Evolution: The Doctrine of Delusion

Buttermilk said:

And we theistic evolutionists are NOT members of it !!!

Click to expand...

I forgot to ask. What is a "harlot apostate"?

JohnR7 said:

The first thing we need to address here is: Why does God allow this delusion? The answer here is really very simple, because people rejected the truth.

2 Thes. 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, [10] and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. [11] And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, [12] that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There is a lot that can be learned from this passage. So feel free to ask questions about it. Bible questions are always welcome. But don't ask creationists to try to explain man's theory of evolution to you, becasue it is a lie and we do not deal in lies, we deal in the truth. So if you want to know anything at all about evolution, ask a evolutionist. Creationists are here to defend creationism, not evolution.

So, the answer as to why God allows this delusion is because there are people who take their pleasure in unrightousness. They do not want to live righteous before God. As a result of this, they reject the truth, and they choose to walk in darkness. God does allow them to be deluded, He does allow them to believe a lie, and He does allow them to walk in darkness.

Still, God does show the way, for those who want to walk in the light and receive the truth. He provides a way for all honest hearted people to seek after Him, and to know how to be free from the lies, deceptions and delusions.

John 16:13
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

It is the spirit of truth that guides us and leads us into all truth. We are taught by God. We are not presuaded by man's lies and deceptions.

Click to expand...

Ok, John:

1. How do you know evolution is the delusion, and not creationism? Can you provide supporting evidence? Such evidence would have to either concur with creationsim, or disagree with evolutionism (preferably save biblical evidence for #2). Much of both will be needed to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

2. Can you provide the full context these quotes were found in and/or evidence that the claims you have made are supported by the bible? There are many things in the bible, which, if taken alone, don't have the same meaning.

3. "Even Satan can quote scripture" as sure as you may be, you could still, maybe, possibly, be deceived by satan. Do you deny this? Is it possible for satan to deceive anyone? If satan cannot deceive just anyone, how is it possible to know whether one or another may be deceived by satan or not? If one cannot know whether or not one is deceived by satan, then how must we determine truth from delusion?

Please take the time to read the above thouroughly, and fully. Thank you.

Aron-Ra said:

I forgot to ask. What is a "harlot apostate"?

Click to expand...

A Christian who disagrees with JohnR7. Which is just about every Christian except JohnR7.

JohnR7: From its context, it is clear that Gracchus intended the above quoted comment to be humorous. As as result, it is classified not as a fact or hypothesis that can be tested and shown to be based on valid or invalid reasoning, but as an opinion. As such, the qualities of "truth" and "false" simply do not apply.

False premise on your part, you demonstrate false reasoning.
This is yet another example of man made thinking that does not line up with the truth.

Click to expand...

Are you, then, an authority on Truth?

JohnR7 said:

Do you want to know about truth?

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi

• Saints should worship God in. Psalm 145:18; John 4:24
• Saints serve God in. Joshua 24:14; 1 Samuel 12:24

• Saints walk before God in. 1 Kings 2:4; 2 Kings 20:3

• Saints keep religious feasts with. 1 Cor. 5:8

• Saints esteem, as inestimable. Proverbs 23:23

• Saints love. Zech. 8:19

• Saints rejoice in. 1 Cor. 13:6

• Saints speak, to one another. Zech. 8:16; Ephes. 4:25

• Saints execute judgment with. Zech. 8:16

• Saints meditate upon. Phil. 4:8

• Saints bind, about the neck. Proverbs 3:3

• Saints write, upon the tables of the heart. Proverbs 3:3

• The fruit of the Spirit is in. Ephes. 5:9

• Ministers should speak. 2 Cor. 12:6; Galatians 4:16

• Ministers teach in. 1 Tim. 2:7

• Ministers approve themselves by. 2 Cor. 6:7-8

• Magistrates should be men of. Exodus 18:21

• Kings are preserved by. Proverbs 20:28

• They who speak, show forth righteousness. Proverbs 12:17

• They who speak, are the delight of God. Proverbs 12:22

• The wicked destitute of. Hosea 4:1

• The wicked speak not. Jeremiah 9:5

• The wicked uphold not. Isaiah 59:14-15

• The wicked plead not for. Isaiah 59:4

• The wicked are not valiant for. Jeremiah 9:3

• The wicked punished for want of. Jeremiah 9:5; Jeremiah 9:9; Hosea 4:1; Hosea 4:3

• The gospel as, came by Christ. John 1:17

• The gospel as, is in Christ. 1 Tim. 2:7

• John bare witness to. John 5:33

• Is according to godliness. Titus 1:1

• Is sanctifying. John 17:17; John 17:19

• Is purifying. 1 Peter 1:22

• Is part of the Christian armor. Ephes. 6:14

• Revealed abundantly to saints. Jeremiah 33:6

• Abides continually with saints. 2 John 1:2

• Should be acknowledged. 2 Tim. 2:25

• Should be believed. 2 Thes. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 4:3

• Should be obeyed. Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:1

• Should be loved. 2 Thes. 2:10

• Should be manifested. 2 Cor. 4:2

• Should be rightly divided. 2 Tim. 2:15

• The wicked turn away from. 2 Tim. 4:4

• The wicked resist. 2 Tim. 3:8

• The wicked destitute of. 1 Tim. 6:5

• The church is the pillar and ground of. 1 Tim. 3:15

• The devil is devoid of. John 8:44

Click to expand...

So which are you calling yourself? The Saint, the Minister, or the King?

That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.

Click to expand...

It is not quite accurate to claim that a theory has been disproven. Rather, each of the component laws that make up the theory must be selectively disproven, each one of them invalidated, before the theory that takes its basis from these laws is declared "invalid" as well.

The largest modification of a theory occured with Einstein and the discovery of modern mechanics. Even then, Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics was not invalidated, only qualified--Modern Mechanics did not vary appreciably from Classical mechanics for low energy states. In fact, most engineers and physicists still use the Classical laws of physics, as the energy states required for appreciable error (+- one billionth of one percent) approach nearly one hundred thousand miles per second.

For a law to be considered as such, it would have to undergo incredibly rigorous testing simply to pass into a sort of preliminary stage. For a theory to be disproven, not only would each of the laws have to be inaccurate, but they would have to be so incredibly invalid that even the basic tenents the laws were founded on had to be thrown away. This would require the selective examination and invalidation of every conclusion made regarding the theory, from the discovery to present day. If evolution, the theory, were disproven in this way it would be running continuously in the headlines for weeks. Evolution is not just "some theory", it is a theory, and it is the most integral component of modern medicine and biology.

Now, as for your statement that evolution has been "replaced by" a theory of descent--I'm not sure what you mean. Evolution is commonly referred to as patterns of descent, or common descent, and it is even sometimes grouped together--"evolution and descent"--but "descent" is usually just a qualifier, and sometimes an alternate moniker.

Finally, if it existed, it wouldn't be "a theory of descent", it would be "the theory of descent". A theory is not some simple concept a scientist can unilaterally think up and publish; if it is a theory--even a relatively new theory--it is guarenteed that nearly every competant scientist in the field that theory deals with will have heard of it before, or even be actively considering its impact on their job. It will have had hundreds of publishings in most of the major scientific magazines, and most likely, all of the magazines that specialize in the theory's field of application. Everyone would have heard of it, and grown sick of it, before it was recognized as "a theory".

The disproval of a theory has not occured since the foundation of modern science. In fact, because those "theories" before the foundation of science are not considered theories at all by today's standards, it is safe even to say that a scientific theory has never been disproved. They are only gently changed, or expanded to fill previously dark regions.

Finally, here is the dictionary definition of "Theory":

1: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The sixth definition is:

6: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

And its prevalent usage is mainly because of people, like you, who abuse and trivialize the word. When you are using it to explain scientific phenomenon, be sure you realize the magnitude of what you say when you refer to a theory.

Quote:

``This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton

JohnR7, why did you answer only this one question but ignored all the other challenges I have put to you? Have you conceded that evolution hasn't really been disproved, as you claimed it had been? Do you concede that the Biblical authors described the "Earth" only as the 'flat land above the sea?' That an historic theological study of scripture supports theistic evolution? That "Satan" was based on Zarathustra's mythic opposer? And most importantly, that dogmatic idolatry is the lie, and not the world around you?

Who wrote the holy books of Krsna, Brahma, Mazda, Mithras, Jesus, and Allah?
Mere fallible men, that's who.
Now who created light years, tree rings, varves and fossils? Not mere men, certainly.
Which of these contains the most lies?

And by the way, John, EvolveEarth was right. The Bible is rife with errors, but you won't let yourself see that because you have surrendered your reason to willful self-delusion. You have been programmed to reject the truth and embrace the lie without reason and against all reason. That's what faith means.


Reality never requires faith, and honest persons don't want your faith either. Truth is best discovered through scrutiny and doubt than it ever could be through blind, stubborn gullability. In all the universe, the only thing that requires faith is a bad liar.

Bare in mind that sanity is defined as having rationality; the ability to reason, and to be reasoned with. Your brand of faith is rather the opposite of that. But IF you can think rationally enough to accept my challenge, then I will prove the veracity of evolution to you, and you will admit -before this forum and the world at large- that Biblical creationism is simply not at all true, and that you are an evolved ape. And you won't just believe it either. You'll know it, and you'll be able to prove it others who don't want to believe it either. Mere faith can't complete with knowledge, logic and reason.

So what do you say? The challenge is on the table, and this is the last time I will ask: Will you show the strength of your conviction, and accept? Or will you show the lack of either faculties or faith required to cower away, back to your misty world of make-believe?

I do not consider myself to have any authority.

Click to expand...

So was this whole thread even worth it?

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Click to expand...

In spite of the state of the world, as it is today, you still believe this?

JohnR7 said:

God causes everything to work out for the best for me, so everything in life is "worth it".

Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Click to expand...

So did God guide you to begin this thread in the first place, or are you just jumping off the cliff expecting Him to put out the safety net?

DirectAnim said:

JohnR7:
I don't want to know about your form of truth; I think I already have a good idea of what it is. I asked if you considered yourself an authority on truth, as you clearly expressed no hesitation to judge Gracchus' post in such absolute terms.

Click to expand...

I could have sworn John would have responded with a "don't judge my heart" argument

JohnR7 said:

First of all the Bible is not errant

Click to expand...

the theory that the bible is not errant is one of man's theories, man's theories are lies, so the theory that the bible is not errant is a lie.

First of all the Bible is not errant

Click to expand...

Which Bible? Are you talking about the 1611 KJV?

*snicker*