Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[JSRG]

I feel I should point out something. Even if evolution is completely false, it does not mean that the claim of Satan holding an "18th century General Council" to come up with the idea is true. One could disprove evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt and that would still lend no direct credence to this claim about Satan coming up with it in the 18th century as part of a council.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

There's no evidence of actual Satan-worshiping cabals out there. Just people being edgy because it gets attention.

Right, Sure,

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

This verse is so true concerning Macroevolution and Heliocentrism :

"So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan,
Who Deceives The Whole World; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

- Revelation 12:9

 

[Phoneman-777]

That's a load of hooey.

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with cosmological origins.

To which kind of "evolution" do you refer?

Cosmic Evolution - unobserved origin of time/space/matter.
Chemical Evolution - unobserved origin of all the elements of the periodic table from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution - unobserved origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution - unobserved origin of life.
Macro-evolution - unobserved evolution of one species aka "kind" into a completely different "kind".
Micro-evolution - OBSERVED changes within a "kind".

Demanding that OBSERVABLE Micro-evolution is evidence for the 5 previous unobserved evolutions is a mass "crowd-think" delusion equivalent to the "emperor's new clothes".

Everyone knows there's no proof but won't admit that to be the case -- either because the atheist hates the idea of God altogether - or- because the theistic evolutionist knows if he can undermine God's plain "thus saith the Lord" in Genesis, he sets a precedent for undermining His Word as he sees fit elsewhere.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Bingo. "Satanism" is basically what happens when grown ups haven't grown out of their edgy teenager phase.

There's no evidence of actual Satan-worshiping cabals out there. Just people being edgy because it gets attention.

-CryptoLutheran

Ever hear about when God's PRIESTS brazenly stood in His very TEMPLE with their backs to Him and their faces toward the East and they worshipped the sun god (Satan) in the East?

Surely, ordinary sinners would never do anything like that, right?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Dr. Olson is dead so we can't ask him, but that quote is from 2000 and Olson was bucking the trend as the evidence amassed over the next 20 years. I can't find any statements or writings from him that date after 2001. Science isn't decided by one man's opinion. It's evidence based, not authority based and the evidence shows that birds evolved from earlier theropods.

What "evidence"? All you guys have are theories destroyed by Irreducible Complexity...but they are clung to nevertheless because if the dinos didn't arise from birds, then where did they come from? Surely, not God.

The evidence says otherwise. You can stomp your feet all you want, but doing so won't make deep time go away.

There is evidence that suggests BOTH millions of years AND short Earth chronology - it's a matter of which explanation of the data one chooses to accept based on careful weighing of the data.

This is what you wrote: "Jesus Himself said God "in the beginning made them male and female" which completely discounts evolution's idea that after millions of years of trouble-free evolutionary development without sexual reproduction, somehow life evolved in such a way that sexual reproduction not only came into existence, but sexual reproduction between two separate sexes became the singular, exclusive, integral means for continuation of the same."
You clearly were not limiting your comment to humans.

Because you guys claim at some point, humans appeared on the evolutionary timeline, right?

What a silly assertion. All animals that aren't parthenogenetic reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is literally a defining characteristic of animals. H. sapiens are and all species that existed before us were animals and therefore reproduced sexually.

Histrionic hyperbole.

What's "silly" is claiming sexually-reproducing humans evolved from asexually-reproducing creatures. You can't point to a single instance of this, but the atheistic scientific community boldly argues this and other heresies in God's face that it's so. Jesus said we were made "in the beginning male and female" - it's not a light thing in the sight of God to deny His plainly spoken Word, friend.

 

[Phoneman-777]

More histrionic hyperbole. Instead of posting fan fiction, how about actually addressing the evidence?

The burden of proof is on those who enter into a Biblical arena of ideas with a dust covered, road worn trunk full of false ideas masquerading as "evidence". Do you have any evidence for Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, or Macro evolution? Not a single thread.

The only "evidence" you have for establishing these 5 unobserved mythological evolutionary ideas is the very observable Micro-evolution, which is shamelessly extrapolated into the "evidence" to which you so confidently point, friend.

No, that is a claim made by Creationists based on an ICR Acts and Facts tract from the 70s. Geologists know that the continents undergo periods of deposition and erosion, subjection and uplift.

See? A shining example of how evolutionists totally disregard the argument.

I'll ask you again: WHY IS THE FOSSIL RECORD STILL THERE IF IT ONLY TAKES 10M YEARS TO WASH ALL THE CONTINENTS OUT TO SEA AND THE STUFF THAT STARTED OUT AT THE BOTTOM LAYER SHOULD HAVE WORKED IT'S WAY UP AND OUT THE TOP AND INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA MANY TIMES OVER?

The age of geologic periods are not determined by superficial means like erosion. They are determined by radiometric dating.

You mean a method that is at best proven to be "unreliable"? A method which relies on ASSUMPTIONS as variables in the formulas? Newborn rocks with wildly varying birthdates of millions of years ago? What we know is that after the Flood, the Earth underwent a massive change and evidence for change in half lives took place, likely due to a bombardment of solar radiation that had previously not existed via the "windows of heaven".

Besides, ever hear of Helium Diffusion dating, which proves these same zircons could NEVER be millions of years old? What about how circular reasoning is often the case to prove that the fossil is as old as the rock in which it's found, and the rock is as old as the fossil contained therein?

Have you ever taken a critical look at what is easily seen as wildly inconsistent claims of evolution, like the supposed "Reducing Atmosphere" of the "primitive Earth"?

Creationists have much bigger problems like heat. Limestone generates heat as it lithifies. So much heat, in fact, that if all the worlds limestone formed in 10,000 years, the heat would be enough melt the crust of the earth. There's also the heat from radioactive decay. Even the ICRs RATE project determined that there was 500,000,000 years worth of heat in the geology record. If all that heat happened during the Flood year, it would have melted the crust of the earth and boiled off the oceans into space.

What if God spoke the limestone into existence, as stated in Psalms 33:6,9 KJV?

And, the Big Bang theory obliterates the Law of Conservation of Energy and was mathematically disproved years ago, but it's still treated like it's Gospel.

What about all those rock formations that are twisted and folded and wrapped around each other with no sign of heat whatsoever? Are those magic rocks? What about all these layers graded coarse-to-fine that are found all over which prove rapid rock layer formation? I think you need to examine evolution more critically, friend.

 

[ViaCrucis]

To which kind of "evolution" do you refer?

Cosmic Evolution - unobserved origin of time/space/matter.
Chemical Evolution - unobserved origin of all the elements of the periodic table from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution - unobserved origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution - unobserved origin of life.
Macro-evolution - unobserved evolution of one species aka "kind" into a completely different "kind".
Micro-evolution - OBSERVED changes within a "kind".

Demanding that OBSERVABLE Micro-evolution is evidence for the 5 previous unobserved evolutions is a mass "crowd-think" delusion equivalent to the "emperor's new clothes".

Everyone knows there's no proof but won't admit that to be the case -- either because the atheist hates the idea of God altogether - or- because the theistic evolutionist knows if he can undermine God's plain "thus saith the Lord" in Genesis, he sets a precedent for undermining His Word as he sees fit elsewhere.

Biological evolution. That's the only "evolution" referred to in the theory of evolution.

There's no such thing as macro and micro evolution. There's just biological evolution. If you would be interested in learning how evolution actually works, I'd be more than happy to provide sources where you could learn. Because if you really were to put in the effort to understand it, you'd know why macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and your definitions of them, are--and I'll be nice about this--kind of nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ever hear about when God's PRIESTS brazenly stood in His very TEMPLE with their backs to Him and their faces toward the East and they worshipped the sun god (Satan) in the East?

Satan isn't the sun god. Satan isn't a god at all.

Surely, ordinary sinners would never do anything like that, right?

Worship idols? Well in the forty years of my life I've seen a lot of idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Satan isn't the sun god. Satan isn't a god at all.

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds THE GOD OF THIS AGE has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them."

• 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

 

[USincognito]

What "evidence"? All you guys have are theories destroyed by Irreducible Complexity...but they are clung to nevertheless because if the dinos didn't arise from birds, then where did they come from? Surely, not God.

Your emphasis on theory tells me you have no idea what that word means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean hunch or guess or hypothesis. Theories are overarching explanations for related phenomena. Plate tectonics explains the shape of the continents and why earthquakes happen. Germ theory explains how we get sick from communicable diseases. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record.

As for evidence, there are literally thousands of publications with evidence for birds being evolved dinosaurs.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

There is evidence that suggests BOTH millions of years AND short Earth chronology - it's a matter of which explanation of the data one chooses to accept based on careful weighing of the data.

That is false. There is no evidence showing a young earth and the "interpretation" argument is nonsense. All of the supposed chronometers showing a young earth like the oldest desert, oldest living thing, rings of Saturn, etc. only give the age of those things. It's akin to saying that the oldest human means the earth can be no older than 115 years. There are numerous heat problems, any one of which alone would be fatal for a young earth, but together in 6,000 years they would incinerate the planet.

Because you guys claim at some point, humans appeared on the evolutionary timeline, right?

What's "silly" is claiming sexually-reproducing humans evolved from asexually-reproducing creatures. You can't point to a single instance of this, but the atheistic scientific community boldly argues this and other heresies in God's face that it's so. Jesus said we were made "in the beginning male and female" - it's not a light thing in the sight of God to deny His plainly spoken Word, friend.

Sigh... I'll try and make this simple. All animals, including those from which humans evolved, produce sexually. Sexual reproduction evolved long before humans existed. It's an inherited characteristic from our ancestors.

 

[USincognito]

The burden of proof is on those who enter into a Biblical arena of ideas with a dust covered, road worn trunk full of false ideas masquerading as "evidence". Do you have any evidence for Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, or Macro evolution? Not a single thread.

Please spare us the warmed over Kent Hovind nonsense. The evolution of solar systems isn't biological and is covered by astrophysics. There are at least 25 nascent solar systems that have been imaged by astronomers. Accretion theory is well supported. Nucleosynthesis has literally been observed by via stellar spectroscopy. Macro and micro are qualitatively the same. It's just biological evolution over more or less time.

The only "evidence" you have for establishing these 5 unobserved mythological evolutionary ideas is the very observable Micro-evolution, which is shamelessly extrapolated into the "evidence" to which you so confidently point, friend.

Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it disappear. You can literally pick a a taxon, go to Google Scholar, type it in with the word evolution and you'll get hundreds to millions of results. Caecilians are pretty neat, so I'll use them as an example. 10,000 results for this search.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

See? A shining example of how evolutionists totally disregard the argument.

I'll ask you again: WHY IS THE FOSSIL RECORD STILL THERE IF IT ONLY TAKES 10M YEARS TO WASH ALL THE CONTINENTS OUT TO SEA AND THE STUFF THAT STARTED OUT AT THE BOTTOM LAYER SHOULD HAVE WORKED IT'S WAY UP AND OUT THE TOP AND INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA MANY TIMES OVER?

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TAKE ONLY 10 MILLION YEARS TO ERODE THE CONTINENTS.

You mean a method that is at best proven to be "unreliable"? A method which relies on ASSUMPTIONS as variables in the formulas? Newborn rocks with wildly varying birthdates of millions of years ago? What we know is that after the Flood, the Earth underwent a massive change and evidence for change in half lives took place, likely due to a bombardment of solar radiation that had previously not existed via the "windows of heaven".

Assumptions isn't a magic word that you can utter and it poofs away the evidence in a cloud of smoke. Radiometric dating is reliable, but some isotopes have such slow decay rates they're not useable on new materials. For instance Steve Austin used Kr-Ar dating on some Mt. Saint Helens ejecta and got date of a couple hundred thousand years. That's because Kr-Ar has a half-life of 4.5 million years and in 10 years there had only been a tiny percentage of the atoms that had decayed.

Besides, ever hear of Helium Diffusion dating, which proves these same zircons could NEVER be millions of years old?

Citation needed.

What about how circular reasoning is often the case to prove that the fossil is as old as the rock in which it's found, and the rock is as old as the fossil contained therein?

Stop with the Hovind nonsense. Rocks are IDENTIFIED by fossils. They are DATED by radiometric dating.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Biological evolution. That's the only "evolution" referred to in the theory of evolution.

There's no such thing as macro and micro evolution. There's just biological evolution. If you would be interested in learning how evolution actually works, I'd be more than happy to provide sources where you could learn. Because if you really were to put in the effort to understand it, you'd know why macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and your definitions of them, are--and I'll be nice about this--kind of nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran

Micro-evolution not only exists, but is defined as observable variation within a kind. Macro-evolution is the mythological, false idea that one kind can "evolve" into another kind, which has never been observed.

Pro-evolutionary pseudoscience is served up at every meal in museums, academia, mainstream media, entertainment world, etc. What we need is LESS of that and MORE critical scrutiny of it. I'm happy to provide sources which will critically examine and expose the many flaws of this pseudoscience. I hope you'll seek out answers to the problems with evolution I've presented.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Satan isn't the sun god. Satan isn't a god at all.

Jesus calls him the "god of this world" - if you don't believe Jesus' words, then there's no point in me appealing to what He said as authoritative.

Worship idols? Well in the forty years of my life I've seen a lot of idolatry.

-CryptoLutheran

If you want to see it all its inglorious perfection, go to the Vatican. Hislop's book "The Two Babylons" proves how ancient Babylonian sun god worship and Roman catholicism are one in the same.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record.

False. Creation best explains that in the beginning everything was there and we've been in decline: DEVOLUTION.

When presented with two options, does Natural Selection add to or take away? Exactly. How can a mechanism which makes less and less be credited with producing more and more, as seen in the incredible variety of extinct animals in the fossil record? And, aren't we losing different species all the time?

Natural Selection is doing such a good job that soon there'll be nothing left.

As for evidence, there are literally thousands of publications with evidence for birds being evolved dinosaurs.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Are you referring to the "evidence" by men who think it's possible the universe came into existence from nothing? What about all the PhDs who refute the findings of these "thousands" of publications? Do they get a voice? Friend, you need to understand that what you call "evidence" is merely pseudoscientific faith.

That is false. There is no evidence showing a young earth and the "interpretation" argument is nonsense.

Saying something is false doesn't make it so, friend. They have dug down through layer after layer of limestone and sand and limestone and sand, each layer "meeeeeiiiiiillions of years older than the one above it, only to find digging tools and quarryman's boards and various excavation equipment buried - are we to conclude these tools are tens of millions of years old? What about gold jewelry found embedded in the middle of a broken lump of coal - millions of years old necklace? THE EARTH AIN'T THAT OLD AND WAS DESTROYED IN A FLOOD, FRIEND.

All of the supposed chronometers showing a young earth like the oldest desert, oldest living thing, rings of Saturn, etc. only give the age of those things. It's akin to saying that the oldest human means the earth can be no older than 115 years. There are numerous heat problems, any one of which alone would be fatal for a young earth, but together in 6,000 years they would incinerate the planet.

Yes, and what a powerful testimony to the young age of the Earth! If the planet's been around that long, why is there only METEORIC activity on the top most layer? Why is every layer of the geological column that was once the surface the earth and subject to epigene attack flat and neatly stacked one atop the other, but the top layer upon which we live which is subject to present day erosion is so jagged and cut and gouged and canyoned and valed and anything but flat shaped like every single layer below us? Hint: because these other layers were never the surface of the earth.

