CCharlie Kirk and jerry Coyne and some depressing tsutf

 It's so depressing.     Charlie Kirk having arguments with college students , in some format I dn't grasp where they fight to get tot he chair across from him, but anyway, their point of view, which is obviously shaped by their leftist professors, is depressing.  They believe and try to prove that abortion is justifiable apart from the usual exceptions for mother's health and so on, and it's just depressing that killing your child is regarded as a right by these kids and the fact that it is the killing of  a human being means nothing to them.  It's also depressing that they refuse to accept the obvious distinctions between men and women, the biological distinctions and try to jstify calling a man a woman who simply wants to be walled a woman.  this is all dperessing to an abysmal level.   And of course they have to prove that there is still systemic racism in America although for decades we've done so much to rid ourselves of it and succeeded.  they are believing lies and it is abysmally depressing.

Oh, also the Econ student never studied Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell.  Of course.

then anothr ejJerry Coyne video came up where he's giving the same speech but to a different audience adn that is depressing.  of course.  What he calls evolution is not evolution, it's variation which is built into the species genome, and this variation is limited by the genetic possibilities already available and you can't ge any kind of change that is not dependent on those genetic possibilities  You also reach a point in small populations where further variations becomes impossible too because of the number of fixed enes or homozygous genes that have occurred in the making of the race or breed.   And yes you can get different populations with different characteristics if they split and vary in isolation from each other.  happens all the time in nature.  All variation limited to the genome, not evolution.   And then he goes to the fossil record to prove that life began with simple organisms and proceeded to more complex ones, exepct of course that the fofssil record doesn't exist becaue the strata they exist in can't possibly represent time periods as I've shown over and ove again.  

Deressing beyond depressing.  I hope the Rapture somes soon.

Later:  I hadn't finished his whole talk and of course he covers the other stuff like vestigial organs and biogeography and all that as he did the first time too , and I have the same answers now that I had when I heard it the first time:

Vestial orgns are probably best explained as fnctions we once possessed in our originaloly created form, that we've lost over time because of the Fall which brought all kinds of diseases into our existence.  Mutations have to be a disease process, they are random and make no sense as a process useful to life in any way at all despite scientist's attempts to make them useful for evolution.  they can't be, they are random destructive mitakes in the replication of DNA, they may be insignificant enough to do no hardm in some cses, but they often create genetic diseases and we hve thousands of those we have to deal with.   

So I figure that once sueful functions, for which we have evidence in the "junk DNA" which Coyne doesn't call junk DNA but that's what it is, evidence of dead genes that once had functions we no longer possess because those genes have been destroyed by mutations.  He talks about this but of course from the evolutionistic perspective which says they were once useful when we were not yet human and we logost them later because we no longer need them.  That gives mutation a useful function, which is fidicuilous.  It's random, it has no useful function, it just maims and kills and that's all it does, it's a  an instrument of the Fall, an instrument of destruction and disease and it's killed of an enormous nmber of onece useful genes in the human genome, and also in animal genomes.    So vesgial organs are no doubt whatever is left half functioning in our makeup or not functioning at all because the genes that code for the function are dead.   A yok sac for instance might once have contained the hyoulk he says is coded ffyor by three genes that are all now dead, was likely once useful for noursighing the embryo before the planecent a fully defeveloped.  that would be my guess.  Apparently we can do awithout it, sort of, so we go on without it, as we do without an appendix and a functioning or fully fiunctioning gallbladder, other organs we more or less easily do without.    That were once probably very useful for some facet of our strength and health.    Vitamin C is no longer functioning and Coyne explains that as due oto our getting it in our diets, I just figure it was killed as part of the Fall and we do better if we take C supplements which shows we do need it and don't get it in our diets that easily.  That's how I would explain most evestigial orgnas, and some of them would need a lot more thought, such as the hind legs of whales, which proabbly have a dozen or so more genes associated with them that are now dead.  And so on.

I still dnot get this biogeography argument at all  Creationists are accused of avcooiding it because it's supposedly so teeling for evolution but I just don't get it and sdon't see why creationists would have any problme at all with islands being populated by creatures tht could float there and not by animals whathat have no easy way of getting there.  What on earth is so evolutionistic about that?  I don't get it at all.

I also don't see why creationists should hav a problem with natural selection.  It must operate in some cases and his example of the finch eak is proably a good enough example of it.  It would operate on the genetic material of the species genome jut fine, no need at all for any kind of evolution in the official sense of the term to operate.  

One thing I think must e the case is that there are many design features that are repeated in the genomes of the diferent creatures, that is it can be design and not evolution that explains them.  

He says vestigial organs can't be explained except by evolution and this is false.  the Fall with its mutational disease processes goes a long way to explaining them.

I forgo to mention his example of the supposed evolution of horses.  There are fossils of different kinds of horses in the so called fossil record which of course he explains as one type evolving from an earlier type, but to a creatinist therese are merely different kinds of horses what all lived before the flood and died in the Flood, and that's the case wilth all the creatures we find fossilized.  Some variations were preserved on the ark, but many others died.

Whateve we find in fossil form was alive before the Floode, amany odd variations of creatures that are still living but many that no longer exist at all.  You don't need to postulate vrarious extinction events, the Flood killed them all.  

