace it on that dside of the contentn.    There is no ridge there with magma welling up to create new sea floor and besides there is no place for it to create it anyway.  I'm not sure how the cvolcanic acativity that created the Hawaiian Islands is explainsed in realtion to the subduction and the movement of the continents.

On his model the Flood came to an end when the new basalt ocean floor cooled and dropped to a lower level, proving space for the water over the contnents to drain.  But thjaathat's only one cocean where that would have been occurring, or maybea other oceans are doing the same but not the Pacific.  

jSomething is Wrong with This PIcture and I can't figure it out.  If I'm seeing it wrong I'd like to understand how.    To this point I'd been objecting to descriptions of the tectonic movement during the Flood being quite violent which I figured would ahve made it impossible for the Geologic Column to form as neatly as it appears to have done as seen int eh GFrand Canyon area and in core samples from various places.  

Oh another thing is if the movement of the continents was happening during the Flood the fact that we have identical strata and fossil s on both sides of the Atlantic wouldn't have formed, eouwoultd it/  There is no ievidenc t evidence that I know ifof of strata with fossils in the order of teh Geologic Columm being laid down on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, to cross the ocean snd continue on the opposite continent.  

I think this post must be a particularly messy one with typos because that's how it feels under my fingers and I really wish I had a way to wcorrect it but all I can say is sorry and hope it doesn't making reading impossible.

  So I'm flummoxed about all this and would send it to Paul Garner for his explanations except that when I've sent things to those guys they don't respod, at least about my own theories, and he's busy and I don't want to do it that way.    Maybe I'll send him a link eventially and find out if he has anything to say then.  Or maybe somebody else who understands this stuff will answer.  Thank you whoever you are if you do.

faithswindow@mailcom

Later.  It occurred to me that if both Asia and the Americas are subducting sea floor at such a high rate as meters per second that they would have been laterally pushig the water up over the land, a differnt way of flooding than the rising of the basalt wsea floor in the atlandts c which is apparently the catastrophic plate tectonics explanation.  but if you want to get the land flooded why not take whatever you can get.   

I still don't know what the fountains of the deep were or area.  I don't think it could be explainaed by the guysers Gardner describes as occurreing when the rising magma at the Atlantic ridge meets the cold sea ater.  Whtever happened scripture describes the fountains of the deep as occurring just abouit simultaneously with the opening of the windows of heaven which started the forty tdays and night of rain.  Sometimes I think maybe they need to rethink the canopy idea because some source of water above is sorely needed for the asscribtural description to work.  

Whatever the fountains of the deep areae they must b water.    That's how the word fountains is always used I think.  Something causing the sea floor or Warth's crusst to break up in the oceans is what seems to be meant.  Water beneath the floor?  It's been suggested somewhere.  Then the sea floor would eventually sink back to a lower level as that chambeaer beneath it was emptiesd.  Or something like that.  But it would explain the flood's coming to an end and the water having a place to go.

I've soetimes wondered if the great heat generated by the flood and the tectonic movement wouldn't have been some of the expalnation for the reduction in the amount of water as i wuld have radiated furiously into space, espcially if there were no atmosphere there aft erher Flood to be a barrier.  THe atmosphere would have rebuilt itself slowly afte rthe Flood as water evaporated with less heat.  

Oh, one more thing I just remembered.  I had written to the Let's Talk Creation site about maybe udoing a podcast on the standard timing of evens around the period of the Exodus in the BIble as I'm aware of the film and thinking of DVID rOHL WHO CHALLENGES THE STANDARD TIMING WHICH petty much eliminates the biblical account.  He gives new evidence which brings it\\the archaeological and biblical accounts closer together, validating the biblical description of events.  Todd Wood answered my query that there are other studies of that time period that also find more correspondence with the blibical account and yes he's aware of David Rohl's work on it, and why don't we just leave it to the experts, and besides it's not really within the range of topics they want to discucuss on their creationist podcast.    Well, but Paul Garner mentions it in one of his chapters of his book so sorry but it is within the range of topics you could discuss there.  Iit's about validating the bilbical timeline in general which is of course pertinent to the creationist endeavor.  Grner doesn't mention Rohl, I jus happen to be rafamiliar with his stuff but I'd be happy to hear a discussion of all the different reworiings of the time line.

