Maher and Peterson

Bill Maher talking with Jordan Peterson, two men I like for some things they have to say but dislike for lots of others.  Maher is a liberal but he's the sane kind who see the bitg lie of wokeness.  Peterson has a lot of practical wisdom but his jungianism turns everything he thinks nto a strange twisted misrepresentation of reality.  Maher comes out with the popular cricisms of religion and Peterson defends Christianity from his weird revisionist admiration of it.  He psychologizes it, maybe that's all that needs to be said about it.

Listening just now I caught Maher calling trump a "monstrosity without giving any specific characterizations of him to  explain it.  Is he believing all the lies about him?  Is that why?  Or is there something I keep missing about this odd hatred of Trump that comes from something else that for some reason I can't see at all.  I don't get it.  I guess I can sort of get dislikeing him for his personality but how to you atively hate him and even go as far as some leftists to, wish him dead for that reason?   alling him a "monst

 dn't thnk I've heard one thing said about Trump from the Democrats, liberals, leftists, that's true at all.  I figure some of it they actually believe or some of them tdo , but there must be a few at least who know they are telling lies about him.   the vevidence is easily available in the case of most of the misquiotes.  The claim that he said something favorable about neoNazies is belied a few sentences later in that same speech theyh use for their lie, but the media cut that part off their reports and few bother to listen to the end.  The "bloodbath" quote was so clearly a statement bout how things would go economically for the auto industruy if Biden were elected, duie to Biden's politiceas and having nothing ehwhatever to do with Trumjp, that to misconstrue it as they do means they must be very very los IQ or lying intentionally, I can't see any other explanation.   Same with Trump's joke about spending his first day in office as a "dictator" it'sjust amanzing how they insist on taking that as a seirious trhnhjhreat, hard to believe anyone could possibly seriously take it that way.  They even turn his lovely gesture of raising his fist in solidarity with his fellow conservatives after nearly being shot to death as some kind of gesture of violence>  This makes me so sick, all of this, it's hrd to want to go on living in this world.  It makes me seek desperately for some way to get away from these crazy people, these dangerous evil people.

ow is he a"monstrosity to Maher?  How?

His policies are pretty solidly conservative, not all of them but most of them, ordinary conservative policies, nothing radical, nothing odd, nothing fascistic, and he showed in his first term tht he goes strongly after putting them in to  practice right away, which is a sign of the man's integrity, and his policies raised the general welfare of the nation for those four years.  But they on the other side are taking credit for it inteadk, it turns my stomach, they twist it all in ways I can't comprehend.  

Some of it is sheer ignorance though.  That ad where the woman says she's SO mad that biollionaires don't have to pay as much tax as she does is jut plain stupidity.  They don't understand the most basic stuff about economics on the left, and it's really wrietd to begin with to thinnk Trump would campaign on giving his cronies a tax break aginst the wellbeing of the people, crazy to think anyone could think anyone wcould be that straightforwardly self serving but they seem to believe it.  

They have n knowledge of the fact that when the welathiest get a tax break they expand business, which increases employmehnt, may evn raise wages, and that the amount of teax revenyue taken into the treasure after such a ploliciy is in place exceeds by a long shot the amount taken in under leftist policies that want to tax the richkinto oblivion.    Which just drives them out of the country if it's bad enough.    They want to kill the big corporations, usch as the big food chains by taxing them more and by stopping their "price gouging" which they are not doing.  they are gbaely taing ababove wter in these inflationary times but are being accused for causing what the biden administration impossed on them.  Prices have to go up or they'll go out of business when they are khit with the expenses imposed on them by the Democrates.s  Basic economics that even I understand, why can't they?    Then they pass laws permnitting shoplifting to add to the economic problems of the big stores.  Some have already had to close their doors.  All because of the idiotic leftist policies.  

How is trump oa monstrosity Mr. Maher?

I was going to try to get a few words in about his complaints about Christainity but now I'm not up to it.

More Coyne

Too many things to talk about, the crazy destructive political situation, Charlie Kirk talking with Tucker Carlson, Bill Maher talking with Jordan Peterson, and Jerry Coyne winding up his talk on evolution.  Which is where I'll start.  For one thing I do believe that if evolution could be dealt the death blow it richly deserves some of the other problems would probably straighten out quite a bit because this is one of the bigtgest lies we're living under and if it fell some of the other destructive lies might fall too.  

Yes Mr. Coyne, I believe in angels.  The ones who came in contact with people in the bible didn't have wings, they look like human beings and were accepted as human beings in man of the storieas batout ehm.  I also believe in demons, which are fallen angles who hate humanity and these we may actually sometimes see in our time though not very often because they swould prefer it i f we didn't believe in them, it helps them with their plans to destoroy us if we can be kept in the dark.  

One thing Coyne just said at the end of this talk I've been listening to from time to time, is that the vast difference between the wolf and the chihuahua is evidence of evolution.   He'd just said that the great variability in the genome is enough to explain evolution, but that's ridiculous.  All the genome can do is produce variations on the species that carries it and is built by it.   And yes there is such a huge amount of variation possible that getting the chihuahua from the worlf is indeed an example of it.  

I doub tthat the wolf is the original dog for starters, because any splitting of the population would change the gene frequencies of both populations and over time affect the salient characteristscs of both.  The smaller population would produce the largest changes no doubt, probably with more homoczygous dgenes than the other poulation, but the other population woudl also change over time becuase of its genetic change brought about tby the exit of part of its population.  And since the dog populatoin is enormous, with I don't know how many breeds of dog the changce that there is anything left of the original population whatever it looked like is highly improbable.  the wolf is just one of the kinds of dog.    and I doubt that they hav an genetic evidence to make their case, I think it's all the usual guesswork which they think seems reasonable.  

The body plan is where I would start these days.  Both the worldf and he chihuahua have the same body plan, meaning that if you look at their skeletons wyou will see that they are built with the same basic proportions, and details, and all other dogs are aldoso.  You can get some dramatic differnces like shorter legs and pug faces with drastic breeding techniques but the basic ridigity of the body and the feet and talks and so on should be erecognizable.    In the case of the wolf and the chihuahua there aren't even differences of those kinds, the small dog's skeleton shuould look like a miniature of the wolf's.  I can't see well enough to find the evidence so now I'm gussing too, but when I researched birds back when I could still see well enough for the task I was surprised to find that all the birds look the same in their skeletons, including penguins and ostriches etc.    So I came to the conclusion that body plan is something that doesn't change much at all diespite the immeense amoutn of variation that goes on in its many other traits.   Even the trilobite remains a trilobite in all its proportaions and basic structure through millions of years, according to them, not me, probably hundreds of millions of years according to them, of supposed survival on this planet.  They show lots of variation over those supposed time periods but they all remain the same creature in their pbody plan.  

And asual all Coyne ahas is assertion.  The variation in the genome is no varrier to his imagination, it can just gon on varying into all kinds of other traits that don't belong tho the species that possesses it.  He can't show this with even one example, he just asserts it.   But we have no problem whatever seeing that the chihuahua and the wolf are the same species down to their bark and howl and behavior patterns, all doglike and not catlike or anythingelseliek.  

A lot of what goes on in the formation of a breed is the elimination of the characteristics of toerh breeds, the reduciton in geneti vairiability that accompanies the development ocf new phenotypes.  Which generally means the increse in homozygosity for the main traits of the breed.  It loses the alleles for the variation of that trait.    And this reduction in genetic variability ought all by itself to make it clear that getting new phenotype s is not evolution, the genetic changes are not moving int eh right direction for the development ofof something outside the genome, or evcen, at some point, within the genome as when you get to a great number of fixed or homzygous genes no further change is possible, and that's when you have a real purebred animal that can't interbreed with any botut it's  its own breed.

Not a forumala for evolution.

He also said that junk DNA proves evolution.  Well, if you believe in evolution you are going to interpret the hjunk DNA as the former evolution undergone by the animal.  I don't think there's any way he can actually dow that.  Apparently they do know a lot about twhat those genes once coded for, and in some cases theyh seem to represent some otner kind of creature, but that's onlyh because they arent function now.   I've been arguing for a long time rththat the junk DNA reflects the processes of disease and dieath all living things undergo since our first parents disobeyed God in Eden, known as the Fall, or Original Sin.  With that act of disobedience they doomed us all to death of all kikinds and that includes the death of our original functions bit by bit over the millennia,   Certainly we were much stronger creatures in the original created world, not subject to deaht first of all but not subject to disease of any kind either.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed God the first story we read is of the murder of Abel by Cain.  death in its most violent form.  Nevertheless people continued to live for hundreds of years until the Flood, Some a little shorter than others due to sin fctors we have no way of tracing, and even lived after the Flood for a few hundred years as well, but eventually the life span was whittled down to our current seventy to eighty or so years with the occasional exception into the hundre range.  Djue to God's mercy as He has given us medical protections to counteract the natural assaults on our health.  

So he's wrong about junk DNA, biblical Creation explains it just as well, that is, the Fall that followed the Creation.

Just ave to add again, jut because, that the geological column, that stack of sedimentary desposits that extend for many thousands of square miles, can't pssibley represent time periods so that of course the time periods never existsed:  neithre the usrface of the earth nor the surface of the sea bottom, which are the only two possibilities for the location of these slabs of sedimentary rock, were ever flat and horizontal as these rocks are.  Nor could there have been any period of time, let alone during hundreds of millions of years, tht the surface remained undisturbed as these rocks obviously were until the whole stack was laid down.  There's plenty of disturbance to be seen after they were all in place but nothing during their laying down.  Thar simply cannot have been the case even for a few lthousand years let alone the millions claimed for these layers of rock.   Not to mention that there is no reasonable explanation of the fact that each sedimentary sdeposite is a genuine layer that differs from those above and below it by the kind of sediment that composes it.  this makes no sense whatever on anyh possible theory of how time played out on this planet.  

Ues. de[psotopm bu ,pvomg water pver a re;atove;u sjpwrt [eropd pf to,e. ,aube a few ,pmtjs [erja[s. ex[;aoms ot a ;pt better tjam amu ,o;;opms pf uears pr evem jimdreds pr evem tems/

*   *    *    *

Cine I can't read by Contact information, the Commens, or my email, I have a new email managed by my daughter:

faith'swindow@mail.com   if uou'd like to tell me how wrong I am, or how right or anything else.

i wrote a short explanation of the situation in the ostg Contact POssi ility, and if you put those temrs  eterms in the search bosx at the above left that post will come up.

Thanks

Belated Correction Evolution Timetable

 A while back, I don't know how many posts ago, I can't read well enough to find the post I'm thinking of, I believe I made a big mistake when I was arguing that the eroded material at the base of exposed blocks of strata should be an indicator of the time factor that would disprove the claims of evolution of millions of years.  That is,k the amount of eroded debris at the base of the walls of the Grand Canyon don't   doesn't seem to be enough to hae taken millions of years.

I think I ereferred to the entire age of the geological column as my reference point, hundreds of millions of years, but of course that is very wrong as the walls would not have been exposed until it awas all dlaid down and the canyon was cut.  The latest age I heard for the cutting of the canyon is seventeen million years.  That's still an enormous long time by comparison with the forty five hundred years since the Flood, which is what I think is the righrt time frame for the erosion of the walls.  Seventeen million years should ahve accumulated a lot more than iis there it seems to me, and I think someone is keeping track of the rate so maybe that figure is out there somewhere.  I'd like to know it.  

But my guess is that forty five hundred years is probably about right.  For the walls of the Grand Canyon and the monuments in Monument Fvalley as well.    Just a guess but any millions of years is way too much for the erosion to be so little.  

Evolution, One of the Many Ways this World is Bulit on a Lie

 Yeah, I know, the chance that anyone is going to take anything I say about ebolution seriouesly is pretty slim, but I have to say it's not for good reason.  I'm listening to this newer version of Jerry Coyne's talk, basically the same talk I blogged on earlier but with small differences here and there, and again what he calls evidence does not qualify as evidence as I said before, and I don't get how they can be so huffily certain about that.    

He treats the "fossil record" as evidence, but the fossil record itself has never been proved to be a reality.  Really.  It's never been more than this idea that they like a lot that they've impossed on fossilized cretures in a stack of strata of sedimentary rocks.  They look at it and go, Gosh that sure looks like how animals evolved from simple to complex to me" and that's the whole of what they are calling evidence.  It LOOKS LIKE it and that's it.  Their imaginations tell them it is so, kand that's it, that's all there is to it.  

To be so convincec by their own imagination they have to swallow a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, such as the fact that their time periods are each marked by a thick slab of sedimentary rock that in most cases covers thousand of square mils of land, all straight and horizontal and flat and each fitted into t astack of the same kind of layers of sedimentary rocks, very very closely pressed up against each other, with knife edge contact lines.  These are supposed to have formed during periods of tends of millions of years each, each time period with its own peculiar rock slab, one perculiar sediment nin most cases, and the next siwith its own peculiar and different rock slab.  All flat and horizontal and stretching for thousands of square miles.  And this is where those fossils are found that they assign to the Fossil Record.  This makes NO sense on any planet but they just go on blithely treating it as if it does.  

And of course he laughs at the idea that the worldwide Flood is a better explanation, calls it risible and refuses to try to explain it for that reason.  Well I'm glad he didn't explain it because he'd just mock it, but as a matter of fact it's a much better explanation than time periods containing fossils that prove evolution from one time period to the next.  All you have is dead things inside this lslab of sedimetnary rock.  They call it the fossil record, I\creationists think it fits the Flood far better.    Water is known to deposite layers of sedimenents for one thing, you find such layers in deltas and at the shoreline. Water separates out the sediments and deposites them in layers.  Sure fits the geological column better than any conjuring they could do to explain them as normal deposites in a normal world.  but he ignores all this, they all do, and I'm not going to get anything but a shrug and a mocking laugh for my trouble I'm sure.

He starts his discussion with five facts he says sconstitute evolution, the first one being that there is observable change in populations over time.  Well, this is true.  But the observable change is only variation within the genome of the species, it's not evolution at all.  To get evolution new genetic material would have to be added at some point and it can't be, all there is is the genetic material dfined by the species genome.  Whatever its genes code for is what you're going to get, variations on them but the same traits and nothing but those traits.  You aren't going to find a gene for bear's claws in a chimp genome and so on.  The chimp has genes for making a chimp and that's it.    if you think you can get from the chimp genome to something else you are going to have to imagine some drastic new change mechanism which doesn't exist.  All change occurs within the genome of the species.  This is bovious but they'll deny it.

 So there is no variation outseide the species genome and there is no fossil record because there is no way those slabs of rock were laid down each in a particular time period over tend of millions of years all flat and horizontal and covering thousands of square miles.   

B they'll deny that too.  

and laugh at me for pointing it out.

eah I know I keep repeating myself.  Oh well.  

Well, it looks to ME like those strata had to have been laid down by water, aassive amount of water that covered the whole earth, becuaduase I know that's what water tends to do, it lays down sedimentary  deposits 

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.