<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Creation Evolutionism: The Science of Scripture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/</link>
	<description>No Holds Barred! The Right Take on Talk</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 18:21:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Carr</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-9633</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Carr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-9633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nathan, I think denying evolution at this point is incredibly stupid. It completely works in theory, and we&#039;ve seen it work in practice, there was one example of these worms who adapted over a period of 40 years to live In irradiated soil. Evolution is almost certainly existent. So now, you have three choices; deny the bible because if this and become an atheist, completely ignore all the evidence and remain a creationist, or keep your faith whilst taking the evidence into account and become and believe in evolutionary creationism. Religion has to keep up with modern science. If you are stubborn and ignore it, that won&#039;t get you anywhere.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathan, I think denying evolution at this point is incredibly stupid. It completely works in theory, and we&#8217;ve seen it work in practice, there was one example of these worms who adapted over a period of 40 years to live In irradiated soil. Evolution is almost certainly existent. So now, you have three choices; deny the bible because if this and become an atheist, completely ignore all the evidence and remain a creationist, or keep your faith whilst taking the evidence into account and become and believe in evolutionary creationism. Religion has to keep up with modern science. If you are stubborn and ignore it, that won&#8217;t get you anywhere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cheryl Melancon Melody</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-6201</link>
		<dc:creator>Cheryl Melancon Melody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-6201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab3H4SlqG2Y&amp;feature=related Watching this right now.  Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields, evidence that the universe is one....mind-blowing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab3H4SlqG2Y&#038;feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab3H4SlqG2Y&#038;feature=related</a> Watching this right now.  Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields, evidence that the universe is one&#8230;.mind-blowing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Eargle</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-6200</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Eargle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-6200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The advantage of HISTORICAL young earth creation over the THEORY of evolution is the first-hand, eye-witness, personal testimony in Genesis 1 by the only Person Who was there to observe it. 

Mr. Sanspoul, you may be of a philosophical persuasion that depends upon a dualism between mind (or consciousness) and body (or material existence). I am disposed to a unified view of historical fact, both known and undiscovered, as distinguished from manifold ideas of historical conjecture which each develop from a hypothetical past to the observable fact of the present reality. Whereas many scientists, so-called, hold to a multiplicity of finite or infinitely regressing models to represent origins, I believe that there exists a unique, real, and factual historical event of creation, limited only by our ability to know of it.

My personal observation of nature and physics is almost completely congruent with Genesis 1, with a few exceptions or inconsistencies that I must put on hold pending more wisdom, light, and knowledge.  On the other hand, physical observations in general are much at odds with evolution theory, requiring cognitive disconnects that may be acceptable to a carnival conman, but which do not conform to the scientific method and rigorous testing and analysis. 

For example, evolution theory fails the &quot;Is it replicable?&quot; test of the scientific method, there being no known observation of living organisms originating from inorganic matter. No worries: creationists cannot replicate God&#039;s creation of the heavens and the earth either. Creationists would have to be God to do that - and we are not He, if there was ever any doubt. ;^)

But evolution theory cannot even satisfactorily explain the fossil record of living organisms, beginning with the Cambrian layer, suddenly appearing out of nothing. But the worldwide Noahic flood, c. 2500 B.C., explains the Cambrian Explosion perfectly.

Scientists, so-called, once held forth a steady-state, infinite regression model of the universe, in which the mass and energy of the universe collapsed into a black hole. The black hole continued to collapse and condense until it exploded in a quasar-like event, resulting in an expanding universe. The universe continued to expand until it ran out of momentum and fell back in upon itself, collapsing into a universe-sized black hole.  This process was supposed to have repeated itself, regressing back into infinity.

Problem was, time does not go backwards (except one time for God&#039;s 10-step program; see 2 Kings 20:8-11). Problem was, Newton&#039;s First Law of Motion indicates that momentum does not dissipate or disappear in empty space, where gravity, magnetism, and air resistance are non-existent.  Problem was, entropy, the capacity of work which can be extracted in a closed system, tends to zero over time.  After an infinite time, entropy would be nil.  But work can be extracted within our present reality without a transcendent source. Such non-nil entropy proves that time past is not infinite in our closed system, the created universe.

No problem, the universe did not always exist; it came into existence a finite number of years ago.

Likewise, a finite origins model, e.g., the big bang theory, requires a Prime Cause of virtually infinite power to create (leading up to the origins event) a pre-existing plasma soup collapsed (for at least a finite and non-nil instant of time) to an astronomical object containing the mass-energy of the universe, but with (virtually) no space between component galaxies, stars, atoms, and sub-atomic wave-particle thingies - waves of unimaginable energy and/or particles occupying equally unimaginably small space, whatever &quot;space&quot; means within a universe-object where space as we know it is collapsed to the infinitesimal, to nothing, or to non-existence. I can only understand such a powerful Prime Cause, One transcending matter, space, and time. as the God of the Bible, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

Mr. Sanspoul, I am not qualified to debate dualism or duality with you, whether a dualism of evolution and creation, or yin/yang, or Plato&#039;s form and matter, or Aristotle&#039;s non-material mind as distinguished from the material brain in the human body, or Aquinas&#039; soul and material existence, or Buddhist Enlightenment as transcending time and space, or three types of mind-matter dualism, or four varieties of dualist mental causation, or extra-physical states of consciousness as distinguished from matter, the wave-particles of quantum physics . . . although I would like FUD-mongering confusionists to publicly acknowledge that the Heisenberg Principle only applies to that which is infinitesimally small from our human point of reference, and not to the material objects which humans perceive naturally - unless possibly from the point of reference of a Heavenly Being for Whom VY Canis Majoris, the &quot;Big Dog&quot; of all stars, is a plaything.

If your personal observation does involve mind-body dualism and the illusory nature of physical reality, may I recommend to you the philosophical works of Christian apologist Dr. J. P. Moreland of Biola University.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The advantage of HISTORICAL young earth creation over the THEORY of evolution is the first-hand, eye-witness, personal testimony in Genesis 1 by the only Person Who was there to observe it. </p>
<p>Mr. Sanspoul, you may be of a philosophical persuasion that depends upon a dualism between mind (or consciousness) and body (or material existence). I am disposed to a unified view of historical fact, both known and undiscovered, as distinguished from manifold ideas of historical conjecture which each develop from a hypothetical past to the observable fact of the present reality. Whereas many scientists, so-called, hold to a multiplicity of finite or infinitely regressing models to represent origins, I believe that there exists a unique, real, and factual historical event of creation, limited only by our ability to know of it.</p>
<p>My personal observation of nature and physics is almost completely congruent with Genesis 1, with a few exceptions or inconsistencies that I must put on hold pending more wisdom, light, and knowledge.  On the other hand, physical observations in general are much at odds with evolution theory, requiring cognitive disconnects that may be acceptable to a carnival conman, but which do not conform to the scientific method and rigorous testing and analysis. </p>
<p>For example, evolution theory fails the &#8220;Is it replicable?&#8221; test of the scientific method, there being no known observation of living organisms originating from inorganic matter. No worries: creationists cannot replicate God&#8217;s creation of the heavens and the earth either. Creationists would have to be God to do that &#8211; and we are not He, if there was ever any doubt. ;^)</p>
<p>But evolution theory cannot even satisfactorily explain the fossil record of living organisms, beginning with the Cambrian layer, suddenly appearing out of nothing. But the worldwide Noahic flood, c. 2500 B.C., explains the Cambrian Explosion perfectly.</p>
<p>Scientists, so-called, once held forth a steady-state, infinite regression model of the universe, in which the mass and energy of the universe collapsed into a black hole. The black hole continued to collapse and condense until it exploded in a quasar-like event, resulting in an expanding universe. The universe continued to expand until it ran out of momentum and fell back in upon itself, collapsing into a universe-sized black hole.  This process was supposed to have repeated itself, regressing back into infinity.</p>
<p>Problem was, time does not go backwards (except one time for God&#8217;s 10-step program; see 2 Kings 20:8-11). Problem was, Newton&#8217;s First Law of Motion indicates that momentum does not dissipate or disappear in empty space, where gravity, magnetism, and air resistance are non-existent.  Problem was, entropy, the capacity of work which can be extracted in a closed system, tends to zero over time.  After an infinite time, entropy would be nil.  But work can be extracted within our present reality without a transcendent source. Such non-nil entropy proves that time past is not infinite in our closed system, the created universe.</p>
<p>No problem, the universe did not always exist; it came into existence a finite number of years ago.</p>
<p>Likewise, a finite origins model, e.g., the big bang theory, requires a Prime Cause of virtually infinite power to create (leading up to the origins event) a pre-existing plasma soup collapsed (for at least a finite and non-nil instant of time) to an astronomical object containing the mass-energy of the universe, but with (virtually) no space between component galaxies, stars, atoms, and sub-atomic wave-particle thingies &#8211; waves of unimaginable energy and/or particles occupying equally unimaginably small space, whatever &#8220;space&#8221; means within a universe-object where space as we know it is collapsed to the infinitesimal, to nothing, or to non-existence. I can only understand such a powerful Prime Cause, One transcending matter, space, and time. as the God of the Bible, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.</p>
<p>Mr. Sanspoul, I am not qualified to debate dualism or duality with you, whether a dualism of evolution and creation, or yin/yang, or Plato&#8217;s form and matter, or Aristotle&#8217;s non-material mind as distinguished from the material brain in the human body, or Aquinas&#8217; soul and material existence, or Buddhist Enlightenment as transcending time and space, or three types of mind-matter dualism, or four varieties of dualist mental causation, or extra-physical states of consciousness as distinguished from matter, the wave-particles of quantum physics . . . although I would like FUD-mongering confusionists to publicly acknowledge that the Heisenberg Principle only applies to that which is infinitesimally small from our human point of reference, and not to the material objects which humans perceive naturally &#8211; unless possibly from the point of reference of a Heavenly Being for Whom VY Canis Majoris, the &#8220;Big Dog&#8221; of all stars, is a plaything.</p>
<p>If your personal observation does involve mind-body dualism and the illusory nature of physical reality, may I recommend to you the philosophical works of Christian apologist Dr. J. P. Moreland of Biola University.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bilovisso Sanspoul</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-6159</link>
		<dc:creator>Bilovisso Sanspoul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-6159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is an objective alliance between the advocates of a &quot;young earth&quot;  and those  of an evolutionary process led by random mutations.
Both are contrary to observation, and the absurdity of each claim is the main reason to believe the other.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is an objective alliance between the advocates of a &#8220;young earth&#8221;  and those  of an evolutionary process led by random mutations.<br />
Both are contrary to observation, and the absurdity of each claim is the main reason to believe the other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan M. Bickel</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-6132</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan M. Bickel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-6132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian Eargle:  Re: Your Apr 9, 2012 comment:

Brian - Spot on with your excellent comment! 

I grow weary of both non Christians and Christians, alike who attempt to reconcile the pseudo science teaching of evolution with the divine revelation of the historical Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Such compromise is not possible. They are only fooling themselves when they think that they can embrace both pseudo science evolution and the Christ of the Scriptures:

&quot;Evolution:&quot; Rejected by Jesus Christ

http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/02/evolution-rejected-by-jesus-christ.html

&quot;Trusting a Theory or Trusting the God of Human History:&quot;

http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/trusting-theory-or-trusting-god-of.html

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian Eargle:  Re: Your Apr 9, 2012 comment:</p>
<p>Brian &#8211; Spot on with your excellent comment! </p>
<p>I grow weary of both non Christians and Christians, alike who attempt to reconcile the pseudo science teaching of evolution with the divine revelation of the historical Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Such compromise is not possible. They are only fooling themselves when they think that they can embrace both pseudo science evolution and the Christ of the Scriptures:</p>
<p>&#8220;Evolution:&#8221; Rejected by Jesus Christ</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/02/evolution-rejected-by-jesus-christ.html">http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/02/evolution-rejected-by-jesus-christ.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Trusting a Theory or Trusting the God of Human History:&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/trusting-theory-or-trusting-god-of.html">http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/trusting-theory-or-trusting-god-of.html</a></p>
<p>Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel<br />
<a href="http://www.thechristianmessage.org">http://www.thechristianmessage.org</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin A. Lehmann</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-5061</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin A. Lehmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-5061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Brian: Spoken like a religious, dogmatic Christian. I presume you&#039;re a Calvinist that believes in a &quot;literal&quot; hellfire as well? And what do you constitute a &quot;Christian?&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Brian: Spoken like a religious, dogmatic Christian. I presume you&#8217;re a Calvinist that believes in a &#8220;literal&#8221; hellfire as well? And what do you constitute a &#8220;Christian?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Eargle</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/creation-evolutioniis-the-science-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-5060</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Eargle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=12532#comment-5060</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry, Kevin, but no.  A belief in billions of years for a universe to expand to its present expanse from a non-space &quot;where&quot; nothing created out of nothing everything that exists?  Puh-leeaase.

Or a recurring expanding-collapsing universe, within which there is no explanation why matter at intergalactic distances expanding at supposed significant fractions of c would ever stop expanding, thus contradicting Newton&#039;s First Law of Motion (concerning inertia), in response to an astronomically remote and infinitesimal gravitational force?  NOT.

Or an uncreated, infinitely regressing universe, contracting at the speed of the tortoise of Zeno&#039;s Paradox as one regresses back into the infinite mists of an eternity that transcends matter and space and time?  Except for that pesky thing called entropy, which is a FINITE capacity of extractable energy available to do work. Entropy would have tended to zero at a specific point in time past = the time it would take for the FINITE measure of entropy in the universe to dissipate to stasis at 2.725°K, subtracted from the infinity of eternity past, which time is . . . the infinity of eternity past ago.  But manifestly, entropy of the universe is NOT zero; ergo, the universe has existed for only a finite period of time since a precise first day of the history of the universe, which the Genesis account and the genealogical record establish at about 6150 years ago.

The alternative to failed cosmologies and mythologies about origins is to take literally, at face value, the word of the only Person who was there at the time, that is, God, Who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.  He says that it took six &quot;yom&quot; or &quot;evenings and mornings&quot; - a period of time equivalent to a solar day, even though our Sol was not created until Day 4.

Christians who have thought out such things as Origins and Last Things, eternity and entropy, infinity and the trustworthiness of Scripture, generally come to respect God&#039;s word about the Eternal and Transcendent One creating, from beyond time and space, a temporal universe bounded by time and space and forces like gravity and electromagnetism, logic and human love.

You allow your desire for unity among Christians and reconciliation of the ignorant and the unbelieving with the Creator, Who is the Truth, to paper over fundamental contradictions between faith in God and trust in that which can be seen, measured, and used or consumed.  Although your writing is diplomatic, persuasive, conciliatory, peace-making, and just nice, your pleasant words do not in any way join together in one accord so-called scientists, whose knowledge is limited to man&#039;s collected observations, with believers, who know the omniscient and omnipotent God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  He is to us not only the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but He is also unto us the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, the Lord our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, Kevin, but no.  A belief in billions of years for a universe to expand to its present expanse from a non-space &#8220;where&#8221; nothing created out of nothing everything that exists?  Puh-leeaase.</p>
<p>Or a recurring expanding-collapsing universe, within which there is no explanation why matter at intergalactic distances expanding at supposed significant fractions of c would ever stop expanding, thus contradicting Newton&#8217;s First Law of Motion (concerning inertia), in response to an astronomically remote and infinitesimal gravitational force?  NOT.</p>
<p>Or an uncreated, infinitely regressing universe, contracting at the speed of the tortoise of Zeno&#8217;s Paradox as one regresses back into the infinite mists of an eternity that transcends matter and space and time?  Except for that pesky thing called entropy, which is a FINITE capacity of extractable energy available to do work. Entropy would have tended to zero at a specific point in time past = the time it would take for the FINITE measure of entropy in the universe to dissipate to stasis at 2.725°K, subtracted from the infinity of eternity past, which time is . . . the infinity of eternity past ago.  But manifestly, entropy of the universe is NOT zero; ergo, the universe has existed for only a finite period of time since a precise first day of the history of the universe, which the Genesis account and the genealogical record establish at about 6150 years ago.</p>
<p>The alternative to failed cosmologies and mythologies about origins is to take literally, at face value, the word of the only Person who was there at the time, that is, God, Who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.  He says that it took six &#8220;yom&#8221; or &#8220;evenings and mornings&#8221; &#8211; a period of time equivalent to a solar day, even though our Sol was not created until Day 4.</p>
<p>Christians who have thought out such things as Origins and Last Things, eternity and entropy, infinity and the trustworthiness of Scripture, generally come to respect God&#8217;s word about the Eternal and Transcendent One creating, from beyond time and space, a temporal universe bounded by time and space and forces like gravity and electromagnetism, logic and human love.</p>
<p>You allow your desire for unity among Christians and reconciliation of the ignorant and the unbelieving with the Creator, Who is the Truth, to paper over fundamental contradictions between faith in God and trust in that which can be seen, measured, and used or consumed.  Although your writing is diplomatic, persuasive, conciliatory, peace-making, and just nice, your pleasant words do not in any way join together in one accord so-called scientists, whose knowledge is limited to man&#8217;s collected observations, with believers, who know the omniscient and omnipotent God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  He is to us not only the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but He is also unto us the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, the Lord our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
