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.

[Clownboat]

Your willful blindness that faith based blather called science falsely is what is debilitating. Pot, meet kettle

I think this is just your religions leaders talking as this claim doesn't make sense...
because you are mistaken about what science is. Science is a method.
1) Ask a question.
2) Perform research.
3) Establish your hypothesis.
4) Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
5) Make an observation.
6) Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
7) Present the findings.

Please tell us where this faith is that enters the equation. If your being honest, is it the same type of faith as believing in one of the available gods?

Pot meeting kettle doesn't come close.
Compare the two.
Religion: And God said...
Science: Here is the theory that we have come up with that seems to best explain gravity. You are free to challenge this best explanation that we have come up with so far. Your soul isn't even on the line if you choose to.

More like: Pot, meet bowling shoes.

[dad1]

Why this and not the world was always uniform therefore those stories are false?

Because either is a matter of belief alone. WE choose what we believe, it is not some compulsory vaccine.

Why believe those instead what you can test scientifically?

Sorry if you imagined that anyone could ever or has ever tested that nature and forces and laws on earth were the same. No. It is purely a matter of blind faith. Not taking Genesis literally therefore is a matter of belief alone!

[dad1]

I think this is just your religions leaders talking as this claim doesn't make sense...
because you are mistaken about what science is. Science is a method.
1) Ask a question.

Let's test this then. The question is whether forces and laws and nature on earth was the same long long ago.

2) Perform research.

Please cite the research done on the question. Specifically.

3) Establish your hypothesis.

Once we see you do the first steps we can progress to further steps

4) Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
5) Make an observation.
6) Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
7) Present the findings.

Obviously you cannot test the far past nature etc etc etc so these are not applicable whatsoever here.
That means that, clearly, by your own definition, you do NOT use the scientific method for origin issues. Thanks for that.

Compare the two.
Religion: And God said...

He also gave us a universe that shouts out His amazing power and glory. He also gave us hundreds of fulfilled prophesies that certify the authenticity of His words. He also affected the hearts and lives of billions of walking test tubes. Etc. I think John in the bible referred to it as 'innumerable proofs'.

Science: Here is the theory that we have come up with that seems to best explain gravity.

So how do you test gravity on earth in the age of dinosaurs? How do you test gravity on the fringe of the observable universe? If all you are talking about is gravity on earth and area in this present time, well, whoopee doo. That has no application to origin issues!
Busted ye be.

[Bust Nak]

Because either is a matter of belief alone. WE choose what we believe, it is not some compulsory vaccine.

Not for me it isn't, I am compelled by empirical evidence to believe that the forces and laws on earth have always been the same.

Sorry if you imagined that anyone could ever or has ever tested that nature and forces and laws on earth were the same. No. It is purely a matter of blind faith.

Earlier you seemed to have accept that people have repeatedly tested and confirmed the Uniformitarian Principle for the past several thousand years, that's more then enough testing for me. Isn't it for you?

So how do you test gravity on earth in the age of dinosaurs? How do you test gravity on the fringe of the observable universe?

You do that by testing gravity right here, right now.

[dad1]

Not for me it isn't, I am compelled by empirical evidence to believe that the forces and laws on earth have always been the same.

Empty words unless you can support that.

Earlier you seemed to have accept that people have repeatedly tested and confirmed the Uniformitarian Principle for the past several thousand years, that's more then enough testing for me. Isn't it for you?

You are dreaming, no such tests ever happened.
One example is here
"uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change" Of course a doctrine is belief based, look it up. So all you offer are the doctrines of men! Your total fail to offer a shred of evidence or cite any test about what nature was like in the past exposes your position as one of blind faith. Anything else?

You do that by testing gravity right here, right now.

No, that would only assume that today represents how it always was, for no particular reason. Science needs particular reasons!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #103]

Please cite the research done on the question. Specifically.

This has been done, multiple times, in another thread that you started. The problem is you don't know enough science (spectroscopy in particular) to understand any of it and just respond with the same type of comment every time. Make an attempt to learn some basic science and you'll have a much easier time seeing why uniformitarianism makes good sense, or at least is the most reasonable assumption we have. Just waving your hands and making baseless claims that there is no evidence for it, even when it is presented in detail, does nothing to support your arguments against it.

[dad1]

This has been done, multiple times, in another thread that you started.

Not in any way is that true. You display a lack of comprehension of the issues.

It was made clear that looking at something in a specific area limits the information we can get about another distant area in regards to time itself and space and etc. You cannot claim that because it looks a certain way to us here in the fishbowl, that this means it is universally true.

So we take it then from your post that your great point to address what nature on earth was like in the past is your laughable view of what light in a spectrum here means. OK.

How sweet it is

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #107]

So we take it then from your post that your great point to address what nature on earth was like in the past is your laughable view of what light in a spectrum here means.

(underline mine)

You just proved my case. Do you have any idea how an absorption or emission spectrum is created when light interacts with atoms or molecules? If you did, it would not be laughable that measurement here of a red-shifted spectrum of hydrogen atoms from a distant star tells us a lot about the structure of those hydrogen atoms as they existed at the distant start when it emitted the photons. Since you don't understand this, all you can do is repeat the same ridiculous claim that is your response to virtually everything ... nature is somehow "different" at certain distances from Earth. You seem to think that this silly idea of yours can explain away everything, but it has no basis (you've certainly never supplied one) so has no use as an explanation for anything at all.

[dad1]

You just proved my case. Do you have any idea how an absorption or emission spectrum is created when light interacts with atoms or molecules?

Easy to google, try to make a point.

If you did, it would not be laughable that measurement here of a red-shifted spectrum of hydrogen atoms from a distant star tells us a lot about the structure of those hydrogen atoms as they existed at the distant start when it emitted the photons.

It tells us nothing at all about time there, or space. Try to be relative.

Remember that the light is here when we see the spectrum.

"Spectral lines are produced by transitions of electrons within atoms or ions. As the electrons move closer to or farther from the nucleus of an atom (or of an ion), energy in the form of light (or other radiation) is emitted or absorbed. The yellow D lines of sodium or the H and K lines of ionized calcium (seen as dark absorption lines) are produced by discrete quantum jumps from the lowest energy levels (ground states) of these atoms"

https://www.britannica.com/science/star ... ar-spectra

All energy therefore and energy changes are observed here also. Ha

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #109]

Remember that the light is here when we see the spectrum.

Which is irrelevant. The sodium atoms (to use your Google search result that you pasted in but don't appear to understand) are not "here" ... they are at the distant star. If the spectrum (ie. the pattern of light intensity vs. wavelength) is the same (apart from a red shift) after the photons have travelled millions of light years from the distant star as we can measure here in the lab from sodium atoms in that lab, then the sodium atoms at the star have the same atomic structure with the electrons jumping between the same energy levels. The sodium atoms are the same "there" as they are "here." If that were not the case, then the spectrum we measure here would be different from the sodium atoms at the distant star, but it isn't.

If you really think that photons emitted or absorbed from atoms at a distant star can travel across space in some random pattern, then magically produce the exact sodium spectrum when we measure them here but not be sodium atoms at the distant star, then you hopelessly confused on how spectroscopy works, how atoms are structured, what light is, etc.