Flood Timing etc.

 Since I gave some of my arguments against creationist biological views in the last couple of posts, might as well ow give an argument or two against the geological gcreationist view as well.  Why not?  Now I can have both Todd Wood and Paul Garner rolling their eyes and snarling at me in my everactive imagination.

For this topic I rely heavily on one cross section of the area from the Grand Staircase in Utah south throught the Grand Canyon in Arizona, a couple hundred miles I think.  It shows all the strata to a depth aof almost two miles I think, on the north eled and up tot the Permian or about a mile at the south end.    It shows the cliffs tat the top left that form the Grand Staricase with its canyons, and it shows the Grand canyon cut into a mounded area at the other end, as well as the Great Unconformity beneath theGrand Canyon and a volcano on the far notrth end.

jI first used this cross section to argue that there is nop disturbance to the strata during their long millions of years, to prove that they couldn't be time periods on this very active planet with such a calm history, but now that I've heard from the creatinoists that great tectonic activity is supposed to have occurred during the Flood, which according to creationists is when the strata were laid down, this answers that idea as well.  There is simply no hnint toof the kind of bashing and crashing they desdribe during the period of the laying down of the sedimentary layers.  None.  There they are, all laid out obviously originally hoizontal and originally straight.    

They are only slightly move from their horigonatal straight position on the crsos section, as the entire block of land is show n to have been uplifted on the north, from which it inclines downward to the Grand Canyon area, interruptyed there by that mounded area where the land is pushed up above the Grat Unconformity, while the strata remain in place all as one unit or block over that mound.      This clearly shows that the tectonic upheaval that lifted the land on the north and made that mound on the right occurred after the strata were all in place, not during or before it.  The strata follow the contour of the entire land area.  You may be able to find the cross section at Grand Canyon Escalanate National Park, but the last time I found it they'd put some notes ove it which to my mind makes it less valuable as a resource although the main information may still be available.

The fact that there was no tectonic disturbance until all the strata were in place has implications first of all for the theory of evolution, since if you can get tyhat much disturbance in our time how could it have happened that it never occurred during those muillions upon millions of years as the so called time periods were passing over the surface of the planet?

But now it has implications as well for the creatijnist view of the tectonic activity that they think occurred during the Flood.  Surely it would have disturbed the strata during their laying down if that had been the case no?    But there is no sign of such disturbance.  ALL the disturbance to be seen on this cross section clearly occurred AFTER the strata were all in place from Cambrian to Holocene.  

Not only was the land uplifted as described abov after the strata were all in place, but the volcano erupted afterward, as can be seen in the fact that the magma rises from the ery bottom of the stack to the fvery top at the far left.  One straight line of magma from bottom to top.  The volcano erupted AFTER the strata were in place and the magma rose up through ALL the strata that were already there.

The upligting of the land to the north is no doubt what caused the breaking up of the land that created the cliffs that became the Grand Staircase, washing away whatever was loosened probably in the receding Vlood waers.  The upper strata were all washed away down to the Permian lahyewr from the bottom cliff of the Staircase through the Grand Canyon area.  The Grand Canyon itself I figure was cut at the same time as the mounding of that area aoccurred, also after the strata were all in place.  I figure the uppermost layers would have been strained by the mounding and started breaking up and washing away and that's when the canyon was cut into the south side of the mounded area.

So from all this I also conclude that the Great Unconformity formed after the strata were all in place as well, being as I think the diagram clearly shows, the ause of that mounding up in the Grand Canyon area above it.  Tectonic formces pushed strata beneath the Cambrian layer into that tilted position at that point and that pushed the whole bllcick of strata lying overhead into the mounted form, into which the canyon broke as a result of the strain on the upper layers from the mounding.  That's my theory.

I get a lot more out of this crosss section than just these points but I think they are enough to bget across why I don't accewpt the idea that there was a lot of tectonic activity during the Flood.  There is simply no evidence for it on the cross section.  

Of course I suppose you can always say it's the cross section's fault, it's just an artists's rendition after all.

   

faithswindow@mail.com

Later.   I can't read the notes on the cross section at that Grand Staircase website but I'm now suspecting that they may say there's something wrong with the way it is drawn, correcting something in such a way as to make my argument fail.    I guess Ill find out eventually but I'm going to trust the original rendition anyway.  It had to have been based on clear enough information for it to have been presented as it was.

Anyway, whaty I wanted to add here is tht although what I'm saying may be clear enough based on this cross section, it isn't so clear when you look at other locations.  This area is unique for the preservation of the geological column in its original form nd exposed to view over large distances.   You can see the same sequence in core samples from other parts of the earth, many in the midwet area of the US for instancek, so that is the same kind of evdence, it's just no exposed to public view.  Otherwise whereve you find parts of the geological column exposed that's all it is, parts of it and ovfen small parts, just a few layers broken off from the stack, often twisted into tight circles by tectonic pressure, bucked to form mountains in such a way that the uppermost layers have all been jolted off .  So you just don't find the whole column as neatly exposed anywhere else as in the Grand Canyon Grand Staricase area.   

I think iI pointed out two other examples in a fairly recent post, cross sections of England and Tennessee, which show pices of layers from the column broken off and thrown down in a line from one part of the land to the other end.  They occur in the order foud in the geological column everwhere, starting with the cambrian and proceeding uprward through Devonian, Silurian, Carbinaceous, Permian, Mesozoid and so on to recne ttime or cenozoidc.  They lie tilted  along the path where they fell bur t in that order.  So what that does is show that , again, the disturbance happened after they were all in place.  We aren't seeing a particular layer having been broken or damaged, we're seeing the whole column thrown down as a unit in the order of its original laying down.  Whatever threw it all down like that occurred after it was all in place.

In many places we only find part of the columnm, but I'm convinced enough by the examples I've given that wherever they are found they were disturbed after all were in place, even if that distrubance did away with parts of the column which can give a different imporession about when things happen.  And of course that is how evolutionists  interpret many of those locations.  Each is interpreted as occurring in its own unique way and demonstrating disturbances at many different levels of the whole.

qwll,  here's my outlandish theory about it all, so you can roll your eyes and laugh again.  I think there was one digigantic tectonic jolt that occurered right at the point that the Flood started draining away after sitting there quietly for a few months as described in Genesis, eight I think.   I think this tectonic event tribggered the receding of the Flood waters.  I also think it is the jolt that spearated the single continent Pangaea tinoto the separate continents we now have cross the planet, and began their drifitng apart.  Although I think they probably started out drifintg much faster in the beginning it still waasn't  the riproarig movement pictured by Paul Garner as having happened during the Flood, it was maybe  a few feet per day.  I worked it all out once and that calculation is no doubt somewhere on my blogs but I've ost track of it all by now and don't remember the figures I'd arrived at, just that although it was faster than now for sure if you'd stood on the shore of osme of the contientns yo'd have seen the other wone drifintg away for quite a long time, months at least, maybe even years.  I worked out some distances over time and it seemed to me that when the Vikings explored the Atlantic they didn't have aas much distance to tralvel to get to Greenland as they would now, and the distance wouwas quite  significant as I recall, but again I don't remember numbers.  I also pictured the Mediterranean sea opinion up, starting out narrow and widening north to soulth ove time, which affects some historical events I discuss that I also don't remember any wmore.  Gosh, how helpful I am.

So I have a very differnt model from Garner's, and maybe most other creationists as wellj.  The floating debris idea of how animals got from the ark to the Americas from Europe isn't necessary in my scenario because the Americas just werren

't all tht  far waway in gthe first years after the Flood, even the first hundred while the animals were spreading out over the Earth.   IN fact when I prayed about it and the idea of the continental shelves came to mind, which I have to take as God's answer, or at least say it might have been God's answer, anyway that idea makes sense, especially when I did som eresearch and fou d iout that those shelves stretch an enomrous distance into the Atalantic ocean, and that  there was a tiem when they were exposed above the water too, making it a very easy matter for animals to just walk across from one ocontinent to the toher.    that was a very crecnet idea.  I hadn't really thought uch about that problem before it came up on Lets's Talk Creation.