I'm sure he's right that it's becaue of our Christianity that we reject evolution.  I had problems with evolution before I became a Christian.  I'd tried to think through some ways a particular feature might have evolved over long periods of time and just keept being unable to imagine it all going in the right direction to produce something coherent.  I still acan't imagine it.   but when I became a Christian then it began to matter in a new eway because evolution contradicts the Bible.  There was no death in the orginal Creation, that ws the consequance of the Fall whichn made edeath seem to be a normal part of life.  Death is built into evolution and that can't be reconciled with the Bible.  theistic evolution is a sham.  At lest it's not biblical.  Anyway when I became a CHristian in my late forties I read some books on creatinism and started tryhing to think it through for myself.  It can't be easily dismissed, it has to be thought through.  And I think I've done a decent job of that.

Although I had issues with evolution before I became a Christian I didn't pursue them and just figured evolution myust be true even if I culdn't see how, but when i became a Christian then I had the motivattion to think more acarefilly about it.

Two Forms of UncivilizationWoke and Multicultural

 Soon after the end of the Olympics Matt Walsh objected on his radio show to the American gymnasts who had won silver ahnd bronze medals, bowing down to the gold medal winner from Brazil, becaue he believed it to be a woke racist expression.  He also thought the fact that the bronze winner, Jordan Childs, a black girl as were the other two, had not won her medal fairly but that it was given to her because eshe is black.  

I had taken it all straight myself, thought she had been awarded the bronze fairly and also that the bowing down she and teammate Simone Biyle engaged in was just a nice gesture and genuine.  Why make an innocent gensture into a woke expression anyway.   

I guess I didn't explain here that originally someone else, a rumanian girl, had won the bronze, but that the American coach had objected to the judges that they had wrongly assessed the performance of their girl Jordan Childs, and that led to the elevation of Childs to the Bronze, making the Rumanian the loser.    That's what I had assumed was done fairly.  And maybe it was, but apparently there were other problems.

What Walsh reported is that they had again reviewed the performances and found that Chidls had not won, but belonged in fifth place, which put her behind two Rumanians, one of whom got the bronze.  So now this seems to be the correct assessemtn.

But Childs is protesting that it is because she is black that they took the medal away from her.  NOW we've got a woke situation and I accept Matt Walsh's judgment of the istuation.  I guess I was wrong about the whole thing and he was right so this is my apology.  

I'd rally like to think lback competitotrs could be gracious losers as well as winnders but it doesn't look like the times we live in are going to allow that civilized attitude to develop.

And seaing of civilized behavior, Matt Walksh also corrected the uproar against Trump for mentioning that he'd heard that the Haitians in Springfield Ohio were eating the pets, the casts and dogs, that belonged to the citizens there.  People had been denying that Trump was right, saying that he'd fallen for a hoax and that the Haitians were not eating pets.  

What Walsh did was find audio proof that the townspeakple had been complaining about the Haitians catching and eating geese and ducks and other aniamsls for some time.  He also pointed out that in Haiti they do eat cats so that even if there isn't any evidence that they have in fact done so in Springfield, they wvery well might if the could.  

Anyway, thanks to Walksh for correcting me on both points, well in the second case correcting the rumors since I hadn't bought into any o fit yet.  

It is hard to fathom the evil mindset of those who would bring uncivilized people into a civilized  ountry and imose them on the citizens.  if these evil people win this upcoming election we are doomed in more ways than one.

May God have mercy on us.

Your Cities Are Burned with Fire, Your Land Is Devoured by Strangers

 That should sound familiar to us in America right now.  It's a picture of a nation under judgmenet by God, a nation God has described a few verses earlier as

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquities, a seed of evildoers...

It's the same message given by the prophet Hosea later when God through him says My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, after describing them as Swearing and lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery, all the sins of the second table of the Ten commandmentsl.

 There is no doubt we are under God's judgment and it's going to get worse as long as we fail to acknowledge our sins and repent of them.  That's the part that seems so utterly hopeless.  Once they've got it into their heads that it is a Right of all things to kill your unborn baby in the womb, or to marry your homosexual partner, or to turn yourself into the opposite sex , and of courese they don't believe in God who think those things... h,m well, sorry to say that's not necessarily so as I do know of so called Christians who embrace such abominations in the name of Christ.

It's so easy to sink into hopelessness in the fa

ne think I know, even if I forget it from time to time, is that as long as we are putting our trust in human beings and human institutions there isn't much to hope in.  "Teh arm of flesh" as scripture sometimes dcalls this trust is definitely hopeless.  Our trust has to be in Gode, only He has the power to reverse these things.  We're under His jugment for our sins, but He is merciful and still might relent, but ONLY if we see that we've brought this on ourselves.  Yes even if it's the "other party" who have done the worlse t of it, we are accountable along with them as members of the same covenant as it were.  We have to repetns for all the sins that have brought this situation upon us, as the prophet Daniel did on behalf of his nation Israel although he was a righteous man himself.  

Tryi to built up some hope I listened to a talk about the great revival of eighteen fifty seven that started in new York City, started by one businessman, a mamber of the Dutch Reforemed Church, who called a parayer meeting for the lunch hour and handed out flyers.  Only six responded the first day but little by littlerle as they met every week at noon more joined them until eventually, after weeks and months they had prayer meetings all over the city and ten to fiftyeen thousand men participating.  I suppose there must have been women too but it's the men that are the most in evidence for some reason.   eventually the meetings spread across the country and then into Europe and then into Asia until it had encompassed the entire world in prayer.  Thousands upon thousands were saved, people made restittuion for wrongs they had committed , under confiction by the Holy Spirit.  

But we've prayed for revival, mahy of us over the last few decades.  Why haven't we had a revival?  A few phony revivals, yes I call them phony, they were phohney, Toronto, Browsville, Lake.and, phony revivals.  W need a real powerful Holy Spirit revival.  

od told Solomon soon after he had finished building the temple for God to dwell in, that He would by merciful in judgment:  If the people would humble themselves, pray and seek His face and turn from their wicked ways, the He would forgive their sins and heal their land.  In the midst of His judgmetn against them, when He had shut up the rain or sent locusts or a psestilence as punishemtn He would yet hear from heaven and heal their land.

We alsoways howp for this, it's one of the favorite verses of the Christain churches, but somehow we never get revivla and it is very discouraging.  

till, 'mraying for it again.  if we don't have revival the nation is going to go under for sure, burned with fire, given over to strangers, full of violence, famine, murder, extreme poverty.  That's where we will end up if we continue on the current trajectory and get the Democrats in office again.  

Seeing what's coming I feel like I'm losing my mind, I can hardly breathe, I can't sleep, 

Help, Lord.

]Note:  A talk on that revival is titled Revelation TV Presents The Lanphier Revival of 1857

.......I cn't see well enough to read Comments or my usual email so I now have a new one bing managed by my daughter:

faithswindowQmail.com

I wrote an explanatory note you can access by putting Contact Possibility into the search box at the upper left.

Thaks.

God Says, Choose Life, but We're Choosing Death

 I set before you this day blessing and cursing, life and death;  therefore, choose lif.That's how God summed up the Law He gave the Israelites through Moses, as path to blessing if obeyed or cursing if disobeyed, life or death.  The theme is repeated throughout the Old Testment, particularly in the Psalms and the Proverbs.  Psalm One starts out, blessed inss the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scorners, but his delight is in the Law of the Lord and in His Law he meditates day and night.  he will be like a tree planted by rivers of water who brings forth fruit in his season and everything he does will prosper.  His leaf also shall not wither.

God's Law respected and obeyed is the path to a peaceful and prosperous life. The principle is extended to a whole nation:  Righteousness exalteth a nation ...

The psalm goes on, The ungodly are not so but are like the chff driven before the wind...

And disobedience of the Law leads to the cursings listed in the passages about the Law of Moses as the nation is to be defeated by enemies, subjected to economic disaster and so on if it fails 

This is a theme God brings me back to from time to time, sometimes with a jolt of surprise as my mind was so completely somewhere else.  this time it took a whle to recognize it.  I was listening to a speech by a fairly well known "public intellectual" as they are called these days, someone I like and enjoy listening to, a gay man but politically on the right side in my opinion.  He was talking about the situation in Israel and described some acts of heroism on the part of Israelis, concluding with the quote of my title and saying "they chose life."

Of course right away I knew he had misused the quote, in the same way I've encountered another quote from scrip;ture being misused a number of times:  in the book of Hosea God says "My people are destroyed for lack of kowledge" and this is often misused to refer to some temporal sort of knowledge such as knowledge of the plans of an enemy just as Jihad, or a virus that could break out and destroy millions and that sort of thing.    But the scripture is really referring to god's Law, saying that it is the people's disobedience of the Law that is destroying them.   they've been described already as committing various sins, swearing, lying, killing, lying, committing adultery, as the reason for their destruction.  

the quote is misused in the same way "chhoose life" is misused to describe the Iasaraeli heroies.

Wdon't seem t want to learn about God's law, or for some reason we are dearf to it.  Knolwledge is relegated to all kinds of things rather than the Law, and life is imputed to heroic actions instead of to obedience of the Law.

In botgh examples of this misunderstanding I've mentioned I nearly missed the very important fact that the destructive actions put in the place of the knowlege of the Law and its consequences , such as jihad or a virus in thecamese of the Hosea quote, and the war on Israel by Hamas in the other, are themselves consequences of disobedience of the Law.  I hate to say this because the Islamists are vicious malicious killers and nothing can justify their murderous cruelty against Israel, which is the subject in both of these examples, at least one of them, the Hosea quote has often been misused in toehr ways, but jihad is certainly a reference to the Islamist attack on israel, and the West too for that matter.    

 God uses our enemies as punishement for our transgressions of His law, that's what the blessings and cursings ar all babout in the passage from which I took the title of this post.    The attack on the twin towers which we are babout to commemorate his welek is another example of god's judgment in this case on the US, from which we have never repented whichn is why we continue to be under judgment, threat from our enemies, the overruning of our brorder, devastiating eweather conditions now violations of our Constituion that threaten to destroy the nation altogehter.   

Instead of repenting and correcting our acts of disobedience we rely on our human strengths to try to defeat the judgments that are coming from God and can't be defeated.  I don't kow what sins Israel may have committed besides rejecting their Messiah, but that may be enough, otherwise I have no idea why god keeps threatening the mwith the Islamist designs on annihilating them, but in the sacase of America I know a lot about how we deserve the judgmetnn we are under and I wish I could be optimistic about  escapting it.

Assaiah nine says, instead of repenting and changing our ways, like Israel we resort to defying the judgmetn of God.  He destroys buildings, we rebuild them better;  he destroyes trees we plant hardier ones.  Jonathan Cahn ointed to this passage in his first book to show that we are deinfg God's judgment against us that He brought through the attack on nine eleven.  

Mor unborn babies are being aborted since Roe v Wade was overtuned and abortion law sent to the states, their blood is on the nation, now perhaps more on the individual states.  We have defended pornography i terms of free speech which si a horrific travesty of our Constitution and I'm sure we aren't going back on that, we've perverted our laws to that extent.  Good fo r evil and evil for good.  We threw the Bible out of schools and prayer although that is initself a violation of our laws, also misconstrued in terms of the Constittuion.  We've legalized gay marriage which is a horrible travesty of God's ordinance regarding the marriage of man and woman.  Now we're legalizing the mutilation of children who think they got born into the wrong sex.    And all this is going to ge twrose rather than better if the Democrts wiln this coming election.  

There were a couple of bits of good news recently in the posting of the ten Commandments in schools in some state, I don't remember which, , and I forget what the otehr state is doing, soemthing lalong the lines of teaching our Christain history I think but I could be wronjg.   That's hopeful stuff but it's very little compared to how much we've done in the opposite direction for the last half century or so.   

the tide of evil is very strong right now, I dn't see any way out of it.  Prayer of course but such persistent and rightly done prayer I doubt it could happen.  

Looks to me like we've chosen death and even if we get ta temporary reprieve that's the trajectory we're on until Jesus coesmes back.  that's the way it looks to me right hnow.

We reallyh should commemorate Nine Eleven with a day of fasting and pryaer.

Rocketing Through Some of the Aruments Agianst Evolution as Coyne Presented it

 I think I answered Jerry Coyne as i went through his video earlier but I just reviewed some of it and now I'm not sure if I did.  So I just ant to sketch out some of my answers here, again if I already did.

Evolutionj occurs he evidenced by the fact that populations change over time.  But that occurs because of the variability built into the genoe of the species, that's not evolution.  All sorts of even quite ramatic changes can occur in a population ocver a number of generations as each generation varies slightly fromj the parent generation ayway.  And if the ppulations split into a numbe ro poulations of smaller populations you get a new gset of gene frequencies in each new population which change their genetic picture to one degree or anothner from that of the oirginal pooulation.  A very small population is likely to produce a very dramatic new trait poicture because of the great differences from the original.  Butr this is all changes that occur within the species genome.  This doesn't prove evolution at all because you can't get species to species tchange this way, you can only get variations on what is alreay in the geneome which is the set of traits characteristic of tht particular species and no other.

he tijks the fact that the change is often gradual but can someting be fast proves evoltuion.  I don't get this at all so it's hard to comment.  It's gradual if the opulation is large enough, an faster if the population is smaller.

then specieationj of branching .  But this happens a lot in nature as different parts of a wild population split off and go indifferent directions, findi cdifferent niches and sometimes get somepletely idsolated from the original population.  New gene frequences bring out difdferent characteristics in the new population and if there are more then a two that split off you can get a umber of very different looking populations all of the same species.  All from that species genome.  Nothiern gthat has anythihg to do with evolution fro that species to some othe speicies.

Then biogeography is a category he claims proves evolution and again I don't see how.  I don't see why a creationist wouldn't recognize that whateer can get to a remove idisland would become the population on that isoland and if some animals don't have means of gettihjg there they wouldn't be there.  What this has to do with evolution I have no idea.  And then of courlse becaue there would be the same sitaution with new gene frequencies in the small nmber of migrants to the new island you could get very crastically different populations of the reatures in those remote places.  All from the species genome.  othihg to do with evoltuion.

Then naturl selecitn.  Again it seems to me if this occurs it can be recognized as well by creationists as evolutionists because it would be operating on the pecies genome to bring out traits that are already there and over time exaggerate them quite a bit in some cases.  That's what happened with Darwin's fins   sorry, pigeons, and those of other pigeon breeders of his time.  It's what happened witn the pod mrscaru lizards wthat developed the strong jaws for eating roughter food than they'd been used to in the original population.  it doesn't have to be the food selecting the trait, though and I figure it usually isn't.  the trait is alreayd there and it leads the creature to gravitate to the kind of footd it is suited for.  then the habit of eating that food would act as a selective factor as well.  But really, in any small population genetics seems to me to be the main actor as the variations just keep turning up in the offspring due to the gene frequencies which favor a certain trait picture.   Nothihg to do with evoltuion.

then he gets into vestigial organs and limbs and so on.  Some I can't explain but the hok sac for the human embryo seems to me to be the remnand fo a former provision for its hnourishment that gotr t destroyed by mutation which is a major weapon of the Fall hich has usbjected us to all kidns of diseases and deficiencies and death.  Perhaps the vestigianl legs of the whale are also somehow related to the Fall but I don't know how off the top of my head.  An organ of cuntion that would ahve developed into something more specific if mutation hadn't destroyed a bunch of genes connected with it or something like that.   Certainly something like that hs to do with the prostrate problem.  the problem is that the Fall explains a lot of things that people don't think of beause they wrongly think of this world ads the same as the cratred world but it's not.  We are mere shadows of our created selves, we've lost ninety nine percent of our genetic strengths due to the Fall to judge by the amount of junk DNA in our genome.   We mut have been quite sowonderful craetures at the Creation.  Animals too since they avhe lost much of their own strengths and protectsion in the same way.

And then there is the fossil recorod.  No matter how intuitively congenial it seems to be as a record of evolution from simple to complex, if in fact the whole thing couldn't even exist then that is revealed to be an illusion.  And if the strata they are found in coudln't possibly represent time periods that would of course destroy the idea of a fossil record.  Which I think it does.   there is no way a gigantic slab of a homogeneous sedimetnary rock covering thousands of square miles could have existed in  erth's history as a natural deposit from some natural source ofr other, lets alone characterize that time period.  It's a flat straugthight horizontal object.  Nothijg could live on or in it.  If it's merely the base of a sea scape or landscape that somewhow or other remained after the next one started to eeposit on top of it, another wholly different sediment covering a huge territory as well and so on, which is ludicrous in itself, you have to account for how any of this makes sense and it simply does not.    then I point out that the same stack of rocks start out as seascapes since they contain sea life fossils and then in the upper layes become landscapes, that too is ridiculous.  These are not time periods and that is not a fossil record of evolution.

