Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

Simple... information is not material. Information is not the alphabet, but you can code information by using the various letters.In the case of DNA, the *information is a set of instructions. *Nucleotide sequence is a material thing. *It is sugar. Sugar contains no info. Ink contains no information. Chalk contains no information. But you can use those things to write a code and provide information / ideas / instructions.*Comparing nucleotide sequences to Morse code..... . There is information coded into the sugar, and the flashing light. But, it would be silly to claim that more sugar ( or light flashes) is more info. *Those are only the material things used by the code makers.*

So what you are saying is there is only semantic information, that all other measures of information are false (should I notify the Nobel association?).

I guess this also means that there is no objective way to measure said information and thus no way to objectively say if it had gone up or down. Unless you also have a method in mind?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Soon?

Yes, alwight, soon!

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes, alwight, soon!

*Terms and conditions apply: soon is only meant as a guide. Prediction warranty voided if "soon" takes more than 10 years.

 

[alwight]

 

[MichaelCadry]

Neither are the fairies at the bottom of my garden Michael.

I don't have fairies in my garden. I don't believe in 'fairies.' I believe in angels and servants of God. I try to follow the Lord and have done so to the best of my heart's content.

Michael

 

[alwight]

I don't have fairies in my garden. I don't believe in 'fairies.' I believe in angels and servants of God. I try to follow the Lord and have done so to the best of my heart's content.

Michael

We are both afairyists Michael.

 

[6days]

*So what you are saying is there is only semantic information, that all other measures of information are false (should I notify the Nobel association?).*

Ha... no need to notify them. They likely all agree with me. Information is a non material thing. You could memorize the encylopedia over night, but you still weigh the same the following morning.

*I guess this also means that there is no objective way to measure said information and thus no way to objectively say if it had gone up or down. Unless you also have a method in mind?

Hmmmm.... I would partially agree with you in that it can sometimes be subjective. However when we see biryh defects, we know that genetic information was corrupted. And, we don't need to know how much information the genome contains to notice an overall loss of fitness. (Likely all geneticists would agree that there is an overall loss of fitness to the human genome but have varying methods of trying to measure it).*

 

[Tyrathca]

Ha... no need to notify them. They likely all agree with me. Information is a non material thing. You could memorize the encylopedia over night, but you still weigh the same the following morning.

I think you are missing the point that you are defining information to only mean one thing and disregarding all other measures or types of information to be irrelevant or false.

Hmmmm.... I would partially agree with you in that it can sometimes be subjective.

"Sometimes"? Either you have a way to objectively measure information or you don't. Sometimes subjective would mean that you DON'T have an objective way to measure it and say when it is objectively more or less.

However when we see biryh defects, we know that genetic information was corrupted. And, we don't need to know how much information the genome contains to notice an overall loss of fitness.

But we are talking about loss of information here not increases or decreases in fitness (since you already agree that organisms can "evolve" greater fitness from "kinds"). And a birth defect is by definition a change that leads to worse fitness (in our current environment) so limiting your comment to birth defects is silly and also still subjective since in a different environment some birth "defects" could be beneficial (and many aren't even caused by genetics anyway)

(Likely all geneticists would agree that there is an overall loss of fitness to the human genome but have varying methods of trying to measure it).*

Actually more likely is all geneticists would think you are a fool who doesn't understand even high school biology education on the subject. If they do agree with you then surely they would have devised a method of measuring it that agrees with you (and is objectively better than any other methods that don't agree with you)



So what we have still is you still claiming information decreases but now trying to conflate information and fitness in order to obsfucate the fact that you actually have no method of measure information that would agree with your conclusions or show how you came to that conclusion to begin with. Come on, you talk so much about how science agrees with you but where is your science?

 

[6days]

I think you are missing the point that you are defining information to only mean one thing and disregarding all other measures or types of information to be irrelevant or false.

If you disagree *with what I said....then explain.*

Either you have a way to objectively measure information or you don't. Sometimes subjective would mean that you DON'T have an objective way to measure it and say when it is objectively more or less.

