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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Plate tectonics is a diversion. Explain where the water came from to create a global flood that covered the highest mountains by 15 cubits. Until you can do that, it is pointless to try to use that explanation for anything. There simply is no source for that much extra water (nearly 1 billion cubic miles ... about 3x all the water in the oceans). If all the world's land ice melted you get about 70 meters of sea level rise ... nothing compared to what is required. And where did all the water go when the flood ended? Equally big problem.

1st This had to be an incredibly violent event in Earth's history. This event killed almost every living thing on this planet according to the fossil record. If it were just a simple flood most of the sea life would have survived. But if we can take the fossil record at face value then we have to conclude that most living things died.

2nd The amount of water in the mantle is thought to have gotten there by subducting plates from the surface. The mantle has almost 3 times the oceans of the world.

3rd Major tectonic activity has occurred on the earth. The uplifting of the plateau (whose mechanism is not really understood), mountain building, and so on.

Assumptions of the theory I am or Dr. Brown, and some of the geoscientists with Answers in Genesis, Cedarville University and I believe Liberty University. Mine is kind of a synthesis of the two theories, which is the direction both theories are heading. Dr. Brown was the first to come up with this theory of hydro plates and the rest of the creationists are heading in that direction. They have now added to their theory supercritical water blowing out into space also. The problem is that Dr. Brown and Ken Ham do not get along so well.

Assumptions of initial conditions before the flood.
1st. Before the flood, the oceans were shallower with 1/2 the salinity of modern oceans. (Dr. Brown)
2nd. The continent "Pangea" was flatter on average than today. (all theories)
3rd. The Earth had a layer of supercritical water that was 10 to 50 km below the surface of the Earth that was between 2-4 km in depth. This would hold between 1-2 billion cubic km of supercritical water. (Dr. Brown)
4th. The supercritical water was heated by the tidal pumping of the moon. (Dr. Brown)
5th. The heat was exchanged to the surface by daily geysers across the surface of the earth. (Dr. Snelling Found evidence of this. From his book The Earth's catastrophic past.)
6th. The Earth was 5% larger by mass than it is today. (Dr. Brown is evidenced by the number of tectonic plates in the mantle. )
7th. Continent size mats of trees floating on the ocean. (Dr. Snelling radial roots of trees found in coal seams. Book The Earth's Catastrophic Past)

If the heat could not be exchanged to the surface then there would be a build-up of pressure in the supercritical layer and everything else happens by the laws of physics.

I have no doubt that local floods could have inspired the multiple food myths (Gilgamesh, Noah, others), and am quibbling with taking the Genesis flood story literally both in the relatively recent date implied by biblical chronology, and the global nature of it and the amount of H2O required. If the story isn't taken literally as described in Genesis, then all kinds of "outs" are possible. But all the mountains under the heavens sure sounds like global to me, especially if the intent was to kill all but 8 humans on the entire Earth (again, the literal story in Genesis).

For over 3000 years this has always been interpreted as a Global flood, so I have no problem defending a global flood that occurred on this planet 4000 years ago.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #929]

The mantle is made of magma.

Ok, but it still has to be heated for the magma to rise to form a plume at least that is what the hypothesized mechanism is. But the whole idea of a plume is nothing more than a hypothesized mechanism to explain anomalous volcanism. That would be volcanism that cannot be explained by modern plate tectonics. But can be explained by catastrophic plate tectonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_pl ... 20boundary.

Geophysicists don't seem to be confused in their analysis that says it happens.

Well, they should, because if you are saying that this meteor impact 60 million years or 250 million years ago caused the plume on the other side of the earth than we would have to wait another 770 million years or 580 million years.

• The size and occurrence of mushroom mantle plumes can be predicted by the transient instability theory of Tan and Thorpe.[12][13] The theory predicts mushroom-shaped mantle plumes with heads of about 2000 km diameter that have a critical time (time from onset of heating of the lower mantle to formation of a plume) of about 830 million years for a core mantle heat flux of 20 mW/m2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_pl ... n%20events)%20is

There is no way that the asteroid could have caused the plume that created a 4 million cubic km melt even if it did have enough energy. Who knows there might be some serious tectonic activity in a few hundred million years or so. But I do not think I will care by then.

You're still confusing province vulcanism with volcanoes.

Basaltic lava has low gas content.

No. It's the volcano being blocked and pressure building up. But that isn't what happens in province vulcanism.

What blocks the gas is the type of magma.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases

No they have lower gas content. If you start citing some of your belief you might learn some stuff about volcanoes.

Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

No they did not have a mechanism.

Still, it's a fact that they move, and so one has to conclude that they did.

How?

The ones on either side of the Mid-Atlantic ridge. Obviously, magnetic variations that depend on the depth of the borehole are not causes by reversals of the Earth's magnetic field.

Why?

[The Barbarian]

I've had several prior rounds with ESG on the biblical flood and his stance has always been that it happened as described in Genesis, and I believe he is a bona-fide YEC and literalist (despite conveniently using millions or billions of years when convenient for various other arguments). So I'm challenging the recent claims in this thread (also not new) that plate tectonics and related subjects can be explained by the global flood described in Genesis. It would obviously have to be a truly global flood to even come close to supporting his arguments in this thread as plate tectonics is global.

The assumption that a flood was global is not supported in Genesis. It's not just that the account specifically avoids the word for "world." It's that "under heaven" is a figure of speech dating from the time when the Hebrews assumed a flat Earth with a domelike solid sky above. I doubt if God would have made an error like that.

[The Barbarian]

The mantle is made of magma. So it doesn't have to be heated.

Ok, but it still has to be heated for the magma to rise to form a plume at least that is what the hypothesized mechanism is.

It's called "convection."

That is explained by modern plate tectonics. But cannot be explained by catastrophic creationist doctrines. ry.

Geophysicists don't seem to be confused in their analysis that says it happens.

Well, they should,

I find them more credibile. They actually know about such things.

You're still confusing province vulcanism with volcanoes.

Basaltic lava has low gas content.

Because it's less viscous than rhyolitic magma. Gas escapes more readily.

(assertion that gas is the cause of volcanic explosions)
No. It's the volcano being blocked and pressure building up. But that isn't what happens in province vulcanism.

What blocks the gas is the type of magma.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases

No they have lower gas content.

Because they are less viscous.
Explosive eruptions generally involve magma that is more viscous and has a higher gas content.
https://www.britannica.com/science/volc ... -eruptions

If you start citing some of your belief you might learn some stuff about volcanoes.

See above. It's not what they told you it is.

Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

No they did not have a mechanism.

I don't think denial is going to help much.

Still, it's a fact that they move, and so one has to conclude that they did.

How?

Convection in the mantle. Ridge push at mid-oceanic ridges. Slab pull in subucted plates.

The ones on either side of the Mid-Atlantic ridge. Obviously, magnetic variations that depend on the depth of the borehole are not causes by reversals of the Earth's magnetic field.

Why?

Because if it was, the magnetic field would be identical at all levels of the borehole.

[boatsnguitars]

It's funny how Christians (or other religionists) will defend the scientific claims in their Bible after the fact. It's classic Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
They don't understand how the Bible, for the last, some 6000 years (including OT), made a claim that everyone thought was literally true - because the Bible said so. Then, 100 years ago, they prove it wrong and Religionist scurry to re-interpret it and claim Christianity is really correct, and hey, if it weren't for the Church, we wouldn't have modern science...

It's like a Conspiracy Theory: There is never proof it's wrong, because there is nothing falsifiable about their claims.

[DrNoGods]

The assumption that a flood was global is not supported in Genesis. It's not just that the account specifically avoids the word for "world." It's that "under heaven" is a figure of speech dating from the time when the Hebrews assumed a flat Earth with a domelike solid sky above. I doubt if God would have made an error like that.

Besides the description of water covering "all the high hills", there are additional verses to indicate a global event (KJV):

"19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

For this to be a local flood then the word "all" and the phrase "upon the earth" would need to be removed from verses 21 and 22, unless earth and "all the dry land" was considered to only be a section of Mesopotamia and the rest of the world's animals and humans survived which would contradict the original premise:

"12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

...

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

How can this be reconciled with only a local flood event, even with a flat earth view? It would certainly eliminate the need to explain how kangaroos got to Australia after the ark came to rest (and many other logistical issues), but presumably the violence and sinning that prompted the mass killing was not localized to part of the Middle East. If the story is taken as allegory and not a literal event, then there is no need to bring science to bear on its legitimacy. My quibble is with a literal interpretation of the story as a global flood, not as a piece of allegory.

[Clownboat]

Proposal and hypothesis can be used interchangeably.

Not where I come from. Proposals need not be testable. Thus you are sowing confusion by using them interchangeably.

I'm no authority, but I'll agree for now since a hypothesis must be falsifiable and since you are using them interchangeably, this 'proposal/hypothesis' is therefore not scientific. Where does that get us?

Do you then agree that scientists are proposing non-scientific hypotheses?

If it is just a proposal, there is no problem. You claim they are proposing hypotheses though and a hypothesis should be testable.

No, it is not blind by definition. Please cite this definition from any dictionary that faith is always blind.

I'll do you one better!
Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If this is how you define faith, then I have good reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead, so then I'm not using faith.

Please provide a good reason to believe a dead and decomposing body can reanimate and return to life.
In the end, you have a belief that you hope to be real and employ faith as evidence for this thing that cannot be seen in reality (meaning, it is a reality that decomposed bodies have never return to life). Faith will allow a person to believe that it not only happened once, but that hundreds of graves emptied with the dead walking Jerusalem. Faith in not just Genesis, but also in graves opening up with the dead walking is debilitating IMO.

I think the issue is the difference in how we define faith.

I have defined it from the Bible. I fear you define it much like you have defined a hypothesis to merely be a proposal when they are not the same. I believe the fault is 100% on you, but am open to being shown that I have errored of course if you can show an error with the Biblical definition of faith I provided.

What you are implying is we should only accept something is true only if we can prove it at the 100% confidence level. What if we have a 90% confidence level? Is faith present in such a situation?

You over complicate this in order to make room for faith.
If you are only 90% sure about something, don't claim it as a truth. There is no problem with admitting you are only 90% sure about something. As far as I'm aware, it is only biblical teaching that instruct a person to not be luke warm. I fear this teaching is affecting your ability to be confident without being certain. I believe you are applying faith in a wanted belief as to not be luke warm about the said belief. Seems debilitating to me anyway?

I can be 60% confident in a belief. If I want to be 100% confident, 40% faith is required. Therefore, faith is a requirement in order to believe in a false thing. That doesn't mean a faith base belief must be false of course or that a person cannot be tricked into a belief, but it does mean that faith is a terrible mechanism for arriving at a truth claim. Therefore, faith is debilitating and not just when applied to taking Genesis literally.

Of course I would disagree, no matter if we accept your definition of faith or my definition.

My definition! Surely you jest! I'm just the messenger.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #934]

It's called "convection."

That is explained by modern plate tectonics. But cannot be explained by catastrophic creationist doctrines. ry.

If you are saying that convection caused your basaltic flood then that would be game set and match because the type of convection you are talking about would take 830 million years. Therefore we would still be waiting on the basaltic flood.

• The size and occurrence of mushroom mantle plumes can be predicted by the transient instability theory of Tan and Thorpe.[12][13] The theory predicts mushroom-shaped mantle plumes with heads of about 2000 km diameter that have a critical time (time from onset of heating of the lower mantle to formation of a plume) of about 830 million years for a core mantle heat flux of 20 mW/m2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_pl ... n%20events)%20is

Your basaltic flood was not caused by an asteroid impact.

Because it's less viscous than rhyolitic magma. Gas escapes more readily.

Cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.

No. It's the volcano being blocked and pressure building up. But that isn't what happens in province vulcanism.

Again cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases

You have yet to cite this "fact". If you do you might learn something about volcanoes and magma. Cite how basaltic lava has more gas than granitic. Yea show me that one.

See above. It's not what they told you it is.

Who told me, geology books? YOU CITED WHAT I SAID YOURSELF.

Explosive eruptions generally involve magma that is more viscous and has a higher gas content.
https://www.britannica.com/science/volc ... -eruptions





Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

[The Barbarian]

(regarding how hot spots form)
It's called "convection."

That is explained by modern plate tectonics. But cannot be explained by catastrophic creationist doctrines.

If you are saying that convection caused your basaltic flood

Province vulcanism is not a plume (hot spot). You're still struggling to understand how the process works.

Your basaltic flood was not caused by an asteroid impact.

Let's see what geologists have found...

Volume 351, Issue 7, October–November 2019, Pages 461-476
Internal Geophysics (Vulcanology)
Developments in the stratigraphy of the Deccan Volcanic Province, peninsular India
The Deccan Volcanic Province has been considered as one of the largest magmatic regions, involving an aerial coverage of ca. 500,000 km2. It is subdivided into four sub-provinces, and holds a unique position in global tectonic models for understanding earth's geodynamics and the impact of voluminous eruptions on the contemporary biosystem and climate system. Published stratigraphic data suggest that volcanic eruption took place from 69 to 64 million years (Ma) ago when the Indian plate passed over the Réunion hotspot. The main phase of volcanic activity consisting of about 80% of total basaltic lava, erupted rapidly, during a short span (<1 Ma) or even less (two or three hundred thousand years), close to chron 29R, straddling to the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary. Recent high-precision age data show that the main volcanic phase is genetically linked to the Chicxulub impact and plume-head of the hotspot, and largely contributed to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. [/url]

Because it's less viscous than rhyolitic magma. Gas escapes more readily.

Cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.

nature nature geoscience 09 May 2022
VOLCANOLOGY
Flood basalt buildup warms climate
Flood basalts are connected to Earth’s most extreme environmental crises, yet warming is sometimes observed before surface eruptions. Modelling reveals that a complex buildup of basalt intrusions into the crust releases enough CO2 to cause this pre-eruptive warming.

Depending on the viscosity of the magma, the bubbles may start to rise through the magma and coalesce, or they remain relatively fixed in place until they begin to connect and form a continuously connected network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas

No. It's the volcano being blocked and pressure building up. But that isn't what happens in province vulcanism.

Again cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.

According to Gay-Lussac’s Law, heat and pressure share a directly proportional relationship. Therefore, the pressure in the magma chamber is also tremendous.

To understand what happens when there is pressure that has no escape route, shake a soda bottle up and down for a minute. A lot of pressure is created, and when you release it by unscrewing the cork, it shoots out due to the pressure’s sudden release. If the magma chamber lid is no longer able to contain the pressure, it caves in and the trapped gaseous pressure shoots up, taking the magma with it, which causes an explosion.

As mentioned before, the composition of magma and more specifically, the proportion of silica, will determine how big or small the explosion will be. Greater proportions of silica make the magma denser and denser, so more gas becomes trapped.

Hence, some volcanoes, usually those that have more than 50% silica in the magma, are more likely to explode. Rhyolite rock has a greater percentage of silica than other varieties. Volcanoes that have more basalt rock give rise to moderate explosions. As the gas escapes and takes magma along with it, the magma bursts out into the atmosphere where it solidifies into rocks and other materials due to its rapid cooling, which also forms the volcanic ash.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/why-d ... -dont.html

This is why, for example, Mt. St. Helens exploded, and Muana Loa will not. Can you guess which sort of magma is involved in each volcano? Right. Basaltic lava in Muana Loa and rhyolitic lava in Mt. St. Helens.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases

You have yet to cite this "fact".

I'll post it again:
Depending on the viscosity of the magma, the bubbles may start to rise through the magma and coalesce, or they remain relatively fixed in place until they begin to connect and form a continuously connected network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas

If you do you might learn something about volcanoes and magma.

I thought pretty much everyone with any interest in the subject knew about it.

Cite how basaltic lava has more gas than granitic.

You have it backwards again. Basaltic lava releases gases more readily than rhyolitic lava.
See above. It's not what they told you it is.

Explosive eruptions generally involve magma that is more viscous and has a higher gas content.
https://www.britannica.com/science/volc ... -eruptions

Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

[otseng]

Proposal and hypothesis can be used interchangeably.

Not where I come from. Proposals need not be testable. Thus you are sowing confusion by using them interchangeably.

I use the term proposal as an idea that is proposed.

Here some definitions of hypothesis:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

No, it is not blind by definition. Please cite this definition from any dictionary that faith is always blind.

I'll do you one better!
Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Strange you'd offer scripture when I asked you for a definition for a term.

I think the difference here is you've narrowed your view of faith purely from a religious point of view. I'm viewing the term faith from a secular point of view.

Please provide a good reason to believe a dead and decomposing body can reanimate and return to life.

Well, that's what I'm debating now in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

I have defined it from the Bible.

And mine are from dictionaries. Kinda ironic to me that I use dictionaries to define it and you use the Bible.

What you are implying is we should only accept something is true only if we can prove it at the 100% confidence level. What if we have a 90% confidence level? Is faith present in such a situation?

You over complicate this in order to make room for faith.

I'm just siding with Dawkins. Again, kinda ironic.

As far as I'm aware, it is only biblical teaching that instruct a person to not be luke warm.

Why do you keep bringing up the Bible in our discussions? Do you accept it as authoritative?

I can be 60% confident in a belief. If I want to be 100% confident, 40% faith is required. Therefore, faith is a requirement in order to believe in a false thing. That doesn't mean a faith base belief must be false of course or that a person cannot be tricked into a belief, but it does mean that faith is a terrible mechanism for arriving at a truth claim.

I'm not saying faith is a mechanism to arrive at a truth claim. All I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with someone having a belief that involves faith. Sure, they cannot logically prove their belief is absolute truth. But if they have logical reasoning and evidence, then their belief is justified, even if they do not have concrete proof.