The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[dad1]

Evidence has been presented and you ignore it,

Blatantly false. No evidence whatsoever even addressed the issue of what time in the distant universe was like. Be honest.

You've yet to make a counterargument of any kind

The argument is that all arguments you made so far have zero relation to the issue of time in the universe. Period. Yet you think you can still use the millions of years etc as some sort of reality. No. The jig is up.

ignorant of what science has accomplished over the last 1000 years, and especially the last 100. That is crystal clear from your comments.

The issue is not how many times science has allowed man to blow himself up, or how many cancer causing concoctions it cooked up etc. Yes science did plenty, much of it bad, some good. The issue is what evidence can you provide from science that time in the far universe is the same as here?

[brunumb]

The issue is what evidence can you provide from science that time in the far universe is the same as here?

By default, it's the same until you can demonstrate that it is different, or it is possible to be different. The burden is on you.

[Bust Nak]

OK so you have no evidence that time exists any particular way and don't care.

No, you are reading that wrong. I have evidence that time exists the same way everywhere and don't care if you aren't impressed by it.

All of your models are invalidated regarding the distant universe and any time involved in anything getting to earth. I kid you not.

Don't care about your religious proclamation; science isn't invalidated by what you think, instead it is validated by repeated empirical testing.

[dad1]

The issue is what evidence can you provide from science that time in the far universe is the same as here?

By default, it's the same until you can demonstrate that it is different, or it is possible to be different. The burden is on you.

Your religion falsely called science uses beliefs as the real basis for it's claims and models. You do not get to slide that by as a 'default'. Comedy hour is over.

[dad1]

No, you are reading that wrong. I have evidence that time exists the same way everywhere and don't care if you aren't impressed by it.

Your sandbox, toy cars and etc are actually not evidence. Not in any way.

science isn't invalidated by what you think, instead it is validated by repeated empirical testing.

You have been shown to have nothing even relating to what time is like in the far universe and have instead offered truly foolish toys and etc as evidence. No idea why you think you can pull a Buzz Lightyear on us here.

[brunumb]

Your religion falsely called science uses beliefs as the real basis for it's claims and models. You do not get to slide that by as a 'default'. Comedy hour is over.

When you say things like "religion falsely called science uses beliefs as the real basis for it's claims and models", comedy hour is just beginning. All you do is make sweeping unsupported claims suggesting that things might be different only because you need them to be in order to prop up your holy book.

[dad1]

Your religion falsely called science uses beliefs as the real basis for it's claims and models. You do not get to slide that by as a 'default'. Comedy hour is over.

When you say things like "religion falsely called science uses beliefs as the real basis for it's claims and models", comedy hour is just beginning. All you do is make sweeping unsupported claims suggesting that things might be different only because you need them to be in order to prop up your holy book.

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

[brunumb]

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

And yet you are unable to provide a rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis for it to be otherwise. Your position is based on wishful thinking alone because it challenges one interpretation of your holy book.

[dad1]

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

And yet you are unable to provide a rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis for it to be otherwise. Your position is based on wishful thinking alone because it challenges one interpretation of your holy book.

Science has zero knowledge of time in the distant universe, so to pretend there is some 'rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis' For what it is like is unsound and dishonest. (or pretending others should have some science for their beliefs about the unknown)
"My position' is facing the what should be obvious fact that science does not know. Therefore pretending it does know and squawking for some proof that the beliefs and guesses of so called science are wrong is a bogus position.

You do not know, science does not know. Period. Your guess or belief is not any better than anyone else's. Get over it.

[brunumb]

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

And yet you are unable to provide a rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis for it to be otherwise. Your position is based on wishful thinking alone because it challenges one interpretation of your holy book.

Science has zero knowledge of time in the distant universe, so to pretend there is some 'rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis' For what it is like is unsound and dishonest. (or pretending others should have some science for their beliefs about the unknown)
"My position' is facing the what should be obvious fact that science does not know. Therefore pretending it does know and squawking for some proof that the beliefs and guesses of so called science are wrong is a bogus position.

You do not know, science does not know. Period. Your guess or belief is not any better than anyone else's. Get over it.

OK. You and your holy book know more than the hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent and experience cosmologists and physicists around the world. Take it up with them. I'm sure they are waiting for your game changing contribution with bated breath. Although, if your criticism does have any merit, it seems odd that none of them have considered it worthy of consideration.