That may be good informationyou just, Tyrathca, but how do you measure it?*

*But we are talking about loss of information here not increases or decreases in fitness

*

Decreases of fitness are often related to mutations which have destroyed genetic information. Increases of fitness often also are caused by a loss of genetic info. ( organisms highly adapted to a specific environment often are less fit *than parent populations).*


As geneticist John Sanford says, " I am not convinced that there is a single crystal clear example have a known mutation which unambiguously Created information".*

(since you already agree that organisms can "evolve" greater fitness from "kinds").

Ha.... that seems like a wee bit of misrepresentation. **

If the dog "kind" is represented by a creature like a wolf.....And, wiener dogs "evolved" from the wolf..... I suppose we could say a wiener dog has greater fitness for surving in my home, as opposed to the wolf. But, its often easy to show that the "evolved" population has lost genetic information and variability.*

Likely all geneticists would agree that there is an overall loss of fitness to the human genome but have varying methods of trying to measure it

*Actually more likely is all geneticists would think you are a fool who doesn't understand even high school biology education on the subject.

ad hominem is often used by someone who is unable to counter an argument with logic or facts.*

Example of an evolutionist / geneticist agreeing with what I said: J.F.Crow in PNAS 97 " the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 to 2% per generation.... I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but with a much longer fuse"

[Come on, you talk so much about how science agrees with you but where is your science?

No.... But I have said that science and God's Word are always in agreement.

Examples:

Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."

Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU

Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

Cornell geneticist, Dr. John Sanford "An axiomatic statement often repeated by biologists is: “Nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution”. However, nothing could be further from the truth! I believe that apart from ideology, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of design”.

In the beginning, God created.

 

[Jose Fly]

Simple... information is not material. Information is not the alphabet, but you can code information by using the various letters.In the case of DNA, the *information is a set of instructions. *Nucleotide sequence is a material thing. *It is sugar. Sugar contains no info. Ink contains no information. Chalk contains no information. But you can use those things to write a code and provide information / ideas / instructions.*Comparing nucleotide sequences to Morse code..... . There is information coded into the sugar, and the flashing light. But, it would be silly to claim that more sugar ( or light flashes) is more info. *Those are only the material things used by the code makers.*

So let's take the example of microsatellites. For the most part, they don't code for anything nor do they regulate anything. They're nothing more than short repetitive sequences, like AGAGAGAGAGAGAG over and over.

By what you said above, we shouldn't expect microsats to contain any genetic information at all, right? Except it turns out they do. They're quite useful in determining parentage, e.g., paternity tests. They're also very useful in forensics. You know when a geneticist testifies that they matched the sample to the suspect with 99.95% likelihood? More often than not they matched microsat regions.

How can that be if they contain no information at all?

 

[Jose Fly]

And once again, we see 6days cite John Sanford as some sort of authority. That's interesting, given the following (which I've posted 3 times now and 6days has ignored it each time)...

I love it when you cite John Sanford! :up: I just wonder if you even understand how he serves as a perfect walking, breathing illustration of the utility of evolutionary theory and the vacuousness of creationism. Let's see...

Remember THIS INTERVIEW with Dr. Sanford you posted previously? I covered it before but you bailed on the thread without responding. Anyways, as Dr. Sanford explains, he used to be an "evolutionist" and that was when he did all his productive work, e.g., those 80 peer reviewed papers you like to cite as well as inventing the gene gun. Let's make no mistake...that's a very impressive body of work...all done while armed with the understanding of evolutionary theory. Then Dr. Sanford "came to believe in God" but kept contributing to science, until as he explains...

"still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history."​

Then he describes how he stopped doing science. He claimed at that time he was ready to re-enter the scientific world, but looking through the literature I don't see where he's contributed anything since his conversion.

So when we look at Dr. Sanford's history, we see...

