The Origins Conspiracy, A Master Deception!

The op refers to a scientific theory as an ideology.
The op and the book it references seem to assume that Darwin was the only one who thought of evolution, what about Alfred Wallace? Was he hypnotised by Satan too? Was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck hypnotised? Thomas Huxley too? Does this mean those currently studying and working in the field of modern evolutionary synthesis are hypnotised too?

Are we expected to accept the premise that Satan personally hypnotised and tutored Darwin into becoming a geologist so he could join a five year survey voyage on the HMS Beagle as an expert of geology, to become interested in the seemingly inexplicable distribution of wildlife over the Earth, and lead him to conceive of the theory of natural selection? A theory that wasn't really widely accepted until nearly 100 years later?

I know he's the devil, but come on, that's a pretty convoluted way to undermine Christianity.. What a load of anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I would like to make a point on your last quote rather than your overall topic. If all warfare is based on deception, is it not plausible to say that you yourself have been deceived into believing something that does not exist for the purpose of making you easier to control by eliminating any kind of questioning of your own religious beliefs by those very same beliefs?

Anyway Darwin's findings are not the work of Satan. Rather they are empirical studies conducted to show how tiny variations in the offspring of living things have essentially formed the creatures that are alive now. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not dismiss creation any more than it supports it.

originally posted by: spygeek
The op refers to a scientific theory as an ideology.
The op and the book it references seem to assume that Darwin was the only one who thought of evolution, what about Alfred Wallace? Was he hypnotised by Satan too? Was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck hypnotised? Thomas Huxley too? Does this mean those currently studying and working in the field of modern evolutionary synthesis are hypnotised too?

Are we expected to accept the premise that Satan personally hypnotised and tutored Darwin into becoming a geologist so he could join a five year survey voyage on the HMS Beagle as an expert of geology, to become interested in the seemingly inexplicable distribution of wildlife over the Earth, and lead him to conceive of the theory of natural selection? A theory that wasn't really widely accepted until nearly 100 years later?

I know he's the devil, but come on, that's a pretty convoluted way to undermine Christianity.. What a load of anti-intellectual, anti-science nonsense.

Short answer? Yeah, why not.

Long answer? If "God" can be all seeing, why can't Satan? He doesn't actually have to be physically there. He's "watching".

Now that's what I believe a lot of the religious folks say. I'm not religious. The above comment is what I would think the counter argument would be.

I still find the argument "Evolution doesn't exist because God created us" is a mundane and, quite frankly, a bad argument. Creating something and that something evolving are 2 separate things through the somethings cycle. We were created at some point. Be it through biblical creation, ID, aliens, primordial soup, asteroid, and countless other hypertheticals is a given. WE WERE CREATED SOMEHOW. After we were CREATED we started to EVOLVE. Something can't evolve until it is created. A nothing can't evolve, it's THAT simple. First comes creation, then comes evolution.

Did satan whisper to the peiple that discovered DNA?Did Satan create genome mapping?

Basically anything that shows the changes in human structure is blasphemy and the devils work.

Does anyone else feel like they are responding to waterboys mum here?

The OP's article is silly.

But some religious people have posited that both the theory of evolution, and the supporting evidence, is a test of faith created by God. As a theory, that's better than what the OP is offering. Because it's impossible to disapprove. It allows for the existence of both the theory, and any supporting evidence it's gained over the years, it just suggests all that was put there by God as a trap of sorts. Such traps, and tests of faith, are in keeping with actions taken by God in the Old Testament.

Another version of this same notion, is the theory and evidence were created by Satan to pull people away from the faith. Different driver, but it deals with the evidence in the same way. And is just as impossible to disprove.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phage

In his book ‘A Trip into the supernatural’

See I know that some on ATS have seen or used a ouija board, those that have seen them working know that the evil supernatural aspect that the bible talks about does exist. If that exists, then logically the other good/God side exists too.
It really is that simple. So yes that is why I believe it, I myself have had two encounters in my lifetime.
I don't expect people to believe it unless they experience for themselves, then they will know.

That's like saying that you believe someone who says Unicorns are made of rainbow marshmallows because you once saw a live elephant at the zoo.

People's spiritual experiences with the supernatural doesn't automatically validate every single mad rant by everyone. In fact, that is a huge issue with people who encounter the supernatural. They often then go and believe the first dogma and snake oil salesman they encounter that explains it.

I've experienced many supernatural events in my life that caused me to go searching in many religions to understand the events and the way these are filtered through our cultural imagination. So I may experience the holy ghost if I only know Christianity, but might experience Buddha if I am Buddhist. Of course, Buddhists understand and teach that your own prejudices and preconceived notion are always present in your perception of reality and the supernatural.

Darwin's theories have helped the development of biology and medicine. No dark agenda.

a reply to: Raggedyman

"I know everything and nobody can question me about anything, I am the supreme knowledge"

That is correct and proof of the statement about keeping an open mind so open "stuff spills out". The diametrically opposed statement does exist - keeping a closed mind so tight , nothing can enter .

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
dont forget moses and god used black magic as well on Pharoah

Well, since Satan is actually the creator god described by the Bible, maybe the OP isn't so far off the mark. Of course it also means that worshipers of the Biblical creator god are all Satanists without even knowing it doesn't it?

Since the Messiah came to rescue all us life sparks from the evil physical world created by this Satan there is really no longer an excuse to deny evil of existence on this physical plane. Accept The Messiah and escape to the welcoming at-one-ness with the Godhead.

(/tongue-in-cheekiness)

Come on folks, really now. YEC belief in a god that would create the universe 6000 years ago yet makes it look like it is 13.82 billions of years old it to believe in a god that doesn't deserve respect. That is a trickster, pulling pranks to amuse itself.

That god is Loki the Trickster, and his followers are Lokians not Christians, not Jews, not Muslims. Lokians.

We really need to stop pretending and call a spade a spade. There are only two possibilities here, either the world was created by Loki 6 to 10 thousand years ago to appear as if it was 13.82 billion years old, or the world really is about 13.82 billion years old.

In either case, what is the nature of the world we live in? It appears to be 13.82 billion years old; that is its nature, but is it really that old? Clearly, if the world is Lokian, then it was created by a trickster god. Either the Biblical creator god is a scoundrel and a charlatan who has purposely set out to fool his lowly creations (Job where are you when we need you to act as a scapegoat?) or the universe really is 13.82 billion years old and if a god was involved in that creation, at least it isn't trying to screw with our heads.

There is just no way we can honestly distinguish between the 'false' 13.82 billion year old Lokian universe or the 'real' 13.82 billion year old image. If the world is a YEC sham, then Loki has built the universe so that we would be completely bamboozled by his dishonesty.

Since we can't tell the difference, there is absolutely no reason to consider that the Universe is actually Lokian in nature. Why would we? If it is actually Lokian, Loki clearly didn't want us to know about it. My understanding is that we are supposed to respect God - the first four Commandments are all about obeying Him. Hey, if He wants us to think that the world is 13.82 billion years old, who the heck are we to question him. As He said to Job, “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind?” and "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."

God rages quite a bit at Job, poor picked on Job. Clearly, the God of Job was not the 'God of Love' the Messiah speaks of. The God of Job is egotistical and sadistic. If you want to worship that God, then for your own sake, you really should learn to understand His 'moods'. My suggestion is that if He wants to make the world look like it is 13.82 billions years old, then you darn well better agree with him.

I dont understand how people make things so complex

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You find it extraordinary that someone called Darwin a Satanist and therefore that Evolution is a deception from Satan? I've seen that tired fallacy many times before. It's just another in a long line of crappy tactics the religious use because they can't disprove evolution directly.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
dont forget moses and god used black magic as well on Pharoah

Miracles are from God and his angels, black magic is from Satan and his Demons
Do you guys really think every single statement posted to this forum www.abovetopsecret.com... is bunk, I mean granted some is mental illness, but not all.

Now for those that say "Satan did it" is the weakest argument. Then the point is completely lost for that type of group thinking.

Know Your Enemy

The Art Of War

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Babies are born every day, right? They are created with the sperm of a male and the egg of a female. They then spend the next 78 years evolving.

Well yes and no.

The dictionary definition of 'evolution' is 'change over time', so that means that any system that changes over time can be said to evolve. But we are not talking about the velocity of a ball rolling down hill, or the cloud pattern on the western horizen, or the position of the sun relative to the center of the milky way.

We are talking about "Biological Evolution" as described by the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis". That is not just any kind of changing system - it is a discussion about how life became so diverse (not how it came to be, just how it became so diverse once it started) - nothing less, nothing more. It is at best ignorant to not understand the difference, and at worst intellectually dishonest to pretend to confuse the special meaning of the word "evolution" when discussing "Biological Evolution".

Individual organisms do not "evolve" over their lifetimes, they "age". Populations of organisms "evolve".

It is not strictly 'wrong' to describing the aging process (or for that matter, geology, cosmology, climate, or any other number of processes) as 'evolving' in a general discussion about the nature of change; but it is misleading, deceptive, and ignorant to use the word in that way in a discussion about biological evolution.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Why does any of that invalidate the current known science? Should we conclude that scientists are now instruments of Satan? [face plant]

a reply to: rnaa

the world really is about 13.82 billion years old.

I agree, YEC is also a play from Satan as well, only this time it's foisted on the fundie's, he is working both sides, it is a masterful deception he captures both sides equally; those with spirituality with YEC and those without with evolution, he is brilliant and evil, not stupid.

Ken Ham is on par with Darwin both hucksters of deception.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: rnaa

the world really is about 13.82 billion years old.

I agree, YEC is also a play from Satan as well, only this time it's foisted on the fundie's, he is working both sides, it is a masterful deception he captures both sides equally; those with spirituality with YEC and those without with evolution, he is brilliant and evil, not stupid.

Ken Ham is on par with Darwin both hucksters of deception.

Care to share any proof with all these statements you're making?

So far all you're saying is evolution is false coz Satan made him say/do it. Where's the proof?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If you are trying to espouse Gnostic beliefs you are doing a pretty lousy job of it. My 'joke' about Satan being the creator god of the Old Testament was a lot closer to being on that point - it was actually a mangled version of a mainline Gnostic belief.

In other words, I don't know what the heck you are trying to say, and, I suspect, neither do you.

Why do you guys always pick on poor Darwin? It isn't as though he was the first to try and explain diversity. The concept of evolution goes back to at least fifth century BC, and probably much further. So the devil has been busy a very long time. Silly humans, it took us a few millennia to catch on.

"The third point in the plan of Lucifer and his spirit counselors was to destroy the Bible, without burning it. "
The bible takes care of that on its own, what with the "you can make striped animal babies by making animals mate in front of striped branches", and talking donkies, and kangaroos swimming across the ocean and penguins somehow waddling across the entire desert in the heat with no food for months or years on end in order to get on some wooden boat. It's a bunch of nonsense, just like claiming Darwin was being given personal tutoring by the devil.

a reply to: Shiloh7

he wouldn't have need to send the Beagle around the world would he?

Didn't send it. Took it. Or rather, it took him.

The Beagle was a Royal Navy cartographical survey vessel whose mission was to chart, IIRC, the coasts of Patagonia and Chile. Since trying to get through the Straits of Magellan twice in a sailing ship was just asking for trouble, this necessitated a circumnavigation of the world, and would take over a year.

It was a small ship, the Beagle, and its captain and his first officer were the only gentleman aboard. Perhaps not trusting in the conversational resources of his mate, the captain advertised for an interested gentleman to accompany him on the voyage and share his table. Darwin applied, and was accepted in the capacity of geologist and naturalist. He had an adventurous voyage, commanding detachments of sailors on expeditions into the interior of Patagonia and up into the Andes. And of course, all over the Galapagos Islands. He didn't care for the new colony of Australia, was fascinated by New Zealand, and was repelled by what he saw, for the first time, of slavery — in Brazil.

His account of the journey, The Voyage of the Beagle, is great science writing and great travel writing both at the same time (though the outdated geology can be quite amusing). Very little here of the pedantic heaviness that burdened sections of the Origin and the Descent : this was Darwin as a young man, writing from the notes he'd kept of the greatest adventure of his life. You should read it; anyone who likes writing about strange faraway places, and the life that fills them, should read it.

(Sorry to be off topic an' all, but the discussion wasn't really going anywhere anyway).