Creation Science Fellowship of Calvary Chapel

Personal note: In December 2014, I accompanied, as a friend and unskilled digger, Dr. Steve Austin and four other geologists onto the Lisan Peninsula on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea. We were there to search for 'seismites,' wavy lines in sediments once deposited on the bottom of the Dead Sea. Because the sea is gradually drying up, much of its former floor is now exposed on dry land. During past ages, layers of the whitish mineral, aragonite, precipitated out of solution, alternating with dark detritus washed in from the wadis during seasonal storms. Past earthquakes have rippled uppermost layers of the sea floor, which were then sealed in by subsequent chemical precipitation and detritus. Scraping the sides of erosion gullies reveals the wavy lines of earthquakes, dating back to ancient times. On the Lisan Peninsula, I saw, picked up, and handled sulfur balls up to about half and inch in diameter. My excitement was damped by the opinions of geologist friends who saw no solid connection with the fire and brimstone (sulfur) that God rained down on nearby S***m and Gomorrah. I now profoundly regret my failure to collect and bring home a few specimens of those sulfur balls, mentioned in the Book of Genesis!

🔎 Burning cities, sulfur balls: Excavating S***m and Gomorrah - Google Search

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY8uDhaLJnk

Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Atheism In Less Than 15 Minutes (BRILLIANT!) John Lennox very easily dismantles Atheism with pure logic. Hi, My name is Daniel and welcome to my channel! 🙂I'm a husband, lead pastor, church planter, co...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgu9vr3llaw

Tectonics of Western North America during the Late Stages of the Biblical Flood A significant challenge for the secular earth science community has been accounting for the major tectonic changes in western North America since the mid-Cre...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+assassination+attempt+-+Were+shots+fired+from+the+water+tower%3F&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=be824180b2ab340a&sca_upv=1&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKhvXN07aHAxUjPEQIHYdpCBAQ0pQJegQIBhAG&biw=1408&bih=624&dpr=1.36 =ive&vld=cid:dc454cf4,vid:ht0s6RaZNck,st:0

🔎 Trump assassination attempt - Were shots fired from the water tower? - Google Search

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouUbMYb7Bc

Audio Analysis Is 100% Clear Trump& Crowd Were Shot At By Two Separate People - Peak Prosperity There were TWO shooters! It's time to join the #1 resilience community! https://peak-prosperity.com/ImReadyNow Use coupon code PEAK20 for 20% off a members...

https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-john-rich?utm_campaign=20240716_july16dailybriefsubs&utm_medium=email&utm_source=iterable&utm_content=milwaukeespeech

Tucker Carlson Network Tucker Carlson Network

Is slavery a states issue? No. Of course not! Liberty is a Human Right. It was a Human Right before the Fourteenth Amendment outlawed slavery in all states. It was a Human Right before we fought a deadly Civil War to settle the question. It was a Human Right before the Declaration of Independence made mention of it.

Keep in mind, the Declaration of Independence is our country's prima facie founding document - our justification for existing as a nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Is the Right to Life a states issue? No. Of course not! It is no accident that Life is listed before all other Human Rights. Without Life, there are no Rights!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVk2HGHH-k

Alan Dershowitz Tells Truth About Trump Trial, Epstein, OJ & Harvard Buy gold and earn interest on it! https://monetary-metals.com/triggernometry/💥Join us on our Journey to 1 Million Subscribers💥Alan Dershowitz is an America...

https://www.angel.com/watch/riot/episode/cf71a909-9ac5-498e-8e80-1b6ca7ba2de3/season-1/episode-1/water

Watch Water on Angel Studios The first nature series that glorifies God

https://thejohn1010project.com/

Home THE JOHN 10:10 PROJECT explores the abundant life Jesus promised. How can we experience lasting joy, peace and purpose in a world often dominated by discouragement and fear? This website features a collection of short videos designed to encourage you in your walk with God. Think of them as stepping....

