Zone1 Religion Versus Evolution

[Hollie]

I am sure that God is burdened by logistics...not.

I am sure all tbe gods are burdened by their more excitable worshippers.

 

[ChristisKing]

Grave robbers.

I don't agree but fair argument nonetheless.

 

[Hollie]

humans were created as spiritual beings of light and love, not initially as physical bodies, who then chose to have physical experiences to learn and express themselves. These soul's experiences, collected through cycles of reincarnation, lead to wisdom and compassion, ultimately allowing the soul to understand its oneness with God.

That's the LSD talkin'

 

[Moonglow]

That's the LSD talkin'

I wish. When are you scoring more?

 

[Quantrill]

I couldn’t be happier for you to believe that. You believe in talking snakes.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Again… yes but not in the way you think.

Well, explain the way I think, and then explain the way your think.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Quantrill

 

[ding]

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Quantrill

For like the third or fourth time... yes, but not like you do.

 

[ding]

Well, explain the way I think, and then explain the way your think.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Quantrill

You think like an idiot and I think like an intelligent person. You think everything in the bible is to be read literally. I look at each book, chapter, passage. etc, on a case by case basis. There is no “one size fits all” way to interpret the passages. Context is important and so is literary type or style which include: historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, poetry, epistles, gospels and apocalyptic.

Some passages use allegory and embellishment. Some don’t. The goal it to decipher the intent of the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

I have one simple rule. God isn’t a dick. God does not condone violence, cruelty or hate towards his creatures. So anytime a passage seems like that is the case, I search for what the main point of the account was. Many times it is the historical point, embellishments and moral messages that only make it seem like God is condoning violence, cruelty and hatred.

But you are a religious nutjob so this will all go over your head.

 

[ding]

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

For like the fourth or fifth time... yes, but not like you do.

You are an irrational religious nut job who believes in talking snakes and I am a rational human being.

 

[Quantrill]

You think like an idiot and I think like an intelligent person. You think everything in the bible is to be read literally. I look at each book, chapter, passage. etc, on a case by case basis. There is no “one size fits all” way to interpret the passages. Context is important and so is literary type or style which include: historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, poetry, epistles, gospels and apocalyptic.

Some passages use allegory and embellishment. Some don’t. The goal it to decipher the intent of the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

I have one simple rule. God isn’t a dick. God does not condone violence, cruelty or hate towards his creatures. So anytime a passage seems like that is the case, I search for what the main point of the account was. Many times it is the historical point, embellishments and moral messages that only make it seem like God is condoning violence, cruelty and hatred.

But you are a religious nutjob so this will all go over your head.

But, how do you determine if a passage is allegorical or not? Just because you think God is not a dick? Which means nothing but your view of how God should act. It plays no role in true interpretation. You just want God to be like you and not what you consider a 'dick'. Thus your interpretation is just you.

You don't search for anything other than 'God is not a dick'. Which means God is like you believe He should be.

So, again, show me how you decide if a passage in the Bible is 'allegorical' or not.

Quantrill

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm not uneducated, severely or otherwise. I worked with geologists for 38 years. Drilled wells all over the world. Read electric logs. Looked at cuttings. We know quite a lot about the earth's strata and the age of the formations.

View attachment 1163018

Thank you. But, the age thing is again subjective at best. It's not science. It's observable information that has to guess on timelines to give an age to something. There's way too many problems that keep popping up with things like Egyptians and South American and American ancient drawings depicting dinosaurs being ridden by people and other dinosaurs existing along side humans. Science has no answer to that. That shoots the 65 million years since dinosaurs were supposed to be extinct. There are other issues as well. Too many to take old earth seriously.

 

[Quantrill]

For like the fourth or fifth time... yes, but not like you do.

You are an irrational religious nut job who believes in talking snakes and I am a rational human being.

So you interpret the Bible based on your 'reason'?

