tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post8366828378312770360..comments2013-08-02T15:13:29.834-07:00Comments on Nazarenes For Biblical Holiness: Theistic Evolution Verses Creationism, and Can You Spot a Heretic?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-61749420337376454562011-03-28T02:46:03.870-07:002011-03-28T02:46:03.870-07:00Dear Peter,
I stumbled upon your blog by looking ...Dear Peter,<br /><br />I stumbled upon your blog by looking up "The House Studio" in an internet search and you had written an article about "180" so I saw your link to here and decided to check it out. <br /><br />I was asleep earlier and suddenly awakened at 3 a.m., came upstairs to write a blog about religious best sellers and their heretical content and how Christians are being manipulated with books by people who have no buisiness writing "Christian" books. <br /><br />Anywho....must have been divine intervention that I came here. Lately I have really been mulling over creation, not questioning if God created us or the Earth, but in what time frame. Like so many others, I just kind of let myself think it didn't matter or that perhaps God created everything over a period of millions of years since I have always heard that a day can be like a million years to God. <br /><br />Lately though, with all the emergent teaching in the Naz Universities, I have started to think I need to solidify ALL of my beliefs so that I am not stumped when questioned about matters of innerrancy. SO evolution has been a topic I have been wanting to get to soon. I think God is leading me to study it sooner than later-since he woke me up and sent me here.<br /><br />SO I just wanted to say thank you for this blog. I hope you will be updating it soon. <br /><br />A little bit about me is that I attended the Nazarene denomination for over 20 years and left in My of 2010. It was a culmination of things and it was a difficult decision, but in the end we felt God pulling us in another direction so we left to attend a non-denominational church. <br /><br />thank you for standing up for truth. It is so difficult these days and everyone accuses you of being judgmental or ignorant. Your reward is in heaven brother.The Christian Conservative Momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06338619912808627059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-21828724948282792652010-11-11T13:23:52.879-08:002010-11-11T13:23:52.879-08:00Thank you brother for standing for the truths of t...Thank you brother for standing for the truths of the Bible. I hope you'll write much more! How we need it.The Seeking Disciplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850752852586928341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-41910352203008730482010-10-18T05:46:13.144-07:002010-10-18T05:46:13.144-07:00Ooops forgot the link!
http://www.talkorigins.org...Ooops forgot the link!<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-8006828629877454912010-10-18T05:45:14.539-07:002010-10-18T05:45:14.539-07:00Reverend Rich,
Thanks for the response, you have ...Reverend Rich,<br /><br />Thanks for the response, you have to love spam filters. Was it a scientific spam filter? Because it seems to only consider creationist arguments as spam...(sorry, couldn't resist!)<br /><br />While I am willing to chat for eons about these topics, could we please pick a single piece of evidence and fully discuss it before moving on to the next. You mentioned that I hadn't addressed ALL the creationist arguments for a young earth. I think that would make for a difficult discussion.<br /><br />I will make a few observations on what you said and then let you pick a direction to go from there..<br /><br />The speed of light is NOT decreasing, and if you are referring to an article by Setterfield, even the creation Research Institute has backed away from supporting his conclusion. Here are a few short articles to help you out.<br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6<br /><br />Rich, when you say things like "but there is a "curse" element" we are clearly outside of science and have entered into the world of magic. There can be no rational discussion when you revert to magic as a rebuttal.<br /><br />Here is a short list of responses to creationist arguments to get you going...(my wife tells me breakfast is waiting, so I'll write more a bit later)<br /><br />Enjoy and have a great MondayKarlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-38562935104469374052010-10-17T18:56:20.878-07:002010-10-17T18:56:20.878-07:00Karl,
Actually, I did address them on October 15t...Karl,<br /><br />Actually, I did address them on October 15th, at 1:48 PM (according to the time that this blog indicates). However, my reply was apparently caught in this blog's SPAM filter, and Pastor Migner recently released it from the queue. You can read it now further above within this thread, sandwiched between your post on that day and Mr. Anonymous.<br /><br />There are two links therein that I would like you to please review before responding. Also, if you wish to continue to promote Macroevolution, please address the <i>irreducible complexity</i> issue as well as my broader application of the term, <i>Entropy</i>—especially with respect to the obvious decay we see within the earth and universe (i.e. as opposed to things "improving" to higher forms or conditions) and the speed of light's own decay (discussed in a link above).<br /><br />BTW: The NASA concerns regarding the decay of the earth's magnetic field can be found <a href="http://solidearth.jpl.nasa.gov/PAGES/mag02.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Considering their challenges in keeping orbiting objects afloat, it is not surprising that they have taken a special interest in this issue.<br /><br />Lastly, let me note here briefly that this is a very busy season for me, and my replies to this thread will be sporadic at best. That fact, coupled with Pastor Migner's occasionally overly-zealous SPAM filter, may delay my responses. :)<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-28533115372636813902010-10-17T05:22:54.306-07:002010-10-17T05:22:54.306-07:00Reverend Rich, since you didn't address any of...Reverend Rich, since you didn't address any of the rebuttals which I wrote for the second law of thermodynamics and the earth's magnetic poles to your initial post, am I correct to assume that you now accept the fact that at least those two 'proofs' which you put forward have no substance?Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-37238058142570682742010-10-16T21:46:27.720-07:002010-10-16T21:46:27.720-07:00Anonymous,
Assertions without substantiation is n...<i>Anonymous,</i><br /><br />Assertions without substantiation is nothing but mere conjecture. (i.e. You have said nothing worthwhile or of substance.)<br /><br />If you look at the evidence (especially biblical evidence, of course, but I am referring to scientific data here) you will find that the Bible's account withstands the test. Further, the Evolution has already been debunked on Darwin's own stated terms: Namely, <i>irreducible complexity</i>, as was discussed within one of my own earlier posts.<br /><br />At best, there is only one viable explanation of origin: Intelligent Design. That is why the multi-decade proponent of Macroevolution, Antony Flew, abandoned the theory in his latter years after calling it "intellectual suicide." He adopted a deistic ID approach (which, of course, no genuine Christian can endorse outright) which does not typically adhere to the 6-24 hour day account of the Bible. Nevertheless, he is another example (of many) ex-Evolutionists who finally found enough intellectual honesty to abandon a debunked theory in favor of something <i>self-evident</i>: Intelligent Design. And many of these highly-credentialed scientists have embraced biblical Creationism, due to the amazing supporting evidence.<br /><br />The evidence that supports a Young Earth variant of ID (i.e. that supports biblical Creationism) is extensive and compelling. The links that I provided to several articles further above, provide just a few examples of that evidence—some of which have NO substantiated evolutionary theories with which to compete (i.e. ONLY the Bible's account can explain those phenomena). The "radio halos" found within sample of granite rock around the earth's crust is certainly one to ponder soberly.<br /><br />Lastly, by introducing the word "heresy" you seem to imply a biblical justification for that accusation. You provide none, however. Thus, any point you intended on that front is also obviously without merit.<br /><br />So again, your unsubstantiated assertions are NOTHING more than mere conjecture. Perhaps that is why you posted anonymously?<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-45114547686845216922010-10-15T17:48:58.986-07:002010-10-15T17:48:58.986-07:00This looks like a "Young Earth Creationism&qu...This looks like a "Young Earth Creationism" site. I suppose this site author think the earth is literally 6000 years old and that the earth was created in 6-24 hour days. <br />If so, this site is full of heresy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-60358116719250849902010-10-15T13:48:59.259-07:002010-10-15T13:48:59.259-07:00Karl,
I apologize for mistaking you for being the...Karl,<br /><br />I apologize for mistaking you for being the same professor that Pastor Migner confronted within his fine article above. That is where the last name insertion originated, so thank you for your clarification.<br /><br />In the light of the identity mixup, let me note that I was focusing my confrontation on the "Theistic Evolution" heresy (thinking of the other person). As I would gather from your clarifying remark, you would probably agree with my assertion that Theism and Evolution are mutually exclusive (and competitive), and have no business being "mixed" (as that creates an oxymoron). So in that regard, you have confirmed the primary premise of my posts above.<br /><br /><b>That said:</b> On the Entropy matter, my point is not diminished one bit (though your response perhaps required a clarification). Your snowflake analogy is irrelevant to my premise. ALL the physical laws put into place by God are still quite operations, but there is a "curse" element since the fall of man now at work as well.<br /><br />Living organisms age, then die, though science is often baffled as to why they systematically break down over time. The speed of light is diminishing, as the excellent article I linked to above explains quite well while discussing the evidence (some of which was discovered by evolutionists trying to debunk the earlier findings). Entropy, in a broader application as an expression of a decaying curse (which was my intent, and not a strict adherence to its use in thermodynamics) is self-evident. We can see its effects all around us in daily life, and in the scientific realm, within the observable data.<br /><br />In your response, you did address counter-evidence for the earth's magnetic field decaying (which I have not yet reviewed personally at present). That noted, you have NOT addressed the copious "Young Earth" evidence cited on the links I provided above with ANY counter-evidence or assertions at all. You simply attacked the credibility of highly-credentialed researchers (who happen to be also Christian apologists with their findings) to favor your own religious preference, <i>Macroevolution</i> (which you seem to be an apologist for, with your findings). So you assert something as "fact" which CANNOT ever be proven or provable, in your religious attempt to support your belief system.<br /><br />You then attack all "religions" as something going away and passing (a typical, but unsubstantiated assertion, often made by Atheists, who still number very small among the earth's population). So you "attack" religion, but fail to see you are a religious adherent in every conceivable way to your own dogma. This religious nature of Atheism (and Evolution, upon which Atheists hang their hats) has been pointed out many times previously, so it would be pointless to review that further here in such a constrained commentary thread. I will only point you to <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion" rel="nofollow">Is Evolution A Religion?</a></i> by Dr. Tommy Mitchell & Dr. A.J. Monty White, for a brief substantiation.<br /><br />So you have not truly refuted any significant element of my thread (though I was obviously confused regarding your identity), and in fact you confirmed a few things; including a point of "alternate explanations" made within the insightful article: <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/evolution-not-even-theory" rel="nofollow">Evolution: Not Even A Theory</a></i> — which I intended to include in this thread, but which failed to post for some reason.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to reply, however. I appreciate the lively discourse.<br /><br />Always in Jesus<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-5209412493207186362010-10-15T05:56:02.377-07:002010-10-15T05:56:02.377-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-23286408792322692722010-10-15T05:54:51.108-07:002010-10-15T05:54:51.108-07:00Dear Reverend Vermillion,
I appreciate your detai...Dear Reverend Vermillion,<br /><br />I appreciate your detailed response. However I think you have blended posts from two different people. While my first name is Karl my last name is not Giberson, it's Kemerait. I never claimed to be a Christian or to believe in theistic evolution. Probably just a simple oversight and not a huge problem. I will write a bit later and respond to the other claims. All of which have been debunked quite effectively over many many years. <br /><br />Briefly, to get your interest peeked I will say that you appear to be misinformed about the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it only applies to a closed systems. The earth is not a closed system, we have a huge nuclear furnace out there called the sun which constantly pours energy into the earth's processes. In addition, even in a closed system, it is perfectly permissible to use energy from one part of the system to effect change in another part as long as the total energy is not increased. Here is a simple example...by your proposition, we should not have snowflakes, they certainly represent an increase in order and design and yet, the second law of thermodynamics seems intact.<br /><br />With regard to the magnetic field of the earth, briefly...<br /><br />There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless<br /><br />Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.<br />That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.<br /><br />More later, if needed. The bottom line is that the science is sound, the arguments put forth by the Creation Research Institute and other young earth proponents is either out of date, incorrect, misquoted or has been otherwise refuted for many years. <br /><br />We are no longer afraid of our environment like our cave dwelling brethren of old. We are an intelligent society capable of standing on our own two feet. We no longer need to believe in the myths and practices of the past. We owe it to our children to give them every advantage from what we have learned. Religion is going away, it will fade into the past just as so many others have, cling to it if you like, put your fingers in your ears and shout "na-na-na" instead of taking an opportunity to learn and grow but remember its at the expense of your children and society's future.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-44816163936472322252010-10-15T03:04:04.967-07:002010-10-15T03:04:04.967-07:00Pastor Peter Migner,
I want to thank you for your...Pastor Peter Migner,<br /><br />I want to thank you for your patience in allowing me to post the above rebuttal comments to Karl Giberson. I realize I filled your comment section up with data, and I appreciate your kindness in posting it for the public to view.<br /><br />I think it is clear to all reasonable people that a so-called "Theistic Evolutionism" is nothing but a pitiful and heretical attempt to combine two mutually exclusive religions together. Thus, it is my hope that you will continue your fight to oppose this heresy within your own denomination, and that the leaders thereof will hold Mr. Karl Giberson to a biblical standard of doctrine.<br /><br />If he fails to repent of his apostasy and get saved, I hope the leaders of that college (and the Church of the Nazarene in general) will <b>quickly remove him</b> from any and all positions of influence over students; and set him "free" to be a "priest of evolution" along with Richard Dawkins—<i>Giberson's true religious and philosophical kinsman.</i><br /><br />God bless you, pastor, for your courage and stand for the Truth.<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-60961303426771476072010-10-15T03:03:10.432-07:002010-10-15T03:03:10.432-07:00Karl,
The logic is obvious: If the NT authors bel...Karl,<br /><br /><b>The logic is obvious:</b> If the NT authors believed these things were true accounts, and NT theology is predicated upon that fact, then either the NT is true...or the NT is a lie (i.e. according to Evolution's "hypothesis"). Evolution says it took "millions of years" for these things to occur (and about "6.5 billion" for then entire enchilada) but the Bible says it all happened in a literal six-day Creation, about six thousand years ago.<br /><br />These are <i>mutually exclusive</i> claims, which <i>cannot</i> be reconciled together and still be true to <i>either</i> the Bible or Darwin's theory. Either Macroevolution is true, or the Bible is true, they cannot BOTH be true simultaneously. <b>Period.</b><br /><br />The Bible is clear, and any effort to diminish its account of Creation (and the other Genesis events) is simultaneously an effort to diminish its account of Redemption through the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, you CANNOT be a Christian by ANY biblical definition, while simultaneously blaspheming the very Bible upon which Salvation is based. In short, <b>you are a heretic</b>, and likely have NEVER been born again (as your "fruit" tends to indicate you are a "bad tree" according to Jesus' Own methodology, see Matthew chapters 7 and 12).<br /><br />Karl, you wrote in one of your posts above that evolutionary facts are "irrefutable." Yet, I have demonstrated within my posts that Macroevolution is unproven, unprovable, a mere "hypothesis," and a religion. You have a choice to make: Adhere to the Truth of God's Word, or stick to Evolution's lie. Considering the warnings within the citations from Peter and Jude above, I would highly suggest you repent, turn to God in true faith, and then do deeds that prove your repentance (Acts 26:20).<br /><br /><b>Hell is the wrong place to discover you were wrong.</b><br /><br /><b>So consider yourself now officially "refuted" both on the scientific facts, and your theological heresy.</b> In closing, here are a couple of web pages that can help you find truth on BOTH theological and scientific grounds:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign" rel="nofollow">Six Evidences for a Young Earth</a> (On AnswersInGenesis.org)<br /><br /><a href="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=7" rel="nofollow">Scientific Evidence for Creation</a> (On CreationEvidence.org)<br /><br /><a href="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57" rel="nofollow">The Creation Model, Session 1</a> (On CreationEvidence.org)<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-10580554239585757792010-10-15T03:00:40.684-07:002010-10-15T03:00:40.684-07:00Karl,
Jesus said, "And so upon you will come...Karl,<br /><br /><b>Jesus said,</b> "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, <b>from the blood of righteous Abel</b> to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35, NIV); "<b>But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.</b>" (Mark 10:6, NIV); "Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled <b>from the beginning, when God created the world,</b> until now—and never to be equaled again." (Mark 13:18-19, NIV); and Luke by the Holy Spirit finished accounting for Jesus' genealogy this way, "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, <b>the son of Adam</b>, the son of God." (Luke 3:38, NIV)<br /><br /><b>Paul wrote by the Holy Spirit,</b> "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" (Romans 5:14-15, NIV); "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive....So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being' ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 NIV); "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NIV)<br /><br /><b>Peter wrote by the Holy Spirit</b> (referencing several aspects of the Genesis account, post-Creation), "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men..." (2 Peter 2:4-7, NIV)<br /><br /><b>Jude wrote by the Holy Spirit,</b> "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of His holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." (Jude vs.14-15, NIV)<br /><br />Now we can quickly and easily identify a MAJOR fact from the New Testament: <b>Jesus Christ, Luke, Paul, Peter, Jude,</b> (and surely the rest of the apostles and prophets of the NT) <b>ALL believed in the Genesis account of Creation, the Fall of Man, Noah's flood—and EVERYTHING else therein—as a <i>literal record</i> of those events.</b><br /><br />Next post....Rev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-65331323605943485482010-10-15T02:58:48.665-07:002010-10-15T02:58:48.665-07:00Karl,
Now we get down to the "nitty gritty&q...Karl,<br /><br />Now we get down to the "nitty gritty" of <b>your</b> true "faith" (which cannot possibly be Christianity, despite your claims otherwise, because you do not believe in the Bible). First, let me reiterate Evolution's religious nature, with a couple of choice quotes that highlight that fact:<br /><br /><i>Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of the random formation of life are so tiny as to require a "miracle" for spontaneous generation to have occurred, making belief in spontaneous generation "tantamount to a theological statement."</i> (Chandra Wickramasinghe, testimony in the Arkansas Balanced Treatment case, December 1981, cited originally in Bill Keith's <i>Scoptes II: The Great Debate</i> (1982), p. 137)<br /><br /><i>In fact, evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientist have accept it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it.</i> (Physics professor H.S. Lipson at the University of Manchester, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," <i>Physics Bulletin</i>, Vol. 31 (1980))<br /><br /><i>Evolution is perhaps the most jealously guarded dogma of the American public philosophy. Any sign of serious resistance to it has encountered fierce hostility in the past, and it will not be abandoned without a tremendous fight. The gold standard could go,...the Constitution itself shyly junked. But Darwinism will be defended to the bitter end.</i> (Tom Bethell, <i>The American Spectator</i>, July 1994, P. 17)<br /><br />(All the above quotes were derived from Dr. Baugh's book, <i>Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds?</i>, chapter 2, but are provided here with their original citations from that text.)<br /><br />However, at this point Karl, you will likely argue, "But that is my point! I believe in a 'Theistic Evolution' which accounts for the miraculous, but over millions of years of evolutionary process." So let's destroy that absurdity with some theology, shall we?:<br /><br />I will not bother quoting from Genesis, as you already have stated that you do not believe in the Genesis account as a literal record of how God created the universe, earth, and all living things, including mankind. Since I understand that you do not believe in a literal "Adam and Eve" then it goes without question that you do not believe in the Bible's account of the Fall of Man either. I am assuming that you also do not therefore believe in ANY of the Genesis account, to include Noah's flood (evidence for which is copious, but I will refrain from covering herein) and other such records therein.<br /><br /><b>So in my next post, I will share a few New Testament facts that create a MAJOR theological problem for your "Theistic Evolution" <i>oxymoron</i>...</b>Rev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-52619943755172087272010-10-15T02:55:18.723-07:002010-10-15T02:55:18.723-07:00Karl,
Now we can move into a more universal scien...Karl,<br /><br />Now we can move into a more universal scientific law that absolutely causes <b>Macro</b>evolution's foundations to be fully exploded and destroyed: Namely, <b>Entropy</b>.<br /><br />The Second Law of Thermodynamics is generally considered now to be a universal law, as its effects can be measured and observed easily in any sphere of reality. Things break down and disintegrate. In recent years, <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733" rel="nofollow">it was discovered that even the speed of light (thought previously to be a constant) has slowed down</a>.<br /><br />In regard to Macroevolution:<br /><br /><b>First</b>, it is a fact that ALL of science has measured and noted Entropy throughout creation's spheres. Yet, the "hypothesis" of Macroevolution is completely dependent on life forms advancing to "higher" stages from lower. So not only has your, "occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time" <b>not ever</b> been observed making "evolutionary progress" by any scientific method, but such an absurd conjecture is actually in direct OPPOSITION to the observable facts around us!<br /><br />Things are "slowing DOWN" Karl, not "speeding UP."<br /><br /><b>Second</b> is the now-known fact that the gravitational field of the Earth is also DIMINISHING or DECAYING. Quoting an excellent article by Andrew A. Snelling entitled, <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.asp" rel="nofollow">The Earth's magnetic field and the age of the Earth</a></i> (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><i><br />As early as 1971, creation scientist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, then Professor of Physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, drew fresh attention to the fact that the strength of the earth’s magnetic field was decreasing. He noted that between 1835 and 1965 geophysicists had made some 26 measurements of the magnetic dipole moment of the earth’s magnetic field. When plotted against time (that is, the year of measurement) these data points fitted a decay curve which Barnes calculated had a ‘halflife’ (halving period) of only 1,400 years. <b>On this basis he concluded that the earth’s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years old, and so the earth must likewise be that young.</b><br /></i><br /><br />Dr. Jason Lisle adds the decay of the earth's magnetic field to his larger thesis on <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-2#fnMark_1_5_1" rel="nofollow">The Age of the Universe, Part 2</a></i>, saying (emphasis added):<br /><br /><i><br />...Every century, the magnetic field decays by about 5 percent. Since the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker as time moves forward, it must have been considerably stronger in the past. <b>Approximately 6,000 years ago,</b> the magnetic field would have been quite a lot stronger, but still perfectly suitable for life.<br /><b>However, if the earth were many millions of years old, then the geomagnetic field would have been so strong in that alleged distant past, that life would not have been possible.</b><br /></i><br /><br />So Karl, though you evolutionary zealots love to add millions upon millions of years in order to get some plausibility to your ludicrous "hypothesis," the fact is that you do NOT have anything more than about 6,000-10,000 years with which to work when factoring in the effect of Entropy on the earth's magnetic field.<br /><br />The Macroevolution "fairy-tale" <b>has already been disproved</b>. This is why former atheist, Antony Flew, abandoned it as "intellectual suicide" in the light of true scientific evidence (though he mistakenly embraced Deism as the basis for Intelligent Design). However, the very scientific evidence that flatly destroys the Macroevolution myth, happens to fit perfectly within the Bible's account of Creation, the Fall, and the introduction of the curse on the earth (i.e. Entropy).<br /><br />Now, why on God's earth would you dare to embrace such a farce? Simple. Because "evolution" is your religion...and NOT Christianity...Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-5712159372252278892010-10-15T02:42:53.008-07:002010-10-15T02:42:53.008-07:00Karl,
There are two "deadly" scientific...Karl,<br /><br />There are two "deadly" scientific absolutes that have <i>already</i> dealt a decisive "death blow" to Macroevolution: <b>The irreducible complexity of living organisms</b>, and <b>Entropy</b>. We will begin with the first, through a brief discussion of Dr. Michael Behe's book, <i>Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</i>.<br /><br />The Library Journal's description of this excellent text lays out the case (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><i><br />Behe (biochemistry, Lehigh) argues that the biochemical basis of complex life could not have developed through gradual evolutionary change because too many dependent variables would have had to have been altered simultaneously. Through explanations of the functions of the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system, he sets out to argue against evolution as a sole explanation for their existence. <b>Behe doesn't call on religion to support his thesis.</b> Rather, he explores the scientific literature for some of the alternatives to evolution and includes his own support for life by design at the end of the text. The importance of this controversial work is in the questions it raises about the primacy of evolution as the sole creator of life. Recommended for all libraries concerned with evolution. —Eric D. Albright, Galter Health Sciences Lib., Northwestern Univ., Chicago<br /></i><br /><br />Dr. Behe's thesis is one that is quite self-evident, when reflected upon: Microbiological organisms are irreducibly complex, and could NOT have possibly developed "by chance." Furthermore, he points out that Charles Darwin himself noted that such data, should it come to light, would cause his theory to "absolutely break down." I will now quote Darwin's own words from my PDF copy of <i>Origins of Species</i>, pages 89-90:<br /><br /><i><br />It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process.... In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? <br /><b>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.</b><br /></i><br /><br />Darwin continued from his last statement above in that same paragraph with, "But I can find out no such case." In short, the limitations of his day prevented him from delving into the depths of biological systems to the point of discovering such irreducible complexity.<br /><br /><b>Nevertheless, those technologies are available today.</b> We KNOW of a truth that microorganisms are all irreducibly complex. But if every single cell within the creature is irreducibly complex, is not the creature as a whole? <b>Modern biology has proven that it is.</b><br /><br /><b>Creationism</b>—or more broadly, Intelligent Design—is the ONLY theory in which irreducible complexity fits VERY NICELY into its framework without <b>any</b> modifications being necessary. Can we conclude that your "Theistic Evolution" is completely unsound in the light of such facts? Yes.<br /><br />So, my dear "evolutionary religious zealot," let me dive into what I consider the ultimate "death blow" to Macroevolution in my next post...<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-13401391439074628582010-10-15T02:26:37.839-07:002010-10-15T02:26:37.839-07:00Karl,
As we have already observed from the bona f...Karl,<br /><br />As we have already observed from the <b>bona fide</b> facts at hand within my previous comment, <b>Macro</b>evolution is NOT a fact, but an unproven and unprovable "theory" at best. It is also a religious belief that is anathema to the Christian faith, as we will discuss in more detail shortly. However, first, let me point out that Macroevolution is not only "unproven" and "unprovable" but it lacks the true characteristics NECESSARY for a sane person to even consider it a theory at all!<br /><br />As AnswersInGenesis.org correctly points out in their recent article, <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/evolution-not-even-theory?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Evolution_Not_Theory&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign" rel="nofollow">Evolution: Not Even A Theory</a></i> (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><i><br />A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.<br />Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate....<br />Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. <b>First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed.</b> Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), <b>but they can never test evolutionary events in the past</b>....<br />Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. <b>In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.</b><br /></i><br /><br />Thus, to be frank about it, Macroevolution is at best a "hypothesis" according to true scientific standards. So why do its adherents, such as yourself, try to pawn it off on the unsuspecting public as "fact" when it clearly is NOT? Simple. In fact, the answer was given in my last post in some detail. <b>Macroevolution is a religion, and not a scientific theory at all.</b><br /><br /><i>So to this point, we have reviewed the TRUE FACTS that Macroevolution is: <b>Unproven, unprovable, a religion, and merely a hypothesis from a purely scientific standpoint</b> (if that much).</i><br /><br />Now, we have also noted in my last comment that Biblical Creationism is also considered "unprovable" by many in empirical scientific terms. I will not take the time to argue that point, though I believe I <b>could</b> make a case FOR the provableness of Creationism on the same terms that Quantum Theorists tend to make their cases stand. (For more insight on this point, however, I would suggest you read <i><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/unification-theory" rel="nofollow">An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance</a></i> by Desmond P. Allen.)<br /><br /><b>Instead, let me move on to a more pertinent question:</b> <i>Are either Evolution or Creationism <b>disprovable</b>? Can we safely eliminate one of these two choices regarding the origins of life, from the competition?</i> Yes, we can. Further, ONLY Macroevolution is <b><i>already</i></b> completely discredited and disproved...while biblical Creationism can <b>never</b> fall into such disrepute.<br /><br /><b>Now, to substantiate that thesis in my next post...</b><br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-51577812205268141752010-10-15T02:23:00.343-07:002010-10-15T02:23:00.343-07:00Karl,
Let me give you a few points that show that...Karl,<br /><br />Let me give you a few points that show that Evolution is NOT a science at all...<i>it is actually a religion.</i> For example, within the Introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's <i>Origin of Species</i>, L. Harrison Matthews, British biologist and evolutionist, wrote quite honestly (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><i><br />The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position <b>of being a science founded on an unproved theory</b>—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.<br /></i><br /><br />So despite Dr. Matthews' reference to Evolution as "fact" he also clearly (and honestly) states that it is unproven, and likely unprovable. This latter point can actually be considered almost an <i>absolute</i>, as "observation" of "facts" that occurred over "millions of years" is extremely improbable to <b>ever</b> becoming a scientifically feasible achievement.<br /><br />But here we can briefly introduce for the first time a TRUE fact about Evolution: <b>It is a religions faith, as this notable evolutionary scientist admits.</b> This is the reality of its nature. It is a belief system based on the unobservable. Thus, it is unproven and unprovable. It is also quite antagonistic to the Truth of God's Word, as Scholastic evolutionist, D.J. Futuyama explains in his book, <i>Science on Trial</i> (1983) as cited within Dr. Carl Baugh's excellent book, <i>Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds?</i> (emphasis mine):<br /><br /><i><br />Creation and evolution, <b>between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.</b> Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they <b>must</b> indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.<br /></i><br /><br />So noted evolutionists admit that Evolution is a religion based on faith in the unprovable. Evolution, therefore, <i>competes</i> directly with the Bible account of creation.<br /><br />Of course, the Bible is the source of our information concerning the origins of sin, and the plan for our Redemption through Jesus Christ. So evolutionary thinking is completely incompatible with the Christian faith, as it contradicts the very foundation upon which the Christian faith is based.<br /><br />Thus, logically, "Theistic Evolution" is an oxymoron. And any attempt to "merge" the two concepts results <b>necessarily</b> in a perversion of <b>both</b>. Thus biblically, it is a heresy; and evolutionarily, it undermines the very premises of that "theory."<br /><br />However, this second post of mine is still only an introduction. I am just warming up. Now on to more meaty discussion points...<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-35639396663617432012010-10-15T02:10:54.411-07:002010-10-15T02:10:54.411-07:00Dear Pastor Migner,
I want to commend you, first ...Dear Pastor Migner,<br /><br /><b>I want to commend you, first of all, for taking such a strong public stand against the heresy of "Theistic Evolutionism."</b> The fact that professing "Christians" can be so gullible as to consider these two opposing concepts as mutually compatible is a sad testament to the state of today's public ministry and "Christian" education standards.<br /><br />In truth, "Theistic Evolution" constitutes an oxymoron. The two terms each represent mutually incompatible religious views. The first, refers to faith in the God of the Bible. (This in contrast to Deism, which acknowledges a Creator, but NOT specifically <b>and exclusively</b> the God of the Bible; so by definition, Deism is a heresy or false religion, depending on the particular context in which it is addressed.)<br /><br />Evolution is an errant "faith" (i.e. false religion) built upon pseudo-science. In fact, it would be accurate to say it is built upon "science fiction" in that the so-called "data" that Karl Giberson referred to within his comments above do not exist <i>as he has framed them</i> at all! That is why Evolution has rightfully been nicknamed, "A fairy-tale for grown ups."<br /><br />So in support of your objectives and the premise of this article you posted, I intend to post a series of rebuttal comments to those absurdities posted above by "Karl." I trust you will not mind me being so forward as to post so much content to your blog.<br /><br /><b>God bless you, sir, for your bold stand on behalf of the Truth of God's Word.</b><br /><br />May God bless you Pastor Migner—and your family—in all that you do.<br /><br />Always in Jesus,<br /><br />-Rev. Rich VermillionRev. Rich Vermillionhttp://richvermillion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-41281629761825612052010-10-13T15:24:19.691-07:002010-10-13T15:24:19.691-07:00Excuse me, I missed proofing my first paragraph ab...Excuse me, I missed proofing my first paragraph above, let me try that again LOL<br /><br />Yes, evolution is both theory and fact. They are different things in science and one does not become or turn into the other. Just as gravity is a fact, when an apple falls off a tree it hits the ground. It is also a theory, first by Newton then later replaced by Einstein. A theory explains why the facts exist, how they work, what mechanisms explain them. Scientists for years debated Einstein's theories vs. Newtons, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome.<br /><br />The same is true of evolution. It is indeed a fact, defined as "the occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time", but it also has a theory component to it, which attempts to explain the mechanisms involved including genetic drift, mutation, natural selection and other processes.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-38057629807522597362010-10-13T15:17:50.355-07:002010-10-13T15:17:50.355-07:00Pastor,
In the same way that gravity is both a fa...Pastor,<br /><br />In the same way that gravity is both a fact, i.e. if you jomp off your bed you'll land on the floor. and also a theory. A theory in science is not a rung in a ladder of certainty. A theory never becomes a fact. Facts are observations of what we can see, it is the data. A theory is an explenation of how the fact we observe work. A fact is an observation, a theory is an explenation of a specific set of facts.<br /><br />I apologize for not being clear earlier. Much of the problem that people encounter when they discuss evolution is due to not understanding the terminology. Evolution is defined in science as the "occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time", that is fact and is indisputable. To challenge the fact of evolution would like insisting that the earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms (the how and why) of those changes in terms of genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, etc.<br /><br />I would be happy to discuss any particular point that you like. The evidence for evolution is literally overwhelming, it is on par with the evidence for gravity and is the central foundation for many areas of science.<br /><br />yes, science can change, the search for truth is at the heart of science, so as new data is found and new things are learned,science is molded and sharpened to more accurately reflect what has been found. <br /><br />This is my first time posting here, I did not realize there was a requirement to quote scripture with each post, my apologies.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-11470281088141459332010-10-13T08:47:53.186-07:002010-10-13T08:47:53.186-07:00Karl,
How can evolution be fact and theory at the...Karl,<br /><br />How can evolution be fact and theory at the same time? Please define evolution if you are using two different definitions because your opening comment reveals heresy otherwise. I had also noted that if someone was to reply to please use scripture. Not once have you quoted the Word of God and the foundation of this post is based on truth being the Word of God and not science or the ever changing fallible science data. <br /><br />A theory is just that and not a fact. God's Word is Truth and not a theory. You obviously have no confidence in the reliability of God's Word and your foundation seems to be the Science of man. You base your theory on both present day observable data and old data that cannot be observed anymore. Also, all matter that you observe is subject to its Creator so that only the Creator's is reliable and not His changing stuff that even He changed before the eyes of men as noted in the Gospels. The natural world order of matter is under subjection to the supernatural of God. Jesus was raised from death after 3 days, Jesus walked on water, Jesus walked through walls after the resurrection, Jesus turned water into wine, Jesus multiplied bread and fish to feed a multitude, Jesus healed people without medicine and the lists goes on and on of how Jesus changed the reliability of observable science and made matter behalf differently. Just based on Him alone we can know for certain by faith that science is second in reliability to the Creator.<br /><br />Do you claim to be a follower / disciple of Jesus Christ? Having faith in the God who created the matter that can change outside of it's naturals laws is something that cannot be proven that is why faith is needed. You are filling my blog post with heretical information as it is weighed in against the Word of God. The best science is observable science of matter before us. <br />Evolution is a theory and assumes on a few old observations that are not proven yet to this day. The evidence keeps changing and the evidence is the stuff of the creator, yet you want people to trust is the ever changing fallible observations of data from matter that keeps changing?<br /><br />"I have no issue with teaching children about religion, creation stories or how religion has influenced and shaped our society, but do it in the philosophy, or sociology, or psychology classrooms, not as science."<br /><br /> Christianity is a relationship with a living Savior who scientifically overcame the death data. Creation is not a story but an accurate account of the history of man and the creation account provided by our Creator. Science is a field of study that has only discovered the things God has allowed so far and many of those discoveries are filled with errors because science without God equals a godless evolution theory. Evolution is man's way to explain what is without God. Science bows before the Creator and not the other way around as you propose without any scriptural quotes. Therefore your response by definition of biblical authority is heretical and false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-72177391443468869502010-10-13T08:47:27.442-07:002010-10-13T08:47:27.442-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter Mignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13215350415983883601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8952585838361190953.post-78545732796026641602010-10-13T04:06:07.122-07:002010-10-13T04:06:07.122-07:00Evolution is indeed a fact and the theory of evolu...Evolution is indeed a fact and the theory of evolution rests upon it. A theory in science is not a wild guess or something that the guys dream up after a night of heavy drinking. It is an explanation of a specific set of facts. The fact of evolution is that there are inheritable changes that occur in the gene pool of a population over time, this can be demonstrated in a lab and no reputable scientist one disputes it.<br /><br />The theory of evolution attempts to explain how that fact results in the emergence of new species, through mechanisms such as genetic drift, mutations, natural selection and so forth. It is well founded and is the basis for many other fields of science because it explains things so well and offers insights that we might not otherwise be aware of.<br /><br />Creationism begins with a premise, an inviolate assumption that the Genesis account of creation is correct. It then look for facts that give it credence. Science, on the other hand, begins by observing data and NOT making assumptions ahead of time. Secondly, if scientists find contradicting data, they discard or change their hypothesis to reflect the new changes. Because creationism is based on the "truth" of God's word it cannot be changed if the evidence contradicts it. Thus it cannot qualify as science.<br /><br />School science classes are for teaching science, not pseudo-science or religious ideology. You wouldn't permit your school to teach astrology in astronomy class or accept speaking in tongues as a foreign language requirement along with Spanish, French, German and Latin would you? For the same reason neither creationism nor intelligent design belong in the science classroom.<br /><br />I have no issue with teaching children about religion, creation stories or how religion has influenced and shaped our society, but do it in the philosophy, or sociology, or psychology classrooms, not as science.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603794068803432957noreply@blogger.com