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.

[brunumb]

So? Have they translated that young-earth belief into any actual contributions to our scientific understanding of the world around us?

Yes. People that believe in Jesus tend to not fear the awful effects of science.

I suppose you have some evidence to prop up that incredible claim. Please share it.

[brunumb]

I accept plenty of evolving went on after creation! I even think it used to happen at rates far far far far far far far far faster than anything possible today in this present nature.

On what basis do you hold that belief? What specifically was responsible for the rate decreasing so significantly?

I did not say rates decreased. What I noted was that decay and the rates it happens are known features of this present nature and time. What makes you claim there was radioactive decay as we know it in Noah's day? Decay is just a result of forces and laws acting on things.

If it was "far far far far far far far far faster than anything possible today" then it must have decreased. Please explain how or why. If radioactive decay is just a result of forces and laws acting on things, you should be able to give a brief explanation of exactly what it involves. Failing any response to either of these requests we will be left to assume that it was all just rhetoric or something you plucked out of the air.

[brunumb]

The premise that nature was the same on earth always is a part of scientific dating. Prove it?

It doesn't work that way. You are challenging the established science with a lot of hand waving. The burden is on you to provide compelling reasons to accept that it is wrong.

[brunumb]

It is possible that buoyancy may have been somewhat different. But the thing about the flood is that God conducted that operation. He closed the door of the ark. He sent the waters through those wormholes or windows of heaven from probably beyond where stars are. Etc etc. God would not give the blueprint for a boat that would not float in the time and place it needed to float. Relax

And of course you have proof of all of that. Go for it.

[dad1]

Another "could have" scenario with no basis. There were no humans around 70 million years ago (including archaic humans) because they had not evolved yet. And if you are a YEC which you appear to be, then you don't think anything was around 70 million years ago.

Try to comprehend. There was no actual 70 millions years ago. The dream dates are fantasy. The 'could have' scenario here is that science says the past coulda woulda shoulda been the same as the nature and forces we know today.

Really? More made-up statements about what you think "most likely" happened. Do you have any idea how mountain ranges form and how long the process takes?

Your tenses are wrong. The issue is not how long anything takes now based on current rates and processes and laws! The issue is how long they took long ago when they actually happened.
As far as your talking snake comment, that defines science today! Origin sciences are from that talking snake.

Probably? Why a "little over a century"? Sounds like pure guesswork with (again) no basis to support it.

There is lots of basis in history and the ancient records of Scripture. Where there is not evidence is in science. Either way.

Now that is hilarious! All the water for Noah's flood came from space through wormholes, or from "under the earth" (whatever that means), then vanished back through these magical wormhole/windows after the flood. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Wow.

Nothing needs to make sense to you. Science was not here to see. Why comment on what you have no possibility of knowing anything about?

And there's no reason to believe the past was any different.

Who cares what is believed? The issue is that no one knows either way! No one cares if science 'believes' real hard about something!

I know the idea that things "could have" been different is the entire basis of all of your arguments, but you've yet to provide any reason why anyone should believe such a far fetched idea or why it even slightly makes any sense.

No. That is the basis for origin science arguments. They think the past must have been the same for NO reason whatsoever.

So the god you believe in is invisible and nonphysical?

He was physical. Well known as well. Of course no He is in heaven.

Must not be the god of the Bible then if humans were created in its image.

When He returns they will still see the wounds He got while here. People recognized exactly who He was when He rose from the dead.

And modern science can indeed observe invisible, nonphysical things by their effects on instrumentation, for example. Photons at wavelengths outside of the roughly 350 - 800 nm range are invisible to the human eye, but not to an appropriate detector. And photons have no mass.

Electric fields are part of this universe. They are part of how things were made to work. Apparently the spirit dimension is more than just invisible. Also, being able to detect some things not visible to the human eye does not mean they are spirit material.

The gods humans have invented to date all seem to have the same property of being indistinguishable from something that does not exist. So how to tell the difference?

Anyone who tries Jesus knows. There is power there. Things happen. Lives change. Miracles happen etc etc. Just add all that to the things science id deaf and blind to!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #55]

When He returns they will still see the wounds He got while here. People recognized exactly who He was when He rose from the dead.

Are you suggesting that the god who supposedly initiated Noah's flood, and created the Earth and universe, is identical to Jesus who was crucified by the Romans more than 2000 years later? How does that work? Was Jesus around thousands of years before he was born? That makes no sense.

I won't comment on the rest of the post ... it is just more baseless speculation that nature was somehow different in the past than it is today, which you've never supported with any valid arguments.

[dad1]

Are you suggesting that the god who supposedly initiated Noah's flood, and created the Earth and universe, is identical to Jesus who was crucified by the Romans more than 2000 years later?

Of course.

How does that work? Was Jesus around thousands of years before he was born? That makes no sense.

As Jesus put it, 'Before Abraham was, I AM'.

I won't comment on the rest of the post ... it is just more baseless speculation that nature was somehow different in the past than it is today, which you've never supported with any valid arguments.

Then I won't comment on the rest of your post ... it is just more baseless speculation that nature was somehow the same in the past as it is today, which you've never supported with any valid arguments. None. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Squat. Zip.

[Diogenes]

Unless nature was the same in Noahs' day there was no half life that we know about! Half life is a feature of the present nature and observing how it works here now!
....
That is all based on today and what we observe happening now.

So, that means actual time is not related to dream date time. In dream date time the flood was maybe 70 million years ago. In actual time that KT layer was more like 4500 years ago.
....
Maybe they had a lot of triplets or maybe gestation was only 3 months... man lived nearly 1000 years!
....
It is possible that buoyancy may have been somewhat different. .... He sent the waters through those wormholes or windows of heaven from probably beyond where stars are.

Wow! I am afraid you offered precisely the kind of examples the OP referred to:

Physical laws are different now?
"Dream date time?"
Triplets with a 3 month gestation?
1000 year old men?
Buoyancy worked differently? How exactly?
Waters thru wormholes? "Windows of Heaven?" Beyond the stars?

You've given several explanations that provide perfect examples of exactly the point of the OP.

[dad1]

Wow! I am afraid you offered precisely the kind of examples the OP referred to:

Physical laws are different now?

Not like science knows! Yet science claims. Pathetic. If you say science does know the forces and nature on earth were the same, then why have you wasted post after post beating around the bush saying nothing?

"Dream date time?"

I agree. Making up dates based on an unsupported belief results in dream claims.

Triplets with a 3 month gestation?

Who really knows how reproduction worked then in a nature that may have been unlike anything we have ever known? One thing we can safely deduce is that evolving happened lightning fast compared to today! Possibly the living creatures or people evolved in their lives rather than by offspring as well? Who knows.

1000 year old men?

That is history and bible 101..old news.

Buoyancy worked differently? How exactly?

We don't know. Why pretend otherwise? After all can you prove that
1) gravity existed the same as today exactly in the former times?

and

2) There was no other force that also existed that may have affected or somewhat counteracted gravity?

The answer to both is no, you do not know.

Waters thru wormholes? "Windows of Heaven?" Beyond the stars?

The waters were divided before the stars were made in the firmament. As for beyond where the stars are, why would we ask you? Science is stuckk in the fishbowl and is confused enough piddling in puddles here.

You've given several explanations that provide perfect examples of exactly the point of the OP.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #59]

Who really knows how reproduction worked then in a nature that may have been unlike anything we have ever known?

Now even human reproduction "may have been" different than how it works today? This appears to be your explanation for virtually anything and everything that doesn't fit with biblical stories and personal religious views ... it could have been different in the past. The more you use that explanation, the weaker it becomes (not that it had any legs to stand on to begin with).

How about some actual evidence or reasoning as to why any of these claims of things being different in the past should be taken seriously? All you've done so far is to simply state it as a personal opinion, without any justification whatsoever.