It's just a bunch of dead thihgs that for some reason got sorted into layers of sediments, all a physical mechanical phenomenon, nothing to do with evolution.  The earth was folooded and bazillions of things died and ot buried and sincemoving water is known to form separate tacks of seiments that's outr evoplanation.  

If you try to think thgough the morpholoigcal or genetic steps that would have to be taken for one species to evolve into another  you just can't ge anywyere, or at least I can't.  What exactly is being changed, a gene ithin the specie s genome?  that gene is then incapacitated as a new function takes over that somehow is beneficial to that species nevertheless as long as it's ihntthe one where the changes are taken place?   But you've gdestroyed a gene.  the new trait replaces it?  Alreayd i"m lost.  this just can't happen.  You ahhave to invent a whole new genome to rpelace the existing one.  this just can't happen.  

ButI don't see anything by scientists trying to do anything at all along these lines.  It's all how we see change happenieng withnout recognziing that this is only within a species geneome, it's all the result of natural selection withiuout sepcfiyijg what exaftly it is that is being selected and how that something got there in the first place, and it has to be something that is not part of the current species trait picture if it's really going in the direct oion of true evolution to a new species.  they never try to identify the pecifics.  What changed and how to get from here to tehere.  

It's really trule y as if they think their ability to imagine soethijg plausible that continues to seem plasible for a long time is enough to declare it a fact without doing one thing to find out if itit in fact is actualy true and could happen in the real world.  that wouldn't happen ihn the lahard sciences where you can always test things but in a historical science you just end up relaying on your imaginaitoion and end up baptizing some likely story into evolution just ecause it seems so gocongenial or whtnot.     

Where would a rhinoceros start to change to become a whale?  Remember that the entire animal has to change and that mutation occur in genes and there are thousands upon thousands of genes that would have to change and that mutation tends to destroy rather than enhance the function of a gene.  Send it to the junk yard cemetery instead of give it life in a new species.  

It's weird but OCoyne seems to have no idea that he's talking bout plausibilities and generalities and then declaring them fact.    

And that no REAL evidence has enered into his discussion at any oinjt that demonstrates his claim that evolutionj xexplains all these thingins.  

I'm sorry, my typing seems to be getting worse.  I feel it happening as I type and all Ica can say is I'm sorry.  I don't knmow what to do about it.  I don't want to have to give up this blog, it's really the only thihgning I have left that really engages my intersest.  

I keep working on the evolution problem because although I belireve we are very close to the end of time and that Jesus will be returing soon, hopefully taking me in the rpture along with many others as part of that scienario, still Ikkeep hoping that if there is still time this world could be steered off its suicide courase, which is really what it is with all this marxist political devastateion that will happen if the wrong people get into the American government, which I'm afraid is going to happen.  It will be God's will of course but He doesn't want us just to lie down and take it, we should be working against it no matter what.  Anyhway if evolution could be blasted to smitherweens and people reocgnize that fact I think it would have to make a big difference in how people are thinking, it would cautch them up short and turn themr minds away from some of the destructive trajectory we're on and maybe toward something that could save things at least for now.  So I would love to be one of God's instruments for the pulling down of the evolution stronghold as I would love to see people have to stop and say Qhoa maybe we need to rethink a few thiings here.  Oh Lord let it be.  but give me the dstrength to accept whatever You will instead.  Not only would things settle down on earth but thousdans of people would be saved.

Ament 

Latr  I left out a couple of things from the Coyne discussion.   One of the ways I've argued from the strata got left out, which is thta the strata were all originally laid down straight and flat and horizontal and show no sign whateever of any kind of disturbance during their laying down.  the cross section of the Grand Staircase area show a stack of layers one n top of the other without a ... without an irregularity of any sort within that whole stack.  it's only after the entire column was in place that we see all kinds of disturbances, a folcano erupting beneath the stack sand send up magma from the bottom to the very top of it, and the lifting of the stack over the Grand Canyoj area also .  All that happened after the entire stack was laid down, and that is evidence that those are not time periods since we know this erth to be a very acive planet what with weathering and earthquakes and volcanoes and tectonic jolts and all that should certainly show up in any period of tend of millions of years while those sedimentary layers were forming.  But there inot ta single ripple in their placid recumbance   ... is tht the workd I want?  Well it popped into my head and I hope it is.  Ayway no disturbances whatever to the supposed evidence of former time periods of milions of years.    NO TIME PERIODS, folks, taht's what that means.

the other thinkg I left out was Coyne's fourth constituent of evolutin which is tht two relted poulations all have a common ancestor.  so tey look for something that seems to be a transitional, a creatur that shares the characteristics of the two populations and they say they've found some, such as the transitiaonl between birds and reptiles.  It occurs at the right place in the fossil record to be the transitional , the common anestor they are looking for.  

The problem is that ll this stuff is totally subjective.  ther is no way to prove a common ancestor that far back.  We can prove ti within a species as poulations split off from the main population and vary quite a bit from it through the new gene frequencies, bt  betwen species?  Couldn't be possible to tra ck it down even if it were true whic it isn't.  It's all wildly imaginative and this is over and over again what gets called fact in the commuity of evolutionist scientists.  you'd think they'd know better.    This isn't evidence.  When ordinary people make such mitstakes in reasoning we get laughed at but if you're a scientist it's just find toe to trust your imagination like this, you don't need to verify it despite the time honored idea that this is what science does.

Anyay.  No time periods, no fofssil record, no way for genetic variation to do anything but fary the scpecies itself, no way to get from species to species at all.  I'd say this has been proved and evolution has not.

It ain't a rabbit in the Cambrian, but.

Even Lter.   I've been watching anothre video on evolution, this one a film about the hitory of the earth tht touches on which cretures lived in which time periods.  I mentioned trying to find out extly what and how many of the different creatures are found fossilized int n ehiwhich strata nd haven't been able to get a definitive lit of these,, but this sort of film at least gives me a rough notion.   And what I just noticed is that somewhere in teh Ordovician period while it's all mostly about sea cretures and how they supposedly evolved, mention is made of plants becoming terrestrial.

Notw what is interesting becuase all this is of course taken from the fossil record, that is which aimals were alieve when and their characteristics.  I nnoted the change from land creatures from sea creatures in the upper layers of the sedimetnary rocks as a rathr inexplicalbe occurrence.  That is, how did the environent just change from sea to land like that?  In the same place, in the same part of the stack?  but this is even more difficult to explain.  All teh fossils are apparently of sea life with the exception of some terrestrial plant life.  So how did that get into this particular laye of rock?   Isn't it the idea tht the creatures lived in this time period and when they died they got buried and fossilized where they had lived?  So how could we hve sea life and plant life buried in the same rock?  

JustIt ain't a rabbit in the Cambrian but something in the same class of falsifiers, woudln't you say?

 another bit of anomalous factuality to confound the evolutionist if any evolutionists ever bothered to notice.

Andet later:  Watching the History of Life series eisode on the Devonian period and finally I'm getting more of a sense of what creatures were fossilized in a time period, and it includes bogth sea cretures and land creatures.  Plants are the main terrestrial living things but now some aimal life is gettig up on the land too.

And what continues to bemuse me about this is how they are represented in the so called fossil record, the sedimentary rocks in which they are found.  How can you find both sea life fossils and terrestrial life fossils in the same layer of rock?  Apparetly not in different areas of the rock but just scattered through the whole layer.  At least this belies the usual idea tht these re living things that got buried prettymuch where they lived, if some lived on land and some lived in these esea.  this whole lime period thing is a weird delusion no matter how you go at it.  

tRYING AND fAILING aGAIN TO fIND A pATH FOR sPECIES TO sPECIES eVOLUTION

 TAT tHERE'S A POINT i'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THAT i DON'T THINK i DO A VERY GOOD JOB ON.  THIS TIME i WANT TO TRY AGAIN USING THE THEORIZED EVOLUTION FROM A LAND ANIMAL TO WHALE, SOMETING LIKE A RHINOCEROS TO WHALE.  

wITHIN A SPECIES VARIATION FOLLOWS  SET PATTERN, IT'S BUILT IN TO THE GENOME, ONE OF TWO ALLELES FOR A GIVEN GENE COMBINE WITH ONE OF TWO FROMT HE OTHER PARENT TO PRODUCE A PTRAIT IN THE OFFSSPRING, A VERSION OF A TRAIT THAT MAY BE THE SAME OR DIFFER SOMEWHAT FROM THAT OF THE PARENTS.   

bUT EVOLUTION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER HAS NO SET PATTERN IT PRETTY MUCH HAS TO MAKE A NEW GENOME SINCE THE ONE IT STARTS FROM HAS NOTHING BUT GENES FOR THAT PARTICULAR SPECIES.  tHESE CHANGE FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION ACCOREDING TO THE PATTERN i MENTION, AND IF THERE'S A MUTATION THAT GETS TREATED LIKE AN ALLELE SO THAT IF IT PRODUCES SOMETHING AT ALL USEFUL IT WILL BE PRESERVED BUT MOST OFTEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE OUTCOME AT ALL OR IT MAY PRODUCE A GENETIC DISEASE.  iF TIIT SHOULD BE USEFUL THOUGH IT WILL JUST DETERMINE THE TRAIT AS ANY OTHER ALLELE WOULD, THAT PARTICULAR TRAIT THOUGH PERHAPS IN A NEW VERSION.  bECAUS THAT IS WHAT THAT GENE does AND YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THAT AS FAR AS i CAN SEE.  iF i'M WRONG THEN i HOPE TO FIND IT OUT SOON.

bUT OUTSIDE THE GENOME AS IT WERE, IT'S ALL RANDOM, IT'S ALL CHANCE AND IT'S ALL MUTATIONS.  tHAT BEING THE CASE HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THE FACT THAT MUTATIONS ARE JUST GOING TO PRODUCE IRRELEVANT CHANGE AFTER IRRELEVANT CHANGE, CHANGES THAT DO NOTHIJG USEFUL OFR THE ORGANISM AT ALL LET ALONE LINE UP WITH OTHER UCH CHANGES TOWARD A FULLY EVOLVED END PRODUCT LIKE A WHALE FROM A RHINOCEROS.   a CHANGE IN A GENE WOULD ONLYU FFECT ONE TRAIT, YOU'D NEED COMPATIBLE CHANGES IN ALL THE GENES FOR THAT TRAIT WHEN THERE ARE MANY THAT CODE FOR IT WHICH IS OFTEN THE CASE, HOW ARE YOU GEOING TO GET COMPATIBLE MUTATIONS EVEN IF YOU BAZILLIONS OF YEARS FOR IT TO HAPPEN?   

eVLTIONISTS AS FAR AS i'VE SEEN DON'T EVER DISCUSS THE HOW OF ALL THIS.  tHEY SAY GENERAL THINGS LIKE SINCE EVOLUTIONIS TRUE ACCORDING TO THEM THEREFORE SOMETHING LIKE A RHINOCEROS SIMPLY EVOLVED INTO THE WHALE, AND IF THAT SEEMS UNLIKELY WELL YOU JUST HAVE TO LEARN TO THINK IN HUGE SPANS OF TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS.  bUT MILLIONS OF YEARS DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT AVOID THE QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT MECHANISMS HAE TO OCCUR FOR THE EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN?  aND THAT'S WHAT i DON'T SEE THE SCIENTISTS ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH.  oH NATURAL SELECTION DOE ALL THE WORK.  wELL, BUT TELL US how YOU THINK IT WORKS, WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO SELECT FROM?  aNDWOULDN'T IT HAVE TO HAVE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF CHANGES IN THE ORGANISM TO SSELECT ASSUMING THEY WERE ALL USEFUL AND THEREFORE SELECTABLE.  bUT AGAIN WHAT MAKES IT AT ALL LIKELY THAT any WOULD BE USEFUL AND THEREFORE SELECTABLE IF WE'RE TALKINGA BOUT RANDOM MUTATIONS.

tO MY MIND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY THAT EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.  aND AS LONG AS THE SCIENTISTS TALK ONLY IN GENERALITIES AND DON'T TRY TO ADRESS THE SPECIFICS OF HOW IT COULD WORK IT'S ALL A MAGIC TRICK OR SMOKE AND MIRRORS, JUST A \N EMPTY SHELL OF N IDEA.  

i DN'T KNOW IF i'M BEING ANY CLEARER THIS TIME AROUND OR NOT, MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN IMAGINE THIS OUT BETTER THAN i CAN, BUT NO MATTER HOW i THINK ABOUT IT ALL i GET IS ENDLESS MISTAKES IN MUTATION THAT GO NOWHERE THAT COULDN'T GO ANYWHERE EVEN IF YOU GIVE THEM A TRILLION YEARS TO DO THE JOB.

nO, i'M NOT SAING IT VERY WELL.  gOOD GRIEF.  yOU NEED A WHOLE NEW GEOME, TAHT'S TH PROBLEM BUT THE ORIGINAL GENOME CALLS THE SHOTS AS IT WERE.  TO GE A NEW GENOME YOU'D HAVE TO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL ONE, i SUPPOSE GENE BY GENE.  bUT ALL TAHT DOES IS PRODUCE JUNK dna.  

yOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE, THT'S JUST A FACT.  THERE IS NO PATH TO WHALE FROM LAND ANIMAL, OR FROM DINOSAUR TO BIRD.  iT CAN'T HAPPNE.  aND THE FACT THAT SCIENTISTS DON'T EVEN TRY TO SKETCH OUT A PATH IS HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE OF THE POSSIBLITIY THAT THEY KNOW THER IS NO WAY TO GET THERE SO THEY LEAVE IT ALL IN GENERAL TERMS.  tIME AKES IT POSSIBE.  nATURAL SELECTION DOES IT ALL.  ETC.

sOME mORE iNCONVENIENT pHYSICAL fACTS cONCERNING THE sTRATA AS rECORDS OF TIME pERIODS

tHIS IS A GREATION i'VE HAD FOR SOME TIME AND i THOUGHT i'D HAVE BEEN BLE TO ANSWER IT BY NOW.  i KEEP TRYING OUT VARIOUS yOU TUBE VIDEOS ON THE FOSSIL REORD AND PALEONTOLOGY AND SO ON BUT SO FAR i DON'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER.   

hERE'S THE QUESTION.  hOW MANY DIFFERENT FOSSILS ARE REPRESENTED IN EACH OF THE TIME PERIODS.   iN THE CAMBRIAN THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY THE CAMBRIAN "EXPLOSION" I WHICH A HUGE VARIEYT OF COMPLEX CREATURES SUPPOSEDLY SHOWED UP MORE OR LESS ALL AT ONCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, A GRET EXPLOSION OF LIFE AS THEY THINK OF IT.  sHOULDN'T WE THEN SEE THOSE SAME CREATURES IN ROUGTHLY THE SAME NUMBERS SHOWING UP IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT STRATA OR TIME PERIODS AS WELL?  aLONG WITH WHATEVER NEW FOSSILS ALSO SHOW UP?  aND THEN WITH THOSE NEW FOSSILS SHOUDLJ'T THE WHOLE COLLECTION KEEP SHOWING UP ABOVE THAT TOO, ALL BEING CARRIECDD THOUGH ALL THE STRATA AND TIME PERIODS TO THE VERY TOP OF THE GEOLOGICL COLUM?  

tHE SUPPOSED EXTINCTION EVENTS OF COURSE WOULD HAVE HAD AN EFFECT.  tHEY JUDGE SUCH EVENTS BY THE ABSENSE OF PARTICULAR LIFE FORMS IN STRATA ABOVE THE SUPPOSED OCCURRENCE OF SUCH AN EVENT.  aND THER HAVE EEN MANY OF THEM, ALL OF COURSE SUPPOSED TO HVE HAPPENED BECAUES OF THE ABSENSE OF SOME FOSSIL OR ALNOTHER WHERE THEY EXPECT IT TO SHOW UP.    sO i DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING EVEN STILL EXISTS TO ANSQER MY QUESTION.  wAS THERE AN EXTINCTION EVENT THAT WIPED OUT THE FOSSILS IN TEH CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION?  tHEY'D ALL BE THERE ABOVE THAT ROCK IN COMPARABLE NUU,MBERS OTHERWISE WOULDN'T THEY?  

i SUSPECT THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION IN THIS QUESTION OF COURSE, THAT'S WHY i'M ASKING IT.  iF EACH SUPPOSED TIME PERIOD IS MOSTLY POPULATED BY FOSSILS OF THE PARTICULAR CREATURE SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM EARLYIER PERIODS TO BECOME CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS HIGHLY POPULATED PERIOD THAT CASTS DOUBT ON THE THEORY RIGHT THERE.  bECAUE PERSUMABLY EVERYTHING THAT LIVED BEFORE CONTINUED ON INTO THE FUTURE.  bARRING AN EXTINCTION EVENT.    aRE THERE AS MANY OF A GIVEN SPECIES PRESENT ABOVE THEIR SUPPOSED FIRST APPEARANCE IN A LOWER ROCK  AS SHOUJLD BE EXTPECTED OR NOT?  iF NOT THEN SURELY SOMETHING OTHER THAN EVOLUTION IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THESE STRATA AND THEIR SUPPOSED TIME PERIODS.

aaNOTHER QUESTION IS HOW COME WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH ALL SEASCAPES IN TEH LOWER ROCKS OF THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN N AND LATER ON IN THE UPPER ROCKS WE START TO GET TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPES WITH LAND ANOIMALS.  i'M THINKING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL POSSIBILITIES AGAIN AS USUAL.  tHESE ROCKS ARE ALL STACKED ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER ANDYYET THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGES FROM BOTTOM TO TOP?  hAS THIS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND HOW?    sHOULDN'T THERE ALSO HAVE BEEN A LOT OF LAND AREA DURING THE PERIOD OF THE LOWER ROCKS EVEN IF THERE WASN'T ANY LAND LIFE TO SHOW OF IT?  bUT WE DON'T GET EMPTY STRATA, ONLY STRATA FILLED WITH FOSSIL SEA LIFE, RIGHT?   tHEN IN THE UPPER ROCKS OF CCOURSE THERE WERE ALSO SEAS, OCEANS IN THE WORLD DURING THOSE PERIODS TOO BUT ALL WE ARE GETTING IS THE LAND ANIMALS IN THOSE STRATA, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH.  tHESE STRATA EXTENTDFC ALL OVE THE EARTH.  bUT THE EARTH DIDN'T CHANGE FROM ALL SEASCAPE TO ALL LANDSCAPE EEVER THAT i RECALL ANYTONE THEORIZING.    i HOPE MY QUESTION MAKES SOME IND OF SESNE, i MAY NOT BE ASKING IT ALL THAT CLEARLY.R 

tHERE AREN'T ANY LAND ANIMALS IN THE LOWER STRATA BUT THERE ARE SOME SEA CREATURES IN THE UPPER STRATA ALONG WITH THE LAND ANIMALS AREN'T THERE?  oR ARE THER?  hWO DID THEY GET THERE IF SO?  

mAYBE SOMEONE HAS SADDRESED THESE UESTIONS SOMEWHERE, i'M JUT NOT ABLE TO FIND IT.  i'VE LOOKED AT VIDEOS ON PAELEOGRAPHY AND EVEN STRATIGRAPHY, NOT A LOT BUT SOME AND SDON'T SEE ANYTHING RELEAVNT.

bY THE WAY i PRAY TO GET ANSWERS TO SUCH QUESTIOJS.  lABTELY i'VE GEENGETTING THE     UESTIOS THEMSEVLES TO ASK LIKE THESE.  

dRAT, i KNJOW i'M GETTING OLD AND MY MEMORY IS BECOMING IFFY AT TIMES AND M FINGERS DON'T WAN T TO DO WHAT i WANT THEM TO DO AND IT'S ALL VERY FRUSTRATING.  dRAT.  

oOPS THAT WAN'T VERY cHRISTIAN OF ME, i'M SORRY lORD.  i'M SUPPOSED TO REJOICE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THESE, BECAUE ALgOD ALWAYS BRINGS GOOD OUT OF ALL THINGS FOR THOSE WHO LOVE hIM AND ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO hI S PURPOSES.  eVEN MY FAILURES.  IN FCT hE LIKES TO USE PEOPLE WHO ARE FAILURES TO DISPLAY hIS EXISTENCE AND POWER, AND i MUST BE A GOLDMINE OF FAILURES FOR hIM TO WORK WITH SO THANKS yOU lORD.

kEEP FORGETRTING TO ADD MY NEW EMAIL IN CSE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME AROUND AND UPGBRAID ME FOR MY FAILURES OR WHATEVER TOERH FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT MAY BECKON.

FAITHSWINDOW2MAIL.COM

tHERE IS AN EXPLANATORY NOTE ABOUT THIS YOU CAN FIND IF YOU PUT IN cONTACT poSSIBILITY IN THE SEARCH BOX TO THE AOVE LEFT.  THANKS.

Nibdat

Monday Sept nine

I mention in  a later ost that I did get more of a sense of what fossils are grouped together in different time periods and one thing did become clear, that there are both land and sea creatures buried int he same rock aka time period apparently fairly close together.  And this should by itself blie and disqualify the whole idea of time periods since according to the idea that they are a record of living tings tht lived in that period and were buried in those rocks you obviously couldn't have both land and crsea crfeatures buried in the same place.  

The questionj I'm asking above sounds pretty stupid ow that I know the answer since of course anyone who has studied the fossil record would know that there are both land and sea cretures in many of the rocks aka time periods.    they must have some way of accepting this as reasonable but I can't figure out how.  

Through most of this discussion I've contented myself with pointing out the wrojgn ideas of the evolutionists, but I might as well from time to time mention the right eidea of the creationjists, which hisch is that you can have both land and sea creatures i mone layer of rock if it was deposited by waves thta washed over the land during the Flood.