Years as an "evolutionist" = steady production and contributions to science

Becomes a creationist = scientific contributions stop

Do you understand the significance of that? When he utilized evolutionary theory to inform him on how things are related, how they work, and how they came to be, he was extremely productive. But as soon as he dropped evolutionary theory and replaced it with (as you like to say) "in the beginning God created", his scientific productivity comes to a complete halt.

I don't know if anyone could have made up such a perfect illustration of just how useful evolutionary theory is, and how empty creationism is. Fortunately, we don't have to make up such a person....John Sanford is a living, breathing illustration of those things.

 

[Jose Fly]

One other thing on this "copies don't add information" thing.

Polyploidy is when an organism adds copies of its chromosomes. So if an organism has say, 14 chromosomes, a polyploid would end up with 28.

According to 6days, because the extra chromosomes are merely copies, they don't add any "new information". If that were the case, we wouldn't expect any phenotypic (physical) differences between the regular organisms and the polyploids, right? However, as the link above describes, there are plenty of examples where the polyploid "is more vigorous and healthy" than its parents.

How can that be if the "information content" of the parents and the polyploids are the same? :think:

 

[6days]

And once again, we see 6days cite John Sanford as some sort of authority.

Actually he IS *an authority.*

I love it when you cite John Sanford!

I'm surprised. I can cite him more often if you wish.*

Anyways, as Dr. Sanford explains, he used to be an "evolutionist"

True... He says "‘I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being."

those 80 peer reviewed papers you like to cite as well as inventing the gene gun. Let's make no mistake...that's a very impressive body of work...all done while armed with the understanding of evolutionary theory.

* 80 peer reviewed articles

* 32 scientific patents

* Founded 2 biotech companies

Rather than your spin... his words...

"An axiomatic statement often repeated by biologists is: “Nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution”. However, nothing could be further from the truth! I believe that apart from ideology, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of design”.

‘We cannot really explain how any biological system might have “evolved”, but we can all see that virtually everything we look at has extraordinary underlying design.

‘I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory. But after the fact, real advances in science are systematically given an evolutionary spin. This reflects the pervasive politicization of science."

Then he describes how he stopped doing science. He claimed at that time he was ready to re-enter the scientific world, but looking through the literature I don't see where he's contributed anything since his conversion.*

You are spinning things and creating things Jose. *What year did Sanford become a Christian? I think it was about '85. He did make a journey from about 1985 as an atheiest...to theistic evolution...then old earth creation...to being a Biblicsl creationist. *He semi retired in 98 but continued on as an associate professor at Cornell, and may still hold that position. He totally rejected Darwinian evolution and common ancestry beliefs in the year 2000.

His words....
"Late in my career, I did something that would seem unthinkable for a Cornell professor. I began to question the primary axiom (common ancestry beliefs). I did this with great fear and trepidation. I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" with in modern academia. Among other things it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.... it would mean stepping out of the safety of my own little niche.... to my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly great and unassailable fortress which has been built up around (common ancestry beliefs) is really a house of cards"

Since you say that you love when i cite Sanford...." I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory".*

And.....
"Even as we can not create life, we cannot defeat death. Yes I have heard there is One who did create life and who designed the genome. I do not know how I did it, but somehow surely he made the hardware and he surely must have written the original software. He is called the author of life... I believe that apart from Jesus there is no hope. He gave us life in the first place, so he can give us new life today.

 

[6days]

She may think all of those things, but unlike in geology, she isn't qualified to give an expert view on any of them.

And quite possibly she is unqualified to to give expert views on our origins since she rejects Genesis. I would rather accept expert views from geologists, who accept God's Word.*


You see Greg..... it isn't really a battle of science. Its a battle between 2 opposing histories. And, whichever history you accept as truth determinea how you interpret the data.*

And why didn't you answer my questions about geology?

Because we wern't discussing geology. Greg..... it seems you get what you think is a good argument from some atheist site...then you jump in here and are dismayed to find your argument was lacking...so you jump to a new topic.*

Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood), then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on.

