cREATIONIST aLERNATIVE VISION OF aLL THAT sTUFF THE eVOLUTIONISTS aPPROPRIATE TO tHEIR sUPERIOR UNDERSTANDING

 iT'S ESY TO GET DISCOURAGED  AS A CREATIONIST BECAUSE THE EVOLUTIONISTS HVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ELABORTING THEIR THEORY AND STUFFING THE LITERTURE WITH THEIR STUDIES OF ALL THE FACETS OF BIOLOTY AND GENETICS AND GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY SO THAT THE CONTRARY VISION OF THE CREATIONIST CAN'T GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE AS IT WERE.

iT'S EITHER AMUSING OR FRUSTRATING DEPENDING ON MY MOOD TO READ OR LISTEN TO THE USUAL DESCRIIPTIONS OF EARTHLY PHENOMENA FROM THE EVOLUTIONIST POINT OF VIEW, AS THEY GO ON AND ON CONJURING UP HISTORICAL SCENARIOS ABOUT OF SCANT CLUES AND JUST ABOUT NEVER EVER DESCRIBE THE CLUES THEMSELVES SO THAT A PERSON COULD APPLY A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION TO THEM.  oR AT LEAST QUESTION THEIR EIINTERPRETATION.

sO WE HEAR ABOUT HOW A PARTICULAR CREATURE DEVELOPED A STRATEGY UNDER CERTAIN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, AND HOW THE CILIMATE WAS CHANGING IN THIS OR THAT TIME PERIOD FROM DRY AND HOT TO WET AND COOLER OR SOME SUCH, BUT IT'S THE STORY WE GET, NOT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF, NOT THE LITTLE CLUES ON WHICH THEY BUILD THEIR HISTORY.   sO cOYNE FLATLY ANNOUNCES THT THIS OR THT EVOLVED FROM THIS OR THAT IN SUCH AND SUCH A TIME FRAME AND BRANCHED OFF OR WHATJOT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND THEN TELLS CREATIONISTS WE BETTER BELIEVE IT OR ELSE.  cUZ HE BELIEVES IT, AND HE BELIEVES IT SO INTENSIVELY THAT HE DOESN'T NEED TO BOTHER TO TRACE OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT LED HIM THERE.  sI GE;S GIT  sO HE'S GOT A CREATURE THT IS FOUND IN DIFFERENT VRIATIONS IN LAYERS ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER, SOME LARGER AND SOME SMALLER AND JUT CDECLARES THAT  THEY REPRESENT THE EVOLUTION OF THE SAME CREATURE AND THT IN SOME TIME FRAME IT WAS SMALLER AND IN SOME LARGER BECAUSE OF THE EINNVIRONMENT OF THE TIME, WHICH OF COURSE HE DOESN'T EXPLAIN IN ANYH CASE.  

tHIS CAN BE AMUSING, SOETIMES EVEN MAKE ME LAUGH OUT OLOUD BEAUE OF COURSE i HAVE MY OWN PRETTY SOLIDLY FORMED IDEA OF HOW THINGS HAPPENED THAT IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS.  THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CREATURES IN THOSE LAYERS BY MIY LIGHTS, NOT THE EVOLUTION OF ONE SPECIES BUT ENTIRELYDIFFERE VARIETIES OF THE SAME SPECIES THAT ALL COEXISTED AT THE SAME TIME.  THEYH KJUST HAPPENED TO GET BURIED IN DIFFERENT LAYERS.  hE'SLL POINT TO OSMETHIHNG HE IS CERTAIN IS THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF TWO SPECIES BUT BASED AS FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY ON THE FCT THAT IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE IT MUST BE THAT ANCESTOR IF YOU BELIEVE THE THEORY BUT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE THEORY IT'S JUST ANOTHER CREATURE THAT EXISTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ONCES HE IDENTIFIES AS ITS DESCENDANTS.    

aLL THESE GUYS FIND A LOT OF CTIVITY IN THE STRATA.  i FIND A LOT OF DEAD THINGS THAT GOT WASHED UP ON THE LAND IN THE FLOOD.  

