Evolution vs. Creationism

[UniversalAxis]

Also:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded, and that everything died but Noah and his family and the stuff on the Ark, right?
So, then, did he take the time to drop off Buffalo in North America before he sailed over to Australia and dropped off the Kangaroo and Kowala?
Also, did Noah pick up Aborigines and Chinese and Indian People too, and keep them on his ark? What about Native Americans? Did he drop them all off on his way back to wherever he lived?

I keep asking this to see where the YECs stand on it, but people keep ignoring me...

 

[UniversalAxis]

Quote: Pilgrim33 (Post#208)
Not us. This creation now is under Satan's command. For now.

I meant to get back to this shortly after it was posted, but fell asleep... sorry if it seems untimely, but there are question I want to ask.
Is it really your position that the Universe is under Satan's control, and has been since his fall?
Would it be possible for Jesus to appear in 'Satan's Creation', formerly that of God?
How would Satan wrest(take) control of Creation from the very hands of God if he was defeated and cast down into the pit of Hell and imprisoned?
Wasn't the purpose of his imprisonmet meant to keep Satan from disrupting the Cosmos in the way that the theory you presented suggests?
Wouldn't it have been necessary for Satan to have won the war in heaven to have disrupted the univerese in such a way?

There exists a severe problem with any thory which suggests that Satan is in control, or that any influence he might exert over God's universe would not be undone by the power of God. It would seem that the only inluence that Satan could have is over beings which posess free will to choose Satan's path over God. The fact that the materials in question do not posess free will (IE. Energy and Matter) are outside Satans jurisdiction.
Any thoughts?

 

[BurningHeart]

The universe is not under Satan's control and never has been. Creation, and in this physical realm, which is temporary, was briefly under his influence, however, the only power satan exercises now is that which mankind gives to him. Which is how this physical realm can to be under his influence at all. Mankind was given dominion over this realm, and upon mankind's choice to sin against God through disobedience, dominion was passed to satan, until Jesus's death, during which time Jesus took back dominion and control from satan.

How would Satan wrest(take) control of Creation from the very hands of God if he was defeated and cast down into the pit of Hell and imprisoned?
Wasn't the purpose of his imprisonmet meant to keep Satan from disrupting the Cosmos in the way that the theory you presented suggests?

In response to this, I would point out that Satan has yet to be cast into or imprisoned in hell. It is a future event which to come at the time of the final judgement. Satan was not cast out of heaven and into hell. But rather out of heaven and to the earth. Which is when he tempted mankind, first Eve and then Adam, resulting in man's fall from fellowship with God Himself. Satan claimed mankind's forfeited dominion over this realm at that point and retained it until The time that Jesus's death and subsequent resurrection passed that dominion back into the hands of Jesus, and through Him, also to all of mankind that knows and follows Him.

There exists a severe problem with any thory which suggests that Satan is in control, or that any influence he might exert over God's universe would not be undone by the power of God.

I would agree with you here. There is a severe problem in saying that satan is in control, or that he has a power that God Himself cannot override. Even though satan had dominion in the realm for a time, he was NEVER supremely powerful. A perfect place to look at this example in action is in the book of Job. Satan could exercise some power in this realm in Job's life, affecting Job's family, marriage, finances, etc. However, Satan, in EVERY instance, was subject to God's omnipotence. God could have at any moment stopped everything that satan was doing, and in the end you see that God restored Job to even greater wealth than before. To really explain all of this it must be understood that the physical universe and realm in which you and i resdie in this body, is not all that there is in existence. God Himself, the Father, and now also Jesus the Son, reside outside this physical realm. It says even that God holds the universe in the palm of His hand. Satan NEVER had a power greater than God's; God is simply Holy and just an true to His own Laws, and commands. Adam and Eve, and through them all mankind had to suffer the consequences of the disobedience. And while that allowed satan to assume a temporary dominion in this realm, God still sat on the ultimate throne of power. He alone has all authority, and unto Jesus has now also been given "all authority in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, for all time." God himself also exists outside of time, thus He sees the end and the beginning and knows everything that has been, is now, or ever will be; but that's another discussion altogether. God alone is supreme, satan never has been, he is a finite being, just like man is a finite being. Satan is limited in space and time just as we are, although he resides in another realm than the physical one.

Any thoughts?

Those are mine for now at least.

BurningHeart

 

[BurningHeart]

Also:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded, and that everything died but Noah and his family and the stuff on the Ark, right?
So, then, did he take the time to drop off Buffalo in North America before he sailed over to Australia and dropped off the Kangaroo and Kowala?
Also, did Noah pick up Aborigines and Chinese and Indian People too, and keep them on his ark? What about Native Americans? Did he drop them all off on his way back to wherever he lived?

I keep asking this to see where the YECs stand on it, but people keep ignoring me...

I'm a YEC and will be happy to answer you. The races came about as a result of micro-evolution, based primarily on environment and people group breeding habits. I'll post more later on the animals on different continents

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Is it really your position that the Universe is under Satan's control, and has been since his fall?

Seems pretty obvious just from looking around, doesn't it?
Matthew 4:8-9, "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

Would it be possible for Jesus to appear in 'Satan's Creation', formerly that of God?

It's still God's creation.

How would Satan wrest(take) control of Creation from the very hands of God

He didn't.

if he was defeated and cast down into the pit of Hell and imprisoned?

He wasn't. Yet.

Wasn't the purpose of his imprisonmet

He isn't. Yet.

meant to keep Satan from disrupting the Cosmos in the way that the theory you presented suggests?

He did disrupt it, back when he purposed in his heart to usurp The Throne of God.

Wouldn't it have been necessary for Satan to have won the war in heaven to have disrupted the univerese in such a way?

He and his angels were cast out of heaven.
There has been no war in heaven. Yet.

There exists a severe problem with any thory which suggests that Satan is in control,

not in the least; it is the entire problem with everything, everyone, indeed, with all creation. That is why the great Clockmaker will one day fix some clocks, for good.

or that any influence he might exert over God's universe would not be undone by the power of God.

It's happening. It will be. Not in our time. Not in good time. But in God's time.

It would seem that the only inluence that Satan could have is over beings which posess free will to choose Satan's path over God.

As to "beings": Satan can affect us through our relationships, ourselves, God, Our Saviour, our spouse, our family, our church, our friends, our neighborhood, our school, our city, country, world. Get the picture?

1 Chronicles 21:1, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

2 Corinthians 2:10-11, "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:for we are not ignorant of his devices."

The fact that the materials in question do not posess free will (IE. Energy and Matter) are outside Satans jurisdiction.

Ephesians 2:2, "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Also:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded,

you stand corrected.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Burningheart and Pilgrim33-

Thank you for your comments regarding my questions. The notion that Satan's fall was resposible for the cosmos as we know it is an interesting one, though I still remain entirely unconvinced by it. This is not a response to your posts, I will get to that shortly, this merely an acknowledgment of your effort at answering my questions. I find that it is not the end of the road wich is the most enjoyable part, where dialectic(debate) is concerned, but the road and the research which forces us to grow. I will answer your posts soon.

-UniversalAxis

 

[UniversalAxis]

Also:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded,

you stand corrected.

Then what exactly was the nature of the flood?

 

[UniversalAxis]

About Revelations:
I was wondering: This book of the bible seems to discuss the Fall of Babylon, the ruins of which are currently being excavated. How is it possible that Babylon 'will be' destroyed during the apocalypse, when it already has been destroyed, presumably, by other sources?

 

[Tenacious-D]

Another reason Revelation should be ignored.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Another reason Revelation should be ignored.

That's one take on it, but I think we can all agree that Revelation is still a good read.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

About Revelations:
I was wondering: This book of the bible seems to discuss the Fall of Babylon, the ruins of which are currently being excavated. How is it possible that Babylon 'will be' destroyed during the apocalypse, when it already has been destroyed, presumably, by other sources?

Offhand I don't recall how many times it has been rebuilt throughout history. Later the Moslems replaced it when they built Baghdad about 60 miles to the South and across the river. As to the original site, it is in present day Iraq; Saddam started rebuilding it back in the 80's and had to stop because of the Gulf War.

The following link, Babylon: Why The Confusion? , while it is heavy on Saddam and predates his fall, still contains good information about its history, rebuilding and prophecy; it also contains several photographs of the rebuilding.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

About Revelations:
I was wondering: This book of the bible seems to discuss the Fall of Babylon, the ruins of which are currently being excavated. How is it possible that Babylon 'will be' destroyed during the apocalypse, when it already has been destroyed, presumably, by other sources?

Secularly speaking, the most likely reference that the author of the book of Revelation (note, that is singular, not plural <grumble><grumble>) was making was to Rome, but in general Babylon (as well as Sodom) appears to have been used in a number of places as a symbolic name. So, taking a fairly literalist view, when the anti-Christ arises his seat of power* will be the Babylon named in the Revelation, regardless of what name is on the welcome signs at the city limits.

*I may be mistaken on this, I haven't read Revelation in great detail recently.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

{eidited} Secularly speaking, the most likely reference that the author of the book of Revelation was making was to Rome,

Your political correctness is too polite; nonetheless, there is a body of evidence for "Rome" just as there is for Babylon (my pick) which is and always has been the original seat of the Mother of Harlots.

It would seem more probable for "Rome", as it did in its beginning, to blend all the surrounding pagan religions into its own. This would make the One world, One government, One religion concept more readily receptive.

Also, there is support by some for Jerusalem as the likely spot.

but in general Babylon (as well as Sodom) appears to have been used in a number of places as a symbolic name.

Yes, it is used that way, for both; though, nowhere near anything that, proportionally, could be considered a significant portion and, definitely, no way to change the inferred reference. Figures of speech are always used to emphasize (and never to decrease) the import of the message.

So, taking a fairly literalist view,

Revelation is the most allegorical book of the Bible and it's prophecy can never be taken literally until all has been ReveAled and finally fulfilled;

when the anti-Christ arises his seat of power* will be the Babylon named in the Revelation, regardless of what name is on the welcome signs at the city limits.

True, enough, as to the ultimate location. For my own thoughts on the matter please refer back to my first comment.

*I may be mistaken on this, I haven't read Revelation in great detail recently.

All the doom and gloom pulp writers, particularly, of the 70's and 80's, prophesying the end to come, essentially, in the 1980-2025 timeframe, have done considerable harm with their excessive literay license in Hollywood science fiction horror fashion by (turning many off as well as) hardening the prooftexting skills of a generation of others.

 

[USincognito]

I'm a YEC and will be happy to answer you. The races came about as a result of micro-evolution, based primarily on environment and people group breeding habits. I'll post more later on the animals on different continents

Oooo! Now this I'm interested in reading. When you get the time, please follow up with more detail.

 

[BurningHeart]

Oooo! Now this I'm interested in reading. When you get the time, please follow up with more detail.

Well, the races are a good place to start. Evolution has a hard time explaining the origin of races itself, as it stands. But, I'll point out the idea of the origin of the races from a Creationistic standpoint. Maybe even let me backtrack a little. Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, had an introduction written by Dr. Harrison Matthews. Matthews stated in his introduction, "Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, has been capable of proof." This is a good place to begin this debate, Since accorrding to Scientific Method, neither side can present their case as "Fact". Both Evolution and Creation are not Observable, Testable, or Repeatable. That being said, let me proceed with what I can.

 

[yossarian]

Well, the races are a good place to start. Evolution has a hard time explaining the origin of races itself, as it stands. But, I'll point out the idea of the origin of the races from a Creationistic standpoint. Maybe even let me backtrack a little. Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, had an introduction written by Dr. Harrison Matthews. Matthews stated in his introduction, "Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, has been capable of proof." This is a good place to begin this debate, Since accorrding to Scientific Method, neither side can present their case as "Fact". Both Evolution and Creation are not Observable, Testable, or Repeatable. That being said, let me proceed with what I can.

both are observable, testable, and repeatable

what has been observed, tested, and then repeated - has shown that creationism is inconsistent with the data, and consistent with evolution

 

[BurningHeart]

I think in this debate it is important to point out how I am looking at things too. Yes, I hold to a young earth creation, but more importantly than that I hold to the Bible. This is where I lose some people because they discount anything in the BIble. This si why I find it important to point this out at the beginning of our discourse. I accept the BIble as the Word of God, and thus, interpret the evidence of science on that basis. Many scientists - including those who call themselves Chrisitians, accept the Bible as containing the Word of God, but only subject to the "Proof" by science. Evidentialist approaches will always lead to further debate, because the evidence is always open to be interpreted by those who are viewing it. All scientists have presuppositions they use in interpreting the evidence. I hope to share my views, and maybe even show how scietific models built on those ideas DO fit consistently with a standpoint of a divine young earth creation. This is a presuppositionalist approach. The advantage in this approach is that it takes the issue to a fundamental level. Science has limits, even evolutionists wil admit to this, we must undertake this discussion with an acknowledgement of those limits, and see what options and ideas are there based on the eveidence.

 

[BurningHeart]

I think in this debate it is important to point out how I am looking at things too. Yes, I hold to a young earth creation, but more importantly than that I hold to the Bible. This is where I lose some people because they discount anything in the BIble. This si why I find it important to point this out at the beginning of our discourse. I accept the BIble as the Word of God, and thus, interpret the evidence of science on that basis. Many scientists - including those who call themselves Chrisitians, accept the Bible as containing the Word of God, but only subject to the "Proof" by science. Evidentialist approaches will always lead to further debate, because the evidence is always open to be interpreted by those who are viewing it. All scientists have presuppositions they use in interpreting the evidence. I hope to share my views, and maybe even show how scietific models built on those ideas DO fit consistently with a standpoint of a divine young earth creation. This is a presuppositionalist approach. The advantage in this approach is that it takes the issue to a fundamental level. Science has limits, even evolutionists wil admit to this, we must undertake this discussion with an acknowledgement of those limits, and see what options and ideas are there based on the eveidence.

this being said, I beleive the Bible to be infallible and the Word of God. If someone chooses to respond to one of my posts with theories or ideas in areas which I am not versed, I will do my best to respond to them as quickly as possible. I say this because I will only talk about what I do know, and if this debate gets outside of those areas, I will has to find the correct answer for you, since I do not want to spout out information simply because it will fill lines on a page. This issue is a key one I think and it is important to have correct information, so, since the BIble is infallible and the Word of God, it will always be right, I just might on occation need to speak to someone in another area of expertise to show it scientificly, if the discussion move outside my knowledge.

 

[BurningHeart]

both are observable, testable, and repeatable

what has been observed, tested, and then repeated - has shown that creationism is inconsistent with the data, and consistent with evolution

When have you or any other person in all creation observed evolution at work? If evolution is correct, and the process really did take millions or billions of years, HOW has that been observed? It has not been repeated or tested either because the control evirionments to do such testing would also have to be run by beings who lived that long as well. It is simply not Possible.

I also think this would be a good place to point out what renowned scientists have said at times about evolution - 2 good quotes

1. Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission - "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and teh story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

2. Well-known evolutionist D.M.S. Watson - "...the theory of evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation..."

Just something to think about.