Need quick access to a Bible? Try Blue Letter Bible https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa/37/1/s_515001

An archived email exchange with the late Dr. Francisco Ayala on the subject of Natural Selection July 6, 2006

Dear Dr. Ayala,
Some years ago I read an article you had written for Scientific American back in September 1978 entitled, "The Mechanisms of Evolution." As I read the article, two separate points jumped out at me, and I have wondered ever since if you have contemplated the significance of those two points taken together? Paraphrasing from memory,
• One point was that an organism's fitness depends on its own unique combination of allelic genes.
• The other point was that owing to the vast number of possible combinations of allelic genes available even to siblings of the same parents, each individual is genetically unique in the history of the universe (excluding identical siblings from the same fertilized ova).
If I am not terribly mistaken, these two points taken together call into question the resolving power of Natural Selection and its ability to promote the infiltration or removal of a mutation into or out of a population.

These two points seem to undercut Darwin's conception of gradual evolution by Natural Selection. The fitness of an organism must have far less to do with the presence or absence of a particular mutation than with the unique combination of hundreds or thousands of allelic genes. (Catastrophic mutations are an obvious exception). And since each individual in every generation receives its own unique mix of alleles, fitness is not heritable from the parents in the same sense that genetic traits are heritable. Rather, individual fitness must be largely random.

Can you correct my understanding of this matter? Or, am I possibly on the right track?

Sincerely,
Jim Pamplin


From: Francisco J. Ayala [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Jim Pamplin
Subject: Re: Connecting dots

Dear Mr. Pamplin:
My two points are quite compatible with (indeed, are part of the explanation of) evolution by natural selection. It is your logic that is at fault, as you will see if you bother reading any serious book about evolutionary genetics.

It is good that you are interested in the subject.

Best wishes,
Francisco Ayala

July 10, 2006
Dear Dr. Ayala,

Thank you for your response to my inquiry. Your comment that my logic is flawed, which I take very seriously coming from a scientist of world renown, professor of biology, philosophy and logic, gave me pause to wonder, just what is my logic? Boiling my own verbiage down to brass tacks, I think my logic must goes something like this:

IF
1. The fitness of an individual organism is based on its genotype – a unique combination of thousands of allelic genes (your first point), and
2. Each individual genotype is probably unique in the history of the universe, so great are the number of possible allelic combinations available to offspring even of the same set of parents (your second point), and
3. Unique genotypes are not transmitted to subsequent generations (by definition),
THEN,
1. Individual fitness is not transmitted to subsequent generations, i.e., fitness is not heritable in the same sense that individual traits are heritable.
The best formulation of natural selection, which has come to my attention, is given by John Endler in his 1986 book, Natural Selection in the Wild. It carefully avoids the stigma of a tautology by stating,

IF, within a species or population, the individuals
1. Vary in some attribute or trait q (physiological, morphological, or behavioral) – the condition of variation;
2. Leave different numbers of offspring in consistent relation to the presence or absence of trait q – the condition of selection differences;
3. Transmit the trait q faithfully between parents and offspring – the condition of heredity;
THEN,
1. The frequency of trait q will differ predictably between the population of all parents and the population of all offspring.

If conclusion 1 in my syllogism above is correct, then Endler’s condition B must be voided. Individuals do not leave different numbers of offspring in consistent relation to the presence or absence of trait q. And, barring condition B, Endler’s formulation of natural selection fails.

Dr. Ayala, my questions are two:
1. What, if any, logical flaw do you find in my syllogism above?
2. Are you aware of any formulation of natural selection which can survive the loss of a consistent relation between the number of offspring produced by an individual and the presence or absence of a trait q in that same individual?
Thank you again for encouraging my interest in this matter.

Sincerely,
Jim Pamplin

July 13, 2006
Dear Mr. Pamplin:

Endler's second condition (B in your letter) is is correct as confirmed by thousands of experiments in nature and the laboratory (including many by myself).

Sincerely yours,
Francisco Ayala

July 14, 2006
Dear Dr. Ayala,

Thank you for communicating with me again about this fascinating subject. I appreciate your kindness very much.

