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]

And of course religion is none of that. We seem to have entered into the deepest waters of science denial and there is nothing to be gained from thrashing around in them any longer. More productive enterprises await. Science continues to shed light on our world and I hope that one day it will set you free.

Don't worry about what you think 'religion' is all about. What we have seen here is that you cannot deny so called science is faith based on origin issues. Anyone denying origin science is 100% faith based is a science denier! You cannot do anything here but run. Check and mate. Your only move was to prove that the past on earth was under this present nature, forces and laws. Time to tip your king. Cheers

[Bust Nak]

The repeated observations of all history count for something. The evidences in their lives count. The prophesies that are now history count. You do not get to wave it all away because 'some' people believe weird things... Your only move was to prove that the past on earth was under this present nature, forces and laws.

If repeated observations of all history count for something, evidences in people's lives count and prophesies that are now history count, then why wave the Uniformitarian Principle away as "100% faith based?" We can "prove" it with repeated observations, every day experiences, and scientific prediction confirmed by history.

[Diogenes]

We can't deduce that at all when there is no evidence or basis for that conclusion.

No. You cannot. I can! No one can using science though. Science is too small to cover it. I can because I use the record of the past God gave to man.

Which God? Which record? Out of the thousands of gods and scriptures from hundreds of traditions, you've picked one fantasy over all the others. Why not fairies as an explanation of all things? Why not Zeus, Odin, Set or Horus? Why choose the one you happened to be born into?






Science, Destroyer of gods

If you actually read the Jewish Bible, you learn that there were other gods. The story of the 'Old Testament' is a story of one tribe's god triumphing over others. The story of Baal is probably the best known.
The irony, even if you claim science is a god, is that it destroyed all the other gods. It used its secret weapon:
Knowledge

[dad1]

If repeated observations of all history count for something, evidences in people's lives count and prophesies that are now history count, then why wave the Uniformitarian Principle away as "100% faith based?" We can "prove" it with repeated observations, every day experiences, and scientific prediction confirmed by history.

The world has been under the same set of forces and laws a long time now. Of course it has been uniform for a long time and that principle is good for several thousand years. The problem comes in mentally trying to extend it beyond this,

The oldest history and records actually show that things were not the same. Spirits were living with men and mingling openly, marrying, etc. People lived many centuries. So it was certainly not uniform.

[dad1]

Which God? Which record?

Maybe list the ones who claim they created the universe man and the world? We can look at that.

If you actually read the Jewish Bible, you learn that there were other gods.

They actually were mostly, as Trump used to say, fake news. There also were fallen angels, evil spirits that empowered some of those fake gods and were thought of a gods also. There is only One God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The story of the 'Old Testament' is a story of one tribe's god triumphing over others.

No. It is the fall of man and the plan of God to restore man using a people He chose who learned a lot of lessons and pointed the way to Jesus. They had to fight heathen peoples of course in that time. That was not so much tribe against tribe but God's people against Satan's rule.

The story of Baal is probably the best known.

As above, that was an evil spirit against God and His people.

The irony, even if you claim science is a god, is that it destroyed all the other gods

To me science is more like a bad haircut than a god. I need to correct it. I suppose for some people who worship it blindly it could be a god.

. It used its secret weapon:[/size]
Knowledge

Fooling people into thinking belief based heathenistic fantasy is knowledge is a trick. But that one trick pony grows old fast.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #84]

People lived many centuries.

No Homo sapien has ever lived for many centuries. It is physiologically impossible. But that is just one of many details from the Bible that can be dismissed as nonsense (along with global floods, talking snakes, a man living in the belly of a"great fish" for 3 days, a ~6000 year old universe, etc.).

There is a lot of myth, allegory, story telling, etc. that cannot be taken literally, but some people do take it all literally and are forced to deny science because it so convincingly destroys many of the fundamental biblical claims. From your posts you appear to be a perfect example of this kind of person, but fortunately science will carry on and not be influenced by old religious tall tales. You're fighting a battle that has already been lost.

[dad1]

No Homo sapien has ever lived for many centuries. It is physiologically impossible.

In this oresent nature, yes. What should this tell us when ancient records show we did live longer?

(along with global floods, talking snakes, a man living in the belly of a"great fish" for 3 days, a ~6000 year old universe, etc.).

There are some creatures that went extinct after the flood. Who knows, but maybe some sort of real giant fish was one of those creatures? The mistake you make is always the same one. You try to use this present nature and forces and laws and reality to determine past and future. No can do.

There is a lot of myth, allegory, story telling, etc. that cannot be taken literally, but some people do take it all literally and are forced to deny science because it so convincingly destroys many of the fundamental biblical claims.

All that needs be denied is that using the present as the key to the past is the way to go! Science is fine here and now (except for the death dealing pollution,nukes,womd and etc etc it gives man)

You're fighting a battle that has already been lost.

We can't lose for the winning actually. Quoth the raven, evermore.

[Clownboat]

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

You are far too easily impressed it seems.

Who are you?
I am that I am.

What did you have for breakfast?
I ate what I ate.

[dad1]

You are far too easily impressed it seems.

Who are you?
I am that I am.

Nevertheless Jesus pointed out that He was God and had always been here. I think that is above the pay grade of physical science.

[Clownboat]

No. You cannot. I can! No one can using science though. Science is too small to cover it.

Science is a method, not something to hate.
However, if you do dislike the mechanism that is science, can you point to a better mechanism that we should all be using in place of the scientific method? I would like to know about it and why it is preferred.