iT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR ABOUT THE PHENOMENA NEVERTHELESS, A LOT OF THINGS DID HAPPEN IN THE PAST THAT i WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ALTHOUGH i HAVE TO IGNORE THEIR TIME FRAME, MAYBE USE IT TO SEE IF OSMETHIGN CAME BEROFORE OR ANFTER SOMETHING ELSE BUT OTHERWISE FORGET THE MILLIONS OF YEARS.  aND SO ON.  sO i'M INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY CALL sNOWBALL EARTH FOR INSTANCE.  wHEN THE GLACIATION SPREAD FROM THE POLES TO VERY NEAR THE EQUATOR.  VERY INTERESTING.  tHEY THINK THERE WER EABOUT FIVE ICE AGES, i FIGURE THERE WAS ONE AND IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FORMED SOON AFTE THE END OF THE fLOOD.  THE PRE fLOOD WORLD WAS PRETTY TEMPERATE AND HUMID TO JUDGE FROM SCIRPTURE REFERENCES TO IT, THE THTHEN THE fLOOD OF COURSE WOULD HVE DEVASTATED THE ENTIRE PLANET AND LALAID DOWN ALL THOSE LAYERS OF SEDIMENTS WITH ALL THOSE DEAD CREATURES IN THEM.  THEN AS I FIGURED IT OUT SOME TIME AGO, AND YEAH i KNOW YOU THINK i'M A NUTCASE BUT SO WHT, ANYWAY AS i FIGURED IT OUT IT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME THAT THE CONTIENTS SPLIT APRAT ND STARTED THEIR DRIFT WITH A BANG THAT HAS SLOWED OVER TIME TO ITS CURRENT HARLY PERSCEPTIBLE RATE.  i WOUJLD ALWAYS GET A LOT OF OBJECTIONS TO SUCH A SCENARIO BECAUSE i HAVE IT ALL HAPPENING FAIRLY VIOLENTSLY AND THE CONTEINTENTS MOVING TOO FAST ACCORDING TO THEM AT THE START OF THE SPLITTING, BUT THEN , THANKS TO THE lORD'S PROMPTING i HAVE NO DOUBT, i REALIZED THT PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE GREAT HEAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY ALL THAT ACTIVITY WOULD HAVE RAPIDLY EVACUATED INTO THE \\\\SPACE BECAUSE THE CANOPY OF MOISTURE THAT HAD COVERED THE EARTH BEFORE THE fLOOD HAD FALLEN IN FORTY DAYS AND IGHTS OF RAIN AND WOULD HAVE LEFT THE EARTH EXPOSED TO SPACE.  METEORS TOO, LIKE THE ONE THEY LUAGHABLY THINK KILLED THE DINOSAJURS.  METIORS WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE UPHEAVAL.    aNYWAY THE APID EVACULATION OF HEAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ON THE ICE AGE, one ICE AGE, THE "SNOWBALL" EARTH THAT EXTENDED SO CLOSE TO THE EQUATOR.  hOW LONG IT LASTED i DON'T KNOW BUTG CERTAINLY NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS.   i FIGURE IT'S BEEN GRADUALLY RETREATING EVER SINCE IT WS FORMED, IN SMALL INCREMENTS WITH OCCASIONAL ADVANCES FOLLOWING RETREATS AND SO ON UNTIL IT'S PRETTY MUCH OVER WITH BY NOW, NOT COMPLETELY SINCE WE STILL HAVE SOME GLACIATION AT THE POLLES OF COURSE, BUT ALMOST, AND IF YOU NEED A N EXPLANATION FO CLIMATE WARMING THERE YOU HAVE IT.

tHE SCIENTISTS ARE VERY DETAILED IN THEIR STUDIES OF THE FOSSIL RECORD , WHERE EACH FOLSSIL IS FOUND IN THE PARTICULAR SLAYER OF SEDIMETN AND SO ON, SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT EVOLVED FROM WHAT IN WHAT TIME FRAME .  THEY'VE AMASSESD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DATA.  i THINKA LOT OF IT WOULD TURN OUT TO BE VERY USEFUL TO A CRETINIST BASED SCIENCE IF WE EVER GET THAT FAR BACK TO SANITY, BUT i SUPPOSE SOME OF IT WOULD REMAIN PECULIAR TO THE EVOLIUTIONIST FRAME OF REFERENCE AND NOT USEFUL.   BUT IN A CREATINJIST FRAMEWORK WE'D STILL WANT TO STUDY ALL THE LIVING THINGS THAT LIVED BEFORE THE fLOOD ADN THERE WERE LOTS OF CREATURES THAT NO LONGER LIVE AMONG US.  LL VERY INTERESTING STUDIES.  J  yOU KNOW, LIKE THOSE DINOSAURS THAT LIVED BEFORE THE fLOOD AND GOT KILLED OFF IN THE fLOOD, NOT BY A METEOR.  

oH WELL.

jERRY cOYNE tHINKS hE'S pROVED THTA EVOLUTION IS TRUE

 Jerry Coyne wrote a book titled Why Evolution Is True which I read many years ago by now and have oforgotten completely, but I just ran across a presentation by him on You Tube on the same subject as his book.  And as usual I find him claiming things are facts which right before our very eyyes show themselves clearly NOT to be facts.  Funny how tht is with these scientists who are so committed to evidentiary proof and scientific reasoning etc etc etc.

Capturing URLs is very difficult for me byut you can find the talk at Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne if you want to check it out.

The first point he makes that I want to address is that "evolution occurs" which he isllustrates with the fact that "populations change" meaning they change genetically over time .   So a herd of something or other ove time will coe to look a bit different than it stat out looking and mayve eventually quite a bit different and so on.   OK, no problem.

But my problem is that this is not evolution.  This is variation, genetic variation that is built into the creature's genome wnand which is completely confined tot aht genome.  I've talked about this in previous posts.  Each generation is slightly different from the previous because of sexual recombination of the genes, or alleles which are alternate versions of a gene.  father donates one allele, mother donates the other and together they produce a trait in the offspring tht slightly differs fromn the same trait in the parents, not always but usually.  Over many generations these changes can add up to very big differences especially since different individuals come into the reproductive line and contribute alleles.  

this is not evolution.  You can't get from one species to another this way, youi can only get variations on the same species this way.  that is because the variations occur within the existintg geness and those casame genes are inherited from generation to generation, only with different varersions of them show ing up in greater or smaller numbers by chance.   

