Steven Christopher: Vatican Agent

What Is "Evolution"? A Review of Differing Definitions

It has come to my attention that different people use different definitions for what “evolution” is and isn’t. This frankly makes it difficult in presentations to accurately refute it, since it can’t be nailed as to what it even means or implies. I’ll give a few examples:

Early Creationism: Micro vs. Macro

Early in the modern creation science movement started by Dr. Henry Morris, there was the teaching in creationist circles that there were two different definitions of evolution: Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro and macro, of course, relate to size (small and big, respectively). Macro-Evolution is defined in creationist circles as one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal (the Biblical “kind” being referred to as found in Genesis 1). Micro-Evolution is defined as variation within a kind of animal. The early teaching of many creationists was that the evolutionists had confounded two theories of evolution (micro and macro) into one unified theory of evolution. Sure, animals evolve with small changes, but no observable large changes have been proven.

However, such a definition (or definitions) of evolution presented a problem. This problem was the evolutionist response, “Well, tons of micro-evolution will eventually lead to macro-evolution (over billions of years).” After all, you have to run short distances if you want to run a mile. The difference is time, and since the evolutionists think they have plenty of it, macro-evolution is thought to be a fact among them.

This response by the evolutionists eventually brought down the popularity of this definition of evolution, as shown by some influential creation ministries.

Hovind Creationism: Six Different Evolutions

One influential figure in the early creation movement was Dr. Kent Hovind. Dr. Hovind originally held to the two definitions of evolution previously mentioned (micro and macro). But after some time, he expanded it to six definitions of evolution and called it the “evolution worldview” promoted in public schools. Here are the six definitions of evolution Hovind gave:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
3. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of the Stars
4. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life from Non-Life
5. Macro Evolution: A Change of Kinds
6. Micro Evolution: Variation Within A Kind

Such definitions of evolution were unique in the fact that they covered virtually the entire faulty timeline of the universe presented in public schools (along with micro and macro, of course).

Evolutionists didn’t really seem to have a solid objection to these definitions (except the last two, of course). The only objection I could find in my research is that the first four aren’t “evolution” in the biological sense of the word. However, those who use Hovind’s definitions can easily respond by saying “evolution” basically means change, and all these changes are in fact taught in modern schools. The issue then is one of preferred semantics with the first four.

However, Dr. Hovind seems to have done a disservice to these definitions by putting out a $250,000 challenge to have them proven. It isn’t the challenge per se that was the disservice (in my opinion), but rather the conditions of the challenge and its implications. See, he challenged the evolutionists to prove “evolution”. He said in his (now nonexistent) challenge page:

*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

In other words, the challenge was that the first five definitions of evolution all be proven and without God. It’s kind of impossible to prove the non-existence of anything (especially God). Plus, there are plenty of deceived souls who believe the first five definitions of evolution and God! They are called theistic evolutionists. That alone sounded SCAM in the minds of many evolutionists. On top of that, to prove “evolution” you needed to prove all five of them. If you only proved four of them, you didn’t prove “evolution”. This was very unattractive to evolutionists. I personally think the offer should have rather have had a prize for if any of these forms of evolution could be proven correct. Regardless, this was a step in the right direction: all the lies in the classroom about the universe were addressed, not just the biological lie.

Modern Creationism: The Focus on DNA

After seeing the problems with the micro-macro distinction in evolution, some creation ministries (such as Creation Ministries International) decided to try to change the terminology of the creation movement. They basically changed Macro-Evolution to Addition of Genetic Information, and Micro-Evolution to No Addition of Genetic Information. Genetic Information is the information found in DNA (the blueprint of every living thing). DNA has unique codes to make up different forms of life.

Instead of a focus on big vs. small changes, there was a focus directly on the blueprint of life. The creation hypothesis concerning genetics is that no new information will be added to the DNA of anything. In other words, even the micro changes to a creature will never be in the right direction — they will never be the right kind of changes that would change soup into you. That’s because living soup needs new genetic information to build arms, legs, etc. The same with the rest of the evolutionary theory. Since no change was in the right direction anyways to create new kinds of animals, the objection that small changes can become big changes was defeated. Sure, small changes become big changes — but in the wrong direction! The animal “evolving” would die of disability before turning into another kind of animal because the genetic code wasn’t being added to (it was actually commonly degrading over time!).

Some creation ministries that still really like the words “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” still hold on to them, but have severely redefined them so that they no longer mean the same things. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, have mixed the micro-macro concept with CMI’s genetic focus and have come up with two new terms: Vertical Evolution and Horizontal Evolution. They still use “micro” and “macro” but only when they then define it as “horizontal” and “vertical” (respectively). Horizontal Evolution is defined as a change that doesn’t ADD (upward) genetic information. Vertical Evolution (upward) is defined as an ADDITION of genetic information. Running on a street won’t get you in space, and neither will the new “micro” get you to “macro” evolution. While such a redefinition is a step in the right direction, continuation of using “macro” and “micro” (which mean BIG and SMALL) will be confusing for someone, especially the evolutionist.

A Comeback of the Old Micro-Macro: Enter Ray Comfort

Recently, creationist Ray Comfort released a film against evolution called “Evolution Vs. God”. In it, he brings back the old creationist concept of micro and macro meaning small and big, but with different terms (this is possibly due to the fact that he used to be friends with Dr. Kent Hovind who also promoted the micro-macro distinction). He first tosses out “micro-evolution” in place of simply “variation within a kind”, and then replaces “macro-evolution” with Darwinian Evolution. But other than the change in terminology, it’s the same definition as the classical creationist definition of evolution (which brings back the evolutionary objection associated with it).

But even though this was a huge mistake to bring back faulty terminology that doesn’t take into account genetics, there was one good improvement: the name “Darwinian” applied to evolution. “Darwinian” implies evolution specifically in the field of biology connected with Charles Darwin. Sometimes, Neo (new) -Darwinian Evolution is used in popular contexts to imply Darwin’s ideas applied to genetics (DNA was unknown of in Darwin’s time). However, simply “Darwinian” gets the point across that this is the modern theory of Darwin’s suggested biological evolution.

A Solution to the Definition Debate

Here, I will be providing my own definition of “evolution” gleaned upon by the previous attempts by creation scientists. I believe Dr. Hovind’s concept of touching all subjects of the public school’s indoctrination program is excellent. I also think the focus on DNA should replace the old micro-macro concept, and I also prefer to NOT call Biblical variation within a kind “evolution”. The following is my modified formula:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
2. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of Stars
3. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
4. Galactic Evolution: The Formation of Galaxies
5. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life From Non Life
6. Darwinian Evolution: The Addition of New Genetic Information

As you can see, this is very similar to Dr. Hovind’s formulation of “evolution”, with some important differences. First of all, Stellar and Chemical Evolution are switched. This is because the modern theory of the evolution of the universe has stars forming first to then produce all the elements by fusion and supernovae. I added in Galactic Evolution, since Hovind’s didn’t seem to have the formation of Galaxies or Planets (which is important, since you can’t have life evolving without planets — plus there’s some problems with the modern theories of galaxies evolving). I removed “micro-evolution” since that’s Biblical and shouldn’t be called evolution, and changed “macro” to “Darwinian” (since it covers the modern biological theory of evolution).

Conclusion

I hope this will spark some dialogue in the creation movement to solidify what we actually mean by “evolution”, so that we can refute the same devilish theory taking lost souls to hell by the billions. Please share with me your thoughts in the comments section.

Why Steven Anderson is NOT KJV ONLY

Dr. Peter Ruckman Gone To Be With Christ

The world has lost another righteous man as it grows more wicked. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” ~ Psalm 116:15 King James Bible.

Should Christians Celebrate Easter?

Should Christians Celebrate Easter? Find out in my latest video!

My Giant Bible List ALMOST Wiped Out!

Recently, I checked my Big List of Bibles: http://defendinggodsbook.com/free-bibles/ and found a lot of versions were gone. The reason being, that www.thebiblecorner.com (a free website that housed tons of free Bibles) just went offline (check it out to see what I mean). With this reduction in Bibles, I quickly searched for every one of their Bibles I had linked to my website. Thankfully, all but one Bible was restored by other various sources (that exception being The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English - 1963 Charles K. Williams). To make up for it, I accidentally found another free Bible I did not previously have on my website (The Open English Bible 2014).

All of this is very important to me because with these Bibles come not only historical time pieces, but also miniature lexicons that provide supporting evidence for translational readings in the King James Bible that are changed in other pop versions.

New Scientific Project #ForceTheLine

In 1897, Geodesist Ulysses G. Morrow conducted a groundbreaking experiment that decidedly changed the shape of the earth forever. This experiment is known as the rectilineator experiment. The concept of the experiment was to force a straight line via mechanical process. The rectilineator experiment took place at Naples Beach, Florida, and demonstrated that the earth is actually a concave sphere we live in rather than a convex ball we live on. For more information of this shocking experiment, please watch the below documentary about it:

I firmly believe that the rectilineator experiment must be redone in order to show a scientific evidence for the shape of the earth. Relying on indirect evidences (e.g. flatness of horizon, transit of Venus, shadows) will not give any indication of the correct shape of the earth. See why here:

The only possible method to scientifically determine the shape of the earth is by mechanically forcing a straight line over a few miles. Then, the curvature of the earth can be compared to and determined from that straight line.

As time goes by, more and more people within different earth shape communities are seeing the need to conduct this experiment. For example, Brian Mullin (a popular figure in the flat earth community) made a video calling for people to do a rectilineator type experiment. His video even sparked the flat earth hashtag, #ForceTheLine:

The bottom line is that we have no scientific clue as to what the shape of the earth might be. That’s where I come in. I want the rectilineator to be redone and retested. That way, convex earthers, flat earthers, and concave earthers can see with their own eyes the mechanical result of forcing a line.

If this fund reaches its goal, I will personally dedicate my time and effort to rebuilding the rectilineator exactly the same way as was done in 1897 (with the exceptions of working in metric instead of US due to its scientific simplicity, and of using a 100 meter long water tube instead of the ocean to measure the water line). I will personally buy and cut the wood, make a 4 meter level, and travel to Florida to examine the remains of the original rectilineator (I live in California). After that, I will seek out a beach in California to do it. This experiment will also be video recorded 24/7 throughout the entire project and available for public viewing online.

If you have the desire to determine with scientific certainty the shape of the earth, please donate and help this project succeed. Thank you.

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, King James Bible).

Donate at www.GoFundMe.com/ForceTheLine.

“I Admit, I've Sinned.” - The Sin of Debate

I’ve done it just about every time I opened up my (now gone) Facebook page. I’ve challenged others to do it with me, and even succeeded in a live display of this sin: public debating. I know, I know, some of you are thinking, “Well he’s gone off the deep end now! What’s so bad about public debating? Isn’t that what Ken Ham did with Bill Nye?” Well, I’m here to tell you plainly that it’s a sin. Just do a simple word study of “debate” in the King James Bible, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (Romans 1:29).

Below is an excellent sermon by Pastor Bryan Denlinger outlining from the King James Bible that public debate is a sin. I hereby repent from it and will never do such again. I urge you to make the same decision...which means you might have to quit Facebook for a while. :-)

Hillsong’s “Silent Night” Rendition Is Still Satanic

Recently, there has been a lot of buzz over Hillsong’s rendition of Silent Night (shown below):

Silent Night Hillsong Church (London Hillsong... by j-alvarez4Jesus

As you would expect from watching the video, Christians were outraged over this Satanic fleshly corruption of a perfectly fine Christian song. Here are just some of the (outraged) statements made over this song:

“[Sarcastic:] Because after all, it’s just not a proper celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ without Roaring 20’s flappers, rock bands, hoochie coochie dancers, laser light shows and lots and lots of leg in a nightclub setting. Happy Birthday, Jesus, hope you like it.” ~ Geoffrey Grider

“Hillsong leads the way when it comes to “churches” featuring worldly, gigantic and expensive spectacles to attract a large audience. They are laughing all the way to the bank, too, as this global empire continues to gobble up followers around the world.” ~ Steven Kozar

“[Sarcastic:] They do Christian Christmas carrols better than the world. Look how relevant Hillsong is – not even the world has taken this song to this… level.” ~ Church Watch Central

“It was so disgusting, I couldn’t even listen to it...I mean it was so vile, so filthy...It was bad...I would say anybody going there [to Hillsong Church] is lost.” ~ Bryan Denlinger

After a few days, however, many articles started to actually defend Hillsong Church against all the above “stone casters”. One such article by the well known Michael Brown was just published on CharismaNews. Most people who read such articles are prone to accept the “explanation” without question. But I (as the proverbial stone caster) will examine this explanation from an objective and biblical basis. Michael’s comments are in italics below:

“Jesus taught that we should “not judge according to appearance, but practice righteous judgment” (John 7:24).”

Well, first off, I can see that Michael is not quoting from the King James Bible (KJB), “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJB).

“Along with many others who saw the video on YouTube, I was absolutely appalled by Hillsong’s super-slick, cabaret rendition of Silent Night.”

Good! You should be appalled by it!

“Obviously, I didn’t have all the facts, but what possible explanation could there be? The whole cabaret arrangement was atrocious, inexcusable, irreverent, mocking ... The list goes on and on. Still, I did not want to speak or act without more information or a clear leading from the Lord, and while I was giving the whole matter prayerful consideration, a Twitter follower shared with me a comment made by one of the pastors at Hillsong in Australia. He explained that this despicable version of Silent Night was designed to be cringeworthy in every way—in other words, it was intended to elicit the kinds of responses that it drew—and it was written and produced to portray Herod’s alleged desire to worship the newborn King. This, then, was meant to be the world’s version of Silent Night, which was anything but holy.”

So that’s the “explanation” - this wicked song is supposed to be wicked and worldly and make people “cringe” at it. Why? Because it’s supposed to represent King Herod’s hypocritical worship of Jesus simply to impress others.

This explanation is completely false and absurd on many levels. First off, if you know anything of the Christmas story, you know that the only people King Herod wanted to impress were the wise men from the East, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:1-8 KJB).

As you can see, King Herod was interested in only impressing the wise men that he was a worshiper of Jesus. In contrast, Herod “demanded” with threats the priests and scribes to explain to him where Jesus was to be born. So, it only makes sense that King Herod in the Hillsong play should present this “hypocritical” song to the wise men, right? Except he doesn’t. Instead, Herod actually cues in the music before the wise men come on the scene. And apparently, the song is not designed to impress anyone in the storyline - it is only designed as a general cue for the next song in the play (which means the song has nothing to do with the storyline). See for yourself with the same Hillsong play with different performers in another location (start on minute 15:15):

Plus, there is another serious flaw to this “explanation” promoted by Michael: if this song is supposed to make you cringe, why did everybody in the audience applaud this song when it was over (watch both of the above videos again to see what I’m talking about)? If this song is supposed to make you cringe, Hillsong did a very poor job at it by having the audience give the exact opposite reaction. But what’s more important is not how the audience reacted, but how Hillsong reacted to the audience’s reaction (hint: with willing acceptance of the praise from the audience).

This is very important because we actually have a biblical account for a similar situation with another King Herod, “And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (Acts 12:21-23 KJB). Notice that the audience gave Herod undue praise, and when Herod reacted with acceptance of this praise, God killed Him. This is because when the author (Herod) accepts the praise of the audience (“the voice of a god”), it shows that the author agrees with the audience. That’s not just my opinion, that’s how God sees it.

Likewise, when Hillsong’s audience gave tremendous praise and applause to the song, and since Hillsong accepted it with smiles on the performers’ faces, it proves by God’s own standard that Hillsong was agreeing with their praise. Hillsong was agreeing with the audience that this was a wonderful song for Christians and not a “cringeworthy” song. What Hillsong should have done to prove that they intended this song to be hypocritical would be to have the performers sorrowfully tell the audience immediately that this song was not supposed to be good! Instead, Hillsong Church accepted and thus agreed with the audience’s praise that this Satanic fleshly rendition of Silent Night is a good song!

Even if the song was originally intended to be cringeworthy (which I seriously doubt), it became (through Hillsong’s acceptance of praise) intended to be a good Christian song. And since Hillsong was apparently okay with accepting praise for this evil performance, I’m okay with condemning it as an example of a wicked song intended to be Christian.

“The pastor also explained that later in the Christmas play, in adoration of Jesus, Silent Night was sung again, this time the right way, in stark contrast with Herod’s version.”

 Michael is referring to this song performed by the same Hillsong Church:

Hillsong Carols Silent Night Acapella Boy Band... by j-alvarez4Jesus

But even with this toned down version, Hillsong still managed to make it worldly by adding a rhythm and beat to make it more exciting to the lost. Not to mention there is no indication that this song is even supposed to be an opposite of “Herod’s” version of the song.

“But for those who completely threw them under the bus because of their cabaret version of Silent Night, this should be a cautionary lesson. It’s a lesson we should all learn well, since we will be judged in the same way that we judge others.”

By that, I know I’ll be judged by God scripturally and justly :-). How can Michael (or anyone else for that matter) claim that this evil rendition of Silent Night by Hillsong could be justified when the evidence is clearly against them? This is simply a poor excuse to dismiss the evils of Hillsong Church at any cost. We as Christians need to continue to protest this evil fleshly song and Hillsong Church for their (not Herod’s) hypocrisy.

Testing Roman Catholicism - Intro Objections Answered

Here are some objections I have received for even thinking of holding the Roman Catholic Church to the fire of inspired first century church documents (the New Testament):

1. You can't interpret the New Testament without the Holy Mother Church!
Answer: What do you mean I can't interpret a first century document without "Holy Mother Church"? Why is it that I (and plenty of other people) can interpret other works of antiquity just fine without the Roman Catholic Church? Why does the Roman Church's interpretation reign supreme here?

The common response I get when asking these questions is: because the Roman Church is God's true church! But then I ask, "how do I know they are God's true church?" Catholic answer: because they go back to the first century! As you can see (click on to make bigger) in the diagram below, this is circular reasoning and can be dismissed as illogical.

2. You're a biased Protestant who will give credence to Protestantism and Lutheranism instead of Roman Catholicism!
Answer: No, I am not a protestant, in the strictest sense. Protestants are those who originally protested against the Catholic church in the 1500s. Modern day Protestants are commonly known as Reformed and hold to the beliefs of the original Protestants and Reformers. This would be true of any church that completely holds to any of the detailed reformed confessions and the Bible as a dualistic authority - scripture + church tradition (note: reformed guys claim sola scriptura but still treat their confession as if it were a sort of sub-scripture: not the inspired word of God but what we should believe nonetheless because it goes back in history, aka tradition). The reason I do not identify myself as a protestant or "reformed" is because I do not hold completely to any of the detailed reformed confessions. I only believe the King James Bible as God's book. I'm a Bible Believer. That doesn't mean I think Protestants are of Satan, but simply that we hold different non-essential beliefs stemming from different origins. They are my brothers in Christ. I'm grateful for the work of the Protestants to free the people from the control of the Catholic church (without which I wouldn't have the right to do this study), but that doesn't mean I follow the original reformers as a source of my doctrine. The Protestant derives his doctrinal beliefs from scripture plus the reformed tradition and I derive it straight from the Bible. So no, I'm not a biased Protestant who will give credence to strict protestantism. I'm a Bible Believer who will give credence to whatever the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) says. In that case, it will be extremely unbiased. You Catholics then have nothing to worry about! If the New Testament clearly teaches and affirms Roman Catholicism like you say it does, then I should accept it as well as an unbiased Bible Believer!

3. Forget the New Testament! Catholics existed in the first century! It's true!
Answer: all of the alleged quotes of early church fathers in support of Catholicism come after the first century. Why do you want me to avoid the New Testament? Are you afraid it might actually expose you as being of Satan?

Now that the objections are laid aside, let's dig in to the New Testament!