I think you may agree that Endler's condition B (individuals leave different numbers of offspring in consistent relation to the presence or absence of a trait q ) pertains only under conditions and to the extent that the rule of your first point is suspended, (short-circuiting my syllogism and its conclusion that fitness is not heritable in the same sense that genetic traits are heritable). An individual's fitness depends on its unique allelic mix (your first point) unless the influence of one allelic contest (for example trait q versus q' ) overwhelms and suppresses the combined effect of genetic differences at thousands of other loci. Only when the selectivity of a trait q is so great as to overshadow the influence of many other genetic differences, will individuals leave different numbers of offspring in consistent relation to the presence or absence of trait q.

This is important because it shows that very low profile allelic contests, and indeed contests between whole unique genomes, are sometimes suppressed by high profile, high selection trait competitions. In fact, as you have pointed out, there are thousands of examples of this condition in nature and in the laboratory.

I would venture to guess that most high selection trait competitions are between wild traits and their catastrophic or debilitating mutant variations.

It is my understanding that a large majority of mutations are very close to neutral in terms of selection. And yet these are the grist of the cumulative natural selection processes to which biological complexity is attributed. Of necessity, the fine tuning of genes coding for highly complex biochemical pathways and their regulatory control systems must involve innumerable small steps of low selection if such systems are to be explained naturalistically. (The accidental occurrence of high selection genetic innovations to create such complexity would challenge the probabilistic resources of the universe and invoke Miracles.)

So, it appears to me we are caught on the horns of a dilemma:
• On the one hand, in thousands of examples, high selection trait competitions mask and overwhelm low profile allelic competitions, suppressing the possibility of cumulative natural selection leading to biological complexity.
• On the other hand, where high selection trait competitions are absent, the rule of your first point applies. Now, the selection of whole unique genomes masks low profile allelic differences, and again, the possibility of cumulative natural selection by small steps is suppressed.
This goes to the heart of the resolving power of natural selection. If low selection genetic differences cannot be teased out from under the umbrella of larger contests to experience the scrutiny of natural selection, they cannot participate in cumulative selection to achieve biological complexity.

So, my question is-
1. in the face of overwhelming competition from high selection allelic contests on the one hand,
2. and in the face of overwhelming competition between whole unique genomes on the other hand,
how can natural selection achieve the resolving power necessary to create highly complex biological systems?

Very Sincerely,
Jim Pamplin

July 14, 2006
Dear Mr. Pamplin:

I regret that I don't have the time to engage in discussion/tutorial with each of the many people who write me with questions/challenges about the theory of evolution. I usually briefly respond to the first query, but not to the ensuing ones.

I will only add that your "guess" in paragraph four is mistaken.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco Ayala

July 14, 2006
Thank you, Dr. Ayala,

I understand, and appreciate your having made these exceptions.

Best Wishes.
Jim Pamplin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXC-AzsAmA

Why Are So Many Kids Identifying as Trans? | Miriam Grossman, M.D. | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 220 “We are creating a generation of young people who are sterile,” says Miriam Grossman, M.D., a psychiatrist who has refused to submit to what she describes as...

https://thegrandexperiment.vhx.tv/products

TheGrandExperiment Most are not aware that many evolution scientists who report they have found an ape-man blatantly deny access to their colleagues who want to inspect the fossils but might have a different view. This has been an ongoing problem for the last 130 years and includes the most famous ape-men such as N...

Bat Evolution from "Evolution: The Grand Experiment" by Dr. Carl Werner.

Bat Evolution from Evolution: The Grand Experiment From the documentary "Evolution: The Grand Experiment" based on the popular book/eBook series under the same title by Dr. Carl Werner. You may order at Amazo...

