More Peterson, Bible mangling, Evolution Noah, Flood etc.

 pETERSON IS GIVING A VERYNICE ADRESS TO THE GRADUATING CALSS AT hILLSDALE COLLEGE AND IT IS VERY GOOD i THINK, FOCUSING THE STUDENTS ON HOW TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY GO FROM HERE AND CRITERIA FOR DECIDING HOW THEY WANT TO CONDUCT THEIR LIVES AND SO ON.  aND IN THE PROCESS HE REFERS TO SOME OF HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE bIEL WHICH OF COURSE MAKE ME CRINGE ALOTHOUGH THE POINT HE'S MAKING IS NEVERTHLEELESSS A GOOD ONE S FAR AS MOTIVATING THE GRADUATES GOES.

tHE fLOOD CAN'T BE REAL TO HIM OF COURSE BUT HIS WAY OF PSYCHOLOGIZING IT KEEPS ESCAPING ME TO SUCH AN EXTENT i CAN'T EVEN KEEP IT IN MIND.  wHAT?  wHAT?   i CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER IT NOW BUT IF i COULD i WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.  i GUESS THAT'S BECAUSE THE fLOOD IS REAL TO ME, A REAL PHYSICAL CATACLYSM THAT HAPPENED TO THE WHOLE PLANET SOME FORTY FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO OR SO.  i JUST CAN'T PSYCHOLOGIZIE IT.  i LOOK AROUND AT THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND THINK i SEE THE PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THAT fLOOD IN ITS TUMBLEDOWN WRECKED APPEARAND WHEREVER THE BARE GEOLOGIY OF IT IS APPARENT, WHERE THERE ISN'T A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL GREEN FOLIAGE TO CAMOUFLAGE IT.  aND OF COURSE THE STRATA, THE LAYERS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK CALLED THE gEOLOGICAL cOLUMN, THAT IS SO PATENTLY not WHAT SCIENCE CALLS IT, IF YOU GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT YOU'LL HAVE TO SEE THAT, REALLY GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT, AND SO MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLY THE RESULT OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD  i CAN'T PULL IT DOWN TO THE CONEXT OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY.

tHEN, AND THIS IS KIND OF A SIDE NOTE HERE THAT'S NOT CENTRAL TO THE POINT, HE QUOTES THE PHRASE THAT SAYS nOAH WAS PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS AND GOES ON TO GIVE THAT A PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION ABOUT WHICH HE SOUNDS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.  i CAN'T IMAGINE WHERE THAT CERTAINTY COMES FROM.  pERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS ISN'T EXACTLY A COMMON WAY OF DESCRIBING ANYTHING THAT i KNOW OF.  i PUZZLED OVER IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND i DON'T KNOW HOW pETERSON THINKS HE KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS AND RATTLES IT OFF IN SUCH A GLIB WAY.  i FINALLY DECIDED ITHAT IT MUST REFER TO THE EVENT EARLIER IN cHAPTER sIX WHEN THE "sONS OF gOD WHO ARE THE FALLEN ANGLES, TAKE THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN TO BE WIVES AND EGET GIANTS WHICH WE KNOW S KNOW AS THE nEPHILIM.  tHOSE WERE LITERAL GENERATIONS THAT WERE DANGEROUS BECAUSE ANGELS CAN'T BE REDEEMED SO THE HYBRID OFFSPLRING CAN'T BE REDEEMED AND IF THE MIXING OF THE TWO CONTINUED EVENTUALLY THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE CONTAMINATED AND COULDN'T BE REDEEMED.  sO ALTHOUGH THIS could BE WRONG i THINK IT'S PROBABLY RIGHT, THAT nOAH'S BEING PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS MEANS THAT HIS GENETIC LINE WAS NOT CONTAMINATED BY THE GENETIC INHERITANCE FROM THE FALLEN ANGELS AND REMAINED HUMAN AND THEREFORE REDEEMABLE.  sINCE THE GIANTS SHOW UP AFTER THE fLOOD SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ONE OF THE WIVES OF ONE OF nOAH'S SONS DID CARRY THAT CONTAMINATED SEED, WHICH MAY BE TRUTH.. TRUE.  bUT nOAH'S BEING PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS PROBABLY MEANS THAT HE HIMSEOLF AND HIS OTHER FAMILY  WERE NOT CONTAMINATED AND COULD BECOME THE PROGENITORS OF A TRUE HUMAN RACE. THAT COULD BE SAVED BY THE mESSIAH WHO WAS EVEN WAY BACK THEN BELIEVED TO BE COMING.

iT'S HARD FOR A HUMAN BEING BORN INTO THIS FALLEN WORLD TO BELIEVE IN gOD.   aS SCRIPTURE SAYS THE FLESH IS ENMITY WITH gOD, THAT'S WHY WE MUST BE BORN AGAIN SO GIVE US THE PSIRT THAT CAN KNOW AND LOVE gOD.  THE FLESH MUST HATE IM AND REJECT hIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY FOR FLESH TO APPREHEND hIM AND THE FLESH IS ATTRACTED TO SIN WHICH IS AT ODDS WITH gOD TO BEGIN WITH.  sO ALTHOUGH pETERSON IS ATTRACTED TO THE BIBLE HE'S ATTRACTED TO ITS MORAL IMPLICATIONS OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS TO HUMANITY AS HE'S ABLE TO MANAGE TO MISINTERPRET IT TO BE SAYING, BECAUSE HE CAN'T DETECT gOD SO gOD CAN'T EXIST AN THAT IS THAT.  aND CERTAINLY THE fLOOD Can't have happened in reality, nor the miracles and so on and so forth.  They must all be reinterpreted and psychologized.  And it says something that the world word pscyhne means or is translated soul in the Bible, not spirit, although there are some teachers who try to make the spirit the funciton of the soul and they are able to make some sense using that idea although I think it's wrong so I'd just say I think that thoelogy best comes from the recognizition that we are tripartitgite, body sould and spirit in three separate components.  

I do think there are plenty of clues that the Bible is referring to a real God and real Flood and real miracles and all that but it is nevertheless true in the end that you can't reallyget it unless you are born again.  I also think all it should take even if you are merely a fallen creature to realize that the science of the fossil record is laubhable is just actually think about what it's based on.  Just look tat the layers of rock stacked unup in the Grand Canoy where you can see them to quite a depth and think about the claim that each represents millionso f years of time and pursue the physical properties of those tstrata until you graps that it's simply imposisble and then you'd have to see that a wrold wide Flood is really a reasonable way to explain them and time period s are NOT a reasonanlr way to explain them.

I do like Peterson's message, and I think in my own way I'm trying to live something like what he is recomiending out in the way I write my posts.  I 'd like my posts to help him recognize the truth and give up his certainty that there is no God in the sense that the bibvle says there is.  That god must be some kind of psychological construct.  Give it up.  It's false.

aND nOW A mUSING aBOUT bEN sHAPIRO

 aND NOW i HAVE A COMPLAINT TO MAKE ABOUT bEN sHAPIRO.  aLL THESE PEOPLE i'M WRITING ABOUT RECENTLY ARE PEOPLE i LIKE, THAT i AGREE WITH ON MANY THINGS AND LIKE TO LISTEN TO, AND THAT INCLUDES bEN cHAPRIRO.  bUT HE REALLY PUSHED MY BUTTONS WITH SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT cHRISTIANITY.

hE'S HAD A COUPLE OF INTERVIEWS WITH jOHN mACaRTHUR AND IF HE COULDN'T PERSUADE HIM TO cHRIST i CERTAIN LY DON'T EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT HE ISN'T JUST A NONBELIEVER IN cHRIST HE'S GOT A PRETTY OFFENSIVE IDEA ABOUT hIMJ THAT i DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD.  hE MENTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME THAT HE'S READ THE nEW tESTAMETN SO HE KNOWS THE GOSPELS AND THE BASICS OF cHRISTIANITY, AND IT WOULDN'T BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND IF HE NEVERTHELESS DOESN'T BELIEVE IT ALL BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY PEOP[LE WHO KNOW OF IT AND DON'T BELIEVE IT.  bUT WHEN ASKED WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT IT HE SAID HE BELIEVES WHAT MANY jEWS BELIEVE, WHICH IS THAT jESUS WAS A jEW WHO LED A REVOLT AGAINST THE rOMAN EMPIRE AND GOT CRUCIFIED FOR hIS TROUBLE.  

nOW that IS OFFENSIVE.  fIRST BECAUSE IT IS THE COMPLETE CONTRADICTION OF THWHAT THE nEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY PRESENTS ABOUT cHRIST, IT TURNS IT ALL UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS.  jESUS SAID hIS KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD AND hE WAS ALWAYS DEFLECTING THE DISCIPLE'S EXPECTATIONS OF hIS BEING THE mESSIAH THEY EXPECTED TO RESTORE iSRAEL OUT FROM UNDER THE DOMINATION OF rOME.  yOU HAVE TO DENY EVERYTHING YOU KNOW cHRISTIANS BELIEVE TO HAVE SUCH AN IDEA ABOUT JESUS AS sHAPIRO HAS.  i DON'T KNOW HOW HE ALLOWS HIMSELF TO THINK SUCH A THING.  hOW COULD HE MAKE SENSE OF WHAT THE nEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY SAYS.  dOES HE THINK A FEW FISHERMEN AND AN EXpHARISEE COULD HAVE MADE IT ALL UP?  REALLY?  really?

hE SAYS THE jESWS WERE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT mESSIAH THAN THE ONE jESUS PRESENT HIMSEDLF TO BE, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE.  tHE DISCIPLES OF cHRIST THEMSELVE ES HAS D A DIFFERENT mESSIAH IN MIND.   THOUGH IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHY SINCE THE oLD tESTAMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE mESSIAH WAS TO BE gOD hiMSELF, "gOD WITH US" gOD TABERNACLING AMONG US.  hE WAS TO BE CALLED "wONDERFUL, cOUNCILLOR, aLMOIGHTY gOD, eVERLASTING fATHER, pRINCE OF pEOACE.    HAT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE oLD tESTEMTNA.  sOMETHER IN iSAIAH i THINK.  naND WHEN i SAY IT i HEAR IT SUNG TO THE MUSIC hANDEL WROTE FOR IT.  "sAY UNTO THE CITIES OF jUDA bEHOLD YOUR gOD"    hE CLAIMED TO BE goD.  THAT'S WHAT THE mESSIAH WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.  HE WAS TO BE gOD.  wHY DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT?  wHY DOESN'T sHAPIRO KNOW THAT?

aNYWAYU.

mORE mUSINGS ON jORDAN pETERSON

 lISTENING TO jORDAN pETERSON'S LECTURE ON THE BIBLE, i TGHINK IT'S THE FIRST ONE.  i'D HEARD PART OF IT BEFORE BUT A LONG TIME AGO SO i'M LISTENING AGAIN FROM THE BEGINNING.  pROBABY WON'T GET THROUGH MUCH OF IT.  wHAT'S INTERESTING IN PARTICULAR AGBOUT IT IS THTA HE'DS OING THE KIND OF THINKING UNBELIEVERS DO IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BIG QUESTIONS.  fREOM THAT POINT OF VIEW YOU CAN ONLY START FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE, OF COURSE FAMILIARIZING YOURSELF WITH THE SAME SORT OF THINKING DONE BY OTHERS AS EWELL, BUT THE POINT IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY START FROM ERSONA EXPERIENCE BECAUSE NOBODY HAS GIVEN YOU A MANUAL OF INTRUXTTIONS SUCH AS YOU WOULD GET WITH SAY A NEW MACHINE YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO OPERTAE.  yOU HAVE ONLY YOUR OWN VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCES IN THIS WORLD, YOUR OWN MIND AND FEELINGS, AND THOSE OF OTHERS ALONG THE SAME LINES.

yOU CAN'T THINK ANY OTHER WAY IF YOU AREN'T A BELIEVER.  THAT'S WHAT ALL PHNILOSOPHY IS ABOUT THAT ISN'T BEUILT ON BIBLICAL REVELATION, OR ACTIVELY REJECTS IT.  bECAUSE THAT REVELATION does GIVEYOU A MANUAL OF INTSTRUCTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS IFYOU ACCEPT IT ON ITS OWN TERMS.  i WAS IN MY FORTIES WHEN i FINALLY CAME TO BELIEVE IN gOD AND RECOGNIZED THE VBIBLE AS hIS WORD TO BE WHOLLY TRUSTED.  bUT BEFORE THAT i COULD ONLY THINK AS pETSON THINKS.   hE PARTCULARLY LIKES nIETZSCHE AND jUNG AND TAKES THEM AS FOUNDATIONS FOR HIS THINKING.  hE APPRECIATES THE bIBLE VERY MUCH BUT IN A WAY THAT IS COMPLETELY ALIEN TO THE APPRECIATION OF A BLIEVER WHO OF COURSE TAKES IT ON ITS OWN TERMS AND AVOIDS IMPOSING ANYTHING ALIEN TO IT ON ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND IT.   bUT ALL pETERSON CAN DO IS IMPOSE HIS ALIEN THOUGHTS ON IT IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND IT.  

hE CALLS IT A STRANGE OLD BOOK.  hE CALLS IT CONTREADICTORY.  hE CLAIMS WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT, HOW IT CAME ABOUT, WHO IT BGOT PUT TOGETHER, WHY IT HAS EXERTED SUCH INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CULTURE AND SO ON.  fUNNY HOW HE TALKS ABOUT "WE" HAVING USCH AN ATTITUDE TOWARD IT, AS IF THE COUPLE BILLION OF US WHO TAKE IT ON ITS OWN TERMS DON'T EXIST.  wE AREN'T HIS "WE" FOR SOME REASON.  hIS "WE" IS THE SECULAR WORLD, THE WORLD THAT PUTS SCIENCE ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.    hE WANTS TO TREAT THE bIBLE WITH RESPECT AS AN IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF OUR CULTURE BUT HE CAN'T UNDERSTAND  IT THE WAY BELIEVERS DO SO IT HAS TO PUZZLE HIM THAT IT WAS EVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR BELIEVED, HE JUST KNOWS THAT IT EXERTED A GREAT INFLUENCE AND THAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT AND WORTHY OF RESPECT.  wELL, THAT'S SOMETHING i GUESS.

i MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT COUPLE BILLION SINCE MOST OF THOSE ARE cATHOLICS AND i'M NOT SURE HOW MANYU OF THEM REGARD THE bIBLE AS gOD'S WORD OR READ IT AT ALL FOR THAT MATTER SINCE THEY GET THEIR cHRISTIANITY MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF THE LITETURGY IN THEIR CHURCHES.  i THINK THAT'S HOW, THOUGHJ MAYBE THERE'S MORE TO IT.  iN maMERICA CATHOLICS READ THE BIBLE AND IN MANY WAYS ACT MORE LIKE pROTESTANTS, I GUESS BECAUSE WE ARE A pROTESTANT COUNTRY.  sTILL THEY WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE PAGAN PARTS OF THEIR RELIGION, LIKE THE ROSARY, PRAYERS THEY LEARNED ASC CHILDREN AND SO ON.  wELL, OF COURSE, IF YOUR PARTENTS TAUGHT YOU THE PRAYERS OF THE ROSARY IT'S HARD TO FIND FAULT WITH THEM.  yOU REMEMBER THEM FONDLY FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD AND ALL THAT.  aND PRAYERS TO MARY, AND LIGHTING CANDLES AND MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS AND DIPPING YOUR FINGERS IN THE HOLY ATER WHEN YOU IENTER THE CHURCH, AND BACK A FEW DECADES NOT EATING MEAT ON fRIDAYS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.   tHE SCRIPTURE SAYS THAT FORBIDDING TO EAT MEAT AND FORBIDDING TO MARRY ARE DOCTRINES OF DEMONS AND THAT'S PRETTY CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE CATHOLIC cHURCH SO iDON'T KNOW WHAT THEYDO WITH THAT ONE.

aNYWAY, pETERSON ADMIRES THE BIBLE IN MANY WAYS ALTHOUGH HE REJECTS IT AS THE REVELATION OF TRUTH AND THE REALITY OF GOD BELIEVRES KNOW IT TO BE.  hE'S WRONG ABOUG MANY OF THOSE THINGS HE SAYS AT THE BEGINNING.  wE ACTUALLY DO KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, WHPO PRESERVED IT AND HOW AND WHY AND HOW IT BECAME A COLLECTION THAT BECAME A BOOK AND WHY IT HAD SUCH A POWERFUL INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CIVILICATION, ALL OF WHICH HE THINKS WE DON'T KNOW.  i GUESS HIS "WE" DOESN'T KOW IT, BUT MY "WE" DOES KNOW IT.

hIS SERIES ON THE bIBLE IS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT FROM A PSCYHOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS HE PUTS IT.  THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT ITS SPYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS HE PUTS IT TOGETHER IS GOING TO UNDERMINE ITS TRUE SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH IS AS A REELATION OF THE SUPERNATURAL gOD AND hIS PLAN FOR THIS WORLD AND HUMAN BEINGS.  SO FOR INSTANCE HE INTERPRETS THE RAISING OF THE IMAGE OF THE SERPENT FOR THE PEOPLE TO LOOK ON IT WHEN THEY HAD BEEN BITTEN BY SERPENTS BEAUSE OF THEIR SIN AGAINST gOD, HE INTERPRETS THAT AS THE IMPORTANCE OF LOOKING ON OUR FAULTS AND PROBLEMS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A WAY TO COPE WITH THEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  I FOGET WSHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.  bUT IN FACT IT IS A SUPERNATURAL EVENT.  lOOKING ON THE SERPENT ACTUALLY CURSES THE PEOPLE OF THE SERPENT BITES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE KILL THEM.  HE APPRECIATES THAT JESUS REFERS TO THAT INCIDENT WHEN HE SAYS THE sON FO mAN MUST BE LIFTED UP AS THE SERPENT WAS IN THE WILDERNESS, THAT'S A PEICTURE OF OUR SALVATION, AND IT TOOK IS SUPERNATURAL, BUT pETERSON CAN ONLY UNDERSTND IT AS A SORT OF METAPHOR FOR LOOKING INTO OUR OWN SINS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A KEY TO LIVING RIGHTLY IN THIS WORLD.  

THAT DISCUSSION WAS IN AOTHER VIDEO, NOT THE bIBLE LECTURE.  aND ALSO IN ANOTHER VIDEO HE INTERPRETS jESUS SAYING WE MUST BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN IN TERMS OF BECOMEING PLAYFUL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS CHIDLREN ARE.  uH, NO.  i BELIEVE THE MAIN POINT IS THAT CHILDREN ARE HELPLESS AND ULTTERLY DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TO TAKE CARE OF THEM IN EVERY DAWAY AND THAT'S HOW WE ARE TO READ THE bIBLE AND BE BELIEVERS IN hIS SACRIFICE FOR US AND ALL OF IT, AS UTTERLY TDEPENDENT ON gOD AND WITHOUT ANY MEANS OF OUR OWN TO SAVE ORUSELVES.  wHEN WE READ THE bIBLE FOR INSTANCE WE MUST SIMPLY TAKE IT AT ITS WORD, WE ARE NOT TO DOUBETHINK IT AS pETERSON DOES AND IMPOSE OUR OWN WORLDLY THOUGHTS ON IT, WE ARE SIMPLY TO TAKE IT AS GIVEN.  tHERE ARE PLETNY OF THINGS WE'LL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTNDING BUT THOSE WE HAVE TO EXPECT WILL BE MADE CLEAR IN TIME IF WE REMAIN FAITHFUL AND JUST TAKE IT AT ITS WORD.  tgHE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF HOW pETERSONIS APPROACHING THE BIBLE.  

iNNOCENT TRUST, THAT'S THE KEY.  nOT COMPLEX REASONING AND DEEP THINKING ABOUT OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION.  pLENTY OF SOPHISTICATION, OR DEEP KNOWLEDGE GROWS OUT OF THAT INNOCENT TRUST BUT THAT'S THE PLACE IT MUST BEGIN, WE ARE NOT TO IMPOSE OUR OWN THINKIING ON IT.  

tHIS IS A FALLEN WORLD. pETERSON CAN ONLY THINK AS A FALLEN MAN, HE IS LIMITED BY THAT MIND AND BY HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FALLEN WORLD, WHICH HE ALONG WITH MOST OF FALLEN HUMANITY TAKE AS ALL THERE IS.  tHIS IS IT, THIS IS tHE wORLD, THERE ISNO OTHER, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OTU WHERE WE CAME FROM ON OUR OWN ETC.  sO WE CAME UP WITH EVOLUTION.    jESUS BROUGHT THE REMEDY FOR FALLENNESS, hIS OWN SINLESS LIFE AND hIS DEATH ON TH CROSS ON OUR PLACE.  bELIEVING THAT IS THE CONCEPTION OF THE NEW NBORTH WHICDH QUICKENS, BRINGS TO LIFE, RESTROES, THE SPIRITUAL FACULTY TO US THAT WE LOST AT THE fALL WHEN OUR FIRST PARENTS DISOBEYED gOD.  bELIEVE AND ETERNAL LIFE WILL BE YOURS.  iN REALITY.  aND YOU WILL BEGIN TO KNOW THINGS YOU NEVER BEFORE BDREAMED OF FOR HALF A SECOND.

pETERSON HS SOME INTERESTING THINGS TO SAY ABOUT HOW THE MIND WORKS AND HOW WE CONSTRUCT REALITY FROM WITHIN THIS FALLEN FRAME OF REFERNECE, ALTHOUGH OF COURSE HE DOEN'ST THINK OF IT AS ANYTHING BUT THE REAL WORLD AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.  bUT ANYWAY HE IS AN INTERESTING THINKER WITHINT THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE BUT ONLY A BORN AGAIN cHRISTIAN CAN KNOW WHAT IT'S REALL ALL ABOUT.  nOT THAT WE NECESSARIY DO BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE EXERCISED TIN THAT SORT OF THINKING TO UDNERSTND ANYTHING TOO, BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR IT, THE REVIVED SPIRITUAL FACULTY WHICH FALLEN MAN LACKS.   jESUS SAYS IN jOHN tHREE THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF gOD UNLESS YOU ARE BORN AGAIN, UNLESS YOU HAVE THE sPIRITU OF gOD WHICH IS OUR LEGACY AS BELIEVERS.  yOU MUST BELIEVE THE BASICS ABOUT SALVATION TO RECWIVE hIM.  i EMEMBER THINKING THIS IS ALL THERE IS AND i'M NOW SO HAPPY TOtO BE BORN  KNOW IT ISN'T, WASN'T.  wE AREN'T IN THE DARK, OR NOT AS MUCH IN THE DARK ANYWAY, AS WE WERE AS MERELY ONCE BORN FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS.  

tO B BRN INTO THE FALLEN WORLD IS TO BE BORTN WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE GOD.. aND THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS AS MOST PEOPLE DON'T.  wE LEARN ABOUT gOD BY BEING GOLD ABOUT gOD AND THEN WE BELEIVE WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF hIS REALITY.  uNTIL WE ARE BORN AGAIN AND THEN THE FACULTY OF KOWING GOD IS RESTORED TO US, tHORUGH THE DEATH OF djESUS FOR US ON THE CROSS.    dAWKINS WANTS EVIDENCE OF gOD AND THINGS WE CLAIMA ABOUT gOD. tHERE ISN'T ANY FOR A FALLEN MAN EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS AND IF YOU REJECT THAT OUT OF HAND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATEVER ABOUT gOD.

aNYWAY.  tHOSE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS WEREN'T WHAT i REEWANTSED TO WRITE BUT i DON'T REMEMBER WHAT i WANTED TO WRITE ANYWAY SO i'M GOING TO LEAVE THEM THERE.

correction:  sOMEWHERE IN THE ABOVE POST i USE THE WORD "LEGACY" WHERE i SHOULD HAVE USED THE WORD "INHERITANCE."  tHAT IS, THE hOLY sPIRIT IS OUR INHERITANCE, NOT OUR LEGACY.  i CAN'T SEE WELLE NOUGH TO BGO BACK AND CORRECT IT SO i'M ADDING THIS NOTE INSTEAD.

sATURDAY:  lISTENING TO MORE OF pETERSON AND JUST HAVE TO GIVE UP.  tHERE'S ONLY SO MUCH i CAN TAKE OF A MAN DEFINING GOD AND CLAIMING THT'S WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE, SINCE HE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT THE bIBLE IS SIMPLE TRUTH TO BE BELIEVED RATHER THAN A COMPLICATED TESTIMONY TO THE MENTAL MACHINATIONS OF HUMANITY.  iT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE ENDS OUP THINKING BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY WRONG.  hE'S INTERESTING WHEN HE SPECULATES ABOUT THINGS LIKE DREAMS, WHAT THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY COME FROM BECAUSE THAT DOES'T CONTRADICT ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT i KNOWORF, BUT HIS CONVICTION THAT ALL THE STUFF ABOUT gOD IS JUST A REIFICATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HUANITY ...  wELL THERE'S NO POINT IN LISTENING TO ANY MORE OF IT.

aS i POINT OUT ABOVE HE DOES SEEM TO THIK THAT "WE" HAVE ALL GIVEN UP ON THE bIBLE AS SOMETHING TO BE BELIEVED.  THAT'S HOW HE TALKS ABOUT IT, WHICH IS RATHER ODD.  yOU'D THINK HE WOULD KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF US WHO DO TAKE IT JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN AND THINK OF IT AS A REVELATION OF gOD hIMSELF TO hIS MISERABLY CONFUSED HUMAN RACE.  lIKE LITTLE CHILDREN WE ARE TO LEARN FROM IT THE NATURE OF gOD AND hIS WORK IN THE WORLD AND hIS PLANS FOR US AND WHAT REDEMPTION IS AND HOW WE GOT HERE AND ALL THAT.  THE bOOK TAELLS US ALL THAT.  hOW DO PEOPLE WHO LET THEMSELVES FOOL AROUND WITH THE BIBLE LIKE THIS LET THEMSELVES GET AWAY WITH IT?  aRE THEY REALLY NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF MILLIONS OF TRUE BELIEVERS IN IT AND MANY HIGHLY EDUCATED MEN WHO HAVE WRITTEN TOMES EXPLAINING ITS THEOLOGICAL MEANINGS?  iS HE NOT AWARE OF THAT?  iT'S MORE O LESS THE SAME QUETION i ASK ABOUT bEN sHAPIRO WITH HIS SUPEFIYINGLY WRONGHEADED NOTION ABOUT jESUS AS A jEWISH LEADER OF A REVOLT AGAINST rOME.  sTUPEFYINGLY DULLWITTED.  tHESE MEN HAVE READ THE BIBLE, THE NEW tESTAMENT, AND YET THEY LET THESMSELVE STHINK SUCH REDUCTIONISTIC DISTORTED THOUGHTS ABOUT IT?  wELL, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FALLEN MEN, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF FALLEN MEN WHO WOULD HAVE HESITATED TO MAKE SUCH DECLARATIONS IN THE FACE OF THWO OR FOUR THOUSDAND YEARS OF DEEP THOUGHT ABOUT IT BY BELIEVERS.

a mESSAGE FOR jORDAN pETERSON ABOUT hIS vERSION OF rELIGION

 sURE IT'S SILLY i SUPPO0SE TO TALK TO SOMEONE FROM MY BLOG WHO IS NOT LIKELY EVER TO SEE MY BLOG BUT SICE i CAN'T SEE WELL ENOUGH TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY i DO IT ANYWAY AND WHO KNOWS, MAYBE HE'LL COME BY AND SEE IT.  wHAT IF HE SNASWERED ME?  i COLDN'T SEE HIS ANSWER.  i DON'T EVEN TRY TO FIND THE cOMMENTS SECTION ANYW MORE, IT'S BEYOND Y ABILITY TO FIND IT.  i CAN'T READ MY EMAILS.   BUT i CAN STILL SEND A MESSAGE OUT INTO THE ETHER AS IT WERE AND MAYBE IT WILL REACH HIS EAR WHO KNOWS.

i'M THINKING HERE OF jORDAN pETERSON.  i JUST HEARD pIERS mORGAN'S INTERVIEW OF HIM AND HIS DAUGHTER, DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS BU THEY'RE INTERESTING PEOPLE.  lATE IN THE PROGRAM RELIGION CAME UP AND pETERSON REVEALED THAT HE BELIEVES IN GOD AND TRYIES TO ACT AS IF THERE IS A gOD AND THAT'S BECAUSE HE WANTS TO AVOID hELL, WHICH HE BELIEVES IS REAL AND CAN BE AVIDED IN THIS WAY.  bY RECOGNIZING gOD AND BEING GOOD i GUESS.  

sO OF COURSE I CWANT TO TELL HIM, WARN HIM, UH OH jORDAN, THAT ISN'T GOING TO WORK.  iF YOU REALLY WANT TO AVOID hELL, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO DO THAT.  yES ONLY ONE.  YES cHRISTIANITY IS AN EXCLUSIVE RELIGION.  YES, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE TRUTH AND AOOTH HTE OTHERS ARE JUST HUMAN INVENTIONS OR SATANIC INVENTIONS AND WHILE THEY MAY OFFER SOME INTERETING AND USEFUL PHILOSOPHIES TO LIVE BY THEY WILL NOT SAVE YOU FROM hELL.  oNLY cHRIST CAN SVAE YOU FROM hELL.   

sCRITURE ITSELF SAYS THAT BELIEVING IN GOD WO'T GET YOU ANYWAHWERE, THAT EVEN THE DEMONS OR EDEVILS BELIEVE IN gOD AND THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE SAVED.  BEING GOOD WON'T SAVE IYOU.  iTG MIGHT KEEP YOUFROM THE LOWER REGIOS OF hEL BUT IT WON'T KEEP YOU OUT OF hELL.  jUST ONE SIN IS ALL IT TAKES TO GET US INTO hELL.  wE'RE ALL BORN hhELL-BOUND BECAUSE WE INHERIT THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS, WE ARE BORN IN THE SIN NATURE OR FLSHLY NATURE, UNABLE TO KNOW gOD PERSONALLY AS THEY DID BEFORE THEY DISOBEYED.  bUT IT WAS BECAUSE WE CAN'T SAVE OURSELVES AND ARE DOOMED TO hELL THAT gOD PROMISED FROM ALL THE WAY BACK IN eDEN AND ALL THROUGH THE oLD tESTAMENT TO SEND US A sAVIOR WHO WOULD SAVE US FROM THE SINS THAT CONDEMN US TO hELL.  

fINALLTHE mESSIAH CAME, FULFILLING ALL THE PROPHECIES OF hIS ARRIVAL, THE PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH, OF THE BIRTH IN bETHLEHEM, OF hIS SUFFERING FOR US AND A LOT OF OTHERS, AND THAT IS jESUS cHRIST.  wHEN hE DIED ON THE CROSS hE TOOK THE SINS OF ALL THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE IN hIM UPON HhIMSELF AND hIS DEATH PAID FOR ALL THOSE SINS AND CLEANSED ALL WHO BELIEVE OF THOSE SINS COMPLETELY SO THAT WE CAN ALL START WITH A NEW SLATE, SINLESS JUST AS hE WAS SINLESS.  iF WE BELIEVE THAT, KNOW THAT hE DIDED FOR US AND THAT WE ARE FORGIVEN ALL OUR SINS BECAUSE hE PAID FOR THEM, THEN WE ARE SAVED.  aND THAT MEANS SAVED FROM hELL.  sAVED TO ETERNAL LIFE.  wE ARE BORN AGAIN WHEN WE EMBRACE THAT TREUTH, WE RECEIVE THE hOLY sPIRIT WHICH IS THE LIFE OF gOD WITHIN US WHICH BEGINS THE PORCESS OF FITTING US FOR LIFE IN hEAVEN.  nO YOU DON'T HAVE THE lOGOS WITHIN YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN gOD, WHATEVER THAT WOULD MEAN ANYWAY, IT'S JUST SOME KIND OF jUNGIAN HOOHA.  bUT IF YOU BELIEVE THE TRUTH, THAT jESUS PAID FOR YOUR SINS WHEN hE DIED ON THE cROSS AND SHED hIS BLOOD FOR US, THEN YOUARE SAVED FROM hELL AND THAT'S THE obnly WAY ANYONE IS SAVED FROM hELL.

si GIEUESS IF i COULD SEE WELL EHNOUGH i'D FIND pETERSON'S WEBSITE AND SEND IT DIFRECTLY BUT UNFORTUNATELY HE'LL HAVE TO DISCOVER IT SOME ONEHTER WAY.  iF HE CARES AT ALL, WHICH HE MAY NOT.  pEOPLE LIKE THEIR OWN VERSIONS OF gOD SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE TRUTH TRUE ONE , SOME DO ANYWAY.  fORTUNATELY OTHERS HAVE THE HUMILITY TO ACCEPT WHAT GOD DID THE WAY gOD DID IT INSTEAD.  

 i i CAN ALWAYS PRAY OF COURSE.    i MAY PRAY FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE BUT WHEN SOMEONE REALLY BELIEVES HE'S DOING SOMETHING TO AVOID hELL AND i KNOW HE'S DECEIVED ABOUT THAT IT GIVES ME MORE MOTIVATION THAN USUAL TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND TRY TO STEER HIM RIGHT.  

ooH AND BY THE WAY, cATHOLICISM WON'T SAVE OU.  pERHAPS THERE ARE A FEW WHO GET SAVED IN THAT INSTITUTION BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NOBODY EVER DOES, BECAUSE THEY DON'T TEACH THE RIGHT WAY TO GET SAVED AND THEY MAKE IT SOUND LIKE YOU CAN NEVER KNOW IF YOU'RE SAVED.  tHEY TEACH SOMNE TRUE chRISTIANITY BUT NOT THE PART THAT SAVES YOU.  bELONGING TO THAT cHURCH CERTAINLY WON'T SAVE YOU AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT.  aND PRAY8ING TO mARY IS ALWAYSMOST A RECIPE FOR BEING SURE YOU NEVER GET SAVED SO i KNOPE THOSE WHO HAVE MISTAKENLY CHOSEN THE cATHOLID cHURCH THINKYIN G THEY ARE CHOOSING cHRISTIANITY GET THE MESSAGE SOONER RATHER THAN TOO LATE.   

yEAH, i KNOW i'M NUTS.  i SIT OUT HERE HAVING CONVIERSATIONS IN MY HEAD WITH ALL SORT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW i EXIST AND WOULDN'T CARE ANYWAY.  THAT'S TOTALLY NUTS.  oH WELL.  sOME PEOPLE HAVE COE BY AND CHATED A BIT WHEN i WROTE ABOUT THEM.  yOU NEVER KNOW.

gOT STARTED AND nOW kEEP THINKIGN ABOUT fACETS OF eOVLUTION

sELECTION IS JUST THE ISOLATING OF A PORTION OF A POPULATION IN WHICH A CERTAIN TRAIT OR NUMBER OF TRAITS GROWS TO PROMINENCE IN CONTRAST WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION FROM WHICH IT SPLIT OFF.  nATURAL SELECTION IS GENERALLY THOUGHT OF AS TRAITS BEING SELECTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT, AS FOR INSTANCE A PARTICULAR KIND OF BEAK WHICH EVOVLES OVER TIME TO BETTER MAKE USE OF A PARTICULAR KIND OF FOOD THAT IS MORE READILY AVAILABLE IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAN SOME OTHER KINDS.  OVER A NUMBER OF GENERATIONS THE PREVANLENCE OF THIS FOOD SOURCE FAVORS THE USE OF A PARTICULAR BEAK SHAPE UNTIL THE BIRD BECOMES CHARACTERIZED BY THAT SHAPE.  

ok, i SUPPOSE THAT MUST HAPPDEN SOMETIMES BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BME TO BE THE MOST LIKELY OR MOST COMMON WAY TRAISTS BECOME CHARACTERISTIC OF POPULATIONS.  wHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SPLIT OFF FROM A LARGER POPULATION AND BECOME REPRODUCTIVELY ISOLATED FROM THE LARGER POULATION OVER A NUMBER OF GENERATIONS IS THAT THERE IS A NEW SET OF GENE GREQUENCIES FROM THEAT OF THE EARLIER POPULATION, SO THAT SOME TRAITS ARE MORE PREVALENT AND SOME LESS EXPRESSED IN THE NJEEW THAN IN THE OLD.  i THINK WHAT MOST OFTEN HAPPENS IS THAT THE TRAITS DO THE ESLECTING.  tHEY FIND WHATEVER IS IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT BEST SUITS THEM RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.  oF COURSE THEENVIRONMENT MAY ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCESS BUT PROBABLY A LOT LESS THAN THE THEORY SUPPOSES.

ii'M THINKING OF dARWIN'S FINCHES.  tHERE ARE QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT POPULATIONS OF FINCHES WITH DIFFERENT BEAK TYPES, SOME SHORT AND STUBBY, SOMELONG AND NARROW AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.  THEY ARE EACH BEST ADAPTED TO PARTICULAR KINDS OF FOODS AVAILABLE IN THEIR ENVIRONEMNTS  lONG NARROW BEAKS CAN BPROBE BENEATH BARK TO FIND INSECTS, SHORT STUBBY BEAKS CAN CRACK THE SHELLS AND HUSKS OF NUTS AND SEEDS, AND SO ON AND S FORTH.  eACH BEAK TYPE IS FOUND IN THE MOST SUIGTABLE ENVIRONEMTN FOR IT.  dSsURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND ALL THATL.  

bUT THE GENOME DOES ITS OWN THING AND EVRY GENERATION OF SEXUALLY REPRODUCING ANIMALS HAS VARIATIONS ON THE ANIMAL'S TRAITS.  wHEN A LONGER NARROWER BEAK HAPPENS TO SHOW UP IN AN INDIVIDUAL THAT ONE WILL NATURALLY FIND ITSELF DIGGING INSECTS OUT FROM THE TREE BARK AND THAT SORT OF THING.  iT WILL PASS ON ITS NARROWER BEAK TO ITS OFFSPRING WHICH WILL ALSO GRAVITATE TO THE KIND OF FOOD THAT BEAK DEALS WITH SO WELL.  tHEY MAY FIRST WANDER TO THE AREAS OF MORE TREES WITH MOR INSECTS AND GET ISOLATED FROM OTHER FINCHES AND THEN PRPAGAGTE IN A NEW EVIRONMENT AND SO ON.   i'D GUESS THIS IS A BETTER SEXPLANATION OF THE VARIETY OF FINCHES THAN NATURAL SELECTION WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN OAWFULLYH COSTLY WANY OF BRINGING OUT NEW TRAITS , WHICH IS OF COURSE EXPRESSED IN THAT SLOGAN ANYWAY, THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.  THE LESS FIT JUST MAY NOT SURVIVE AT ALL WHERE THEY ARE NOT ADAPTED.  bUT IF THE TRAIT SEEKS ITS BEST MATCH IN THE ENVIRONMENT THANEN THE BIRDS JUST GO WHERE THEY BEST FIT AND SPLIT OFF ACCORDING TO THAT PRINCIPLE.  FORMING NEW POPULATIONS.

i THINK ALSO OF THE pODmRCARU LIZARDS.  THIS WAS AN EXPERIMENT DONE BY SCIENTISTS i DN'T KNOW WHEN.  tEN LIZARDS WERE CHOSEN FROM HE LARGE POPULATION OF LIZARDS ON THE MAINLAND, FIVE MALE AND FIVE FEMALE i THINK, AND LET LOOSE ON AN ISOLAND CALLD pOD mRCARU WHERE THERE WERE NO LIZARDS.  tEHY WERE LEFT THERE AND THE SCIENTIESTS WHENT AWAY BUT CAME BACK THIRTY YEARS LATER TO SEE HOW THE LIZARDS HAD FARED IN THEIR NEW ENVIRONMENT.  THEY FOUND THAT ALL THE LIZARDS ON THE ISOLAND HAD DEVELOPED VERY LARGE HEADS AND STRONG JAWS AND A TOUGHER DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, AND RTHAT THEY ATE A MUST ROUGHER DIET THAN THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL POPULATION ON THE MAINLAND.  

fIRST OF ALL THEY DIDN'T EXPECT THAT MUCH CHANGE IN SO SHORTG A TIME BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY WERE THINKING IN TERMS OF EVOLUTION WITH ITS MILLIONS OF YEARS SO THIS SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THEY AWERE WITNESSING SIPLY THE PROLIFERATION OF A PARTICULAR VARIATION THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE LIZARD GENOME AND JUST HAPPENED TO BE MORE PREVALENT IN THE TEN LIZARDS THEY RANDOMLY SELECTED TO PULATE THE ISOLAND.  THAT TRAIT INCREASED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION JUST BASED ON PRINC8IPLE SOF GENETIC INHERITANCE, NHOT ANY PRESSURE FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.  tHERE WAS ALL THE SAME KIND OF FOD ON THE ISLLAND AS ON THE LMAINLAND BUT AS THE LIZARDS DEVELOPED THE ABILITYT TO EAT THE ROUGHTER TOUGHER FOOD IT BECAME THEIR MAIN SOURCE OF DIET.    tHAT'S THE BEST EXPLANATION OF IT IT SEEMS TO BME.

iFtHERE IS SUPPOSEDLY NO SUCH THING AS RACE AND HAT'S TRUE ENOUGH IN SOME IMPORTANT SENSE, BUT IT'S A SCIENTIFIC TERM THAT DESCRIBES THE VARIETIES OF LIVING THINGS FOUND IN NATURE, OR THAT'S HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY USED.  yOU COULD TALK OF A RACE OF RACCOONS AND SO ON.  wENEVER A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SPLIT OFF FROM THE MAIN POPULATION AND INBRED WITH ONE ANOTHER IN ISOLATION FROM THE GREATER POPULATION A WHOLE PECULIAR SET OF TRAITS WILL EMERGE TO DEFINE THE NEW POPULATION IN SDISTINCTION ROMT HE ORIGINAL, AHND THAT'S TRUE OF PEOPLE AS WELL AS ANIMALS.  aSIANS LOOK DIFFERENT FROM eUROPEANS BECAUSE THEYVE DEVELOPED SEPARATELY FROM EIACH OTHER FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.  THAT'S ALL A REACE IS.

aNYAY, YES SLECTION IS THE AGENT OF CHANGE OF "EVOLUTION" IN THE SIMPLE SENSE BUT IT INVOLVES THE ELIMINATION OF OTHER TRAITS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ITS OWN TRAIT PICTURE IN A NEW POPULATION.  THERE IS CONSEQUENCTLY A TREND TOWARD REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERISTY.  tHERE IS NOT AN INCREASE.  MANY TRAITS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEW POULATION MAY BECOME FIXED OR HOMOZYGOUS THROUGHT THE WHOLE GROUP, TAT'S A LOSS OF THE ALLELES FOR HETEROZYGOSITY.  THIS IS JUST A TGREND IN LARGE POPULATIONS BUT IN SMALL PULATIONS IT CAN BECOME CRUCIAL AS WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PUREBRED AHIMALS WHICH DEVLEOP GENETIC DISEASES.  iN THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD WHICH HAD NO DISEASES OR DEATH SUCH GENETIC FACTS WOULD NOT THREATEN THE ANIMAL BUT IN THIS FALLEN WORLD THEY ARE DEFINITELY THREATENEED.  BUT THE POINT i'M TRING TO MAKE IS SIMPLY THAT IT'S AT THESE EXTREMES THAT THE NORMAL TREND OF EVOLUTION IS SHOWN AND IT'S AN IELIMINATION AND A REDUCTION, NOT AN INCRESE, AND THAT IS SIMPLY NOT WHAT EVOLUTION NEEDS IN ORDER TO CONTINUE.  iN FACT AT THESE EXTREMES NO FURTHER CHANGE OR EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE AT ALL, IT'S COME TO AN END.  

mUTATION ALWAYS COMES UP AT THIS POINT IN THE CONVERSATION.  BUT WHAT DOES MUTATION DO?  aLL IT DOES IS CHANGE THE SEQUENCE OF EXISTING GENES, MOREST FREQUENTLY MAKING NO CHANGE IN THE TRAIT GOVERNMENTED BY THE GENE, BUT OFTEN BRINGING ABOUT SOME SORT OF DISEASE, AND ONLY VERY VERY RARELY IF AT ALL BRINGING ABOUT ANYTHING USEFUL TO THE CREATURE.  AND WHAT IF A MUTATION OCCURS IN THE CHEETAH SAY THAT IS ACTUALLY ENEFICITAL.  wLL IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSED ON TO ALL ITS OFFSPRING AND IT WOULD ACT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER GENE.  TO BE SELECTED IT WOULD DISPLACE OTHER GENES AND SO ON.  a MUTATION IS JUST ANOTHER GENE IN THE END IF IT IS AT ALL USEFUL AND MOSTLY IT ISNIT.

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.