One World Order Update

 This week's Understanding the Times radio show by Jan Markell..  Guiest Gary Kah on the one world order.    It's on You turbr this week or as always at her website Olive Tree Views, g\ot to Radio

One of her powerful ones.

Points that particularly captured my attention:

Kamala slated for a big role as of four years ago.

Pope Francis out front in a new way, confirming me in my view that he is the coming world leader known as theAntichrist.  I'm one of few yowho see it this way, while Jan and other prophecy teachers think this figure is still to be revealed.  Nope, he's here.

Kah announced a big prayer meeting online, forty days usa with a different big name leader every day.  I have no way of finding out from where I am but as usual OI worry that they have probably included some so called Christian leaders who aren't really Christains, hin which case they've sabotaged the whole effort and God isn't going to hear us as we'd hope.  Well, maybe I'I'm wrong, I certainly hope I am.  Because prayer is about all we have left, there is nothing left we can do humanly dspeakihng about any of this.

Have mercy on us Lord.

If Astonishment Qas A Scientific Accomplishemtn I'd Have the Nobel Prize by Now

 Listening to some videos about various genetic and geological topics related the creation evolution debate, keep being amazed at the certainlyw they bring to explanations that strike me as ell, not just iffy but impossible.   These are educated professionsals so therefore I must be the wrong one, of course.  How cdare I think such thoughts.  And such nice people too, Nice intelligent people, so sincere, so convinced of their knowledge.   It tkaes thousands of years to deposit the sediment in one of those sedimentary layers says he.  That's all, just that statement.  But how could it happen at all ever?  

And happen at intevals in which each deposit gets enshrined as a layer between other sediments of different kinds, each horizontal, flat stiraight and many of them extending in all directions covering many thousands of square miles, whole continents or even more than that.  The mere physical facts defy anyh explanation that assumes normal processes.  Perhaps somewhere someone has written it all out to perfection so that even I would have to agree that after all it is possible, but I haven't yet run across even a hint of such a document.   I can sort of place some layers art the borttom of the ocean but even there they wouldn't be so perfectly horizontal and stariaght and flat.  the sea floor isn't tabletop flat.   On land it culdn't be at the survfaace in any time period because nothing could have lived on such a surface, so I would have to imagine it buried beneath the surface somewhow , that surface then somehow disappearing when the next layer formes on top of it to continue the composition of gethe geollgical column.  

Then  ave asimilar problem with the genetic stuff.  How is it they can just ignore the obvious built in limitation of the genome of a given species as a barrier to any variation that could produce something other than what that genome codes for, which is the characteristics of that species and nothing else, including of course different alleles for the genes so that you get a lot of variation in traits, but nothing that could ever produce a tdifferent trait or a different anything than whatever that species is composed of.    Dawkins, Coyne, all fo the m just seem to skimright over what seems to me to be this obvious fact:  there is simply no way to get from one species to another by any of the normal processes of genetics.   Including mutation.  

Yeah I know I keep repeating myself, but really, evolution is such obvious foolishness I'm really amazed that nobody esees it.  And how could I, or any creationist be so special as to see something all those brilliant scientists can't see?  

Well, here I am again bleating into dead cyberspeace.  Sign.

*   *    *    *   *

Yes I really do think my simple observtions spell death to evolution, conceited idiot that I am I guess.  And what I rwould really like to find is someone who believes in evolution but is open and honest enough to really try to think through my arguments so that I can get a god assessment of them from somebody outside my own scircle.  I need to know if I'm being clear, creting a shaprrp enough picture to be understood, especially since I may be using termonology in a personal or idiosyncratic way.   

Finding anyone who knows enough, even just the rudimentary amount necessary can be too much for people who haven't tried to follow the creation evolution debates, anyway that'as hard for starters.  then someone who doesn't know too much so that they just dismiss me out of hand and don't take the time to try to think it through.     As I've been presenting my arguments over this last month here they are pretty simpliefied and of course I'm not getting into a lot of the examples I bring up elsewhere, but I think there should be enough to make the basic argument clear.  

Mostly itl's just observations.  If you look on that cross section of the Grand Staircase to Grand Canyon area you have to see that the strata are presented as a block of undisturbed layers extending hundreds of miles.  There isn't even a hint of anykind of disturbance within a layer, and if you look at the real layers say in the walls of teh Grand Canyon you see that they are all composed of one kind of sediment, at least most of them are although there are some conglomerate layers.  But all limestone?  Al stsandstone?   Just look at it, think about it, how do you explain it, how do yougyou get a time period of tends of millions of years aout of one of those layers?  What are you imagining going on on the usurface of the earth during that period.  Where was this sedimentary layer during lall that time?  how on earth could it have been laid down so flatly horizontal under normal conditions, whether on the surface or underground or at the bottom of the ocea?   How?

And I keep coming back to Coyne's strange remark that the difference between the wolrf and the chihuahua is evidence of ev.lolution in itself, but that's eally very very odd.  He understands the gemonme, surely.  He understands that variation is built into the way DNA operates, that just having two alleles or two versions of a gene is enough to bring about a great deal of variation in a trait, and most traits are coded for by many genes, not juust one.   There's really very little difference between the worlf and the chihuahua when you think about the particulars.  Difference in size, and that's a normal variation within a genome;  difference in hair or fur color and texture, definitely built inoto the dog genome;  Difference in ear shape, nose length etc.  It's all there in the genome and if that is the case we are not talking about evolution abt all but only abourt t normal built in species variations.    SURELY he knows that.  

So you need some other way to get to a different species.  You need a new trait, not just variations on the traits already laid out in the genome of the species.  How do you get a new trait?  I don't think you can and I have never seen anyone try to make a case for it either.

And again, when you have a small number of individuals inbreeding among themselves you are going to get dramatic new phenotypes or observatibe characteristics, but at the same time you are losing genetic variability.  You have too.  When you are breeding a great Dane you have to lose all the traits of a chihuahua, you need genes for large size etc etc etc.  Whenever you select a trait you eliminate all the other possibilities, and that is a reduction in genetic variability that may rapidly end up with a great deal of homozygosity for all the main traits of your chosen breed, or in the wild whatever happens to be randomly selected, by geographic isolation.  Losing genetic variability is not the direction you would expect to bwe going if you are thinking of this as the path of evoution from one species to another.  by the time you get to your new breed or highly refined race in the wild you have a lot less ability to vary left in the genome.  You can't get evolution from that situation.  

Again I know I keep repeating myself.  But good grief, all this proves evolution is just plain impossible.     

Or show me where I'm wrong.  Please.

Liberal Lies

 Things are pretty pathetic when i can answer debate challenges against Trump while twenty supposed Trump supporters in a circle can't.  I think the young guy's name is Steve Withers but I may have heard wrong and I can't seem to get the video to come up under sthat name but I watched most of it.  he's doing something Chrarlie Kirk does from the conservative side.  As a litberal Withers puts himself in the center of a circle of Trump supporters and invites them to debate him on various challenges to their position.   I also watched the other version with Charlie Kirk and thought both Kirk and the circle of liberals he challenged were up on the issues;  I did not think the so called Trump supporters against Withers dhad even the most rudimentary qualifications to be trying to debate a challenger to their Trump support.  

he got away with calling Trump a liar.  Notobdy seemed ale to answer that.  he got away with saying Trump is a convicted femolon, who absued women, who said he would be a dictator from day one as President, who refused to sign a bill that would have protected the border, sorry told Congress menmbers to refuse to sign it, I don't think he used the one about the bloodbath against him but I probably just missed it.    

Trump is a convicted felon because they changed the laws to make him a criminal for doing nothing criminal at all;  he was joking about being adictgartor on day One, obviously for cryin out loud, good grief I can hardly believe they'd use such a piece of word twisting like that;  when he said there woudl be a bloodbath if Biden was reelected he was referring to the economic resuslts of biden's policies about the auto industry, an ECONOMIC bloodbath;  oh and he accused him of trying to overthrow the election when he was obviously just doing what liberals have done forever, including Hillary ahnd Gore, simply questioning the results of the ote count, what a cleaxy lie that one is, well they all are;  and he rejected that bill to supposedly secure the borders because the Biden administration had already thrown out Trump's own much better politicies to secure the Border an substituted this bill which would have given permission to thousands of illegals to enter.  These people just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.  And the fact that the so called Trump supporters couldn't answer most of this is shameful.

We're doomed in so many ways it's scary, including idiotic lies.

*  *  *  *  *  

Remeinded r I have a new email faithswindow2mail.com  Myda guther is handling it because I am unable to see 

faithswindow@mmail.com

mail.com

mail.com

Soul Killing Fallen World Ideologies

I can barely find enough denigrating language to characterize the way evolutionists think about being a human being.  It's mind numbingly inane, fatuous, oh I won't go on.  Having to be constantly brought back to my mere physical existence as the explanatory foundation of everything that makes me human just curdles my blood, shrils brain cells by the millions.  How can bright people carry on as they do about such dreck.

Soul shrinker.  Like head shrinker, yeah.  All the Nineteenth Century "geniusses" shrank and shriveled us, imposed lies on us, about us, about our world, reduced us to triviality, Marx, Darwin, Freud.  Blesh.  Christianity had elevated humanity, made us better tghan we are in a fallen world but also ut us in the realm of truth where we culd be more than we are.  The materialists do nothing but destroy and pinch and strangle.  

Oh right, they like religionh as long as it fits into their materialistic framework.  Mustln't go back to orthodoxy though, uh uh, that's a big no no, but some of it is good.  I guOh I don't mean we're good, far from it, I know we're sinners, and they don't know that much.  But in our essence we are too magnificnret to be  defined by this silliness.ess I should be grateful for that much.  

WWll, fallenness is reaching its bloated fullness these days, which is tI said that wrong, but oh well.he main sign we're in the end times, right at the very end.   Everything of the fallen nature is rulling the wsorld more and more.   Liberalism Leftism, Marxism, all that, total creaziness but the fallen mind takes it for our highest good oh evil thought.  It's all converging.  Surely it will all be over soon.  I don't think most of us could keep from coming totally unglued if it goes on much longer.

hARD TO kEEP mY mOOD uP wHEN THE wORLD IS FfALLING aPRART

 Maybe I'm bipolar.  My mood shifts a lot these days.  I'll get a surge of energy to pursue the issues involved in the political war, or those involved in evolution versus creationism, and go for some time energiezed and involved, and then sucddenly I crash.  I can't stand living in this world another minute, we're all going down under a \n avalanche of lies and ther's no way we are going to be able to get those who belive in the lies to change their minds.  It isn't going to happen.  Ijust want to die or, preferably, be raptured,  I just don't want to be here any more.  

this mood just descended on my after hearing the first part of an interview of Jerry Coyne by Coleman Hughes in which Coyne thinks displaying the range of supposed human skulls from millions of years ago to the present is to his mind absolute proof of evlution, followed by the wisecrack that there's no way kangaroos could have gotten from Ararat to Australia ha ha ha.

No chn No chance of cose do I hVE OF CONVINCING HIM OF ANYTHING OR ANYBODY ELSE COMMITTED TO EVOLUTION, DREARY FACT.  fIRST OF ALL THERE ARE NO MILLLIONS OF YERAS, IF YOU THINK THROUGH THE STRATA IN WHICH THE FOSSILS ARE EMBEDDED YOU SHOULD IF YOU HAVE HALF A BRAIN BE ABLE TO REALIZE PRETTY SOON THAT THE EARTH IS NOT MILLIONS OF YERAS OLD AND i'VE GIVEN THREE DIFFERENT ANGLES ON THAT PHENOMENA TO PROVE ITG.  tHE TIMING OF THOSE SKULLS IS BOGUS  sOME HAVE TO BE ABPES AND SOME HUMAN AND THER'S NOTHING TO SAY THEY DIDN'T ALL LIVE ON EARTH AT THE SAME TIME, AS ALL THOSE FOSSILS IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN MOST SURELY DIDD, LIVED BEFORE THEf  fLOOD AND DIED IN THE fLOOD.  hE WON'T SKIP A BEAT THOUGH, HE'LL JUST LAUGH IT OFF AND NOT GIVE IT A THOGUTH.

aS FOR KANAOOS GETTING FROM THE ARK TO aUSTRALIA i'VE ARGUED THAT THE TECTONIC PLATE MOVEMETN THAT SPLIT THE CONTINENTS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE fLOOD AND BEGAN JAT THAT TIME, WAS NO DOUBT THE CAUSE OF THE RECEDING OF THE WATERS.  tHAT BWINGS THE CASE THERE AWAS PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE ANIMALS TO SPREAD OUBT CFROM THE ARK ONTO WHAT WOULD BECOME OTHER CONTINENTS.  i'VEW GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT TO ALL THESE THINGS.  iT WOJULD BE FUN TO GET TO TALK TO SOMEONE ABOUT IT ALL BUT i'LL NO DOUBT BE DEAD FIRST.  oR RAPTURED.  tHAT WOULD BE MUCH NICER.

+++_\HE DESTRUCTION OF MY NATION IS GETTING ME DOWN, THE IRRATIONAL EMBRACE OF EVOLUTION THINKING IT'S SCIENCE WHEN IT'S NOT IS GETTING ME WDOWN.  

wELL, IT FITGUREES.  tHIS FALLEN WOLD IS COMING TO ITS EINEVITABLE END.  tHE RPATURE SURELY MUST BE JUST AROUND THE CORNER, FOLLOWED BY THE HORRORS OT THE gREAT tRIBULATION WHICH i QWOULSN'T WISH ON ANYWAYHONE BUT NOBODY LISTENS TO ME SO AL Li CAN DO IS CRY FOR THEM.  

mISSNG LIN?  NE OR TWO CREATURES THAT HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO SPECIES?  GOOD GRIEF.  dO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY GRADATIONS OF CREATURES THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE A TRANSITION FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER?  yOU GUYS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT THINKIO AND YET YOU THINK YOU ARE THE THINKER AND CREATIONISTS ARE NOT.  tHE INSANITY IS REALLY GETTING TO ME.

i'VE RPVED THAT EVOLUTION COULDN'T HAPPEN, WITH THREE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMETNS AND THREE GEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.  yEAH i HAVE.  aND i'M SURE OTHER CREATIONISTS HAVE RPVOED IT IN THEIR OWN WAY TOO.  

\\

_

Two Different Kinds of Scientific Problems Requiring Two Different Kinds of Scientific Methodologies

 Just sitting here pondering my last post about Coyne, his take on religion, the fact that he judges th empirical claims of biblical revelation to be false based on the science he follows although that science is really limited in exactly the same way  it is limited for followers of the bible.  You can't study the past the same way you can study the facts of life, the laws of nature and so on, tht exist continuously in the present.  Whether you like to think so or not you have to resort to a lot of speculation and interpretation rather than anything you can point to as objective fact.  Again I refer to the fossil record:  it is established by fact entirely based on plausibility and not aon anything empirically testable.  Same with natural selection beyond its observable operations on or within a species population.  

If yo ca observe it or have direct expreience of it you can do the kine of science he thinkshe's doing on evolution but isnot because evolution isn't observable or directly experienceable just because the main claims made for it are in the pst where nobodey can observe them happening.  Science of the sort we think of as science depends on seeing or experiencing, things we can repeat over and over again and see over and over againas they do what we are ob  studying.  

If we are studying something that happened once in the past, such as the Flood of Noah or the evo;ution of fish to amphibian we can't do that kind of science on it.    We need eighther some kind of phyiscla observable facts to point to or we need witnesses to the event.  actually we have both in the case of the Flood, but we have neither in the case of evolution from fish to emphibian.  Neither.  It's ALL sepculation.  Yert we are told to treat it as fact.  Supposedly it's that well supported.  By what though?  The fossil record?  But that itself isn't well supported and as I keep trying to make clear is belied by the fact that the sedimentary layers fossils are found in can't possibly represent time periods.  

  But my point is that we are talking about two different kinds of scientific study, one bsed on observation and repeatability, the other on witness testimony or interpretation of clues.  I'm still looking for a way to get this said more clearly.

Later.  Tuesday Sept 24

There is a major sdifference between belief in scripture and knowledge gained by science of course that needs to be answered.  Faith is approriate for scripture because we believe it to be the word of God.  Therefore it can't be contradictioed by anything science says.  What happens then if we are true believers in scirpture and are faced with a scientific sconstractiion is that we believe the science is wrong and could be shown to be wrong.  In other words we don't just believe scripture is right although what they is actual rfact is wrong, we do believe that it could be shown to be wrong, by scientific methosds.  That is why I spent so much time over the last twenty some odd years trying to disprove the claims of evolution.  I believe it to be founded on error and that error can be demonstrated.

The prblem of course it aht sevolution is not pbased on the kind of empirical science they like to think it is, the kind that is practiced in physics, in the lab etc., where you have continuous observation by many people possible at all times.  that's why I'm talking so much about the fct that it is historical science that isn't eamenable to such methodology.  It is true that because I believe sciprture to be the unchallengeable word of God I'm not going to change my mind about it, and that is not a standard scientific attitude to say the least, but it is approrpieate tot he metrial involved.  For my own purposes I have proved over and over again that my faith bears fruit, I learn more and more because I have faith, I learn about the things I'm told about only in the Bible, I've had what can only be called spuupernatural experiences that confirm parts of it.  

I couldn't be able to persuade Coyne of any of that of course.  He certainly insnot inclined to trust anything i would say abourt it as he isnlt inclined to believe the Bible itself.   But I would say that although he is theoretically open to chanignign his mind about what he belives about evolution, in fact he really isn't beause it's just as irrationally founded as he thinks my belief is.    I've tried to say how above.    besides trying to show that what he acrually believes, about the fossil record and about the mechanism of natural selection are really just imaginative constructs and not at lall established by scientific methodology.

I'll just say it again here tht he's outrageously unfair to accuse those of us who have faith in the Biblical revelation of using that same kind of thinkoing on any sort of truly scientific question.l;  it belongs to the revleation of God and that alone.  We believe the witnesses who wrote the Bible and the witneseses they wronte about and that gives us knowlege of the things they wrote about and claim to have experienced.  Yes knowledge.  If it is true of course which we believe it to be.  If it is true we acquire knowledge of those things by beliveing them to tbe true.  Actual knowledge.  

But again we do have the job of trying to prove evolution to be false which is not easy because whether they like to acknowledge it or not they believe it to be true based on similarly irrational means, which are irrational because they have no foundation for them at all except their own imaginations.  We do have the foundation of authority, of a revelation sattested to by millions down the centuries.  Yes that is a great deal.  But I don't expect him to accept it.  he's delucdded that he's convinced of his evolutionist belivefs by science although he is not.  He's confinced by plausible speculations and that is it.  

Just think about the actual physical fact of the geological column, Mr. Coyne, you are taking things for granted about it that are not ture.  Then think about how natural selection would get you from one species to another, you know, step by step, mutation by mutation or whatever, exatly what would have to happen for transform one creature into another over a few million or so years.

All sorts of wonderful variations of a single species are possible just from the genetic possibilities built into the genome of that species, because there are two versions of any given gene that can show up in the offspring, and many genes for just one trait.  Enormous variation is possible that way and can be seen both in the wild and in domestic breeding.  Huge variations.  but your jiob is to tprove that there is wany way to bring about the sort of change that is needed for your claim that the change can continue from the species to something entirely different, and that is ismply impossible.  there is no physical genetic foundation for that.  

the microbiologist Keven Anderson I mentioned in the next post down being interviewed by TDel tackett, is saying pretty much the same thing.  

I think I said this wrong:  There are two versions of each gene, one of which is selected at random by the process of sexual recombination to determine the trait of that offpsring.  This kind of built in fvariation can procduece enormous changes in a population over time, not a million years, that much isn't needed, but a few generations even though   or more.

A Couple of Christian viseos

This wekks Understanding the Times radio show hosted by Jan Markell is about the infiltration of Christian churches by the current leftist ideologyk indlucing wokeism.  She has as guest Megan Bashan who wrote a book about it titled Shepherds for Sale, and so recommends the film Enemies with the Church.

I also want to mention an interview by Del tacket of microbiologist Kevin Anderson who talks about how mutations are a problem for evolution and how the new knowledge we have of the human genome favors creatinionist rather than evolutionist ideas.   

Both arfe on YOu Tube

****

New email managed by family member:  

faithswindow@mail.com

For explanatory note, put Contact Possibility in search box at upper left

Thanks