Greg.... your argument seems to be yet another where you think you have a "gotcha'... yet have no idea of what tbe flood *model says. Yes, the various layers including volcanic are consistent with what we would expect in the flood model. Also the evidence of rapid uplift, folding / warping of layers before the rock was hardened, polystrate fossils etc etc *There are dozens of evidences including the *billions of dead things everywhere on earth which were rapidly covered and preserved in waterborn sediment. *


There are numerous articles you can google from christian geologusts if you really want to learn how the evidence in the real world best fits the creation / flood model.

 

[Greg Jennings]

And quite possibly she is unqualified to to give expert views on our origins since she rejects Genesis. I would rather accept expert views from geologists, who accept God's Word.*

I think she has more than enough qualifications in the form of rather impressive degrees as well as being a part of who knows how many projects and field studies over the decades. But of course, leave it to a YEC who has never taken a college science course to question the scientific credibility of a respected geology professor at a university with a proud science program. Once more shows your complete ignorance of reality here.

And how many YEC geologists even exist? I mean after the early 1900s. Because as you know, the entire field of geology started out by presupposing a literal flood story, as you do. Then slowly they gathered enough evidence to unquestionably say that the way the world is set up geologically, a global flood and 6000 year old Earth make no sense. Tell me 6days, if YECs are right then why did geology start out all-YEC and grow to be entirely non-YEC? What besides overwhelming physical evidence will you blame that on? I can't wait

You see Greg..... it isn't really a battle of science. Its a battle between 2 opposing histories. And, whichever history you accept as truth determinea how you interpret the data.*

Keep telling yourself that. Despite what AiG told you, evolution isn't some "idea" and Genesis isn't some "history."

Because we wern't discussing geology. Greg..... it seems you get what you think is a good argument from some atheist site...then you jump in here and are dismayed to find your argument was lacking...so you jump to a new topic.*

I'd love to know what defines "atheist site." Does that mean a university affiliated webpage complete with source citations? Because that's what I normally like to provide you with information from. I'm sorry it disagrees with your absurd creation myth, but science doesn't truly care for how a belief makes you feel. It's about reality, and that's why YEC is rapidly dying out as a taken-literally creation belief. Not everyone is as gullible as you

Greg.... your argument seems to be yet another where you think you have a "gotcha'... yet have no idea of what tbe flood *model says. Yes, the various layers including volcanic are consistent with what we would expect in the flood model. Also the evidence of rapid uplift, folding / warping of layers before the rock was hardened, polystrate fossils etc etc *There are dozens of evidences including the *billions of dead things everywhere on earth which were rapidly covered and preserved in waterborn sediment. *


There are numerous articles you can google from christian geologusts if you really want to learn how the evidence in the real world best fits the creation / flood model.

Post an article explaining how layers made entirely of only one rock type were laid down one by one, each with their own different cache of fossil life with species that don't appear in any other layers, in one giant great flood. I'll be delighted to pick it apart for you.



Oh and btw, you answered my post from another thread here. You're in over your head with so many different people that you can't even keep your threads straight :chuckle:

 

[Tyrathca]

Actually he IS *an authority.*

But is his first name Steve? No, no it is not. So he is not much of an impressive authority is he?

* 80 peer reviewed articles

* 32 scientific patents

* Founded 2 biotech companies

Can you honestly say this is why you listen to his opinion and why we should too? Is this why you believe him over almost any other published scientist?

‘I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory. But after the fact, real advances in science are systematically given an evolutionary spin. This reflects the pervasive politicization of science.

Unlike Mr Sanford I work in one of those fields. He is wrong. He's wrong about several of them actually.

But given we are just swapping opinions from people of supposed authority why bother with actual evidence? You don't care about that stuff anyway.

 

[DavisBJ]

Googling “Christian Geologists”

… There are numerous articles you can google from Christian geologists if you really want to learn how the evidence in the real world best fits the creation / flood model.