I've got some other outlandish ideas based on the scenario I'm laying out here but I've spelled them out i other places and what I've said here seems to be enough for now.  But of coursae if I think of anything that I really shouild have added I'll come back and do just that.  

faithswindow@mail.com

Oh, perhaps I should mention tha when I first gave some thought to the ice age I also came up with something different from the creationists as presented by the Let's Talk Creationi duo. Of course.  Sigh.  I was respodning to the common complaint that the Flood itself and the splitting of the continents would have generated so much heat that the whole lplanet would have just burned up or at least the ark and everybody on it would have gone poof and that would have been the end of that.   As I was ponderibng it I pictured something like the canopy in the atmosphere that now is debunked as for some reason impossible although it had been enteretained for some time.  I never followed any of that and hadn't thought about the atmosphereic or moisture canopy at all until this  point.  But if it rained for forty days and nights continuously over all the earth there had to have been an awful lot of moisture stored up there somehow or soother and the canotpy idea seems to me rto be as good an idea as ahyny or better.  Yes I understand problems with it, making it too hard to see the sun and moon for instance.  Obviojsly there are problems.  But anyway I pictured all this water held up there raining down on the earth over that long period of time and leaving the atmosphere... empty.  No more canopy, no more water above the firmament.  

Freezing the flood ater in the arctic regions particularly  before it had drained away.  

jAnd the earth heating up enormously.  So what I picturesd was this heat just rising up rapidly , vapor from all the oceans of course, or the one great ocean now covering the earth, and just radiating rapidly out into space.  Whoosh.  That would have clollooled down the planet enormously very fast.  Bringing on the idece age.  That's how I thought of it .  Sort of like a giant airconditionaer.  Removing the heat and icing up the panet.  

The other theory is that the vapor caused it to rain which came down as snow and began the ice age.  OK.  I'm sure there are problems with my theory.  But I'm also pretty such there are problems wwith this one too.

Saturday March 14   Just went tot he grand staircsase site and found that cross section and see that I got it wrong.  It inclines UNWRD from north to south, not the other way around.  Thre is an upward curve to the north right at the very end of the formation but it dips sown right away and then there is the long incline upward toward the south.  Oh well.  I'm blind, what can I say.     Anyway, I also note that they plastered one of their their information blocks right over the Grand Canyo so you can't see what I was describing about the mouning above the Great Unconformity.  You can't see the Great Unconformity and you can't see the mounding and you can't see the canyon.  Great.  I wonder what was bother ing them abou thtat.  Reminds me of current politics .  Mustn't let anyone see anyting that disagrees with the party line.  Whatever it might be in this case.

I hav some very small opies of that cross section but always wanted one larg enough to hang on my wall.   Too late now I guess.

Come to think of it, mayb there's a copy or paetial copey somewhere in my blogs.  

Anyway, I never really finished what I started about the great tectonic jolt I find illutrated on that cross section but borne out in many other ways.  If it occurred at the very end of the Flood then that's when the continents started separating as Pangaea broke up.  The movement would of course have started the subduction of sea floor at the far wenst of the Americas as the land was pushing in that direction, the movmeent would create earthquakes of course and open up volcanoes.  So all that got scatarted my scenario at the very end of the Flood.    it just looks that way on that cross section and the idea carries through many other examples I've pursued as well.

Maybe the most outlandish of my ideas based on this, as evolutioists see it for sure but maybe also creationists, is that I see the great teconic jolt as casing the Great Unfonformity, being a lateral force that pushed up broken pieces of the strata beneath the cmbiran layer into that layer, lifting the whole stack above it.  But not only that unconformity but every angular unconformity ont he planet I think is to be explained by that oe great jolt at the start of the continental movement.  Incliding sSIzzar point which I spent a fair amount of time studying at one point some years ago.   

The starndard idea about the Great Unconformity is that it was there before the strata were laid down, as the root of a former mountain range that had eroded down to that level, on topiop of which those strata were ethen laid down, those strata that repreesent time periods of millions of years each.  Which make ME roll my eyes.    So as I contemplated that cross section I realized that no, the strata were alreadyy there and the Great Unconformity was force upward into them, pushing them upward into that mouneded shape, which is my explanatio for how the canyon got formed, by the strain on the uppermost layers crasking the layers that broke up and washed away down to the Permian level but also into a crack beneath that level, washing it all out and tumbling down the canyon to its exit in what is now the Gulf of California, forming the anyon itself.  That's my way of interpreting the cross section.

But I also explain ALL the angular unfonformities as occurring at this time, created by that great jholt.  What happens is the jolt is lateral, pushing the continebnts apart, lateral bneath a certainlevel.  It forces the strata beneath that level into buckeled undulations which you can see in some kinds of mountains, incliuding the Alps an the ppalachians.  This buckling of the strata occurs neath a higher level of the strata that remain horizonal and slide abofve the cuckled lower strata, or they slide along under that horizontal block.  In most cases that upper block just breaks awpart and washed away, but in manyu places a single layer remains lying across the buckled lower strata, kind of as if glued there which may be a fair way of describing yhe situation.  I think it's often betrween two sandstones, but at least one of the two is sandstone, which I think may have a slippery effect that makes it the most likely point for the two sections to separate.  Anyway, that single layer atope the buckled layers is conventioanlly einterpreted as having been laid down after the lower strata were buckled.  Ha ha.  Well, that's what they think.  And of course there were mayny more layers on top of that one, I'm sure of that myself.  For one thing the weight of the upper block of layers would have facilitated the slicing of the buckled layers beneath the pint at which the sliding was most likely.

I hope Im being clear.  I think the start of the tectonic movement was a gigantic worldwide jolt that got all the upheavals going at once, and forming all those angular unconformities is one of the results I think had to have happened.   Buckling of strata beneat a heavy bloock of many horizontal layers, most of which or all in some cases, washed away probably by the receding flood waters and I think all thise may have occurred right at the height of the Flood and triggered its draining.  There woudould have been many more layers above even the highest ones that still survive as in the Greand Staricase area, but they would have been softer and more easily broken up and washed away, while the lower you go in the stack the more stable it would become from the weight on it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  For now anyway.  I think it is easily argued from that cross section and other sources and is the best explanation for all the things we are always triying to explain.

faithswindow@mail.com

Another thing but somethig that should be on the biological post so it's out of place here but anyway.  I think it might have been Watchman Nee that got me thinking along these lines but anyway I remember the concern expressed at some oint on the creatinionist show that it would take a while for foot to grow after the Flood, but it's actually very likely that a great deal of the vitality God built in to the creationin remained in the pre Flood world and would have been availabiable right after the Flood bmaybe for a few generations before the weakening effects of the Fall took over.  So that would mean that the animals on the ark, and the hunman beings, AND all teh seeds that would be planted that had been carried on the ark, AND any plants buried near the survace of the land, would probably grow up very fast and apread very fast over the whole planet.  It shoudl also have better nutirtional value.  And the animals themselves would have had great tstrength than their later descendants.  People continued to live a long time after the flood for the first generation and the lenth of life then gradually decreased over a few hudndred years after that.  Moses lived to be over A HUNDRED FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AFTER aBRAHAM AND SO ON.  bUT RIGHT AFTER THE fLOOD THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENORMOUS VITALITY STILL INHERENT IN EVERY LIVING THING.  sO FOOD WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE ANIMALS, IT WOULED HAVE BEEN BUDTSTIN OUT ALL OVER.    iF THEY GOT TO THE aMERICAS ON THE CONTINENTAL SHEVLVES i WOULD SUPPOSE THT PLANTS HAD ALREADY MADE A LUSH JUNGLE OF THOSE SHELVES BY THE TIME GTHEY GOT THERE.   

aLAS, THE fALL HAS OVERTAKEN US ALL SINCE THEN AND WE ARE MERE SHADOWS OF OUR FORMER vigorous seleves, both plant and animal and humans too.  We have ways of compensating for some of it that God in His mercy has given us.  I like to listen to a particualr show about gardening on Saturday fmornings and I hear about all kinds of methods for improving the nutriion of crops for instance.    And of course He has given us medicines and methods for improving our heatlth even in spite of everythig the Fall does to us to kill us.  But originally it waas all built into everyt living thig and I thik given that we know that people lived a very log time even for a while after the Flood that the same vigor in all other living things should also have been he case aduring those same years.