Do you think God is above your reason? Above your own understanding? Or is God like you?

(Pro. 3:5) "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not to thy own understanding."

Quantrill

 

[Cougarbear]

Really? We've drilled millions of wells around the world based upon the science of geology.

Yes, geology is a science, specifically the scientific study of Earth's structure, composition, processes, and history, using scientific methods and integrating concepts from physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics to understand our planet.

Here's why geology is considered a science:

• Scientific Method:
  Geologists use the scientific method, employing deductive reasoning and observation to understand geological phenomena.
  • • Physics: For understanding forces and processes, like plate tectonics.
    • Chemistry: To study Earth's materials and reactions.
    • Biology: To investigate fossils and the history of life preserved in the rock record.
    • Mathematics: For modeling and analysis of geological data.
• • Focus on Earth:
    The core focus of geology is to understand Earth, from its deep interior to its surface features, and how it has evolved over time.
  • Application of Principles:
    Geologists apply scientific principles to address critical societal needs, such as managing natural resources, assessing natural hazards like earthquakes and volcanoes.
  • Predictive Capabilities:
    By studying past processes and their effects, geologists can make predictions about future geological events and Earth's behavior.

Relying on Google AI. Here's Google AI response to problems with your science.
Creationist proof of young earth












Adherents of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) present several arguments to support their belief that Earth is only thousands of years old, not billions as estimated by mainstream science
. These arguments are based on interpretations of the Bible, along with scientific claims that are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Biblical and religious arguments
The YEC view that Earth was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago is derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible, primarily the first chapters of Genesis.

• Genealogies: By adding up the generations and life spans recorded in Genesis, some biblical scholars have created chronologies, such as Archbishop James Ussher's, that place creation at approximately 4004 B.C..
• Literal interpretation of Genesis: YECs argue that the "days" of the Genesis creation account are 24-hour periods because the Hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal number (e.g., "first day," "second day") and defined by "evening and morning".
• The Fall and death: Genesis 3 describes the Fall of Man and the subsequent curse on creation, including death and suffering. YECs argue that since the fossil record contains evidence of animal death and struggle, it must have been created after the Fall, not millions of years before it.

Scientific arguments proposed by YECs
YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) claim that certain scientific observations are inconsistent with an ancient Earth and instead point to a young age. Mainstream science provides counterarguments to each of these points.

Biological claims

• Dinosaur soft tissue:YECs highlight the discovery of preserved soft tissues, blood vessels, and blood cells in dinosaur fossils. They argue that delicate biomolecules and cells could not last for millions of years, suggesting the fossils are only thousands of years old.
  • Scientific consensus: Paleontologists have explained that soft tissues can be preserved through a process called iron-catalyzed Fenton chemistry, where iron in the blood is used to preserve the original tissue.
• DNA in "ancient" bacteria:YECs cite bacteria, supposedly 250 million years old, that were revived from salt inclusions. They suggest that DNA could not survive for such a long time, thus implying the salt deposits are much younger.
  • Scientific consensus: Research on DNA preservation limits its survival to thousands of years, but the revived bacteria are thought to have been contaminants, and the preservation of DNA in ancient fossils is viewed with skepticism.
• Degenerating human genome:YECs claim the human genome is degrading due to an accumulation of slightly harmful mutations, which is consistent with an origin only thousands of years ago.
  • Scientific consensus: This claim ignores the role of natural selection in removing deleterious mutations from the population.

Geological claims

• Polystrate fossils:YECs point to polystrate fossils—single fossils like tree trunks that cut vertically through multiple geological strata. They argue that the strata must have been deposited and solidified rapidly, perhaps during a global flood, otherwise the fossils would have decayed while waiting to be buried.
  • Scientific consensus: Polystrate fossils often form in specific, localized circumstances, such as trees buried by volcanic mudflows, and do not provide evidence against long-term geological processes.
• Tightly bent rock layers:YECs claim that certain rock formations showing sharp folds and bends must have been formed and folded while the sediment was still wet and unsolidified. They argue this indicates rapid formation, likely by a catastrophic flood.
  • Scientific consensus: Geologists explain that rocks can deform in this manner under high temperatures and pressures deep within Earth's crust over long periods of time, a process independent of whether the rock was originally wet.
• Lack of seafloor sediment:YECs argue that if Earth were billions of years old, the seafloor would be covered in miles of sediment, far more than currently exists. They calculate that present-day erosion rates would fill the ocean floor in millions, not billions, of years.
  • Scientific consensus: This argument ignores plate tectonics. Sediment is continually removed from the ocean floor as tectonic plates slide beneath continents in a process called subduction.
• Salt in the sea:Using similar logic, YECs suggest that the oceans should be far saltier if Earth were billions of years old, as rivers constantly deposit salt and other minerals into the ocean.
  • Scientific consensus: The ocean's salt level is influenced by numerous factors, including mineral deposits from the seafloor, which balance the input from rivers.

Astronomical claims

• Decaying magnetic field:YECs point to the observed decay of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years and extrapolate this rate backward. They suggest the field would have been impossibly strong in the ancient past, implying a young Earth.
  • Scientific consensus: Mainstream models of Earth's magnetic field show it is powered by a "dynamo" effect in the planet's core, and its decay is part of a complex cycle involving periodic field reversals, which has occurred many times over Earth's history.
• Moon's recession:YECs argue that the moon is slowly spiraling away from Earth due to tidal friction. They extrapolate this movement backward and contend that an ancient moon would have been impossibly close to Earth, suggesting a younger age.
  • Scientific consensus: The moon's recession rate is not constant but slows as the distance between Earth and the moon increases. The observed rate is consistent with a moon billions of years old.
• Short-lived comets:YECs contend that comets, which lose mass as they pass near the sun, would have dissipated long ago in an ancient solar system.
  • Scientific consensus: This argument is based on an incomplete understanding of the solar system. Comets are resupplied from the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, replenishing the supply of comets that enter the inner solar system.

Rejection of radiometric dating
The scientific consensus that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old is based on extensive cross-validated geochronological data, including radiometric dating. YECs reject these methods and have developed arguments against them.

• Radiocarbon in ancient materials:YECs report finding carbon-14 in materials like diamonds and coal that are conventionally dated as millions or billions of years old. Since C-14 has a short half-life, this would indicate a much younger age.
  • Scientific consensus: This C-14 is not primordial but is caused by trace contamination or background radiation, which is extremely difficult to eliminate completely during the measurement process. Modern laboratories have shown these YEC measurements to be flawed.
• Accelerated nuclear decay:The RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project conducted by ICR scientists claimed to have found evidence for accelerated nuclear decay during creation week and the Genesis Flood.
  • Scientific consensus: The RATE project's analysis was found to be flawed by non-affiliated scientists, and the claim of accelerated decay violates fundamental laws of physics and would generate enough heat to melt Earth.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

They haven't.

"They" claim they have.

But I don't believe it.

If they really had, it would be all over the scientific news feeds all over the planet.

 

[ding]

But, how do you determine if a passage is allegorical or not? Just because you think God is not a dick? Which means nothing but your view of how God should act. It plays no role in true interpretation. You just want God to be like you and not what you consider a 'dick'. Thus your interpretation is just you.

You don't search for anything other than 'God is not a dick'. Which means God is like you believe He should be.

So, again, show me how you decide if a passage in the Bible is 'allegorical' or not.

Quantrill

To determine if a Bible passage is allegorical, analyze its context, identify its literary genre, and consider how it relates to the surrounding text and the broader message of Scripture. If a literal interpretation is absurd or contradicts other parts of the Bible, or if the text itself indicates a symbolic nature (like a vision or parable), it is likely intended allegorically. Consider what the author of that specific book intended to communicate through that passage. What was the purpose of the writing.

 

[ding]

Thank you. But, the age thing is again subjective at best. It's not science. It's observable information that has to guess on timelines to give an age to something. There's way too many problems that keep popping up with things like Egyptians and South American and American ancient drawings depicting dinosaurs being ridden by people and other dinosaurs existing along side humans. Science has no answer to that. That shoots the 65 million years since dinosaurs were supposed to be extinct. There are other issues as well. Too many to take old earth seriously.

That's exactly what I would expect a religious nut job would say when arguing against science.

 

[ding]

Relying on Google AI. Here's Google AI response to problems with your science.
Creationist proof of young earth












Adherents of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) present several arguments to support their belief that Earth is only thousands of years old, not billions as estimated by mainstream science
. These arguments are based on interpretations of the Bible, along with scientific claims that are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

View attachment 1163273
View attachment 1163275
View attachment 1163277
View attachment 1163274
View attachment 1163276



Biblical and religious arguments
The YEC view that Earth was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago is derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible, primarily the first chapters of Genesis.

• Genealogies: By adding up the generations and life spans recorded in Genesis, some biblical scholars have created chronologies, such as Archbishop James Ussher's, that place creation at approximately 4004 B.C..
• Literal interpretation of Genesis: YECs argue that the "days" of the Genesis creation account are 24-hour periods because the Hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal number (e.g., "first day," "second day") and defined by "evening and morning".
• The Fall and death: Genesis 3 describes the Fall of Man and the subsequent curse on creation, including death and suffering. YECs argue that since the fossil record contains evidence of animal death and struggle, it must have been created after the Fall, not millions of years before it.

Scientific arguments proposed by YECs
YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) claim that certain scientific observations are inconsistent with an ancient Earth and instead point to a young age. Mainstream science provides counterarguments to each of these points.

Biological claims

• Dinosaur soft tissue:YECs highlight the discovery of preserved soft tissues, blood vessels, and blood cells in dinosaur fossils. They argue that delicate biomolecules and cells could not last for millions of years, suggesting the fossils are only thousands of years old.
  • Scientific consensus: Paleontologists have explained that soft tissues can be preserved through a process called iron-catalyzed Fenton chemistry, where iron in the blood is used to preserve the original tissue.
• DNA in "ancient" bacteria:YECs cite bacteria, supposedly 250 million years old, that were revived from salt inclusions. They suggest that DNA could not survive for such a long time, thus implying the salt deposits are much younger.
  • Scientific consensus: Research on DNA preservation limits its survival to thousands of years, but the revived bacteria are thought to have been contaminants, and the preservation of DNA in ancient fossils is viewed with skepticism.
• Degenerating human genome:YECs claim the human genome is degrading due to an accumulation of slightly harmful mutations, which is consistent with an origin only thousands of years ago.
  • Scientific consensus: This claim ignores the role of natural selection in removing deleterious mutations from the population.

Geological claims

• Polystrate fossils:YECs point to polystrate fossils—single fossils like tree trunks that cut vertically through multiple geological strata. They argue that the strata must have been deposited and solidified rapidly, perhaps during a global flood, otherwise the fossils would have decayed while waiting to be buried.
  • Scientific consensus: Polystrate fossils often form in specific, localized circumstances, such as trees buried by volcanic mudflows, and do not provide evidence against long-term geological processes.
• Tightly bent rock layers:YECs claim that certain rock formations showing sharp folds and bends must have been formed and folded while the sediment was still wet and unsolidified. They argue this indicates rapid formation, likely by a catastrophic flood.
  • Scientific consensus: Geologists explain that rocks can deform in this manner under high temperatures and pressures deep within Earth's crust over long periods of time, a process independent of whether the rock was originally wet.
• Lack of seafloor sediment:YECs argue that if Earth were billions of years old, the seafloor would be covered in miles of sediment, far more than currently exists. They calculate that present-day erosion rates would fill the ocean floor in millions, not billions, of years.
  • Scientific consensus: This argument ignores plate tectonics. Sediment is continually removed from the ocean floor as tectonic plates slide beneath continents in a process called subduction.
• Salt in the sea:Using similar logic, YECs suggest that the oceans should be far saltier if Earth were billions of years old, as rivers constantly deposit salt and other minerals into the ocean.
  • Scientific consensus: The ocean's salt level is influenced by numerous factors, including mineral deposits from the seafloor, which balance the input from rivers.

