Evolution is a part of a "strong delusion" in the end times?

[SteveB28]

Hey Steve, just for the record....

When I get lucky enough (pun intended, hahaha) to reach your age, I can only hope to have 1/10th of your "focus" and "clear mindedness". (trouble finding the right word).

Respect, mate. I hope that I'll be reading new posts of you for many years to come!

A week late then, but happy birthday dude!

Thank you so much, you are very gracious. (depending upon your Belgian background, I should say 'dankjewel', or 'merci beaucoup') I have been very lucky....my career paths have all demanded regular and rigorous exercise of my grey matter. Also, I was clever in the selection of my parents - both of them set a wonderful example of life-long learning.

But, thank you.....

 

[Larniavc]

Adam and Havah knew a lot more than we do,
and would complete reject all so-called 'science' today.

No they didn't. They were the morons who damned so many people to be sent to Hell.

 

[Larniavc]

once polio was cured, mankind still had the same potential to become crippled by disease.

Not so.

That potential to be crippled by disease has dropped significantly.

Due to medical science.

 

[Larniavc]

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


What is a more powerful delusion in these days than the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and all things that stemmed forth from these theories to create the current secular ways of thinking?

Scripture says in the end times there will be a strong delusion sent by God purposely so that unbelievers and unrighteous people will believe a lie.

Now I don't believe evolution and such are all that will be put forth. There will be more to come that will be added to those theories. I also don't believe it's saying that all who believe in the current theories put forth are damned - no, I see it as saying that the final theory will be put forth will be a "believe or don't" type of thing, aligning with most likely the mark of the beast and things of that nature.

I don't see how evolution and age of the earth and other like-minded theories cannot be a part of it really. They're too powerful, too well-known, too believed.

It seems as though there will be final separation. Those who believe the lie, the goats, and those who believe the truth, the sheep. And it appears evolution is a big factor in this separation.

Thoughts?

But things have been evolving for billions of years. Evolution is hardly a new phenomenon: how can something that has been in existence since just after life began be a sign of the end?

That's like saying the ending credits on the first episode of Doctor Who heralds the end of the line for the series.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No they didn't. They were the morons who damned so many people to be sent to Hell.

? Most people today are doing worse, willingly.

A lot worse than Adam and Havah did.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One recent example: persisting in blatant unbelief.

But things have been evolving for billions of years.

 

[ToBeLoved]

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


What is a more powerful delusion in these days than the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and all things that stemmed forth from these theories to create the current secular ways of thinking?

Scripture says in the end times there will be a strong delusion sent by God purposely so that unbelievers and unrighteous people will believe a lie.

Now I don't believe evolution and such are all that will be put forth. There will be more to come that will be added to those theories. I also don't believe it's saying that all who believe in the current theories put forth are damned - no, I see it as saying that the final theory will be put forth will be a "believe or don't" type of thing, aligning with most likely the mark of the beast and things of that nature.

I don't see how evolution and age of the earth and other like-minded theories cannot be a part of it really. They're too powerful, too well-known, too believed.

It seems as though there will be final separation. Those who believe the lie, the goats, and those who believe the truth, the sheep. And it appears evolution is a big factor in this separation.

Thoughts?

Reading verse 12 says that they will be damned for believing unrighteousness. So that would mean that in your theory, Christians who believe in evolution will be sent to hell.

I do not think it will be something outside of the church, but rather within the church. A belief like evolution I do not think is what this verse is talking about.

It mentions signs and wonders and one or two verses after the verses you quoted says 'and would fool the elect, if that were possible'. So in my thinking with lying signs and wonders strong enough to possibly fool God's Own, I think it will be a delusion somehow that permeates some of the Christian church.

That is my thinking.

 

[Larniavc]

One recent example: persisting in blatant unbelief.

Yep. You're correct.

I don't believe that things have not been evolving for about 3.5 billion years.

 

[John Hyperspace]

You can interpret it that way, if you like. My intended meaning was "there's so much I disagree with in this statement I don't know where to begin", if it helps.

As for medicine having no benefit to mankind, well, you remember that next time you don't die from smallpox.

No one remembers when they didn't die of smallpox. They only remember what they can have/do have, not what they can't have/don't have. Go to a hospital and tell the children dying of all types of disease "At least you didn't have to worry about smallpox" and see if they find that of comfort.

No offense at all, but unless you can begin to present some form of actual data, or, evidence, to support your claims, there is really nothing to do but listen to you speak emotion-based rhetoric. If you feel the need to do so, that is fine, but I cannot waste my time listening to emotion-based rhetoric which, incorrectly believes it is an appropriate representation of scientific thought.

 

[John Hyperspace]

And I note that you ignored the part of my statement in which I ask you to show your evidence.

I am not the one basing their words on the unstated proposition that "systematic investigation of the natural world" produces information which is substantially meaningful in relation to alleviating the problems of mankind. You are asking me to provide evidence for a negative. This is like a theist demanding you show evidence that God doesn't exist. No offence, but it shows you have little to no understanding of the nature of a discussion such as this.

The rest of your post was more emotion-based rhetoric in which I have as much interest in listening to as I have in listening to, "super preachers" speaking emotion-based rheotic from the pulpits without bringing to light a shred of evidence to support their preaching.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Which is a completely absurd statement to make.

Hunger in the world, if it is solvable, is going to be solved by science.
It's science that informs us on how to best cultivate food.

Desease in the world, if solvable, will be solved by science.
It's science that informs us on how to best combat deseases.

Science is how we learn things. Knowledge is an essential ingredient in solving problems.



Except that it is.



"self experience" doesn't teach us about germs, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, nuclear forces, electro magnetism, chemistry,... etc.

All of these things fall "outside" our day-to-day experience.
We live at the macroscopic level and deal with sub-light speeds. Sub-sound speeds, actually.

Mere "self-experience" will not lead us to understand the weirdness that is caused by objects approaching light speed.
Process that take millions of years to unfold are also completely out-of-touch with what we "intuitively" know and understand. We are comfortable thinking about decades. Perhaps centuries. Millenia, is a lot harder. Millions of years, billions of years... we can't fathom what such timespans are.

Being macroscopic objects traveling at sub-sound speeds, we also are only "in touch" with the G forces we experience here on earth. We can't fathom the force of gravity at a black hole or a giant star. We also can't fathom being an insect, where gravity is actually rather neglectable and where surface tension is actually what matters, in terms of "not falling down".

No, we most definatly learn about the natural world through science, not by merely being alive.



It is an empirical enterprise and it is the single most succesfull method available to us at this time.



Nore does it have to. Which is why I added "just to satisfy our human curiosity". Knowledge is its own reward, if not anything else.



Same thing.

You do a good job of saying "Science does things"; a statement to which no one is disagreeing. It seems that all you and your fellows are able to do is state "science provides information" and adding more emotion-based rhetoric in which, again, I have as much interest in listening to as I have in listening to, "super preachers" speaking emotion-based rhetoric from the pulpits without bringing to light a shred of evidence to support their preaching.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I agree, when I take my car to the garage I don't want them using their knowledge of how the car works to fix my car

You have done as fine a job at misunderstanding as your friends. The statement was not "Science provides no information", which is the statement you are attempting to address; a statement which, only exists in your mind, and not in my words.

If my appendix plays up and I have to go into hospital I want the doctors and nurses to spend their time praying by my bedside, I don't want them using using their knowledge of the human body to sort out my problem.

This is more emotion-based rhetoric which belongs in a pulpit, not in science.

Evolution is not a matter of opinion it is a fact.

I've not been talking about evolution, so, again, this is a fantasy conversation you are conjuring in your own mind. However, I will point out that you are equivocating. The OP is clearly using the word "evolution" in the popular usage on a public forum, and not the technical jargon you're using. What this means, to make it clear, is that the popular usage of "evolution" (words are defined by popular usage) is a reference to the concept that, all animals are the result of common ancestry, through some theoretic mechanism of change. This is not a fact at all, and is a highly dubious theory. The "fact" of evolution is a technical term in which "evolution" is defined as something like "change in a gene pool": which no one on the planet disagrees with.

However, you are the one committing the reasoning error by attempting to conflate popular usage of a term, with a technical use.

But if you wish to further dialogue in intellectual fashion, you will have to provide actual evidence to support your claim; otherwise you are simply engaging in emotion-based rhetoric in identical fashion to fundamentalist religion.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Not so.

That potential to be crippled by disease has dropped significantly.

Due to medical science.

Please provide evidence for your claim, otherwise it is simply hearsay. Evidence such as, statistic information regarding elimination of old disease in relation to introduction of new disease which would demonstrate a statistic "drop".

Without the production of some sort of evidence to back your claim, I will unfortunately have to regard forthcoming comments as emotion-based rhetoric which requires no rebuttal.

Though, again, I would maintain that the potential to be crippled by disease has not dropped significantly in relation to mankind's alleviation of being "subject to crippling/deadly diease." Try to find a study which shows how many people suffered from crippling'deadly diseases 200 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. If your claim is correct we should see diminishing numbers. If the numbers remain the same, we will know you are preaching nonsense.

But I can also state that, again, no one cares or acknowledges diseases that don't exist as being a significant alleviation of the dieases that people actually do suffer.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Evolution is not a matter of opinion it is a fact.

For the record, I accept the technical fact of evolution: "change in the gene pool", and do not know anyone who doesn't. It's a fact that everyone already knows: things change. So the "fact" of evolution is as scientifically impressive as "things move toward the ground when I let go of them": meaning, it is a data, and nothing more. Certainly not the conclusion of "systematic investigation of the natural world" but is the conclusion of, self-evident observation.

The theory of evolution, I neither affirm nor deny. Truthfully, I couldn't care less how things "came to be the way they are" since the information provides no substantial or meaningful alleviation of the problems of myself, or, mankind.

 

[SteveB28]

I am not the one basing their words on the unstated proposition that "systematic investigation of the natural world" produces information which is substantially meaningful in relation to alleviating the problems of mankind. You are asking me to provide evidence for a negative. This is like a theist demanding you show evidence that God doesn't exist. No offence, but it shows you have little to no understanding of the nature of a discussion such as this.

The rest of your post was more emotion-based rhetoric in which I have as much interest in listening to as I have in listening to, "super preachers" speaking emotion-based rheotic from the pulpits without bringing to light a shred of evidence to support their preaching.

You may have missed my earlier comment.

As others will no doubt find, further conversation with a closed mind is pointless. Please continue to talk to yourself........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


What is a more powerful delusion in these days than the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and all things that stemmed forth from these theories to create the current secular ways of thinking?

Scripture says in the end times there will be a strong delusion sent by God purposely so that unbelievers and unrighteous people will believe a lie.

Now I don't believe evolution and such are all that will be put forth. There will be more to come that will be added to those theories. I also don't believe it's saying that all who believe in the current theories put forth are damned - no, I see it as saying that the final theory will be put forth will be a "believe or don't" type of thing, aligning with most likely the mark of the beast and things of that nature.

I don't see how evolution and age of the earth and other like-minded theories cannot be a part of it really. They're too powerful, too well-known, too believed.

It seems as though there will be final separation. Those who believe the lie, the goats, and those who believe the truth, the sheep. And it appears evolution is a big factor in this separation.

Thoughts?

I hate to be the one to break the mold, but your thesis doesn't permit that some people could perceive evolution as a fact of the world ... and still believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead. It should also very much prevent people who aren't Christian from becoming Christian, because evolution is fairly plain and obvious as a phenomenon.

So, if a "perception of evolution" plays a primary part in deluding all people in the end-times, then you have to be able to also explain how people like Francis Collins who, after being an atheist and a long-term adherent of the fact of evolution for an extended period of time in his life, could later become Christian.

Moreover, evolution as an overall working concept didn't prevent me from becoming a Christian. Rather, it made me work harder to understand the Bible when I become a Christian.

No, I tend to think that the 'grand delusion' of the end-times involves a turn to crass materialism, more than anything. It's a state of the heart, not an affirmation of natural processes.


2PhiloVoid

 

[Larniavc]

Please provide evidence for your claim, otherwise it is simply hearsay.

Have you heard of Polio?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-Chapter-26-Polio-updated-18-January-2013.pdf

Your position baffles me.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please provide evidence for your claim, otherwise it is simply hearsay. Evidence such as, statistic information regarding elimination of old disease in relation to introduction of new disease which would demonstrate a statistic "drop".

Not necessary, since new diseases don't pop up because old diseases are cured or treated. Even if the rate of death due to disease stayed constant or even rose, despite us curing what we have, it would be worse if we hadn't cured what we have. So curing a disease is always a good thing no matter what the rate of death due to disease is.

But we have done better than break even:

You can read more here.

 

[bhsmte]

Please provide evidence for your claim, otherwise it is simply hearsay. Evidence such as, statistic information regarding elimination of old disease in relation to introduction of new disease which would demonstrate a statistic "drop".

Without the production of some sort of evidence to back your claim, I will unfortunately have to regard forthcoming comments as emotion-based rhetoric which requires no rebuttal.

Though, again, I would maintain that the potential to be crippled by disease has not dropped significantly in relation to mankind's alleviation of being "subject to crippling/deadly diease." Try to find a study which shows how many people suffered from crippling'deadly diseases 200 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. If your claim is correct we should see diminishing numbers. If the numbers remain the same, we will know you are preaching nonsense.

But I can also state that, again, no one cares or acknowledges diseases that don't exist as being a significant alleviation of the dieases that people actually do suffer.

I assume you see a doctor occasionally. Next time you see them, ask them what role the theory of evolution has had on modern medicine. Then, hold your ears.

 

[essentialsaltes]