sOME MORE EKETCHY THOUGHTS ABOUT EOVLUTION

 aNOTHER LITTLE OBSERVATION i GOT INTO FAIRLY RECENTLY IN THIE HSITORY OF MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION IS THAT THE BODY PLAN OF EACH CREATURE IS A CONSTANT THAT DEFINES THE DCREATURE.  nO MATTER HOW MUCH VARIATION GOES ON AS NEW VARIETIES DEVELOP WITHIN EACH GENOME, THE BASIC BODY STRUCTURE NEVER SEEMS TO BE AFFECTED.  yOU CAN STILL TELL A CAT FROM A DOG BY ITS SKELWTON NO MATTER WHAT BREED OF DOG OR CAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, ALL BIRDS SHARE A STRUCTURE, THE APPENDAGES ARTICULATING WITH THE BODY AT THE SAME PLACE AND FOLLOWING SOME APPARENT LAW OF PROPORTIONALITY ACROSS EVERY KIND OF BIRD, FROM THE SPARROW TO THE OSTRICH TO THE PENGUIN TO THE FLAMINGO.  THE BODY PLAN NEVER ALTERS.  a BIRD IS A BID IS A BIRD.  i'LL HAVE TO SEE aRCHAEOPTERYX AGAIN BUT i SUSPECT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE BODY PLAN OF A BIRD IF i RECALL CORRECTIOLY, SO i'D PROABABLY END UP THINKING ANY CLAIM TO THAT IDENTITY IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE.\\a TRILOBITE IS A TRILOBIT E IS A TRILOBITE BY ITS BODY PLAN.  a HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT WE MUST HAVE DESCENDED FROM APES, THE BODY PLAN OF THE APES IS DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE RECOGBNIZESD BY ITS SKELTON.  lUCY HAS GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF DELUSION.

i'M SURE THIS ALL HAS GENETIC FACTORS UNDERLYING IT.  sOMETHING ABOUT hOX DGENES OR OMETHING LIKE THAT.  a PART OF THE GENOME THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WHILE ALL THE OTHER GENETIC MATERIAL CAN VARY IN ALL SORTS OF ITNERESTING WAYS BO GIVE US EVERYTHING FROM SABRETOOTHED TIGERS TO LITTLE FLUFFY PUSSYCATS, sT bERNARDS TO CHIHUAHUAS, cONDORS TO CHICKADEES AN SO ON AND SO FORTH.

aNOTHER TOPIC TO MENTION IS THAT i OFTEN USE THE CHEETAH AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE EVOLUTION GOES GENETICALLY IN ALL CASES, WHICH OF COURSE IS CHALLENGED MADLY BY MY OPPONENTS, BUT i THINK IT REMAINS A PERFECTLY GOOD EXAMPLE.  iT'S THE RESULT OF fOUNDER eFFTCT, A SUDDEN REDUCTION IN POPULATION TO A BAREMIONIMUM AT SOME POINT IN ITS HISTORY, THAT BROUGHT ABOUT A DRASTIC REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY AS IT CONTINUED TO BREED WITHIN ITS OWN SMALL POPULATION UNTIL IT PRODUCED THE ELEGANT ANIMAL WE KNOW AS THE CHEETAH, WHICH CAN NO LONGER INTERBREED WITH OTHER CATS.  nOT ALL ANIMALS THAT ARRIVE AT THIS LEVEL OF GENETIC PURITY AS IT WERE HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO INTERBREED WITH THE ORIGINAL OR OTHE POULATIONS OF THEIR KIND, BUT IT IS ONE EFFECT OF THE TRENDS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH CHANGES WITHIN A SPECIES.  eVOLUTION DEFEATS EVOLUTION.  yES THE CHEETAH DID NOT EVOLVE ACCORDING TO THE USUAL IDEA OF SOME SORT OF SLOW PROCESS OF NATURAL SELECITON, IT MAKEDE A SUDDEN LEAP DUE TO A DRASTIC REDUCTION IN POPULATION FOLLOWED BY ITS ISOLATION FROM OTHER CATS.  THE SAME IS WSHAT HAPPENS WITH OTHER ENDAGNGERED SPECIES SUCH AS THE ELEPHANT SEAL.  tHE SEAL HAS MANAGED TO PUBUILD UP ITS POPULATION TO GREAT NUMBERS IN SPIRT OF ITS GENETIC DEPLETION, WHILE THE CHEETAH STUGES WITH PROBLEMXS INVOLVING ITS REPRODUCTION BUT GENETICALLY THEY ARE BOTH EXAMPLES OF THE END PRODUCT OF EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES.  iF YOU SLOW DOWN THE PROCES,  TAKE IT IN SPAGES, SAY WITH THE RING SPECIES YOJU SHOULD STILL ARRIVE AT THE SAME RESULT IN THE END.

iN RING SPECIES A SMALL PORTION OF A POPULATION SEPARATES FROM THE MAIN POPULATION AND BECOMES ISOLATED FROM IT GEOGRAPHHICALY IN A NEW LOCATION ARROUND SOME KIND OF NATURAL BARRIER SUCH AS A VALLEY OR A MOUNTIN CHAIN OR THE aTLANTINC oCEAN AMD THEN AFTER THE NEW POPULATION HAS GROWN IN NUMBERS AND DEVELOPED A NEW LOOK FROM ITS NEW SET OG GENE FREQUENCES, A SMALL PORTION OF THAT POPULATIONJ AGAIN SPLITS OFF AND MOVES FURTHER AROUND THE NATURAL BARRIER AND THE SAME PROCESS REPEATS ITSELF.  eACH NEW PORTION OF POPULATION HAS A REDUCED SET OF GENE POSSIBILITIES FROM THE PREVIOUS UNTIL OVER TIME YOU GET A NUMBER OF POPULATIONS EACH WITH A TRAIT PATTERN THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE OTHERS BUT MORE FIXED LOCI FOR ITS SALIENT FEATURES AS YOU RMOVE FROM THE ORIGINAL AROUND THE RING.  i THINK THAT HAS TO BE THE SACASE BUT IT WOULD TAKE SOME KIND OF RESEARCH TO PROVE IT

oR YOU COULD SET UP AN EXPERIMENT WITH MICE IN A LAB AND TAG EACH NEW POPULATION AND ANALZE ITS GENETIC SITUATION TO PROVE OR DISPROVE WHT i'M SAYING AFTER QUITE A FEW GENERATIONS.

aNYWAY i THINK IT'S PRETTY OVBVIOUS HAT THE PROCESSES OF EVOLUTION MEAING THOSE PROCESSES THAT PRODUCE PHENOTYPIC CHANGES THAT COME TO CHARACTERIZE A NEW POPULATION IN ISOLATION FROM THE OTHERS ALWAYS LEADS TO A CONDITION OF REDUCED GENETIC POSISBILITIES UNTIL AT THE END THEY WIND UP LIKE THE CHEETASCH, A BEAUTIFUL ANIMAL THAT IS GENETICALLY UNABLE TO PROCUED ANY MORE CHANGES BECAUSE ALL ITS GENES FOR ITS SLIENT FEATURES ARE FIXEXDD OR HOMOZYGOUS.

iF THE AN ANIMAL CAN NO LONGER EVOLVE INTO NEW VARIETIES THEN IT'S REACHED THE END OF EVOLUTION, HASN'T IT?  aND IF THAT IS THE CASE DOESN'T THE WHOLE THEORY JUST COLLAPSE IWHT HTIS RECOGNIZIOTN?  yOU CAN'T HAVE EVOLUTION IF YOU HAVE NO MEANS FOR AN ANIMAL TO EVOLVE.  aND ALTHOUGH THE WHOLE POPULATION MAY CONTINUE WITH LOTS OF GENETIC POSSIBILITIES THAT PAT OF IT ISN'T EVOLVING ANYWAY, IT'S ONLY WHEN IT EVOLVES OR PRODUCES NEW POPULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ROM THE EARLIER ONES THAT YO UIHAVE EVLLUTION.  yES?  yES.

fURTHER NOTE:  dAWKINS THINKS YOU CAN HAVE NATURAL SELECTION AS THE DRIVING FORCE OF EVOLUTION WITHOUT REALIZING THAT IT IS SELECTION ITSELF WHICH REDUCES GENETIC POSSIBILITIES.  iT DOESN'[T MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE OF THE SELECTION, ALL SELECTION IS IS THE ELIMINATION OF SOME TRAITS IN FAVOR OF OTHERS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE NEW TRAIT SET THROUGH REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE POULATION THAT MIGHT MUDDY UP THE NEW CHARACTERISTICS.  aNY GENE FLOW, RESUMED GENE FLOW, CONTINUED GENE FLOW OR WHATEVER, WILL KEEP THE NEW POULATION FROM DEVELOPING ITS NEW TRAIT PICTURE CLEANLY.  iSOLATION IS THE KEY AND IT ISN'T PERFECT IN THE WILD IN MANY CASES.  IT IS PERFECT IN DOMESTIC GBREEDING BECAUSE IT IS ENFORCED BY THE ANIMAL BREEDER.  iN THE WILD PERFECT ISOLATION IS HARD TO BOME BY.  rING SPECIES MAY BRING ABOUT THOSE CONDITIONS THE BEST IF THE NEW POPULATIONS DO MANAGE TO GET GEOGRAPHHYICALLY FAR ENOUGH AWAY TO PREVENT GENE FLOW BETEWWEEENT THE TWO.\

bUT THE POINT i'M TRYING TO MAKE ITIS THAT ANY KIND OF SLECTION WHIS WHAT MAKES EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE IN THE END BECAUSE EVERY SELECTION INVOLVES A N ELIMINATION OF SOME OF THE TRAIT POSSIBILITIES, WHETHER THAT SELECTION IS THE KIND OF SLEECTION THAT IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY SURVIVAL THREATS SUCH AS A PREDATOR, OR JUST BY THE RANDOM PROCESSES OF MIGRATION AND GEOGRAPHYIC ISOLATION.  aLL ARE FORMS OF SELECTION THAT ISOLATE A PORTION OF A POUPULATION FROM THE REST OF IT.  THAT'S ALL SELECTION IS AND IT IS IN FACT THE ENGINE OF EOVLUION IF YOU MISINPTERPRET BUILT IN GENETIC VARIATION AS EVOLUTION, BUT THE MORE YOU SLEECT FROM THE POSSIBLE VARIATIONS THE LESS YOU can SELECT BECAUSE THE FEWER VARIATION POSSIBLITIES REMAIN AFTER EACH NEW SELECTION.    THIS SPELLS THE END OF EVOLUTION FOR ANY GIVEN TRACK OF VARIATION.  tHERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.  yOU CAN'T GET NEW POPULATIONS WITHOUT REUCING THE GENETIC POSSIBILITIES FOR FUTHER VARIATION WITH EACH ESLECTION.

cOME ON dsAWKINS, THINK.

sOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE eLECTION

iT MAKES ME SICK, IT LITERALLY CHURNS UP MTY STOMACH, TO HEAR THEIR LIES, TO HERAR kAMALA hARRIS TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO PRESERVE OUR DEMOCRACY AS IF tRUMP IS A THREAT TO IT WHEN IT'S HER OWN PARTY THAT'S THE THREAT TO IT.  aND KJOWING THAT HALF THE COUNTRY TAKES HER SERIOUSLY UGH IT HURTS.  aLL THE LIES THEY TELL ABOUT TRUMP HURT.  yOU STILL HEAR THEM ALL GOING BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING.

tRUMP CALLED mEXICANS RAPISTS.  nO HE DIDN'T BUT THEY STILL SAY HE DID.  hE SAID THEY ARE SENDING US THEIR RAITS AND ALSO SAID THERE ARE NO DOUBT GOOD PEOPLE AMONT THEM.  BUT NO THE LFEFT LIES AND CALLS HIM A RACIST.    aND EVEN THOUGH i THINK IT WAS pOLITICAO CAME OUT AND CORRECTED THE ACUSATION THAT tRUMP HAD CALLED NEOnAZIES GOOD PEOPLE, THEY7 STILL USE THAT ONE TOO.  bIDEN STILL USES IT, IT'S NPT GOING AWAY ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN CORRECTED AND IF YOU LISTEN TO TGRUMP'S WHOLE SPEECH ABOUT cHARLOTTESVILLE HEOU'LL HEAR HIM SAY SO IN HIS OWN WORDS THAT THE nEO nAZIES SHOULD E DENOUNCED.  nO MATTER, THE LIES WIN.

tRUMP IS A DISCTATOR AND SAID SO HIMSELF IS ANOTHER THEY USE AOLTHOUGH HE WAS CLERLY MAKING A JOKE AND SAYING WHAT HE PLANNED TO DO ON HIS FIST DAY IN OFICE AS A LEGITIMATE ACT OF HIS PRSIDENCY.  bUT THE LIE GOE ON AND ON ANYWAY.

iT'S ENDLESS, THEY'LL NEVER TOP.  aND UNFORTUNATELY LIES WORK.  

dESPITE WHAT LOOKS LIKE tRUMP IS IN A GOOD POSITION TO WIN THIS ELECTION i'M NOT ALL THAT OPTIMISTIC.  i THINK LIES WORK, i THINK ALL THE MANIPULATIONS THE LEFT DOES WORK, i THINK THEY MAY VERY WELL SUCCEED AT FINALLY TAKING OER aMERICA AND MAKING US THE BNADNA REPUBLIC THEY WANT TO MAKE OF US, THE SOCIALIST TYRANNY UNDER THEMSELVES THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR DECADES NOW.  i THINK IT WCOULD VERY WELL HAPPEN.  

aND A BIG REASON i THINK THAT IS THAT i KNOW gOD IS IN CHARGE AND i DON'T SEE YET ANY REASON WHY hE SHOLD PULL BACK hIS JUDGMENT AGAINST THIS NATION.  

eVEN IF tRUMP SHOULD WIN THE LEFT IS GOING TO HARASS US ALL INTO OBLIVION ANYWAY. AND eVENTUALLY REVERSE WHATEVER GOOD tRUMP MANAGES TO DO WHEN IT'S THEIR TURN AGAIN.  

Aa vERY bRIEF SKETCHY RESENTTION OF AN AGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION, A GENETIC OR BIOLGOCIAL ARGUMENT

 Dawkins likes to spell out the definition of evolution as evolutin by nautral selection, and he once made a little visual of stick figures that change from one kind of figure to another as they roll around, presumabley  undergoing evolution.  they just go on and on changing and changing and changing from one frame to the next.  Ir remember thinking to mysel fthat the man obviously has no notion whatever that there are barriers to that process.  Of course not, but then that was the title of my first post on the subject at EvCforum as I tried to put together my thoughts on that subject for the first ftime and in fact forthe next few times as well.  Natural Barrier to Processes of Evolution or something olike that was my title I think.  

The natural barrier is easily enough statesd as the fact that phenotypic change occurs as the result of loss of genetic diversity.  You can get change from population to poplation as long as you have enough genetic fuel for the change, but eventually as you reduce genetic diversity from change to change you will run out of the ability to change further, and that that point you've reached the end of th epossibility of evolution.l  Evolution itself brings evolution to a halt.  And tall that's really happened is that the variation built into the genome has reached an end down one or another patheway of change.  It's all within the genome, you can't get out of the geneome, but of course the ToE depends on being able to continue change beyond the genome and that's what ADwkins is assuming.

Yes, assuming.  they assume it all, there is no evidence for anyiy of it, evolution is all assumed  it's all theory, meajing ALL theory, not a theory that has evidence backing it, just all theory, theory from beginning to end, fantasy from beginning to end, all imagined, conjured, projected etc and then treated as if it were reality.  His little figures keep rolling along without a hitch, but in reality there are plenty of hitches.  

I always take breeds, domesting breeding, because it's handy and tracing a patho fol of natural eselection itn eh wild is a lot harder.  it can be done I think with ring species but I usually end up thinking it would hae to be donein a laband then it would rapidly become unwieldy although perhaps not impossiblyle.  Anyway I go to breeding becuase I know the processes are identical to what would happen in the wild despite the fact that they are selected by a human being.  Yes I get objections to this idea but such objections are ridiculous, the processres are the same, the source of the selection is really irrelevant, but they always want to make issues out of anyting.  Oh well.  Darwin himself used domesting seslection as a n example to make his case for natural eselection as the mover of evolution.  He'd bred pigeouns and knew how powerful selection is in making changes from generation to generation.  

So pick a breed of dog, there are hundreds you can pick any you like, they all became the breed they are by the same process of selection.  Traits are selected and the same ones selected over and over as new generations are born, always the best examples of the desired traits being breed bred and preserved from contampin ation by the introductionj of other genetic types.

Someone somewhere on the internet wrote that a pure bred is an animal with many fixed loci or many homozygoud genes for its salient tratits.  Homoszyugosity is a crucial element in the defvelopment of breeds or probably ring spiecies or any animal that develops from an isolated number of individuals that inbreed only among themseles.  This is how you get change from population to population, this is what evolution is, although it is really just variation built into the genome and there is no such thing as eovlution ibn the sense the theory requires.  You cN'T EVER GET BEYOND THE GENOME OF THE CREATURE, ALL THE VARIATION IS WITHIN THE GENOME AND YOU CAN GET SOME REALLY DRAMATIC NEW KINDS OF ANIMAL MERELY THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE ISOLATION OF A POPULATION OF CERTAIN TRAITS .  sO A FEW WILDEBEEST WANTED OFF FROM THE MAIN HERD OF MILLIONS AND GET LOST AT SOME DISTINACE FROM THEHERD SO THAT THEYU BECOME THEIR OWN HERD AND OVER A NUMBER OF GENERATIONS THEY DEVELOP A WHOLE NEW LOOK FROM THE ORIGINAL HERD.  tHAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS.  IT'S REALLY JUST THE MIXING OF VARIATIONS BUILT INTO THE GENOME THROUGH INBREEDING UNTIL A NEW TYPE EMEGERES THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS NEW POPULATION AND DIFFERS IN DESCRIABLY WAYS FORM THE ORIDINGAL .  tHAT'S HOW YOU GET BREEDS, AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET NEW POPULATIONS IN THE WILD.  yOU WILL ALWAYS GET A GDOG HOWEVER, YOU WILL ALWAYS GET A WILDESBEEST, IT WILL JUTS HAVE ITS OWN PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS ALTHO8UGH ITS BASIC BODY PLAN WILL ALWAYS BE A DOG OR A WILDESBEEST.

wHEN YOU BREED FOR A GREAT dANE, SAY, YOU ELIMINATE ALL THE GENES FOR dACHSCUNDS, CHICHUAUAS, HUSKIES AND SO ON.  yOU elimjinate , THAT'S THE POINT.  yOU REDUCE GENETIC DIFVERISTY IN ORDER TO BRING OUT THE NEW PHENOTYPE.

aND THAT FACT MAKES EVOLUTION IN THE SENSE OF THE tHEORY OF eVOLUTION MJUST PLAIN IMPOSSIBLE.  

yuES i CAN ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT MUTATIONS.

i'M TRYING TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE USUALLY i GET INTO LENTTHY DRAWN OUT ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER EVERY OBJECTION THAT COMES TO MIND, AND THAT WOUILD STILL HABVE TO BE DONE IN ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION BUT HERE i JUST WANT TO SKETCH IT OUT KNOWING IT WILL RAISE MORE UESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS.

nOTE:  aS i LITEN BACK TO MY POSTS OF COURSE i NOTICE ALL MY TYPOS ABUT i ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT MORE ERROS THAN i MYSELF CREATED.  yES i DO THINK SOMEONE HAS TAMPERED WITH MY BOG AND MAKE MY POSTS EVEN WORSE THAN i MAKE THEM.  yES i THINK THAT.  oNCE WHEN i WAS TYPING ON wORD IN MY OWN COMPUTER AND NOT ON THE ITNERNET i GOT THE MESSAGE THAT SOMEONE ELSE WAS EDING WHAT i WAS WRITING.  sOMEONE DOES THAT TO ME.  DID IT THERE, DOES IT HERE.

Glenn Loury

It's none of my business and maybe I shouldhn't say anyting about it at all, but here I go anyway.  I just notices hat when my eye falls on a picture of Glenn Lowry, or is that Loury Loury, oh well, who is talking with John McWhorter on a page I have open, that a sort of visceral feeling of sadness comes over me.  Physical feeling I mean, something I feel in my stomach.  Maybe it's spiritual though.  I often have the feeling of wanting to comfort him somewhow, I like him, I like his comments, but then I'm feeling his this sadness for him.  I can't say I know why but as I was thinking about it oit occurred to me that I think of him as struggling between two parts of himself and think of him as struggling with people in his life whom he loves but doesn't agree with about very important things.  this is true, he says so himself, and says so

 babout himself and McWhorter in this particular recent show I'm watching.  

So althought it's none of my business and I shouldn't talk about a person in such personal terms whom I don't even know I'm going to go ahead and say I think he's fighting his spiritual nature.   He's mentioned that he was once part of a Christian group and considered himself to be born again.  But no longer practices any of that.  He seems to bme to be trying sometimes to entertain opinions he really doesn't share and they are at least somewhat leftist oriented opinions.  that's a feeling I get, I could be terribly wrong, at this and everythinjg else I'm saying.  But anyway.

I then thought that if he really ws born again he still is born again.  You don't lose the new birth, you are a new creature and you can't unborn yourself and undo your very being itself.  If he ws born again he is still born again, and if this is true then he is going to be at aodds with al kinds of things in this world and it will cause him pain to accept them or try to accept them.  For sure even when we are born again ewe still have ths in nature in us, we still have the Old Man in us and we are still prone to falling into fleshly and worldly swins and thoughts.  But it also hurts if the pisirt has the uupper hand in a particular issue.  I think he struggles a lot with the people he disagrees with, not wanting to alienate them and this is possibly because the spirit in him is suffering fom his attempt to deny that part of himself over and over.  I doubht his wife is born again and I know John McWhorter isn't, so he's in company with people who don't share his spiritual nature.  there is a great sadness in denying it if this is so.  I feel it is so.

I could be completely totally horribly wronjg.  But if I'm right the sooner he recognizes his condition and turns back to god the sonner he will find his ral identity and prhaps bring some joy back into his life .  but perhaps joy is not missing from his life and then who knows where this feeling of sadness is coming from     As I said I probably shouldn't have written any of this.  Maybe I'll com back and delete it.

He Elon... Jordan, Dawkins.... etc Be honsest, be smart and honest, Evolution is False.

Mentioned that I didn't know an7uthing about Elon Musk's spiritual inclinations and thgen saw an interview of him bty Jordan Peterson in which Peterson asked him about that so now I hve some idea of it.  Then in my last post I mentioned wishing I could try to persuade Musk of my arguments against evolution and nex thing I know I'm listening to anothner interview of him in which he mentions his acceptance of evolution.  He was explaining his fervent desire to move humaity to Mars and beyond as a concern to preserve consciousness, which he thinks of as having arisen through evolution I suppose, and said that he thinks such a move is necessary because eventually some sort of catastrophe is bound to come along and wipe us all aout, such as happened with the dinosaurs and is shown in various places in the fossil record.  

Well, of course I expected that he's committed to evolution because well, he'd have to be,not being a Christian, and I know Jordan Peterson is, but somehow this got to me and I was more than ever wishing I coulde  get across how avolution is false.  I have two main or overarching aruments against evolution, but I realize they break down into smaller arguments, or in some sense lead to other smaller arguments as it were, and I started thinking through some of it again.  This I do from time to time anyway, though it gets aharder each time as I get older and I'm aware that my mind really isn't what it used to be, my memory is getting bad and it's very disturbing.  though God will help me remember things when I ask Him.  

Anyway, I wished he could just hear out and take seriously this one little argument for starters.  It's an argument from aburdity I've been told, and that makes it somehow suspect but I don't care.  Everything done against evolution is suspect according to the evol police who have their own brand of plitical correnctness.    This is one of the arguments against an old earth and in favor of the Flood of Noah to explain geological phenomena.  There are many angles this can be taken up from and I think theyu are all killers for the Theory of Evlution.  

the Fossil Record.  What a joke.  Oh sorry I'm not supposed to talk about science that way.  But it is, it's a huge joke when you really grasp the geological situation itself.  Think about the strata the fossils are found in.  Go to the Grand Canyon where the strata are clearly visible a mile deep, one layer of sedimentary rock upon another all straight and flat and extending throughout the entire canyohn area, and in fact across the whole North American Continent .  Yep, those layers of rock cover an enormous swath of geographyt, all straight and flat and in many cases quite thick too, up to hundreds of feet thinck.    In the Grand Canyon the layers climb from the Cambrian to the Permian time periods and bobove that there is a large plateus, or two plateaus really, the Kaibabg plateau on the north side which is limestome and on the south rim the Coconino plateau which is sandstone.  On the north the lplateau sextends a nundred or more miles up through the formation known as the Grand Staircase in Utah, above wshich the layers go on climbing through the dinosaur layers of Triassic, Juracssic, Cretaceous etc to Recent Time.   So the whole geological column as it is sometimes called is split in this area, the lower part showing in the walls of the Grand Canoy and the uppoer showing in the stair step formation of the Grand Staircase to the North.  

There is a lot about these formations that can be usedaas good evidence against an old earth and in favor of the Flood of Noah but a nicesimple one is simply to invite a person to think about the strata, the facts about the strata.  Think about how supposedly these layers represent time periods of millions of years each, in which particular kinds of living things populated the earth and are now memorialized in the fossils found embedded in a particular secimemndary rock associated with that perarticular time period.  This is the physical foundation of the Fossil Record.  

Just think about how these layers of rock extend straitght and flat across an entire continent and even can be found in Europe.  These are rocks, once loose sediments, all one tkind of secdiment in most cases.  We are suposed to believe that a perarticular time period was characterized geolgically by this one kind of sedimentary rock that covered an enormous area, ahnd to imagine that anyh kind of living thing could survive on such a surface.  Really, make yourself think this through.  It's uptterly absurd and impossible.  There is no way the history of the Earth could have been markded off by periods in which one and only one kind of sediment covered the surface flat flat flat.  No way.  Yet isn't that what we would have to expect if the prevailing theory is correct that they do represent millions of years of time and a sequence of living things that evolved from a type in one layer to a type in layers above it?  It' physically impossible.  Are you going to denythis?  Oh I suppose so.  I brought it up at EvC Forum and theyu just kept coming up with objections.  Of course, what else is to be expected of people committed to the theory of evolution.  But    they tried to invent other wasy the strata could have come about but none of the different possibilities holds together any better.  the whole thing is absorud  there is no way the history of Earth could have been characterized by huge ares of a single sediment.

And if it were so how come our own era isnt?

I wanted Elon Musk to think about some of my arguments.  Maybe he could start with this one.  I always think very smart people ar going to get thoings though and then they don't.  I'm nowhere near as smart as Musk or Peterson either for that matter, or Dawkins, I had to struggle to put goether my arguments.  I assume, perhaps wsriongly that people with musch fore evfficent and faster working intelligence wcould grasp the thing aa lot quicker but I'm often disappoinmted.  

Again that's just one little argument, an observation of one geological formation, nothing more.  There's a lot more that can be said about the geological situation that destroyes the idea of the fossil record and suports the idea of Noh's Flood.    

Only water can be the explanation for the separation into separate sediments and the flat layers into which they were ultimately arranged.  See Walther's Law for one explample of hos moving water layers sediments.

I've got a whole scenario in mind that explains Absolutely Everything but I guess I shouild just stop with this bare bones example of an absordity that I think all by igteself blows the ToE into a billi9on bits.

Another topid c to mention is Musk's interest in consciousness as something he wants to preserve, thinking of it as aprecious thing that evolved I guess which means it could just as easily disappear.  Well, being a Christian I know God gave us consciousness.  We are makde in Hi image, scripture tells us, and consciousness certainly destribes Him.  His consciousnesshad no beginning and will hav e no end.  Ours had a beginning but it will persist through eternity tbnow that it has come into existence, and it will persist either through a happy or a tormenting eternity.  But God is omniscient, that's the best word I suppose for His consciosness.  It's one of Hisa attributes, omnipresence, omnipoetnce and omniscience.  He knows everything, His is self aware and He knows us better than we knowourselves.  He wanted a consciousness being to exist so He made us.  He made us both of matter and of Spirit.  Animals He made of matter though He gave them a soulsl,, not a spirit that communicates with Him as ours can with Him, and He made the angels as spirit.  We are the only creature He made to function as both matter and spirit.    But we lost the spiritual ability at the Fall when our first parents disobyedd God and plunged us al into this fallen condition.  So we're all born into the physi8cal univrse with a soul more like animals than like creatures made in the image of God though that does manage to persist in us in some ways doesn't it.  But Jesus died on the Cross to pay for our sins so that we could be reinstated to our spiritul nature and resume constantct with god.  that's what Christianity is, the recoery of fallen humanity, but it's actually a lot better than just re coering.  That's a lot of theology Icon't completely understand and wouldn't or shouldn't try to include here anyway.  

but Hey Elon, and for that matter Hey Jordan, Hey Dawkins, Hey wholever.  THinking  Think anout mylittle observation above.  There's lots more where that came from.

Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, Richard Dawkins, Fallenness etc.

A few weeks ago I heard that a couple of states were engaged in doing something to restore a Christian perspetive to their people, one by mandating that the Ten MCommandments be posted in every classroom, and I forget what the other was doing, but it made me very happy to hear this.  The nation needs a return to God above al else and these are very heartening events.  

Then I ran across an interview with the givernor or the state of Tennessee , I think it was the Governor, who had recently called the state to a time of fasting and prayer and repentance for thri sins, saying he was afraid of God's judging the state and wanted to avoid that and hopes for His mercy instead.  The show host asked him to pray for his state and the nation before signing off and it brought him to tears.  That's a spiritually blessed man and I hope God blesses his prayers for his state.  And may there be many more such governors acrosso thi nation.  WQe may not be able to expect such a call to come from the national givernment in washington but it's nice to know that there are individual states that would do it.

Without such a return to God I see nothing but an increase in the evils we've been struggling under for years now.  God has no reason to lift these burdens off us as long as we are ignoring Him, not ascknowledging Him and not acknowledging our sins .  We are unders sjudgment as a nation right now but we can still hope for mercy but not unless something like what is happening in Tennessee happens on a wider scale around the nation.    

Earlier I was watching an interiew by Jordan Peterson of Elon Musk and finally the subject of religion came up.  Musk says he likes the Christian principles but doesn't wnt to commit to being a Christian behond that much.  Jordan Peterson likes the Bible and many things about Christinaity but his view is so filtered through his Jungian framework it doesn't really convey a Christian message anyway.  Neither man ins a Christian but it's interesting that both are attracted to Christianity in some way or other.

They are fallen men of course, men borh with the sin nature we are all born with but not born again into the revived spirit that is what a Christian has.  When all you have is the fallen perspective you are btied to this physical world and cut off from the kjowledge of God, it takes the new brith to become spiritually op0en to God.  Jesus talks about this in John Three to Nicodemus.  At the Fall w3e lost the spiritual faculty that connected Adam and Eve to God and all their progeny inherit that deficient condition, but Jesus came to give us the life of God, to renew that life in us that was lost at the Fall, which He did by dying on the cross in the place of all those who believe in Him.  When we believe that we too are on that cross with Him and saved by His blood then our spiritual faculty lost at the Fall is quickened or brought back to life.  Perterson and Musk do not believe and do that have that regenerated faculty.  They are confined to their life in this phyiscla world and the mind that has learned only how to understand that world.  God is not to be fou nd in that physical world without the spiritual faculty.

I think it was Peterson who brought up Richard Dawkins' calling himself a culturual Christian and Musk accepted that as a description for himself as well.  True enough and we shouild be glad that there are cultural christians out there.  Nevertheless we need more spiritual Christians, and of course they need to BE spiritual Christians if they are to have hope of eternal life.  YOu cannot see the Kingdom of God unless you are born aagain said Jesus.

Dawkins cant believe in God because he is a fallen man with the sin nature and lacks the spiritual faclty like Peterson and Musk, so his is committed to the kind of science that can deal only with the phsycial universe, nmo spiritual undiverse being possible to his way of thinking.   He wants evidence and is indignant that those who preach God can't give him any evidence, but you can't give physical evidence of something that is spiritual.  Oh yes many physical evidnets , miracles and so on, hve been done by God, and by Jesus, and that should be good evidence but if he hasn't seen it with his own eyes he won't accept it asx evidence.  But beyond tht there is no evidnece.  God is spiritual discerned and ca't be known through the phyhsical senses or the mind.

So we should of cours pray for all these men.  Christopher Hitchens wouldn't listen and that's very sad but I'd like to think maybe one or three of these men might.  You never know, we can only pray.  

I found myslef wondering this morning if Elon mMUsk would be interested in my arguments against evolution.  I know Dawkins wouldn't and I don'[t think of Peternson as having any inclinations in that direction.  Nor Musk either really, Ithjust lithink of him as a person with a lot of itnerest in a lot of things and a great intelligence and I'd love to try to persuade him of my arguments.  Oh well.  

Trump, the RNC, Elon Musk

 I was in the kitchen making some tea, able to hear the radio in the living room from there, when there was an announcement of breaking news so I perked up m,y ears, and heard the first reports of the assassination attempt on Donal Trump.  He'd suddenly tropped down below the podiu,m while in the middle of a speech, holding a bloodied ear, or the side of his face, nothing was all that clear at the very beginning.  The announcer wsn't sure what had happened but thought he'd probably been shot.  I immiediatly thought, Oh no, they killed him.  

But then the word ame that he was OK and I was relieved, but it was a long minute or so before we got the description of his coming up to face he audience with his fist in the air, omouthing the word "fight "  and then I was really relieved.

It was so close we all knew it was God who had saved him.  there is no other explanation.  He turned his head at precisely the right second and the mbullet missed his skull and hit him in the ear.  That's god and thank You TLord that we now know you are having mercy on us after all.   

Then there was the Republican convention and I am surprised at how much I enjoyed the speeches I heard.  Very cheering, very hopebuilding.   It took some listening to You Tube interviews before I was convinced that J D Vance was a great pick for Vice President but I truly am convinced now.  I just wish he was a free market capitalist instead of whatever that economic weird system is he ascribes to, and I wish when he decided to become a Christian he hadn't gone for Catholicism.  But otherwise he's very much the right choice for trump.

I think my favorite speech of them wall was Ben Carson's and I've lstened over to it a umber of times.  He starts out quoting Isaiah No weapeon formed against you will prosper, nd ends with the quote possibly misattributed to Alexis deToqueveille, though it really doesn't matter since it's a good summation of what Toqueville wrote:  America is great because America is good.  So let's make America good again.    America is no longer so good unforetunately, but the hope is that maybe God will guide us back o it.  

The other main thing I've been thinking about recently is Elon Musk who has come out and endorsed Trump an pledged forty five million a month to his election.  A lot of ehat Musk says makes me very happy but when he gets into things like crypto currency and AI it sets my teeth on edge, mainly I supposed because I don't understand either.  He's super brilliant and his heardt seems to be in the right place when it comes to caring about the future of huimanity and the future of western civilization so I can't really say anything against it.  It just sets my teeth on edge.  

I don't know if Musk has any spiritual inclincations at all, but it's pretty clear he's no Christian at least not in the orthodox sense.  Liek so many brilliant people he's got all his concerns in this world, thinking in terns of making other planets habitable when this wone loses its sustainability for humanity and tht sort of thing.  I don't think anyone with any biblical frame of reference could uentertain such a thought.  This world is the fallen world, it's not the world we are meant to live in.  It's a waystation now to an eternity either in Heaven or in Hell, and that's the only option availble.  Not believing anyh of that of course does not make it untrue, but to the secular mind Christianity is just another religion and this world is all there is and religion just gets in the wayh of threir ambitions for this world.

Later:  I'm adding this much later though what I want to add it simomething I simply forgot to include ihn the original writieng, which is the stepping down of Biden from running for President.   That was annonced ohn Sunday after days of back and forth by the Democrats about whether or not he should step down.  Plus ishis sutubborn refusal to step down.   I don't think there's anyone else who wuld be more popular or pose more of a threat to Trump than Biden, unless it might be Michelle Obama, but although I've been generally more optimjistic since god's savihng Trump's life I nevertheless have doubts that linger on.  Very much because I know the nation is under god's judgment and although He shows us mercies here and there it's hard to imagine that without a major rependance of the nation that He'd take us much farther back than we are.  MAYBE He'd give us another Trump Presidency but even if He did it would be burdened with all the harassment and interference the first one was because the Democrats are determined to destroy him and destroy the country and disenfranchise my half of the polit8ical population.    Without a major rependtance I can't see that God would intervene to reinstate us as the great and good nation we once were.  I'd love to be wrong.  

Sunday night I heard some of Talk Show Host Bill no no Cumings but I can't think of his name, having another senior moment which are becoming way too frequent.  Bill somjething that starts with a C anyhwya.  The Great American he calls himself, which always makes me cringe.  Why do they give themselves such titlces anyway.  Anyway he said that although it's possible, speaking from a humban oint of view, for Trump to pull off a win considering that he has such a good start, it's going to be an uphill battle because the Democrat Machine as he calls it is powerful and very efficient at manipulating elections.  Which is yes, the sort of thing I would expect to kick in at this poinht.  And if, or really because, he are under God's judmgent, there is no reason for Him to interfere with that.  Again, only a massive turning back to god in repentance could possible turn the tigde at this point.    Abd agaubm eveb uf ge wubsm wgucbg wiykd be a great bkessubg ti tge ciybtrtym and again, even if he wins, which would be a great blessing to the country, the Democrats won't leave him alone because they have no respect for America, for voters, for anything we oh the right care most about, they jyust want to destroy everything that gets in the way of their own power and wealth.

So.  Biden has stepped down but I don't see anyitng very good coming from that.  Or from his staying for that matter.

I have one more thing to add here which was also on my mind when I wrote this post though it has nothihjhg to do with politics and that's an interview I heard by Piers Morgan of the author of a new book about Ted Bundy, the author being Bundy's cousin who knew him very well and afte ffifty heyuears finally decided to tell her story.  I won't be reading the book of course and I really only have one thing I want to note about what she had to say.  She describes Budy's coming to her door once and her dog acting violently disturbed by his presence as if he or she sensed something about him, and I noted in my own reading about Bundya a few few years ago that dogs barded and growledged at him.  Then there was her having seen him dancing with one of her freiends at a party once and his face was twisted in an angry grimace and his eyes were not their usual blue but solid glblack.  That too is a feature that was reported in other things I've read about Bundy.  One thing she didn't mention was the sorrority girl who was going out of her room into the hall of her dormitory late at night to bget something and was frightened by a sense of pure evil in the hall, driving her back into her room and locking the door.  TGhe next morning two of her dorm mates were dead.  that same night some olf the girls returning home noticed that the housemother's cat was all bristled out and stnading on titptoes the wsay cats tdo whtne they are scared, and when the door was opened it bolted out and didn't come back for over a wekk as I recall.  

All these things suggest that bundy sort of emancated something evil that animals felt and ven people at times.  And that it turned his eyes black.  Whatg would turn his eyes black>?  I haven't read an explanation of that anywhere.  Was it the expansion of his pulils to comjpletely displace the iris?  the puils expand to let in more lifth.  Was he looking into a very dark place at those moments which causesd that to happen?  I don't know.  I don't know if that explains the black eyes to start with, it's jut the only thing I can't think of.  But the best explanation for all of that seems to me to be that he was possessed by a demon, a particularly evil amalevolent vicious sadistic murderous demon.  I think there are many people who are considered to be mentally disturbed who are demon possessed but of course nobody takes that idea seriously.  Too bad.