Astronomical claims

• Decaying magnetic field:YECs point to the observed decay of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years and extrapolate this rate backward. They suggest the field would have been impossibly strong in the ancient past, implying a young Earth.
  • Scientific consensus: Mainstream models of Earth's magnetic field show it is powered by a "dynamo" effect in the planet's core, and its decay is part of a complex cycle involving periodic field reversals, which has occurred many times over Earth's history.
• Moon's recession:YECs argue that the moon is slowly spiraling away from Earth due to tidal friction. They extrapolate this movement backward and contend that an ancient moon would have been impossibly close to Earth, suggesting a younger age.
  • Scientific consensus: The moon's recession rate is not constant but slows as the distance between Earth and the moon increases. The observed rate is consistent with a moon billions of years old.
• Short-lived comets:YECs contend that comets, which lose mass as they pass near the sun, would have dissipated long ago in an ancient solar system.
  • Scientific consensus: This argument is based on an incomplete understanding of the solar system. Comets are resupplied from the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, replenishing the supply of comets that enter the inner solar system.

Rejection of radiometric dating
The scientific consensus that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old is based on extensive cross-validated geochronological data, including radiometric dating. YECs reject these methods and have developed arguments against them.

• Radiocarbon in ancient materials:YECs report finding carbon-14 in materials like diamonds and coal that are conventionally dated as millions or billions of years old. Since C-14 has a short half-life, this would indicate a much younger age.
  • Scientific consensus: This C-14 is not primordial but is caused by trace contamination or background radiation, which is extremely difficult to eliminate completely during the measurement process. Modern laboratories have shown these YEC measurements to be flawed.
• Accelerated nuclear decay:The RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project conducted by ICR scientists claimed to have found evidence for accelerated nuclear decay during creation week and the Genesis Flood.
  • Scientific consensus: The RATE project's analysis was found to be flawed by non-affiliated scientists, and the claim of accelerated decay violates fundamental laws of physics and would generate enough heat to melt Earth.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[ding]

So you interpret the Bible based on your 'reason'?

Do you think God is above your reason? Above your own understanding? Or is God like you?

(Pro. 3:5) "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not to thy own understanding."

Quantrill

I think you should lean into being a religious nutjob.

 

[Quantrill]

To determine if a Bible passage is allegorical, analyze its context, identify its literary genre, and consider how it relates to the surrounding text and the broader message of Scripture. If a literal interpretation is absurd or contradicts other parts of the Bible, or if the text itself indicates a symbolic nature (like a vision or parable), it is likely intended allegorically. Consider what the author of that specific book intended to communicate through that passage. What was the purpose of the writing.

You have to know the 'broader message of Scripture' in order to relate it to other Scripture. Absurd doesn't negate the miraculous. With Scripture an allegory or symbol is defined by Scripture. Meaning one has to know the Scripture in order to define a symbol.

The serpent in the garden is not allegory or symbol. It is the serpent in the garden. Indwelt by Satan, as I proved to you in (Revelation).

In other words, when you interpret an allegory, or symbols, Scripture must support your interpretation.

You don't interpret a symbol or an allegory. You interpret the Bible allegorically. You make it say what you want it to say. You make it not the Word of God, but the Word of you.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I think you should lean into being a religious nutjob.

You don't like (Pro. 3:5)?

Quantrill