Sigh... I'll try and make this simple. All animals, including those from which humans evolved, produce sexually. Sexual reproduction evolved long before humans existed. It's an inherited characteristic from our ancestors.

It's admirable how confident you are in what supposedly happened in the past, though no one has ever been able to point to anything proving that's the case.

You know why Francis Crick told biologist they "must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved"? Because design is the only thing that explains what they see on their slides. Modern day biologists are the monastic monks of bygone ages, but instead of "ooohhhm", they chant "evolved - not designed; evolved -not designed."

 

[Phoneman-777]

Please spare us the warmed over Kent Hovind nonsense.

Deflection is a poor substitute for argument, friend. You guys know Kent's right but since you have no answer to it, it's "nonsense" that I've warmed over, right?

The evolution of solar systems isn't biological and is covered by astrophysics. There are at least 25 nascent solar systems that have been imaged by astronomers. Accretion theory is well supported. Nucleosynthesis has literally been observed by via stellar spectroscopy. Macro and micro are qualitatively the same. It's just biological evolution over more or less time.

I'm not asking for proof of what we can see - where's the proof of how it got there? I'm amazed that the Webb telescope left scientists dumbfounded while Creationists fully expected to see what was revealed.

Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it disappear. You can literally pick a a taxon, go to Google Scholar, type it in with the word evolution and you'll get hundreds to millions of results. Caecilians are pretty neat, so I'll use them as an example. 10,000 results for this search.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

I could say the same about your ignorance of all the PhDs that refute your pseudoscience...and calling it "warmed over nonsense" doesn't make it go away, either, friend.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TAKE ONLY 10 MILLION YEARS TO ERODE THE CONTINENTS.

Assumptions isn't a magic word that you can utter and it poofs away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.

Assumptions? The atheistic scientific community is who says it only takes 10M years, not me!

Radiometric dating is reliable, but some isotopes have such slow decay rates they're not useable on new materials. For instance Steve Austin used Kr-Ar dating on some Mt. Saint Helens ejecta and got date of a couple hundred thousand years. That's because Kr-Ar has a half-life of 4.5 million years and in 10 years there had only been a tiny percentage of the atoms that had decayed.

Radiometric dating is unreliable - and uses assumptions as "variables" like decay rates haven't changed, though the evidence abounds for inconsistent decay rate in the past, which no doubt has the Flood as the causitive factor. See, the difference between the Creationist and Evolutionist - other than that the former is correct and the latter not - is that the Evolutionist refuses to acknowledge anything that disproves his faith.

Stop with the Hovind nonsense.

As if Hovind is my only source of information.

Are you afraid to look past Hovind and see just how many credible learned men out there, many of them atheists, who say evolution simply cannot account for what we see? How they look beyond our solar system to Panspermia? Please stop pretending your beloved theory has it all sewn up when it has so many holes in it, it's not even woven-worthy for bathroom tissue.

Rocks are IDENTIFIED by fossils. They are DATED by radiometric dating.

Dated by scientists with an agenda ax to grind, friend. I'm glad the Bible predicts that soon there won't be any atheists - everyone will be worshiping. The only question is, which deity will receive their adoration.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Micro-evolution not only exists, but is defined as observable variation within a kind. Macro-evolution is the mythological, false idea that one kind can "evolve" into another kind, which has never been observed.

Pro-evolutionary pseudoscience is served up at every meal in museums, academia, mainstream media, entertainment world, etc. What we need is LESS of that and MORE critical scrutiny of it. I'm happy to provide sources which will critically examine and expose the many flaws of this pseudoscience. I hope you'll seek out answers to the problems with evolution I've presented.

I'll take that as a no, you aren't interested in learning about evolution.

Jesus calls him the "god of this world" - if you don't believe Jesus' words, then there's no point in me appealing to what He said as authoritative.

That's Paul. Jesus refers to him as "prince of this age".

And also, Paul isn't attributing divinity to the devil, the devil still isn't a god. Paul is using the term "god" here in the sense that the devil "rules" over this present fallen age, specifically through the power of death (Hebrews 2:14). The devil isn't isn't a god.

If you want to see it all its inglorious perfection, go to the Vatican. Hislop's book "The Two Babylons" proves how ancient Babylonian sun god worship and Roman catholicism are one in the same.

You're actually advocating and recommending Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons? You're not joking, but actually being serious? Do you want to also recommend to me any books by David Icke and Eric von Danken? How bottom of the barrel are you planning to reach for here?


-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phoneman-777]

I'll take that as a no, you aren't interested in learning about evolution.

Why should any of us waste our time learning about myths like evolution? Besides, it's served up at all meals wherever we go, and it's time Creationism got the exposure it deserves.

Are you interested in learning what the science of Creationism has to say?

That's Paul. Jesus refers to him as "prince of this age".

Paul was inspired by Whom?

And also, Paul isn't attributing divinity to the devil, the devil still isn't a god. Paul is using the term "god" here in the sense that the devil "rules" over this present fallen age, specifically through the power of death (Hebrews 2:14). The devil isn't isn't a god.

Of course he wasn't attributing divinity, and neither does God when He says "thou shalt have no other" gods.

However, man has devised for himself many "gods" and every single one of them is Satan working his deceptions.

You're actually advocating and recommending Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons? You're not joking, but actually being serious? Do you want to also recommend to me any books by David Icke and Eric von Danken? How bottom of the barrel are you planning to reach for here?


-CryptoLutheran

Let's be pleasant, OK? Hislop does a great job showing us how ancient Babylonian sun worship and the papacy are identical in belief and practice.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Right, Sure,

View attachment 332043

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but the same is worthless to those who refuse to look, learn, and leave behind the lies they've been taught.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why should any of us waste our time learning about myths like evolution?

If an atheist considers Christianity a myth, and thus not worth their time learning about, would you take that atheist seriously in a debate?

Besides, it's served up at all meals wherever we go, and it's time Creationism got the exposure it deserves.

Are you interested in learning what the science of Creationism has to say?

I grew up on Young Earth Creationism. Which is also how I know that Creationism isn't science. Creationism is a theological position, and I am still a theological creationist.

Every Sunday I confess these words from the Apostles' Creed:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth."

Because God is the Creator of all things. When you say "Creationism" you mean Young Earth Creationism, and the pseudo-science peddled by people like Kent Hovind.

What I believe is what the Church has always believed: God is the Creator of all things.

Paul was inspired by Whom?

The Holy Spirit.

Of course he wasn't attributing divinity, and neither does God when He says "thou shalt have no other" gods.

However, man has devised for himself many "gods" and every single one of them is Satan working his deceptions.

I don't attribute devil-worship to people of other religions. The follower of Asatru or Wicca isn't worshiping Satan, they are simply worshiping false gods--gods that I don't believe exist. That is defined in Christianity as idolatry, not devil-worship.

Let's be pleasant, OK? Hislop does a great job showing us how ancient Babylonian sun worship and the papacy are identical in belief and practice.

The problem with Hislop is that he doesn't have any sources for any of his claims. He simply makes things up.

Hislop would have us beleive that Nimrod married Semiramis who then gave birth to Tammuz. Where did he get that information? If you guessed from no where, because he just made that up, you're right.

That's not someone deserving to be taken seriously. Hislop's goal was purely to engage in anti-Catholic polemics. It's a game that has continued until modern times, such as the nonsense one reads in Chick Tracts.

And, frankly, I am being pleasant about this. If I wanted to be unpleasant I'd use more choice language when talking about Alexander Hislop's sloppy nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran