Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Bill pontificates: "Finally, Randy B neglected to inform his readers of the inconvenient fact that various studies, i.e. Archer et al. (1995), demonstrated that the Spirorbis, Naiadites, and other brackish to saline water fossils are restricted to very thin stratigraphic intervals within the thousands of feet of strata comprising the Joggin strata...."Randy: Bill, I have NEVER claimed that my paper was an EXHAUSTIVE report of this strata -- that included every paper published on it, or even ALL of the most "convenient" and up-to-date ones...And the fact that "Spirorbis.... fossils are restricted to very thin ... intervals..." proves simply that the Old (freshwater) "river floodplain" scenario is FALSE. Also, in light of Calder's assertion that the sedimentation here was virtually "continuous" seems to add weight to my assertion that there wasn't very much time for the growing of any trees here, but rather only their almost continual deposition.Bill continues: This fact is important because the restricted occurrence of such so-called salt water fossilsRandy: "so-called" -- your Bias is showing Bill -- as they are, in fact, clearly of "salt water" origin as is well documented.Bill continues: "...demonstrate the brackish and saline environments"Randy: That there was mixing of both freshwater and salt-water environments -- something that would occurr if Ocean currents were invloved; however, in this location not as much as occurred in various locations in the United States.Bill: "... associated with these fossils existed for only very brief intervals during the accumulation of the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia."Randy: I suppose we will just have to disagree on this point, as I believe that highly fragmented nature of the stigmaria roots and broken off rootlets -- in conjuntion with the glaring missing (and/ or terminated) root problem wih MANY of the upright, and fallen over, and oblique, and even upside down trees (that are found throughout approx 2500 feet of this strata)-- clearly demonstrates that (most likely) none of the fossil plants that were buried here also grew here.Randy

Re: the 25 foot tree:Bill Birkeland: "I suspect that this is not a direct observation of the height of the polystrate trees at Joggins by Charles Schuchert. Given that this is a textbook, I suspect that he is merely repeating the observations published in the literature about the 25-foot high polystrate,"Randy: And in this I agree with you Bill. As Charles Schuchert was good friends of A.W. Bell, and "oversaw" or aided Bell in (at least) one of the papers that he wrote on the Fossil Trees of (I believe) the Horton Bluff area. At any rate, during this time Bell was actually working out of the same University where Schuchert was teaching at and they were very likely good friend. You will also note that it was in one of Bells papers where I first because aware of these two fossil trees (which I also give reference to). Therefore it seems likely that Schuchert either got his information from Bell, or read it himself in Dawsons papers. If he got it from Bell though, apparently Bell didn't tell him about the (alleged)upright 40 foot fossil tree.However, I also give reference to a similar (at least) 38 foot upright tree that was buried in similar Coal Measure strata in England. So, it seems reasonable to me that such could also occur at Joggins. But perhaps Gesner just made it up... We may never know for certain unles we find another (similar) one.Randy

Bill Pontificates: "Apparently, Dawson did not see any 25-foot high polystrate trees. Rather, he incorporated Lyell’s report of this polystrate tree into his descriptions...."Sorry Bill, but this tree was included in Dawsons bed by bed review that, he himself, conducted of this strata, and in which he documents just about every fossil he encountered -- including the 25 foot "erect" tree. So your problem is NOT with me but with Dawson himself. However, considering Dawsons own Bias in your favor, his documentation of such a tree seems to suggest that he actually saw it (or at least thought he saw it) -- but perhaps he only imagined it in a dream that he thought was real.Bottom Line is that we have at least two different witnesses who (at least claimed to) have seen 25 foot and 40 foot upright fossil trees in the Joggins strata, but since we don't have it on various different video tapes, it is (of course) questionable. For that matter neither do we have similar Documentation of any of the (supposed) millions and millions of creatures that (according to wishfull thinking anti-god philosophizers) changed slowly from one form into another. But we do have accounts of two different very "Dinosaur-like" Creatures that were living during the Time of Job -- at least according to the Old Book (see Job 40-41). But does that mean that they actually lived right along side of modern Man?Randy

Edge said: Here are a couple of websites regarding the Grand Canyon that I have found interesting over the years:Origin of the Grand Canyon - Index PageThis one describes how the actual carving of the canyon probably occurred.Response: This site states that the Colorado River carved the canyon; however any such scenario must also include the side canyons -- which could NOT have be carved by this River -- if (as appears doubtful) the C.R. did indeed carve it. Note also, that in MANY places the Side Canyons are almost as large as the main canyon. I believe that the whole thing was carved out (in short order) as the Ocean waters rushed off the continent and spilled over (from both sides of the cayon) into a large "crack" in the Earths crust.RB

Randy B. admitted in a prior post that: I also do not know anything about evaporites, so I will leave that question (that was also posed on this forum) to someone else.Jazzns said: How convienent. =)Nice to know my time putting together an argument was well spent.Response: I too have posed questions to this group (and others) that so far has not been (nor likely will be in any believable or demostatable way) addressed -- namely the rather impossible odds of (somehow) getting that first self-replicating cell going. This points us (or at least those who are willing) very clearly toward the virtual fact that we were ALL created by a being (i.e. God) who possesses a LOT of Intelligence and Power. Hard to imagine something more intelligent that us ("educated") men isn't it? Much less acknowledging that that same Being has already went out of His way to try and reach us -- via becoming a man (like us), and then...Randy B.

Edge said: And yet, with your admittedly selective references, you still claim that you have finally and completely refuted mainstream geologists? This is silly, Randy.Randy: Actually I (along with many others) only claim to have refuted the heart of evolution itself: See last paragraph and Links below it.However, unfortunately for the cause of science, many geologists themselves, seem to have as their AGENDA the (so called "absolute" proof that the earth is mythions or bythions of years old -- which is why they (almost always defend the teaching of evolutionary myths in public schools). I.E. They believe that Time is somehow on their side -- even though it isn't. They also ignore a massive amount of evidence which goes against their (old earth) theory, and a VERY recent extinction of the Dinosaurs.Note also that I DO NOT state that I KNOW with absolute certainty that the earth is young, or that the (present) evidence has conclusively proven such; however, neither do I believe that the present evidence (that has been told to us over and over and over again via books and TV specials for the past 100 years) proves that it is bythions (or even mythions) of years old.I do think that the Evolutionary scenario that is presently taught as if it were fact, is virtually bankrup as far as actually explaining how that first self-replicating cell (somehow -- against all "odds" and against the present laws of science) got itself going. And to call it "science" and then DEMAND that it be taught as such in our public classrooms, is not only dishonest, but deceptive and deceitful, for the simple reason that (based on what we already know about biology and physics) such (highly imaginative) scenarios are just that: someone's imagination running wild. In fact, in this regard (as far as we know) not even the most basic (8 amino-acid-long) homochiralic protein molecule has EVER been observed to form naturally -- much less 40,000 more complex ones (of 600 different types) -- along with a DNA Blueprint, and RNA (portable blueprint copier), Ribosome (blueprint reader / protein factory), cell membrane, etc. -- all in one little (most basic parasitic) self-replicating bacterium (i.e. mycoplasma).Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Chick.com: 404 error
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Cells.htmlTime to stop pretending to our kids like we KNOW all the answers, or that science supports evolution in any way shape or form.Randy B.

Randy: This site states that the Colorado River carved the canyon; however any such scenario must also include the side canyons -- which could NOT have be carved by this River...Edge: Of course not. They were carved by tributaries. They are still being carved by tributaries.Randy: Well, that was not the answer I received when I asked the Grand Canyon tourguide (what carved them) several years ago. Her answer was: "We don't know what carved the side canyons."Randy: -- if (as appears doubtful) the C.R. did indeed carve it. Note also, that in MANY places the Side Canyons are almost as large as the main canyon.Edge: An example please.Just go to the South rim and look around; or better yet, take a helicopter tour. They are all around and are QUITE LARGE and easy to see.Eddge: I know that I've asked you to be more specific about GC assertions in the past and been ignored, but as the eternal optimist, I will ask again. You do understand, of course that there are many side canyons and as they merge, the do result in large eroded areas. And all of the material from these side canyons was likewise removed by the CR. We can see this happening today.Randy: They Pray tell, what was it that eroded the 30-40 mile wide "canyon" of now missing sediments in Monument Valley -- that were once about 300 feet thick. All that is now left are Sandstone "Monument" Pillars that are 300 feet tall. The very fact that this area is so close to the Grand Canyon is also strong evidence that whatever MASSIVE amount of Water that eroded this "canyon" also eroded the Grand Canyon as well.In fact, I believe that the whole thing was carved out (in short order) as the Ocean waters rushed off the continent and spilled over (from both sides of the cayon) into a large "crack" in the Earths crust.Randy B.

Randy: However, unfortunately for the cause of science, many geologists themselves, seem to have as their AGENDA the (so called "absolute" proof that the earth is mythions or bythions of years old -- which is why they (almost always defend the teaching of evolutionary myths in public schools).Edge: Excuse me, but I would like to see your reference to mainstream scientist saying they have 'absolute proof' of anything. This is another strawman, Randy. 'Absolute proof' is your business, not ours. We do not represent that we know the ultimate truth. You do.Sure: Just look around at our public Schools, and what our kids are being taught in the name of "science" -- as if it were a FACT. Also, turn on your TV and watch almost any special having to do with Evolution or Archeology or our "Ancient Ancestors" etc. and how we are constantly being told that scientists KNOW that the earth is Mythions of years old, and that we "evolved" from pirmordial slime, or from a comet that struck the earth -- carrying organic life with it, etc., etc.I.E. They believe that Time is somehow on their side -- even though it isn't. They also ignore a massive amount of evidence which goes against their (old earth) theory, and a VERY recent extinction of the Dinosaurs.Such as?Glad you asked. Here are a few more Links:Proof for a Young Earth – Earth Age
What Happened to all the Dark Matter? – Earth Age
Is The Big Bang Real? – Earth Age
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age:
Ready Always to Give an Answer - Apologetics Press
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm
http://www.creationism.org/articles/DiscoverOpenLetter.htm
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park
Ready Always to Give an Answer - Apologetics Press
http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html
Page not found – Earth AgeRandy: Note also that I DO NOT state that I KNOW with absolute certainty that the earth is young, or that the (present) evidence has conclusively proven such;Edge: And yet you demand certainty from the mainstream.Randy: Actually I am just trying to get them to see that they don't have all the answers, nor do they know with near as much certainty as they claim, that the earth is "bythions of years" old -- and that they stop DEMANDING to force their one-sided opinions upon our children, and tell them that they evolved from primorial slime, and that (according to science) there is no God, and therefore no accountability for ones actions. In fact, according to such a view, everything is "relative" and there are No absolutes......however, neither do I believe that the present evidence (that has been told to us over and over and over again via books and TV specials for the past 100 years) proves that it is bythions (or even mythions) of years old.Edge: The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with you.Randy: Actually I believe it is roughly HALF of our scientists would say that they believe in a Creator of some kind. Whereas that number is about 90% of the population at large.
Page Not Found See also: Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age
Where we find:
"With that said I will openly state that I am among the (89%) majority 1 in the U.S.A. who believe that the earth and all of its complex life forms were designed and created by an intelligence far superior to our own, and that the evidence we have, when presented fairly and accurately, overwhelmingly (to put it mildly) supports the view of Special Creation.1. "Half in U.S. Believe in Creationism: Poll finds only 11 percent strictly adhere to evolution theory," San Francisco Chronicle, 9/13/93, p. A5; poll conducted by the Gallup Organization.I do think that the Evolutionary scenario that is presently taught as if it were fact,is virtually bankrup as far as actually explaining how that first self-replicating cell (somehow -- against all "odds" and against the present laws of science) got itself going.Edge them claims that: ...it is a scientific fact.Randy: By all means then, Please explain to us all how it is that a mycoplasma (or anything close to it) could possibly have evolved via the ordinary (non self-organizing) laws of nature?

Coal Formation:At: Page not found – Earth AgeIs found the following: with regard to a picture that is posted at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's AgeUpright Trees in CoalThe theory of coal formation is central to the Age of the Earth debate because it was used by German, English, Canadian, and American Lawyers and geologists during the early to middle 19th Century to convince the scientific communities of the world that the Earth had to be old -- much older than the 10,000 year Chronology which is portrayed in the Bible, and which (in the Old Testament Book of Job) also portrays and describes Dinosaurs living at the same time as Man. This is because there are places in Germany, Canada and the U.S. where multiple seams of coal occur, one on top of the other, separated by shales, sand- stones, clays and limestones -- usually in some type of sequential order (called a cyclothem) -- and especially since some locations have over 80 seams of coal (of various thicknesses). Therefore, according to the Peat Bog Theory, the time for these "forests" to grow upon the spot of their burial (in multiple peat bogs) and then to be covered up -- over and over and over again -- by the same types of sediments (surely) must have taken many hundreds of thousands (to millions) of years. This view also lends some support to the theory of evolution, however, time is simply not enough, as is discussed in other portions of this site.On the other hand, if these coals were the result of rafted in vegetation (via a major flood, or floods) -- and which were buried, again and again during one major event, then the coals need not have taken long to form, as they could do so via a single worldwide event which could have uprooted all of the vegetation upon the Earth's surface and buried it under sediments at various different times, perhaps only days apart.One of these views is (somewhat) compatible with the theory of evolution, and one is not. So if one is inclined to believe in evolution, then he or she would naturally lean toward believing in the peat bog theory of coal formation. However, for various reasons, this theory is losing ground today in favor of the allochthonous, drift, or alluvial theory (i.e. a Major Flood or floods), and that the coals are actually sedimentary deposits of mixed up and partially decomposed plant material.For example, the Peat Bog Theory asserts that one foot of coal represents about 10 feet of compressed peat. Since the seam in the drawing is about 2 feet thick, this would (in theory) represent about 20 feet of peat growth. Since peat grows at about 1 foot every 300-600 years, then 20 feet of peat would represent about 6,000 -- 12,000 years of peat growth. If such trees grew upon the spot where they were entombed, this would mean that they somehow persisted for this length of time without decaying or falling over, since the lower ones are all "rooted" below the coal. This poses a problem for the peat growth theory because trees are not known to live for 6,000 years. Also, by the size of their trunks, the trees in the drawing only appear to be about 100--200 years old. Therefore something really does appear to be wrong with this picture? Or just maybe, something is wrong with the peat-bog theory of coal formation.Various other instances of trees in coal have also been both documented and observed by other writers; a few are mentioned in my paper on "Fossil Forests" Parts 1 and 2 (Especially part two). One was reported to be 40 feet long and completely enclosed in a very thick coal seam. The author has also found various other instances of upright trees in coal that are from one to three feet thick. In fact, according to Kingsley it isn't all that uncommon. Below are a few links concerning Fossil Trees (and other artifacts) found in coal.See also Conifers and the Coal Question, and Other Articles on This Topic.Here are the actual Links:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/dana19.html
Best Online Casinos Canada 2022 | Real Money Canadian Gambling
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
EadsHome.com is available at DomainMarket.com. Call 888-694-6735
http://www.fullbooks.com/Town-Geology2.html
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/theory.html
http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/morwell18.html
Page not found – Exchanged Life Discipleship
Enlightened Phones – Mobile Phone Deals Blog Experts
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/coal.htmAnd below is another link to an upright tree in Coal -- with its roots missing. Funny how such finds only occurred in Germany or, in Old English -- before the comencement of the 20th Century.Also: Don't expect this to be published any time soon in the International Journal of Coal Geology, or Science, or Nature, or the Journal of Paleontology, or any "so-called" "reputable" "science" Journal in America, or England, or Germany... (France is a maybe).Oh I almost forgot, here's the Link:
Page not found – Earth AgeCheers,
Randy B.

John ? Said: "...You need to spend some time reading An Index to Creationist Claims and kent-hovind.com -.Randy: There goes your credibility John -- as I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from the Talkorigins web-site (and on several occasions) have had to "correct" Lies they were trying to pass off on the public as fact. I.E The picture of a Whale-with a leg growing out from it that they used to have a Link to, and the FALSE assertion that was made by Dr. Kent Simmons that was also (at one time) on their site about Millers Experiment. To their credit, however, they DID remove this -- AFTER I sent them an email version of this Page not found – Earth AgeIn fact it was also (indirectly) that site that caused me to first begin examining the (almost) baseless "claim" that the Joggins upright fossil trees were (or are) "in situ" -- and which I think is utterly FALSE. In that regard I am still hoping that someday Calder, or Gibling, or Gestaldo, or Ferguson, or MacRae will admit that (at least some) of the UPRIGHT trees in the Joggins and Sidney strata display NO SIGNS of ROOTS (or anything close to it) attached, and that there are throughout this strata broken and fragmented roots of stigmaria (very often missing their (once attached) rootlets -- something that Brown, and (a reluctant) Dawson, and Coffin, and Morris, and Juby have, themselves, have all done.Randy Berg

Edge ?: said: Sorry, Randy, but we have a pretty good idea, because it is going on today. To say that the side canyons were carved by receding flood waters is ridiculous in that they travel in so many directions including directions opposite to what one would expect. Basically, the canyons are formed by mass wasting from the walls and the material is then swept away by normal stream flows.Sorry Edge, but that just doesn't make any sense. They are simply TOO LARGE to have been carved out by such tiny trickles of water. In this regard so is the Main Canyon itself TOO LARGE to have been cut by such a tiny river as the Colorado -- even as the Toutle River DID NOT carve our the Large Canyon that it now occupies near Mt. Saint Helens. And in this regard we actually witnesses how this 17-mile long canyon was eroded in a single day.Here is some more on this:
"Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations. This deposit is up to 25 feet thick 10,11,12. The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This hot mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the "Little Grand Canyon" of the Toutle River." 10,11,12. The mass media and popular science publications have still not told the public what happened.1310. Ham, Ken, "I got excited at Mount St. Helens!," Creation Ex
Nihilo, Vol. 15, No, 3, June-Aug., 1993, pp. 14-19.
11. Austin, Steven A., "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe," 1994,
Institute for Creation Research, Santee CA, 92071, pp. 37-39, 94,
97-98.
12. Morris, John D., Ph.D. (geology), The Young Earth, 1994, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., pp. 106-107.
13. Pendick, Daniel, "Return to Mount St. Helens," Earth, April 1995,
pp. 22-33. This article shows a picture of the canyon taken from
about a mile away. No mention is made of the finely layered
laminations in the 11-page article.With regard to the 600 feet of layered strata, the article says: "The very top layer contains the occasional falls of ash that
rained down 15 years ago." p. 33. The 17 mile long canyon that rerouted to Toutle River is referred to as "the 17-mile-long
landslide that filled the Toutle River Valley." p. 33. NOVA also did a special on Mt. St. Helens, "Return to Mt. St. Helens,"
however, their coverage was just as pitiful. Passing mentions are made in "Mount St. Helens: Eruption and Recovery of a Volcano," by Rob Carson, 1990, 2000, Sasquach Books, Seattle, WA, 160 pp. See pages: 66, 72, 73, 102, 107, 109, 151, 152, 156. Passing mention is also made in "Mt St. Helens--in pictures: The Continuing Story, by James P. Quiring, 1994, KC Publications, Inc., See pp. 34, 39 and 42.Here are some links with more information, for those interested.
http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/geology/sld034.htm
Mount St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical CatastrophismNote also the the Large canyon was NOT carved by the small Toutle river although it does now flow through the middle of this canyon -- just as the Colorado River now flows through the Grand Canyon.Also, note that the Mississippi is at least 10 times bigger than the Colorado river, and yet it hasn't carved out any canyon to speak of. How do you explain that? Austins View makes a LOT more sense.PS: I also was well aware that Nevins changed his name to Austin. Big Deal.Randy Berg

Sorry I forgot to mention Bell, and Duff and Walton in my list of authors who have admitted that various (if not many) of the upright trees in the Joggins and/or Sydney strata are missing their roots.Randy B.

Bill Pontificates: Another reason that Young Earth creationists are held in such disrespect and disdain, and often regarded with great humor is that they cite resources that have been rendered obsolete and antiquated since their publication by subsequent research. That Randy B. recommends Dana's (1894) book only illustrates that a person has to ignore almost a century of research, except for...Sorry Bill, but you OFTEN have referred the reader to the Talkorigins website: that has had on its site MacRae's paper on the Polystrate Fossils -- based on Dawson's 1868 book. So I say again, if is was good enough for MacRae, then it's Good enough for me. I also have a LOT more respect for the Geologists of the 1800's than I do for most modern ones -- for the simple reason that they were willing to admit that a good MANY of the upright trees of Joggins and Sydney Don't have ANY evidence of attached roots.Therefore the date of Dana's book does not nullify what he said. In fact the only thing I find fault with his drawings are the purely hypothetical "time" periods that he accepted.Perhaps you would also (at this time) care to tell us how you think that (purely hypothetical) first mycoplasma got itself going.Randy Berg

Edge (?) said: You know, Randy, this would be a good place to support your argument with a reference. Give us a reference in which a German, English, Canadian or American lawyer or geologist uses coal to convince the rest of the world that the earth is old.And Then Nosey Ned said: It is possible that such a thing occurred....Randy: Sure is, and his name was Charles Lyell -- a lawyer who made geology his hobby.Nose Ned: The idea that this is relevant today is as good as other ideas he comes up with.Randy: Such as the two different Dinosaurs that are very clearly described in the Old Testment Book of Job (Chapters 40-41) -- written around 3000 years before the "modern" world acknowledged them. This is also the book that is verified by Archeologists as an accurate account of historical events and authenticated by the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in 1948 -- that were themselves about 2000 years old. And that mentions city after know city along with MANY other real persons of History. But this, of course isn't important to you because it completely destroys the Geological Time Table (I mean Fable) -- that is itself based on a theory that is now bankrupt.Randy Berg

Edge: And it doesn't bother you that Austin says the MSH eruption turned him away from evolution, even though Nevins was writing creationist tracts before the eruption?Randy: Well I would fist have to talk to Austin about this, and exactly what he meant by it -- rather than simply assume (as you have done) that he lied. I strongly suspect that what he meant was that he was about 95-98% certain that we had been duped by the evolutionist crowd with regard to the Age of the Earth, and that after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, he was 99-99.999% sure of it >> meaning that it DID in fact, turn him (further) away from evolutionary mytys.Also, it is a FACT that there is NO WAY that life could (somehow -- other than in the minds of men and Fairy tales) spontaneously assemble itself and cause itself come alive -- at least not in the world of empirical (i.e. observed) science. Therefore, Darwins most basic foundation -- that there is No Creator involved with the Creation -- is a Lie.Also, the fact that there are so many (as MANY 1,000's) different types of Butterflies and Moths and flys and Beetles that undergo a Metamorphosis from worm-like creature to legged and winged creature in a matter of days, tells us that someone or something (with great intelligence) programmed their DNA -- thus eliminating the need for millions of years (of slow changes). I discuss this in more detail at: Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth AgeThey very FACT that the Caterpillars internals organs completely dissolve before they "Morph" into a Butterfly, is clear evidence (to those willing to see it) that their DNA was pre-programmed: -- for the simple reason that haphazard "trial and error" (i.e. mutations) will only allow for very minor changes. In other words, Darwin was (and is) wrong, and there must be a Creator -- even though He, at present, has not revealed Himself to those who don't want Him to rule over their lives. This is because you can't force someone to Love you, no matter how much you may Love them. Nor can you force people to choose good, or make morally right choices, because we are basically selfish and want nothing more than to please ourselves -- and little or nothing to do with God, or serving Him -- even though He IS our Creator.Cheers,
Randy