Proverbs 26:4 says,
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 says,
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Do these two verses contradict one another?
The second law of logic, known by the (seemingly contradictory) titles, the “law of contradiction” and the “law of non-contradiction,” says, “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, in the same place, in the same sense.” Consider the different senses of these two verses.
Proverbs 26:4 warns against arguing with a fool according to his folly, (using his unsupported assumptions and flawed logic), lest we become like him.
In counterpoint, Proverbs 26:5 charges us with correcting a fool according to his folly, (exposing his unsupported assumptions and flawed logic), lest he be wise in his own conceit. This is like a building inspector touring a new construction, documenting code violations.

https://www.oatext.com/health-effects-in-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-children-with-covariates-for-breastfeeding-status-and-type-of-birth.php I just now found this paper published by Open Access Text. For more about OAT, check out Open Access Text for Public Good

OA Text is an independent open-access scientific publisher showcases innovative research and ideas aimed at improving health by linking research and practice to the benefit of society. It is committed to providing a 'peer reviewed' platform to outstanding researchers and scientists to exhibit their findings. It publishes original research, analyses and reviews, news, practice updates and thought-provoking editorials.

Health effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth OA Text is an independent open-access scientific publisher showcases innovative research and ideas aimed at improving health by linking research and practice to the benefit of society.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models

Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models Average warming of the climate system over the past five decades has been widely attributed to greenhouse gas emissions—primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)—from the burning of fossil fuels. This belief has led to calls for greatly reducing humanity’s reliance on such fuels and a transition to “re...

DARK HUMOR:
My daughter, Holly, showed me a couple of X posts about the prospects of a civil war here in the States. The first one said (quoting from memory,)
"If we have a civil war, it won't be the North against the South this time. It will be Americans versus Democrats."
The second one said, " I'm not worried about a civil was. Half of the 81 million people who voted for Biden are dead and don't exist. The other half can't figure out what gender they are."
It pays to find a little levity in these troubling times. Please pray for our country. And please pray for the State of Texas and all the other states whose governors are signing on in support of Texas' right to defend itself against invasion. Please pray for all the truckers, U.S. and Canadian, and for all the law-enforcement officers and ex-military who are flocking to Texas to show their support. Pray Biden et al don't use this as an excuse for marshal law, interdiction, January 6-style persecution writ-large, and other hostilities.
Remember the Alamo! (Let's pray there won't be another one!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP08sIKXdLE

Sebastian Gorka explains why America - and the world - needs President Trump back in office Sebastian Gorka speaks in opposition of the motion that This House Fears the Return of Trump's America. Mr Gorka is a broadcaster and commentator with a show...

https://getdebunked.org/d10

D10 Don't Judge — DeBunked Does the Bible teach Christians not to judge? What does Jesus really say about judging? Is it always wrong to judge? Lots of people tell us not to judge (which is judging), mostly because they take Matthew 7:1-5 out of context. So, it’s time to take a look (again) at this newly revamped DeBunked V...

https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/upcoming-livestream

UPCOMING LIVESTREAMS | Logos Research This presentation is about affirming both the reality and the biblical importance of Adam and Eve. Christians are split between the liberal camp, who tend to brush off Adam and Eve (as well as many other parts of the Bible) and the biblical camp who takes Adam and Eve seriously, along with the rest....

When we find an anthropic coincidence whose parameter exhibits a narrow life-critical tolerance, that coincidence needs explaining. There are two and only two possible explanations: Chance; and non-Chance (Intentional Causation). Probability favoring the Chance explanation is the life-critical tolerance itself. Probability favoring the non-Chance explanation is 100% minus the probability favoring the Chance explanation.
For example, suppose Earth's orbital radius from the Sun cannot vary by more that +/- 5%, or there could be no liquid water on the planet, and therefore no life. The tolerance band width would be [5%+5% = 10%], so the probability favoring the Chance explanation would be 10%. Probability favoring the non-Chance (Intentional Causation) explanation would be (100% - 10%) = 90%.
This principle applies to all legitimate anthropic coincidences, rendering Intentional Causation far and away the best explanation for how and why life exists.
John 1:1-5; 7-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all!