I agree with you, 6days. Let’s see what google gives us. The first responses to Googling “Christian Geologists” were:

1st google response was titled: “A Christian Geologist Tells His Story”, at (http://geochristian.com/2013/03/18/a-christian-geologist-tells-his-story/). Quoting from that site:

“Many Christian geologists I know began their undergraduate geological training as young-Earth creationists (YECs). They entered their studies having been equipped by reading YEC classics such as The Genesis Flood and Scientific Creationism, had a whole stack of Institute for Creation Research Acts & Facts “Impact” articles, and were certain that they would set the geological world straight.

None of the Christian geologists I know personally were still YECs when they graduated.”​

2nd google response was titled “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting”, at (http://www.icr.org/article/christian-geologists-influential-at/). This is an ICR article by Steven Austin.

Before looking at Austin’s article, what is the GSA? The GSA is the “Geological Society of America.” Referring to the GSA homepage (http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/intro.htm) to find out about the GSA itself, I find this:

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA​

The Geological Society of America is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of the geosciences. … GSA is the first enduring society for the geosciences in America. …GSA is an expanding global membership society with more than 25,000 members in more than 100 countries.”​

Now on to what Dr. Austin has to say. A short ways into the article, he says this:

Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Christian geologists also expressed themselves through an organization within GSA called Affiliation of Christian Geologists. Around 40 GSA members attended the evening meeting on October 18, approximately one third of whom were young-earth creationists. This shows that there are many within the GSA that take seriously the creation and Flood narrative text of the Bible.”​

Dr. Austin’s wording is interesting. One third of the 40 attendees (say 14 people) were young earth creationists. Wow, 14 people, out of the more than 25,000 members in the GSA!!! According to Dr. Austin that shows that “many within the GSA” are YECs????

Notice Dr. Austin did not say how many, if any, of that “one third” were in fact members of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. Maybe they were there to contend with the views of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. I note this because of this statement that is on the Affiliation of Christian Geologists website (http://www2.wheaton.edu/ACG/):

Statement on the Physical Age of the Earth and Universe
by the Affiliation of Christian Geologists​

“The Affiliation of Christian Geologists is committed to the historic Christian faith and to its meaningful integration with the best available science. This effort reflects our desire to serve God with all our minds. Data from science also help us to serve our neighbors and to care for God’s creation.
…
Beginning in the mid-1600’s, geologists and astronomers (including many Christians) have consistently found that the scientific evidence clearly favors a vast age for the earth and the universe. Current scientific calculations indicate that the universe began about 13 billion years ago and the earth about 4.6 billion years ago. These conclusions are based on cumulative evidence and are refined with each new study. …

Although Scripture contains essential information on origins that gives meaning and perspective, technical details of the method and timing of creation are not major concerns of the Biblical text, and many orthodox theologians do not see a conflict between the Bible and an old creation.”​

But are the Old Earth attitudes of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists typical of the parent geological organization – the GSA? At this GSA site (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm) we find an article titled:

The evolution of creationism​

“…When geologists unequivocally dismissed the idea of a global flood and recognized Earth’s antiquity, many conservative theologians acknowledged that there was more to the past than literally spelled out in Genesis, the opening chapter of the Bible. But some Christians—those we now call creationists—rejected this perspective and chose to see geology as a threat to their faith. In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks don’t lie.”​

To avoid violating TOL rules on excessively long quotes from other sources, I will skip to a quote summarizing the remainder of the article:

“By the end of the nineteenth century, conservative Christians generally accepted that there was no geological support for reading Noah’s Flood as a globe-wrecking deluge and that natural revelations established by science should guide biblical interpretation. Even the original fundamentalists accepted geologic evidence that contradicted the view of a six-day creation followed by Noah’s Flood as all there was to earth history (Numbers, 1993). But the forerunners of modern creationists chose to defend their preferred literal reading of scripture no matter what the rocks revealed. Dismissing the findings of geologists, they rejected reason in the name of faith. In this sense, modern creationism evolved in response to geological discoveries. The following brief review traces aspects of this story to illustrate how geological debates evolved into theological schisms anchored by creationist views with no scientific currency.”​

The article is moderately long and detailed, and it is focused on the sad history of theological extremism that 6days typifies. If is a very good read.

3rd google Response is the homepage of Affiliation of Christian Geologists that leads to the “Statement on the Physical Age of the Earth and Universe” quoted above.

4th google response is to a PDF file from Biologos that follows in the same vein as the above – that YEC views on geology, no matter how sincere, serve to dishonor the very meaning of truth.

I will stop there. The next few google sites likewise decry YEC ideas on geology. It is now up to 6days to show us where in fact google shows that Christian geologists have data that supports the YEC stance.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Wow that's a lot of free time to spend each day on things like TOL.
*Sigh* OK here is the direct link (the data was under Climatological Data -> Snow -> 6 inch or more snow storms at http://www.weather.gov/okx/centralparkhistorical but here is the direct link to the pdf

So far as I can tell there is no online way to access a copy of that edition of the New York Post. The only place I could find even a physical copy is on microfilm at the New York Public Library, not somewhere I'm likely to be any time soon.

This was after checking multiple sources including the New York Post themselves, the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress. If you find somewhere to check it let me know but as it stands I still think that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a more reliable source regardless (weather is kind of their job).
You really think the world would be convinced by you predicting how much snow there would be, if the story were published?

I never knew the world held weathermen in such high esteem.....

Tyrathca,

I guess the only way we'll find out is if I can display the copy of the New York Post article on March 4, 1978 {the snow happened on the 3rd} somewhere here or provide a link to it somehow. I don't see how I could post it on this TOL site. We'll see.

I'll take that as a prediction that the apocalypse will happen sometime in the next decade. not exactly what I was expecting when you said extremely soon but I guess I can't expect too much of you given your poor record at sharing gods plans.


Michael something I've been wondering... You clearly have not been very successful as a prophet of your god, your message has not spread far and if the apocalypse does come I doubt many if any will even look back and realise you were right (assuming it happens in the next 10 years). You also blame the devil for giving you false messages or something for why you made you incorrect prediction before. Has it ever occurred to you that it was the devil all along who made you think you were a special and a prophet? You've already said you have a hard time telling the difference (given past false predictions). Not that I believe there is a devil to fool you but your single minded confidence in your anointed status in the face of decades of overwhelming failure is curious to say the least.

You don't realize how successful I've been as a prophet or not. I've done pretty well, except for a couple mistakes. I'm only human, remember. I have been more successful than you know. No, I don't think that devil gave me my calling to be a witness/ prophet. Only by God, and of that I am positive. My message certainly isn't known worldwide, but it is written that Jesus will return as 'a thief in the night.' If everyone was convinced of my story, then He wouldn't come as a thief in the night, because the world would expect Him. There's a lot more going on than you realize. There is much more which I could not share on TOL. You'll just have to be surprised like everyone else, most likely. And I will not prophecy when it will happen. It could be less than a decade, or more. No man knows, not even Jesus, except God the Father, when that time shall be. I am not putting any date on it any longer. I've learned my lesson.

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

*Terms and conditions apply: soon is only meant as a guide. Prediction warranty voided if "soon" takes more than 10 years.

It is highly improbable that it will take even more than 1/3 of that time, to say the least. Like I said, no man knows when. We can see by the signs going on in the world today and can realize that it will be soon. God works according to His Own timetable.

Michael

 

[alwight]

It is highly improbable that it will take even more than 1/3 of that time, to say the least. Like I said, no man knows when. We can see by the signs going on in the world today and can realize that it will be soon. God works according to His Own timetable.

Michael

Raptureists seem to be looking for "signs", they want there to be "signs" because they desperately want Armageddon to happen and almost anything could be a "sign" for them.
What exactly is a "sign" rather than just normal earthly activity?
Why would you pin all your hopes on Armageddon happening rather than living this life and deal with the real problems of this life, rather than an imaginary one? :idunno: