Sunday, August 20, 2017

Wedding Fundraiser: Please Help Us, If You Can


Maria and I first met on Fusion101. She was only looking for friends to better her English, and I was in no way interested in someone halfway around the world. I had had my profile up for one week when I decided to delete it. After all, I kept telling people I was waiting on God to bring the right woman into my life. The day I wanted to delete my account, I had no ride into town (I was out east at the time, studying). The very next day, that same day, I had a message from Maria. Because I respond to everyone, even if I am not interested in them (the considerate thing to do), I responded back to her and informed her that I was deleting my account but that if she wanted to write me she could do so to my e-mail.

We started e-mailing back and forth. Eventually we started communicating via ICQ, MSN, and Skype, utilizing video chat. The more we talked, the closer we drew together. After a while, we knew precisely where our relationship was headed. That is why the "About" section of this blog reads "The Klavers," because we trust God is uniting us in marriage, and so we are completely committed to one another. Five years in, I took a trip to Peru to meet her for the first time in person. With her parents' blessing, I proposed to her.

[Our engagement dinner, where I proposed to her in front of her family.]
I returned two years later so that we could be wed, but it never happened due to her fears. At the time, she did not have a Visa. She was worried that after we got married and applied for a Visa for her to return with me, that she would be denied. She did not want to be married and be left behind. I tried consoling her and reminding her that that was out of our control. Whether we applied then, a year from then, or 10 years from then, if they said "No," she would end up left behind temporarily while I could use our marriage certificate to apply for Permanent Residency. Sadly, the wedding never took place.

She now has the Visa, set to expire in just over a year. When I returned from my second trip, a year later I had had the money needed for our tickets. However, an old debt came back to bite me in the rear that happened to be precisely what I had saved. I paid it off faithfully so that I could be free of it. Shortly after, I lost my job. For the next three years I have bounced back and forth between temp job and unemployment insurance, never able to save the money required for the wedding. The struggle continues.

A friend of mine told me about websites where people raised funds for their weddings. So I started a fundraiser for us. While it seems like a long shot to me, I figure it can't hurt to try. After all, God is sovereign and can work in the hearts of complete strangers all across the world to donate when they encounter our fundraiser page. It would be awesome to see God help us in this way by providing this miracle for us.

Our wedding would not be anything extravagant. We just want a simple wedding. If it is at all possible, the money from our fundraiser goal will cover:
  • the cost of our plane tickets, and
  • the wedding ceremony.

If anyone reading this would be willing to donate, any amount is always appreciated. It is entirely between you and God. All prayers are greatly appreciated. Maria and I could fervently use all the prayers we can get. We have now known each other for 11 years, and while Jacob waited 14 years for Rachel, we really do not want to wait 14 years to finally be united in holy matrimony. While we are faithful and patient to God and each other, nevertheless I do not recommend our situation to anyone unless God has called you to it. This distance is hard on us, but we know that God brought us together and has moved in our relationship every step of the way (though slower than we would have preferred). So we could desperately use all the prayers you could give us.

Thank you and God bless!

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Friday, August 18, 2017

John 15:1-8

1 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.

John 15:1-8
I have been debating a man online (let us call him IMP as an acronym for his username) who believes that it is possible for a Christian to forfeit his/her salvation. One of IMP's arguments pertains to John 15:1-8, where he has latched onto the phrase "in Me" in John 15:2 at the expense of the context of this passage and of the rest of Scripture. So, here is an exegesis of the passage to expose his flawed logic and his false interpretation.

Verse 1. Jesus stating "I am the true vine" is Him saying that He is the true Israel. Just as Jesus is the new Adam, likewise He is also the new Israel. Where Israel failed, Jesus succeeded in every way. In the Old Testament, it was Israel who was frequently referred to as a vine (Ps. 80:8-18; Is. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1-5; 17:1-2; 19:20-14; Hos. 10:1-2). Now, Jesus says, "I am the true vine."
Verse 2. The "that does not bear fruit" must be understood in the context of verses 4 and 5. It is only through abiding in Christ (being truly "in Him") that one can bear fruit. Apart from Him, "you can do nothing."
Verse 4. There is a co-abiding here. Only those abiding in Christ have Christ abiding in them. Those said to be "in Him" that did not produce any fruit are not said to have Christ abiding in them. They did not produce fruit because they were not abiding in Christ and Christ was not abiding in them.
Verse 5. Again, there is a co-abiding here.  Only those abiding in Christ have Christ abiding in them. Those said to be "in Him" that did not produce any fruit are not said to have Christ abiding in them. They did not produce fruit because they were not abiding in Christ and Christ was not abiding in them.
Verse 6. The result of not abiding in Christ, which "does not bear fruit," is the discarding, gathering, and casting into the fire.
Verse 8. The bearing of fruit is the evidence they are Jesus' true disciples. Ergo, the lack of bearing fruit is the evidence they were never Jesus' true disciples.

NOTE: The co-abiding found in verses 4 and 5 does not contradict the rest of Scripture as some would have it do. The rest of Scripture makes it quite clear that it is God who keeps us, guards us, preserves us, etc., etc., etc. God is the primary cause; everything else is the secondary cause. My ability to abide in Christ is because God has caused me to abide in Christ.

Premise 1: Christ only abides in those branches that abide in Him. Ergo, there is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not abide.
Premise 2: Only those branches that abide in Christ produce fruit. Ergo, there is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not bear fruit.
Conclusion: There is no life-giving connection to the vine for those that do not abide in Christ and bear fruit.

First of all, this passage of Scripture is not a parable. A parable uses "like," "as," or "than" for comparison. This passage of Scripture is an allegory, an extended metaphor. This passage of Scripture describes Jesus as the vine and His followers as the branches. Yes, His followers. But do not supposed that all followers of Jesus are born-again believers. John 6:66 says, "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." There are other passages of Scripture we could consider, but these are sufficient. What these passages reveal to us is: All born-again believers are disciples of Jesus, but not all disciples of Jesus are born-again believers. Jesus had many followers, but only a fool would claim that each and every single one of them was a born-again believer. The "in Me" in verse 2 refers to those followers who were such by name only, which the context of this passage supports (as well as various other passages of Scripture).

Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13 both inform us that those with temporary faith have "no root." Temporary faith does not equal saving faith. Jesus makes it clear that you will know the difference between genuine believers and false believers by their fruits (Matt. 7:6, 20). A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit (Matt. 7:18). Behavioural modification is no substitute for genuine heart transformation. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that just because people call him "Lord, Lord" and do many good deeds in His name does not mean that He knows them (Matt. 7:21-23). In other words, His Spirit does not indwell them (2 Cor. 5:12). If it did, His Spirit would testify with their spirit that they were indeed children of God (Rom. 8:6). They believed themselves to be saved, but Jesus called them workers of lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

IMP is asking this one passage, verse 2, to say things that he wants it to say, deliberately and purposefully ignoring the truth of the rest of Scripture, which thoroughly, soundly, and conclusively tells him what the "in Me" in verse 2 means. IMP uses a flawed logic. In spite of what the rest of Scripture says, informing him that the "branch in Me that does not bear fruit" is a mere professor of Christ and not a possessor of Christ, IMP wants to believe against all evidence that it somehow had a life-giving connection to the vine and then voluntarily forfeited its salvation. Can clay voluntarily do anything (Rom. 9:20-23)? The "in Me" in verse 2 simply corresponds and corroborates with the truths Jesus revealed in His parables about the kingdom (Matt. 13). If it can be forfeited, it is not "eternal." If it can be forfeited, then salvation is based entirely upon our works. If it can be forfeited, then Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to procure salvation for us or to keep us in that salvation (something he might want to examine John 17 for).

IMP attempted to argue that "No where does this state that the fruitful branches ever bore fruit or not. Any conjecture here is reading into the scripture." Try reading verse 2 again: "every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit." Ergo, it clearly does state that the fruitful branches bore fruit. If IMP's argument meant to say "No where does this state that the unfruitful branches ever bore fruit or not. Any conjecture here is reading into the scripture," he would be in error yet again, as evidenced not only from the exposition of this entire post, but also again from verse 2: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit." Verse 2 destroys IMP's theory of whether the fruitless branches ever produced any fruit or not as the entire contrast between the two branches is those that did "not bear fruit" and those that did "bear fruit." The final nail in the coffin is that if they did produce fruit, even if it was a little, the Father would have pruned them so that they would have produced more fruit. As it is, they never produced any fruit because they did not abide in Christ and Christ did not abide in them.

If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU are not in Christ Jesus. If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU will not produce any fruit (evidence of genuine faith). If Christ Jesus is not in you, then YOU never had a life-giving connection to Him. This is what John 15 is teaching. This is what the "in Me" in verse 2 refers to. Genuine converts and false converts growing up together in the kingdom of God until God separates them at the end of the age. Good soil from the bad soil, wheat from the tares, good fish from the bad fish, wise virgins from the foolish virgins, sheep from the goats. Those who commit apostasy (rebellion) never had Christ in their hearts to begin with. It is impossible for a blood-bought, born-again, Spirit-filled believer to rebel against the Saviour Who gave them a new nature, made them spiritually alive, regenerated them, gave them a new heart, and caused them to love God. IMP's theology is bankrupt. He can perform all the linguistic and eisegetical gymnastics he wants, but he cannot squirm his way out of these facts.

Πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ clearly does not show a life-giving connection to the vine. Hence the μὴ φέρον καρπόν. Why would God αἴρει αὐτό otherwise? Μὴ φέρον καρπόν is contrasted against πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον. The one that πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον, even if it is a little, God καθαίρει αὐτό for the purpose ἵνα πλείονα καρπὸν φέρῃ. The ἐν ἐμοὶ in verses 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 does not change meaning. The details surrounding each ἐν ἐμοὶ (known as context) is what determines its meaning. The meaning of πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ, then, is one who has no life-giving connection to the vine and has never bore any fruit. How do we know that it never bore any fruit? Because if it did, καθαίρει αὐτό, ἵνα πλείονα καρπὸν φέρῃ. The fact it is contrasted against πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον is proof that it never bore any fruit. The fact it μὴ φέρον καρπόν, is proof that it never μείνατε in Christ and Christ never μείνῃ in it. Verse 5 states the one that μένων is the one that αὑτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν. The fact χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποῖεν οὐδέν demonstrates positively and soundly that πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ was never in Christ to begin with.  It is conclusive that both branches are not "in Christ." IMP is guilty of hermeneutical reaching in order to try and prove his false thesis. If he allowed the Golden Rule of Hermeneutics (which states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.") and the Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics (which states, "God says what He means and means what He says.") to speak, he would not make such grave hermeneutical errors.

As far as whether a Christian can forfeit their salvation, see these other articles:
Can You Lose Your Salvation?
Apostasy in Galatians
You can find more under the Apostasy section in the Table of Contents.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Eternal Security Made Simple

If a piece of coal is turned into a diamond, that diamond cannot be turned back into a piece of coal—let alone by its own efforts and merits. The question that needs to be asked is, was that piece of coal turned into a diamond? Just because a piece of coal says, "I'm a diamond," does not make it so! Just because it covers itself in a shiny coating (behavioural modification) does not make it a diamond. God is the potter, we are the clay. If He turns a piece of coal into a diamond, it is a diamond for all eternity. A piece of coal cannot, by its own will (decision or declaration), turn itself into a diamond; and a diamond cannot turn itself back into a piece of coal.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

This, and Nothing But This, Is True Christianity!

by Edward Griffin, 1770-1837

"You do not belong to yourself, for God bought you with a high price!" 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

All that you are and have are His. You owe Him your whole selves!

The Lord Jesus Christ, who created you and redeemed you from eternal damnation, is your Proprietor, Master, and King.
Whom else then should you serve?
To whom else should you devote your lives?
Whose interest should you rather seek?

"For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself. For if we live, we live for the Lord; or if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's." Romans 14:7-8

Our religion is exactly in proportion as we cease to live for ourselves and live for God alone. We have just as much religion as we have of self-denial. The only evidence of attachment to Him on which we can rely is that we make it our design and care to promote His glory and the accomplishment of His benevolent purposes, not now and then, but in the general tenor of our lives.

To live for God, is to regard His will as the rule and ground of our conduct, and His glory as our supreme object. Not merely one day in a week, but in our general course to act from a reference to His authority.

To live for God, is to choose our calling, to pursue our business, to frame our habits, to regulate our actions from hour to hour from a regard to His will and honor.

To live for God, is to feel and act as those who are not at liberty to live to themselves, but have their work daily assigned them by a heavenly Master.

To live for God, is to live under a sense that we are not our own, not our own masters, not our own proprietors, not at our own disposal.

To live for God, is to live as though our time, talents, influence, property, and all that we are and have are God's.

To live for God, is to hold everything in readiness to use for Him, or resign all things to Him as He shall direct.

To live for God, is to to be submissive under afflictions, and willing to be at His disposal in all our trials.

To live for God, is to to be ready to deny ourselves for Him in every way which His Word or Providence may point out.

To live for God, is to desire life chiefly that we may serve Him.

To live for God, is to make Him the center in which all the lines of our life shall meet.

To live for God, is to make it the business of our lives to please Him and not ourselves.

The very core of all true religion, is not to live for ourselves, but for God; not to consider ourselves our own, but the property and the servants of the Lord Jesus Christ; not to feel as though we are set up in the world to work for ourselves, to spend the most of our time in pursuing what is termed our innocent gratifications, but to hold our time, powers, influence, and property as talents entrusted to us to be used for Christ, keeping our eye on His Word to learn His will, and aiming habitually to please and honor Him.

This, and nothing but this, is true Christianity! Whatever our creed is, if this is not our character, then all our religion is vain!

"So we make it our goal to please Him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it!" 2 Corinthians 5:9

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Mormonism's Backward Theology

"For man is spirit." Doctrines & Covenants 93:33

Mormon theology has it exactly backwards. "God is spirit" (John 4:24a). Man is not spirit. God does not have a body, but man does. Man did not become God, but God became a man. Christ Jesus.

"Man was also in the beginning with God." Doctrines & Covenants 93:29

See how backwards Mormonism has it? Their false prophet, Joseph Smith, was quite the imaginative storyteller. He stole what he wanted from the Bible, plagiarizing several chapters word-for-word from the book of Isaiah, and ignored the context and the overall meaning. Not to mention his many blunders where he assumed something from the Bible meant something else (like his use of "Sabaoth," thinking it meant Sabbath). The above "revelation" stands in complete contradiction to what the Word of God says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1-2, 14
Man was not in the beginning with God. God eternally exists from past to future. Since God has eternally existed, who knows how long it was before He decided to create man. Man is God's creation, made in His image and likeness. There is nothing eternal about man. Man is finite, mortal, limited. God is infinite, immortal, and limitless.

Mormons fail to grasp the purpose and meaning of cross-references. Cross-references are used to refer to related information in other locations. If you examine the cross-references given in Doctrines & Covenants for the above two verses, neither the biblical references nor the Mormon references have anything to do with each other, other than some similar words being used. In other words, the majority of Mormon cross-references are merely the practice of the exegetical fallacy of Collapsing Context. Doctrines & Covenants 93:33 cross-references John 4:24, yet there is no related content between the two, other than the words "is spirit."

Mormon theology is based on the fantastical storytelling of Joseph Smith, who used to tell the exact same stories around the dinner table when he was a child. Archaeological, historical, and scientific research have all demonstrated that there is no evidence to support any of the information given in the Book of Mormon. No such ethnicities, no such events, no such locations. No history of such things has been found. No monetary units of said groups have been found. Zero, zilch, nada. Everything Mormon is completely and utterly fabricated.

There are numerous similarities between the false religion of Mormonism and the false religion of Islam, as well as the false prophet Joseph Smith and the false prophet Muhammad. Both are claimed to have had little education; both claimed to receive special "revelation" from God; both claimed that God gave them permission to practice polygamy (as other false religions, false prophets, and cult leaders have done, including David Koresh). You can always identify a false prophet and a false religion when it is based on sex. When a "prophet" tries to convince you that in order to make your marriage stronger, God has commanded him to sleep with your wife, do not be a fool and fall for his satanic lies. When a "prophet" tries to convince you that God has commanded him to sleep with your daughters, do not be a fool and fall for his satanic lies. When a "prophet" tries to convince you that God has commanded that he alone is allowed to have sex or to have multiple wives, or that God has commanded that men are allowed to have multiple wives, do not be a fool and fall for his satanic lies. When a "prophet" tries to convince you that God has commanded that in Heaven or Paradise you will have multiple virgins for eternity or you will be having sex for eternity, do not be a fool and fall for his satanic lies. False religions created by men tend to revolve around sex. False religions created by women tend to revolve around emotional experiences and a false, erroneous understanding of "love."

Mormon theology is completely backwards from biblical theology. If you believe and follow Mormonism, then I have a bridge and some swamp land I would like to sell you . . .

Why I No Longer Debate On Forums and the Like

Years ago, in my early twenties, I would debate on forums, in comment sections, and in chat rooms all the time. One of the sites I frequented was titled ExChristian, which claimed to be a support site for those leaving Christianity. It was anything but a "support" site. The site's entire content was dedicated to attacking and ridiculing Christians, God, and the Bible. Users would make posts claiming that the Bible was full of contradictions and errors, and I would challenge them on their claims. They would post their supposed "proof," I would go study it out, and then refute their argument with the truth, to which they could never respond. The owner of this site, because I was such a thorn in his side, e-mailed me privately and asked that I stop posting to the site. Had I thought of it at the time, I should have taken his private e-mail and posted it publicly for the entire site's users to see.

There were several other "Christians" on that website (ones no doubt Pentecostal/Charismatic based on their attitude and behaviour), ones who should learn to keep their mouths shut. When one of the atheists would post something these "Christians" could not answer, they would simply respond with something akin to "Yeah? Well you're going to Hell!" Stunning debate skills. What these "Christians" need to do, since they are too lazy to actually read and study the Bible like they are supposed to, is to pay attention to those Christians who actually know something and to learn from them. I even began a thread specifically addressed to these types of "Christians," rebuking them and telling them to shut their mouths if they did not know how to respond to the atheists and to watch and learn from those more intelligent than themselves.

Skeptics, mockers, and doubters cannot answer or refute Christianity. They try their darnedest, but time and time again Christianity comes out on top. It has withstood the tests of time, proving to be truthful and reliable, unlike other religions that consistently fail across the board. The Bible has been attacked for centuries, yet time and time again archaeology, history, and science continuously validate its authenticity. Disagree with it as much as you want, but you cannot dismiss it. The evidence speaks for itself. Even if you choose not to accept Christianity, if you consider yourself an intelligent person in the least you still have to accept the fact that the evidence proves it to be true. To not accept the evidence and continue in your ignorance makes you willfully stupid. Meaning, you willfully choose to be stupid rather than submit to the evidence and the truth. That makes you a fool.

I no longer debate on forums, in comment sections, in chat rooms, or on any websites of similar type design simply because they are highly time consuming. Debating on them is as useless, worthless, and time consuming as using any social media websites. You spend countless hours reading and writing, reading and writing, reading and writing, only to do it all over again the very next day. What makes it even more useless, worthless, and time consuming are the ignorant fools who decide to join in without bothering to read the arguments that have gone on before! In their colossal ignorance, they choose to ignore all that has gone on before, the arguments and rebuttals, and they jump in thinking that somehow they will be able to answer you and defeat you, regurgitating the same refuted arguments already dealt with and continuing to beat that dead horse.

You can debate a university professor live and utterly destroy him, leaving him unable to answer a single one of your arguments, and yet some ignorant nobody from the street without a shred of education in any field of science, or having ever studied the issue in depth whatsoever, having ignored all the arguments made by the professor and the refutations given, will attempt to argue for the professor, thinking that somehow they will be able to best you. As I have said before, Evolution's greatest proponents have the smallest minds, the least amount of education, intelligence, logic, and reason, yet have the biggest mouths to attempt to defend it. You encounter these people on the street and in factories. These are the people who cannot think for themselves and fail to use their faculties of logic and reason, simply believing everything they hear and read concerning Evolution. Despite their arguments having been refuted and destroyed for the last 30 years, they still regurgitate and parrot those same erroneous and refuted arguments, beating that dead horse even further.

A buddy of mine who still debates on some of these types of sites, was recently argued against using several of those old, defeated, and dead arguments, including the one about the peppered moth. No doubt this guy still believes Haeckel's fraudulent charts. Here are the facts regarding the peppered moth:
The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary "proof" of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered mother surely is not one.
"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man." —International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.
Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow said:
"Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth." —Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
In his large 940-page book, Asimov's New Guide to Science, Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.
"One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin's native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark." —Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.
Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see and the lighter one quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.

Evolutionists point to this as a "proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.

There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.

There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered mothers,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularia. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.

When Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:
"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia." —Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.
Let us consider this matter more closely:

Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!"

For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.

This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.
"This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage; but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution." —On Call, July 2, 1973, p. 9.
In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendalian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.

Two leading British evolutionary scientists said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:
"We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes." —Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.
Grene adds this:
"The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as Kettlewell has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of the industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but 'evolution'? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms? —Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.
There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary "research photos" were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees!
Science vs. Evolution, Vance Ferrell, pp. 283-290.
People who still use the arguments of the peppered moth, or even of Darwin's finches, as "proof" of evolution merely demonstrate with crystal clear clarity the vapid state of their mind and their vast amassed ignorance of reality and thought. It demonstrates they are stuck in the past, have not learned anything new, and fail to study and educate themselves on the various arguments and refutations. They might as well argue that the Earth is flat, since that is what their regurgitated parroting amounts to.

I do not waste my time online any more in fruitless debates with willfully ignorant individuals because it never goes anywhere. Waiting for them to respond so you can respond back, doing this on multiple sites with multiple arguments, just becomes tedious and wastes so much of your precious time. I do not mind having such conversation in person, if the person is interested in learning rather than simply arguing for ignorance's sake. However, nowadays most of those conversations consist merely in the other person wanting to voice their opinion without having to listen to a single thing you have to say. They are master cop-out artists, allodoxophobes and veritaphobes, afraid of opinions that are not their own and afraid of the truth.

Most people you try to have intelligent, rational conversations with these days are afraid of what they do not know. As such, when you attempt to engage these people in a discussion regarding real science (verifiable facts and evidence, what you can test, observe, and repeat), the reality concerning Islam, the depravity of homosexuality, the wickedness of abortion, the verifiable validity of the Bible, the Christian religion, the blatant stupidity of Leftist Liberals, etc., these people suddenly "don't care" and will immediately try to abandon the conversation. I have had guys I have worked with try and argue evolution versus religion with me, but every time I go to answer their ridiculous and absurd claims, they would say, "I don't want to talk about it. Let's just stop." Then, ten minutes later, they would toss another argument my way, but when I would attempt to respond to it, they would again say, "I don't want to talk about it. Let's just stop." If you do not want to talk about it, then quit bringing it up! The fact of the matter is, they just want to spit their ignorant nonsense, thinking that by doing so they have somehow bested you or defeated you, but do not want to listen to a single thing you have to say. They are great cowards, afraid of hearing and learning the truth.

Since my early twenties, I have dealt with these kinds of people, but in the last 10 years they have gotten worse. I have to deal with these people on a daily regular basis everywhere I work. All I can say is, I hate stupid people! It seems that stupidity is running rampant these days, ever since post-modernism. The more I interact with these people, the more it brings to mind one of my favourite one-liners: "The more people I meet, the better I like my dog." When I was in high school, I could carry on an intelligent rational discussion of religion with non-believers (even non-believers twice my age) and nobody got angry and belligerent. Nowadays, you simply say the word "religion" in their ears and watch them go irate! Listen to half the stuff that comes out of their mouths today and you will understand my frustration with stupid people.

As I said, I do not mind having such conversations face-to-face as long as the other person is willing to learn. If they are close-minded and not interested in correcting the errors they have been taught in their life, then I would rather not waste my time and my breath, as both are precious. I am no longer interested in casting my pearls before swine. Let the willfully ignorant remain willfully ignorant. Let those with a desire to learn remain with a desire to learn. I think when I encounter these people, maybe I should ask them upfront if they have a desire to learn the facts and evidence or a desire to be willfully ignorant. It would sure save me a lot of time and frustration. If they want to remain willfully ignorant, then I can simply ignore them and go about my business.

The reason I no longer debate on forums, in comment sections, in chat rooms, or on any websites of similar type design is also the same reason why I do not have a comments section on my blog. I am not interested in tediously arguing people's subjective opinions. I have visited several similar blogs and websites and witnessed how ignorant individuals just want to argue their subjective feelings and opinions rather than thinking and studying. I do not care whether a person believes or agrees with what I have written. My goal is to make them think and to stop blindly following man-made traditions and to start reading, studying, and obeying Scripture. Too many "Christians" on these sites merely want to argue because they are "offended" that you proved parts of their denomination or their belief system to be nothing but lies, and rather than accept the truth and conform themselves to Scripture, they want to argue with you and continue believing the lies they have been brainwashed with. It is their stubborn pride at work. God forbid they should acknowledge they were wrong and humbly conform themselves and their beliefs to the truths of Scripture. Sadly, most Christians are stubborn this way. Few Christians have a desire to learn the truth of Scripture and to conform themselves and their beliefs to it, no matter what it might cost them.

If you want to believe what you want to believe, you go right ahead and do so. I will continue to search Scripture for its truths, conforming myself and my beliefs therewith. It is most important that I be obedient to what the Lord is teaching me and correct any errors I have been taught in the past. I am first and foremost responsible for myself and what I believe. Second comes my family. As always, I will encourage any readers I might have to not simply believe me because I have said it, or because John MacArthur or John Piper or Charles Spurgeon or someone else has said it, but to search the Scriptures for themselves and to see what Scripture has to say. Remember, the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul was telling them was true. You and I are to be no different!