Evoutohnj guys like Dawkins and Coyne talk as if this sort of change is open ended, that it goes beyond the collection of traits belonging to that particular species or organism.  They seem to take it for granted without giving it a second thought.  but how could it?  The change occurs withint he given properties of the genoe, it needs nothing new added to it for the change to occur.  if mutationj should occur, which is the usual idea of how you gent something new, the mutation is a change to the gene that is built into the genome so whatever change the mutation adds stays withint tht genome for tht species or orgnaism and it is a change in a particlar trait, it doesn't change the trait itself, just gives it a diffdfernte color or texture or other characteristic tht pertains onoly to tht trait.  Whatee is already in the genome defines the limit of what sort of characteristics are possible.  It's already there in the genome.  You can't get something brand new tht isn't alreayd potential withinjt he genme.  So it isn't evolution.  You can call it microevolution, or some do, but it isn't evolution, it's merely built in variation, what Mendel showed could make peas with blue flowers or pink flowers, what we all know can make for blue eyes or brown eyes and so on.  It's there already and that is all that is there.

Anher way change is limited to the genome is in the fact that if a particular trait is heavlily selected over many generations it will become genetically fixed or homozygous as one allele will be paired with the same allele and the variant allele will cgradually drop out of the poulation.  When you get a lot of homozygosity, which is what greeders get when they get a purebred animal, which supposedly could also occur in the wild though I think it's really only seen in the cases of bottleneck suck as the cheetah,.  Anywayh this is often the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Variation, or "efolution" sotops happening when you get homozygosity to a great degree in a population.  So at the point when you are geetting the most well established traits, as in a sdomestic breed, that's when you stop getting vevolution as it were.  Youj can never get outside thegenome.

So, no, evolution does NOt OCCUR, OR AT LEAST THIS IS NO PROOF OF IT.

cO cOYNE'S FIRST OINT IS THAT EVOLUTION OCCURS, THEN HIS SECOND OINT IS THAT IT OCCURS GRANTUALLY, USUALLY, NOT ALWAYS BUT USUALLY, WHICH HE GOES ON TO SAY MEANS THAT YOU DON'T GET A POPULATIO OF DINOCAURS SUDDENLY TURNING INTO TA POPULATION OF BIRDS, IT HAPPENS GRADUALLY OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME.  

eXCPET IT CAN'T BECUASE DINOCAURS CAN ONLY VARIY ACCORDING TO THEIR DINOSAUR GENOME, THEY CANNOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE TRAITS OF A BIRD THAT ARE NOT ALREADY POSSESS ED BY THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN TRAITS.   yET cOYNE JUST BLITHLELY CARRIES ON, AS THEY ALL DO, AS IF IT'S JUST A FACT THAT REPTILES GRADUALLY CHANGED INTRO BIRDS OVER TIME.   fUNNY HOW THEY THINK THEY ARE APPEALING TO EVIDENCE.  wHERE IS THE EVIDENCE HERE?

THE HIS POINT THREE IS SPECIATION.  THE BRANCHING OF A SPECIES INTO TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES.   hIS NEXT POINT IS GOING TO BE THT SUCH BRANCHED SPECIES CN TRACE THEIR ANCESTRY BACK TO A COMMON ANCESTOR, REVERSING THIS PICTURE.   

hIS FITH POINT IS THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS WHAT CAUES EVOLUTION, IT'S THE EMCHANISM THAT BRINGS ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THE CREATURE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

hAVING LISTED THE FIFE POINTS HE CONSIDERS TO BE CONSTITUENTS OF EVOLUTION HE IS NOW GOING TO GO ON TO GIVE THE EVIDENCE FOR THEM.  i CAN HARDLY WAIT.

i THOUGHT HE AS GOING TO GO BCK THROUGH HIS LIST AND START WITH SHOWING EVIDENCE FOR POPULATIONS CHANGING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE FROM SPECIES TO SPECIEAS.   wELL, HE GOES INSTEAD TO THE IDEA THT THINGS EVOLVED FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX AS SUPPOSEDLY SHOWN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, WHICN HE CLAIMS IS VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD NOW, THEY KNOW ALL THE DIFFERENT LAYERS AND THEY KNOWN THE DAING OF THEM AND SO ON.  aS FOR EVIDENCE OF SIMPLE TO COMPLEX WELL THAT'S A PRETTY SUBJECTIVE THING BUT IT'S GOOD ENOUVHG FOR HIM APPARENTLY TO DECLARE IT A FACT.  iT ALL JUST looks LIKE WHAT WE WOULDE EXPECT OF THINGS EVOLVING FROM ONE KIND OF CREATURE TO ANOTHER.  jUST LOOKS THTA WAY TO US.  THAT'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.  

fROM SHICH HE MAKES THE SUDDEN LEAP TO THE DECLARATION THAT THIS VIOATES THE CLAIM THAT LIVING THINGS WERE ALL MADE AT ONE TIME.   wELL, SURE IT DOES IF IT'S TRUE BUT HE HAS'T REALLY PROVED IT THOUGH HE THINKS HE HAS.   

sO NOW i HAVE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THE LAYERS OF ROCK IN WHICH THE FOSSILS ARE FOUND COULD NOT POSSIBLY EVER HAVE BEEN ON THE EARTHLS SURFACE DURING SOME LONG PERIOD OF MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, OR EVEN FIVE MINUTES FOR THT MATTER SINCE NOTHING WHTEVER DCOULD LIVE N OR ON SUCH A SURFACE, A HOMOGENEUOUS SLAB OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRAIGHT AND FLAT AND IN SOME CASES MANY HUNDREDS OF GFEET THICK COVERING THOUSANDS UPOHN THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES, SPANNING CONTINENTS.  i GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS FACT HAS NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS.  iT ALMOST DIDN'T EVEN CROSS MINE.  NOBODY EVER BRINGS IT UP, EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW THE ROCKS REPRESENT TIME PERIODS IS JUST DECLARED AS FACT AND THEIR PHYSICAL CHARCTERISTICS ARE RDLY CONSIDERED AT ALL.  VERY ODD BEAUSE WHEN YOU DO CONSIDER THEM YOU CAN'T BY ANY AMOUNT OF CLEVER REARANGINGS OF THIGS MAKE THEM FIT INTO THE SCENARIO OF A TIME PERIOD ON PLANET EARTH.  yOU CAN'T.  yOU CAN'T.  IT ISN'T POSSIBLE.  tHOSE ROCKS DO NOT REPRESENT TIME PERIODS.  THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THERE NEVER WERE ANY TIME PERIODS.  tHOSE ROCKS WERE ALL LAID DOWN BY THE SAME PROCESSES, WHATEVER THOSE PROCESSES WERE, AND MOST PROBABLY ONE AFTER ANOTHER IN A FIARLY SHOT PERIOD OF TIME.  THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THEM THAT SUGGESTS LONG PERIODS OF TIME OR ANY KIND OF HABITABLE ENVIRONETN WHERE ON LAND OR IN SEA.  tHE Y ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS.  THEY ARE ROCKS IN WHICH ARE BURIED BAZILLIONS OF LIVING THINGS FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX, FROM SEA CREATURE TO LAND CREATURE.  

tHERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF GOING ABOUT THIS WHICH ISN'T QUITE SO DRASTIC AS THE WHOLE THING COMING DOWN TO A SLAB OF ROCK, AND THAT'S THE IDEA THT EACH TIME PERIOD DID HAVE A NORMAL SURFACE, IN MANY OF THEM IT WAS A SEASCAPE SURFACE, AND THE LAND SURFACES COME KHIGHNER UP IN THE STRATA.  aNYWAY WITH A NORMAL SEA SCAPE THIS ROCK THAT ENDS UP IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN WOULD HAVE BEEN FORMED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, COLLECTING THE DEAD CREATURES IN IT.  fOR SOME REASON THIS PARTICULAR SEDIENT COMES TO AN END, QUITE STRAIGHT AND FLAT NEVERTHELESS, AND ANOTHER STARTS TO FORM ABOVE IT, AND THIS NEXT ONE FOR SOME REASON CAPTURES A SDIFFERENT SET OF CREATURES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE EVOLVLVED FROM THOSE IN THE EALIER TIME EPPRIOR WITHHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE SEDIMENTARY ROCK BENAEATH IT.    tHEN THIS NEXT PERIOD COMES TO AN END TAND A NEW SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITION STARTS AON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ONE, A NEW SEDIMENT AND A NEW COLLECTION OF CREATURES GET BURIED IN IT THT LOOK LIKE THEY EVOLVED FROM THE CREATURES IN THE ROCK NOW BEENEATH IT.  

eVENTUALLY WE START GETTING LANDSCAPES AND NOW IT'S HARDER TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SEDIMENT CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE AT THE BOTTOM AS ALWAYS, ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ROCK, BUT JUST TO LOOK AT THE STRATA YOU HAVE TO CONCLUCE THAT THEY AREWERE ALL FORMED BY THE SAME PROCESSES.  nOW WE'RE GETTING LAND ANIMALS INSTREAD OF SEA CREATURES.

iN THIS SCENARIO AT LEAST THERE IS A LIVING SCPACE FOR THE ANIMALS RATHER THAN JUST WROCK BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THAT IT WOULD ALL COME DOWN IN THE END TO THAT ROCK OAND ONLY THAT ROCK STACKED ON THE ROCKS FROM THE PREVIOUS SIME PERIOD.    aND THERE IS STILL THE QUESTION WHY ON EARTH WOULD TIME ON THIS PLANET SORT ITSELF INTO LAYERS OF ROCK ANYWAY?  wHY WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR ERA OF EVOLUTION BY A PARTICULAR ROCK?  nONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL AND YET THEY GO ON TLAKING AS IF IT MAKES SENSE.  

 cOYNE SAYS A LOT MORE THAT i'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT SO i SUPPOSE i'LL AHVE TO LISTREN TO IT AGAIN AND COME BACK TO IT. bUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS i CAN TOUGH CH ON AT THIS POINT. 

hE CONSIDERS VESTIGIAL ORGANS TO BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.  HE DOESN'T USE THE TERM JUNK dna FOR SOME REASON BUT THAT'S WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT BROKEN GENES THT CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE ONCE CODED FOR A LOST FUCNTION OR VESTIGIAL ORGAN.  hE THINKS CREATIOMNIST CAN'T ACCOUNT FO R THESE THINGS BUT ACTUALLY i THINKI i CAN AND i'VE BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS NOW.  wE LIVE IN A FALLEN WORLD, AND EVERYTHING IS DETERIORATING.  oUR BODIES ARE SUBJECT TO ALL KINDS OF DETERIORATION PROCESSES, DISEASES AND DEATH.  iT'S SEEMED TO ME THT WHA TJUNK dna IS IS A RECORD OF MANY FORMER FUNCTIONS THAT WERE POSSESSED BY US BEFORE TEH fALL WHEN WE HAD GREAT STRENGTHS AND POWERS AND PROTECTIONS OF ALL SORTS THAT WE'VE SINCE LOST.  hE MENTIONS THE ABILITY TO MAKE vITAMIN c WHICH MANY ANIMALS HAVE BUT WE DON'T, OUR GENE FOR IT IS BROKEN.  hE ALSO SAYS THAT HUMAN EMBRYOS AT FOUR WEEKS HAVE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A OK SAC ONLY IT'S EMPTY.  hE SAYS THERE ARE THREE GENES, ALL BROKEN, THAT CODE FOR YOKYOYOLK.  iNTERESTING.  sO i'D SAY THAT IS PROBABLY A PROVISION gOD BUILT INTO THE EMBRYONIC STANGE FOR NOURISHING THE NEW BABY THAT SUCCUMBED TO THE DISEASE PROCESS OF THE fALL, MUTATIOHNS BEING A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL OF THAT DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS.  tHERE ARE MANY THINGS WE SEEM TO BE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT THAT NO DOUBT WE'D BE A LOT STRONGER IF WE HAD THEM, WOULD LIVE LONGER AND BE LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO DISEASES AND ALL THAT.  a YOLK SAC IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE PROTECTIVE DEVICES WE NO LONGER HAVE.  

i DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN OUR GETTING A THICK COAT OF HAIR AROUND THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS IN THE WOMB THOUGH.  a GENE GONE CRAZY?  aN ADAPTATION TO THE ICE AGE WE NO LONGER NEED?  nO IDEA REALLY.  oR THE VESTIGIAL LIMBS OF WHALES AND DOPHINS.  bUT i'LL PRAY ABOUT IT.

aPPARENTLY WE ALSO USED TO HAVE MUCH MORE POWERFUJL SMALLING ABILITY AS THAT IS ANOTHER CAPACITY LOST TO BROKEN GENES ACCORDING TO cOYNE.

wHAT HE CALLS EXAMPLES OF BAD DESIGN, OR MAHY OF THEM ANYWAY, ARE ALSO EXPLAINABLE IN TERMS OF LOST FUNCTIONS DUE TO THE fALL.  iT'S REALLY TOO BACD THAT SOME CREATIONJIST APPARENTLY DON'T THINK OF THIS WORLD AS FALLEN, SO THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR PERFECT DESIGN AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THIS WORLD IS FAR FAR FAR FROM THE PERFECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD AND THT  FACT SHOULD EXPLAIN A LOT OF THINGS THAT OTHERWISE EVOLUTION EXPLAINS BWETTER.  

mA6YBE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE EXAMPLE HE GIVES OF THE OCEANIC ISLANDS WHICH MADE NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL.  i CAN'T SEE HOW CREATIONISM HAS ANY HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THAT SOME KINDS OF ANIMSAL WOULD BE FOUND ON DISTANT ISLANDS RATHER THAN OTHER KIDNS.  THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK EVOLUTIONH EXPLAINS THAT BETTER AT ALL.    

i

to  e congtinued

Crumble crumble crash crash boom

A few hours ago, in the middle of the night, maybe three am or so,  I heard awoman call in to the late night talk show to talk about how here little town has been overrun by illegal immigrants, that they are visible all over town , they are often seen at the DMV where a family member went recently can came back with a form that was all about how to register to vote, also reporting that he'd been asked th\\\\

ree times by one DMV worker Wouldn't he prefer to register as a Democrat.  

the twon is about thirty miles from where I live I know it well I lived there myself for years and the bottom dropped out of my stomach hearing how real all this has become that we're all worried about, how real and close to home.And more aggressive and well organized thatn I had any idea, local people apaprently involved in furthering this travesty of ...  well, it's an invasion of America isn't it.  We've been hearing about it, it's one of many ways they are bringing down the country around us for years now, speeding up in recent times.  We know it's happening, it makes us nervous, those of us who are patying attention anyway, hwho listen to thre right sources anyway, but at least for me the reality of it I just heard about came as a ral shock.

I don't want to cry about these things but this made me cry.  I don't want to cry because I think I'd never stop and it gives me a headache and clogs up my head and accomplishes nothing anyway.  Local people are invovled in furtherinjg this nightmare.  Atgain, local people are involved in furthering this nightmare.  It's well organized.

And so of course is the manipulating of the upcoming election.  Yes I still hope and pray for Trump to win but at the same time I know how efficient the Left is at manipulating things to give thesmelves all the power.  And the lies, the lies I've been hearing from the Democrat candidates I can hardly believe a human being could be so brazen but they are.  She is.  Amazing lies, preteniding to support the policies of the opposition as if they are her won of all things, tyring to sound like a real American instead of the COmmuist she is, the San Francisco leftis antiAmerican she is, the lies alone are repeated fists in the stomach.  

And just yesterday I talked to some one about the political situation just briefly with whom I'd never touched on such a subject before and found out that she knows absolutely nothing about anything.  She thingks Oh politics, both sides do the same thnings, the differences aren't really any big deal, she doesn't like Trump's personatliy, she believes all the lies about him . djr nr;orbrd s;; yjr    she believes all the letgal battles against Trump prove he's guilgty of criminal acts, it wouldn't occur to her to equestion any of it, and of course it adds to her antipathy to him.  But she doesn't really pay much attention to politics at all anyway.  

Well, we're doomed.  

I'm not giving up but I'm afraid the signs are that we are indeed doomed.  And again I come back to the recognition that the nation is under god's judgmetn.  In fact foreigners moving into the country and taking things over and pushing the citizens asicde is one of the judgments listed in Levitical   Leviticus twenty six and Deuteronomy I think Nine wher eGod spells out the blessings and cursings He will bring on Israel depending on their obedienct tot He Lawsk, which they have agreed to obey.  Well, Isreal in the OT is in man;y ways intended as a model for us to learn from, so applying that leist of curses to us is warranted since we have cerrtatainly violated god's law ourselves.  Even thrown out the ten Commandments.  Lovelyh. 

So I'm come back to wondering what is the right way to respond to God's judgment.  Is fighting it always the rwrong thing to do?  Scripture seems to say sometimes no, sometimes yes.  

I don't want to see America go down .  I want the liberals who don't know anything to learn something, I want them to be educated, to learn that they've been believing lies, to to learn what America was originalloy designed to be, which has been getting lost chunk by chunk for decades now.  Such efforts can't be wrong but they may be futile.  \

And I'mm  I'm gback to hoping for the Rapture to happen soon.  Unfortunately Watchman Nee said not all Christianits will be in the Rapture, an I think he meant true Christans, and of course tht shakes me iup quite a bit.  We're taught that only unbelievers which includes people who think they are Christians but are notm  not, wikll be left behind.  Then Nee had to come along and suggest that even a true Christian might be left behind if we are atnot living up to our calling.    OSO on top of everything else I've go tthat to worryabotu.  Also on top of the knowldge that my own family includes many who are not Christians at all and will have to live through the last days on planet Erath in any case, which is going to be the most horrific time anyhone has ever ad to live through .  

But t least after all that Jesus will come back and I hope they will get saved even during all that horror.  

I ammay get a second wind as it were.  That happens.  I get discouragesd and then I revive.  I don't know how it's going to go this time.  Just that at the moment I want to be Raptured out of here.

Email for any comments:  faithswindow@mail.com

Put "Contact Possibility" in upper left search box for explanatory note.

tghanks

Restoring america

Marxism is the perrect weapon for destroying everything tht made America great, for tearing down its Christian base and its institutional structures, its economic foundations and all of it.  It couldn't have been better deasigned for that purpose.

And yet Mar xism is thritiving in the  Democratic Party and if the current candidates for that party win it will be enacted against our fragile nation with a furty that will leave nothing standing.   this is what you are voting for you liberals, wehter you know it or not, in your irrational hatred of Donald Trump wyou are bringing down your own culture \.

I do like that Jordan peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali seem to be getting this much about the problem we are faing though I don't think they've come up with  much of  solution to it.  I just jlike that she particularly aims at Restoration even in th title of her Substack site.  Glad there are people  thinkig long these lines adn of course they aren't the only ones, I hear from people on the radio every day who are strenouuously working to save the nation.   It's frustrating though because the liberals aren't listening and if they\\\\\\\\\\ we need them to see that they are believing lies so that they can join in the cause.  How ever many of them there are who would be shocked at the lies if they saw them and I know there are many of them though scertaily not the whole population of them.  enogh at least to make a big difference I wuld hope.  But getting the word to them is just about impossiblbele.  In my experience any attempt to start a conversation about the important issues is just shut down by them immediately, don't want to talk about it, too incendiary or something.   Well NOT talking bout it is incendiary in a worse way I'm afraid, burning down the society we live in.

 Marxism has to bgo and Christianity has to be recovered and the whole conceptual framework of the Consitutuioal founding of the nation, preerably with the Christian mentality of all the colonies introduced into it that were fraudulaently left out of it.  that in fact is probably the achilles heel that is allowing Marxism to bring us down, tht even our founders set isus off on the wrong track despite the wonderfully powerful goverment they crafter for us at the same time.

I can bleat all I want out here in my little corner of cyber space and nobody will hear though.   Are we going down for good?  I mean of course for bad, for evil.  I don't know how to stop it.  Does anybody?

Prayer done right, to the Christian God and njot to any pagan gosds, is really our best hope.

================================

If you would like to comment on anything in my blog, whether to pat me on the head or thrash me to death you can write me at this new email which is being managed by a family member:  faithswindow@mail.com.

For an explanatory onote about this you can sear\\\\\put Contact Possibility in the search box at rhe upper left of the page.

Thanks

A Leftover Bit of Geological Evidence Against the Theory of Evolutio

 Going back to a post to include somjething I left out isn't easy when it's been some time seince the post ws writen so I'm going to put here as a separate post just one small point I left out of the discussion of gthe geological evidences against evolution.

It's all about observing the physical facts about the strata or layers of sedimentary rocks found all over the world, in which the fossils are buried that are used to prove the idea of a fossil record of evolution from simple to complex.    The strata themselve sare physical structures you can see and think about in terms of their phyhsical properties, but oddly enough that isn't much done that I can see by those who use them to prove an Old Earth and evolution through the fossil record.

I've made the point that they lie flat and straight across thousands of scquare miles which alone makes them useless as a representative of time periods since nothing could live on such a landscapte>  first it has to be recorniizesd as a landscape, that that is what is implied by their use as markers for time periods of millions of years.  theyh are rocks, they are of one sediment, they can't represent anything that was ever the surface of this earth.

Second I've made the point that they lie undisturbed in thier original horizontal form from bottom to top, just a placid stack of sedimentary rocks one on top of another.  What this shows is that they can't be time periods on the usrface of the earth becaucause this planet is known to be very active with weathering and earthquakes and fovolcanoes and so on and so forther.  Ther is no sigh of any such activity within the strata themselves aywhere.  All that activity doews up acting UPON the strata whether in small or large chunks, as those forces batter and break and tilt and twist them .  All as a unit, however large the broken unit may be.  the Greand Canyon experienced none of that, only the pushing up of the land underneath which cut the canyon itself as I uinterpret it, but the upheaval wasn't enough of a jolt to break up the strata for at least the depth of a mile.  

Now I want to point out just one liettle proof that the earth is not old by looking at the strata:  that is that these layered walls wherever you find them, erode and conllect the products of the erosion at their bbase.  You see this in the grand Canyon where the walls are all skirted at the bottom by such debris.  And in Monument Valley where the huge buttes called Monuments also are surrounded at their bases by such skirts of debris.  These skirts as I'm calling them, although I know there is a scientific terms for them that I can't remember right now, should be a measure ot he time that has elapsed since the monument began to exist.  They've been eroding since all the other layers once part of were washed away and they were left standing alone on top of one of those layers that stayed intact.  For some reason hunks of the layers were left standing as those monyuments.  The same happened in South America on an even grander scale in the "tepui: gigantic buttes of a mile in thickness and fairly broad too, five of them in Venezuela as I recall, all made of sandstone in that case.  They o must have such skirts collected around them as they've been eroding since they were carved out of the totality of the staraa and left standing separately there.

You'd think, and this is my oint, that if the Earth were really millions of years old, or billions, that theyse strata which in conventiaonal time analysises go back hundreds of millios of years, might ave eroded away down to nothing but dust, not merely accumulated these fairly substantial but nevertheless pretty paltry piles of debris around their bse.   Millions of years for such a tiny bit of accumulated erosion?  I think they've veven made some measurements of the rate at which the erosion occurs but I don't know the numbers, it just seems pretty obvious that hundreds of millions of years of erosion would have made a much larger pile and in  fact would have completely obliterated the structures from which it is falling.  

A few thousand years perhaps?

The Restoreation Project

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a substack site where she pursues her vision of the restoration twe need in the West.  I'm certainly glad that's what she wants to pursue.  Also Jordan Peterson has a similar objective though I don't think he's got the accurate aim she ahas at what is needed.   And while they share important points as to what needes to be restored I think it's too fragmented to work very well as is, it needs a broader fraemwork.  

 ___Yes, the family, yes our institutins, but we can't restore these piecemeal , this wuld be autoaticlaly restored if genuine Christianity were restored, if the Bible were treated as the word of God it is and its teachings on marrige and parenting and loving your neighbor were taken to heart by the population.  Almost all the population, because tht's the way it was in the begining of the nation, sme ninety something perecent of the people were serious committed Christiants.  Even the framers of the Constitution appreciatd the need for Christian fomorality, ues even Jefferson who repudiated the supernatural aspects of the Bible.  

The American colonies had all been seriously Christian, even to naming Christ in their Constitutions.  When the federal Constitution was framed it was a betrayal of that Chrsitan spirt althoughj the spirit persisted in the people nevertheless, until of course the fallen naturue got the upper hand again and we lost it.  

If we have to sta somewhere without an actual revival of Christanity, then it should be with a massive emphasis on educating people in the principle sof the founding of the nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and as many of the letters of the founders or framers as you can get people to read or hear.  RwWe need to be steeped in that mentality,t he context out of which our rfreedoms and prosperity grew.  It can't come from anything else in this fallen world.  You can't transplant our benefits to other ntarions because they don't have the cultrtue al framework that promotes them and protects them.   We thought we could do it in afghanistantn.  We couldj't.  They don't have the mental set for it.  ____

_______________

Here's an email address for responses to this blog:

faithswindow@mail.com

Explanatory note is at:  _____Faith's Window: Contact Possibility (watchpraystand.blogspot.com)_

Restoring the West, Peterson and Hirsi Ali

 Well, I was wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  She's not a Christian, \\.  She doesn't want to impose her own experience on others, she says.  She thinks others have equally valid spiritual experiences through other religions, Buddhism and so on.  

this is what she said in a discussion with Jordan Peterson recetly.  They are talking about the destruction of our culture and how to rsotr e it and tht is crucially important and I was hoping to tget some ideas from them.  Since it's my own biggest project and I don't know what to do about it.  I know what's needed but ho to bring it about, no.  And they don't either.  At least she does know tht the biggest problem has been wthe wholesale destruction of Christianity so tht it is Christianity in some form or other that needs to be resotred, and tht ids getting close but not close enough for me.

I thought maybe I culd get some spiritual strength through her thinking but now I don't think so.  too bad.

Peterson continues with his Jungian perspective and that just never goes anywhere helpful.  Silly stuff like how the sacrifice of Christ means we hve to go through sacrifice ourselves in some psychological growth project or other.  Poppycock.  

 I wants this post to be about the project of restoring the culture but now I think I have to start with ansers to them.  Neither of them has the true Christian perspective which is what is needed to restore the West, certainly America.  that's where Iknow we need to start, but almost in the same breath we need to restore the principles of the founding of America.  America above all other western nations is the jewel in the crown as it were and if we can't restore it all these gloomy prognostications we hear everywhere are going to happen.  As Trump says, if he isn't elected we are going to lose wour country, we will have no more country.  Well, we are all saying that but he kows it too.  I doubt he really knows what all is lacking either but at least he knows the political side of it.

Ayaan doesn't want to impose her own views, her own religion, on anywone else.  Well, that's fine, and nobody should do that, burt the roblem is that she is saying more than that, she is saying that you can get along without Christianity and that is not so.  You can get along up to a point in this life and nobody should ompose anything on you, yes, but Christianity is the rock bottom foundation of all the good that has come through the West and principally through America.  True Christianity, not just the trappings of Chtistianity.  

It was true Christianity that Toqueveille saw when he was here, that he credited with the benefits, the greatness of aAmerica.  While a half baked Christianity might help a little, it can't really restore what has been lost becaue thta was the producet of true belieivng faitrhtul Christian people's work and character.   

While it is is common to hear people like Dawkins say you don't hvae to be religious to be moreal, and I've gone along with that to some extent because I know human beings re born with a conscience and some moral sense, lately I've been coming to realize tht you really do need true Christianity for true Morality, for the kind of morality that could restore America, the kind of morality tht for instance means that a person's word is trustworthy and can be counted on.  That comes from fear of God which comes fro Christian belief.  You have to be able to count on your neighbor to have the moral restraint not to lie to you or steal from you, and we used to have that to a great degree even in my lifetime when you could leave your door open and your keys in your cr without fear.  In the sixties and seventies there was a sudden uptick in crime of all sorts.  My daughter's motor scotter was stolen more than onece, mycar was stolen, my camera was stolen.  Things like that happened after the Marxists liberated things as they like to think of it.  Crime is the first fruit of Marxism.

You can't get the kind of trustworthiness from a half baked Christainity that is needed to restore America.   

True spiritual revival is needed but God has to do that and it hasn't happened for decades of fervent prayer by many people.

Peterson may be right enough about how sacrifice must characterize our lives for community to function as it should and all tht, but tht isn't the sacrifice of Christianity and even if he's right as rfar as it goes ther is no way to get to the mentality that makes that sort of sacrifice acceptable to the members of the community without somethijg like a strong moral framework that they subscribe tyo.  You know, like the Ten Commandments for starters.  Otherwise you see what we see a lot of, people shirking commitments, evading responsibiltiy7.  how are you going to get the to embrace this life of sacrifice Jordan evisons?

It makes me sad to think he may actually understand what the real meaning of the Christianity sacrifice is and just blithely ignores it in favor of his psychologized version, but I feel he needs to hear it again.   Oin fact I think he needs to hear something about its miraculous framework to see how there is a real God behind it all, not some psycholgocial Big Principle.  That is, think about the passover nighntht in Egypt such t before moses leads the people out toward the Promised Land.  God orders a somewhat strange little ritual .  Kill a lamb and feed your household on it.  Paint its blood on the door posts of your house.  Be ready to leave at a moents' notice but stay inside until the call comes because the angel of death is going to come throughh and pass over your house if you obey all this while those who do not thathave the projection of this lamb's blood will lose their firstborn sons.  

They are ordered to commemorate this event every year thereafter too, by killing a lamb and d eating a meal and remembering how the angel of death passed over them and how then they could leave Egypt for the Promised Land.   they commemorate this even tot this day.

Those who have not come to know that Christ IS that passover lamb that saves them from Hell, literal Hell, and gives them eternal life in the Promised Land Can you grapple with history itself as a symbol producing "story
  Can you accept that when God told the Israelities to put the lambs' blood on their doors that He meant it to be a symbol of the death of the Messiah on the Cross that would take believers out of "egypt or this fallen world with its main highway to Hell into the Promjised Land?  Two thousand years before Christ, no, sorry more like fourteen hundred years before, the sacrifice that would save us all was written on the doorposts.  

When the limjtime came, it was a \\ the yearly commemoration of the passover event of the time of Moses,  Jesus ate with His disciples on the Preparation Day for the Sabbath, He told them that the wine they were drinking was His blood shed for them, and the breadk His body.  TGhey had no idea what He was talking about.  Then he went to the dross and died as "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world."  All prepared fourteen hundred years in advance.    that wasn't ridgged.  He couldj't have rigged that.  

Anyway that's what the sacrifice is really about Jordan.  he sacrificed Himself for us, it's got nothing to do with outr sacrifices, in fact othing we do can accomplish anything at all toward our salvation, scripture says this over and over nin many ways.  We are saved "without workdsks"  but you keep wanting to add wsorks, you keep wanting to make us hujan beings the author of our fate.  god says no, you can't, trust Me to do it all, rst in Me, it is nothing but pride to think you can do anything.  It is not o works"lest any man should boarst."    Becoeme as a little child, Jesus said.  Jesust trust wshat the scripture says and do it and stop trying to erect all those fantasical phyilosophical palaces for us to live ihn .

but anway.  If we want to respore aAmerica an I cetainly do, We need to elect tgrump but that woun't accomplish much unless we hve a Christian erevvial.  Trump can change a lot of thijgs but we need hearts to change.  We need liberals to recognize that they've been lied to and that they 've been conspiring unkjowingly with the death of their country which h was once the greatest and best nation erer.  That's what we need to find a way to bring about.    can't happen if we can't get the true Chrsitainity bakcki.

thPeters\is blog:

faithswindow@mail.com

Explanatory note is at:  _____Faith's Window: Contact Possibility (watchpraystand.blogspot.com)_