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.
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #1___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #121Did you really think I never heard of these things before?
I disagree, so you should make a point. What 'constant' do you claim makes a different state in the past impossible? (hopefully you dare not mention the fine-structure constant, which does not apply)You have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand them well enough, if at all, in order to argue about how things might have been different in the past.
You are the one claiming it was the same, provide appropriate mechanisms and processes that could not have changed? I am saying science doesn't know.If there is any basis for your claims then you should be able to support them with appropriate mechanisms and processes that could have led to changes between the past and now.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #122Yes. When I read your responses it is clear to me that you do not have any understanding of fine-tuning,
There you go again. Please look up fine-tuning before you try to make your case.
That's not how it works. No mechanism is necessary to maintain the status quo. The fundamental forces exist and are fine-tuned for the universe to exist. There is no reason for them to change unless of course you can demonstrate that they can and how it is possible. If you understood the nature of fine-tuning you would realise that to make the sort of changes you suggest would mean that this universe could no longer exist.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #123Neither time nor space are part of that calculation I would suspect. You would also need to show how the so called constant is determined. You would also need to show that those fundamental forces applied on earth long ago. There are forces. The trick is to prove that those forces we see today also existed in the nature of the past on earth.
There is no reason they were the same either. Since you do not know, we will not ask you for reasons about the unknown. Science should be more about reasons for what is known!There is no reason for them to change
If you understood this 'fine tuning' you would do more than try to wave it in as something relevant and important. Explain the 'nature of fine tuning' briefly. Let's see if there is something hard to understand, and if you understand. Since the discussion was about the nature back in the days of early Genesis, try to make it relate to that.If you understood the nature of fine-tuning you would realise that to make the sort of changes you suggest would mean that this universe could no longer exist.
The fine structure also is said to change. They changed it I think because of the Oklo reactor for example.
"Oklo data constrains shifts in neutron capture resonance energies over the time since the reactors were last active (about 1.8 billion years ago), and, hence, changes in interaction coupling strengths in the nuclear Hamiltonian like α. Following Shlyakhter's lead, Damour and Dyson concluded (in a study conducted in the mid-1990s) that Oklo data on the absorption of neutrons by 149Sm limit the change in α to less than 0.1 parts per million (ppm) over the last 1.8 billion years."
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A ... D/abstract
So they basically use imaginary time and a faith based scenario about Oklo. For example to get the result they had to say that there was a magic dunk, miles under the surface of the earth of the reactors. That happened just as needed, and then, sure enough, after ages and ages, another magic elevator ride to the surface where the reactors somehow came up to the surface for certain things in the process that had to have happened then occurred.
That did not line up with what the spectra from stars showed, so they tweaked it! Hilarious circular religion.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #124[Replying to dad1 in post #123]
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5127735
What they did was to further constrain how much the fine structure constant (𝛼) could vary based on the Oklo data. The original analysis showed a maximum variation over the nearly 2 billion year period of less than 100 ppb (100 parts per billion). There were uncertainties in some of the physics used in that analysis that prompted this new work, which reduced the likely maximum uncertainty in 𝛼 to only 10 ppb ... 10x lower than before. Note that this is a relative variation in this one constant, and is a constraint on how much it might have varied ... not a claim that it did. It supports the idea that it doesn't change over time.
This is a 2020 article (not a science paper):
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04 ... t-in-time/
that references this science paper:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay9672
Their conclusion is that the fine structure constant has not changed over time (uncertainty is larger than the mean relative change found), but may vary very slightly with direction (ie. a spatial variation and not a temporal variation). None of this helps your argument that time or light may have been "different" in the past, or at great distances from Earth, and it supports uniformitarianism from actual data that you claim does not exist. The fine structure constant is this (from the above paper, or Wikipedia, or anywhere):
𝛼 = e2/4πε0ħc
where e is the electron charge, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, ħ is the reduced Planck constant, and c is the speed of light. It involves 4 other constants including the speed of light. So if 𝛼 has not changed over time, you'd need a very unlikely coincidence of having changes in the 4 constants compensate just exactly right to produce the same value for 𝛼.
I don't think you are scoring any points for the "fishbowl" team.
You clearly didn't understand the abstract of the paper you linked. Here's the full version (a conference proceeding paper):That did not line up with what the spectra from stars showed, so they tweaked it! Hilarious circular religion.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5127735
What they did was to further constrain how much the fine structure constant (𝛼) could vary based on the Oklo data. The original analysis showed a maximum variation over the nearly 2 billion year period of less than 100 ppb (100 parts per billion). There were uncertainties in some of the physics used in that analysis that prompted this new work, which reduced the likely maximum uncertainty in 𝛼 to only 10 ppb ... 10x lower than before. Note that this is a relative variation in this one constant, and is a constraint on how much it might have varied ... not a claim that it did. It supports the idea that it doesn't change over time.
This is a 2020 article (not a science paper):
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04 ... t-in-time/
that references this science paper:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay9672
Their conclusion is that the fine structure constant has not changed over time (uncertainty is larger than the mean relative change found), but may vary very slightly with direction (ie. a spatial variation and not a temporal variation). None of this helps your argument that time or light may have been "different" in the past, or at great distances from Earth, and it supports uniformitarianism from actual data that you claim does not exist. The fine structure constant is this (from the above paper, or Wikipedia, or anywhere):
𝛼 = e2/4πε0ħc
where e is the electron charge, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, ħ is the reduced Planck constant, and c is the speed of light. It involves 4 other constants including the speed of light. So if 𝛼 has not changed over time, you'd need a very unlikely coincidence of having changes in the 4 constants compensate just exactly right to produce the same value for 𝛼.
I don't think you are scoring any points for the "fishbowl" team.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #125No. The trick you are trying to pull is to knock down everything that science has discovered about the universe in order to to have the ancient fable described in Genesis have some credibility. Your challenges are not founded on anything more than wishful thinking. If science has got it wrong, then present the evidence and prove it. Otherwise, all you've done is an awful lot of hand waving.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #126So tweak as needed to fit.
As I said, faith based there was no billions of years. I also pointed out the absurdity of the Oklo fable in pointing out the magic dunk that is part of the story. No wonder they submerged the whole area under water years ago, cover up any possible checking of the story!
The original analysis showed a maximum variation over the nearly 2 billion year period of less than 100 ppb (100 parts per billion).
None of that can stand the light of day and when any detail is examined we quickly see it is faith based, period.There were uncertainties in some of the physics used in that analysis that prompted this new work, which reduced the likely maximum uncertainty in 𝛼 to only 10 ppb ... 10x lower than before.
.Note that this is a relative variation in this one constant, and is a constraint on how much it might have varied .
All within the dreamscape la la land of faith based circular what if fable manufacturing.
Their conclusion is that the fine structure constant has not changed over time (uncertainty is larger than the mean relative change found), but may vary very slightly with direction (ie. a spatial variation and not a temporal variation).
Imaginary time. Totally faith based argument that cannot be supported.
Only as seen and measured here! What was the charge here like in the days of Genesis?
where e is the electron charge
Free space is a made up word better rendered as fishbowl space! No one ever checked space outside of this solar system area. Nor time!, ε0 is the permittivity of free space,
Light has only been measured here. Try and show any deep space area where it has been measured? So once again, it is better named fishbowl speed of light.ħ is the reduced Planck constant, and c is the speed of light.
I exposed clearly how 3 were faith based. Now for the Planck constant.It involves 4 other constants including the speed of light. So if 𝛼 has not changed over time, you'd need a very unlikely coincidence of having changes in the 4 constants compensate just exactly right to produce the same value for 𝛼.
"The constant gives the relationship between the energy of a photon and its frequency.."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
"Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
So ALL 4 are 100% faith based!
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #127Exposing belief based stories that should never have been included in what science is, does not knock anything but a fraudulent belief set that is misrepresented as science.
Actually making the same mistake over and over is called insanity. That is what is done in origins models. The only evidence needed is the evidence that science uses beliefs.If science has got it wrong, then present the evidence and prove it.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #128So, you've got nothing that actually refutes any of the knowledge science has accumulated so far. Got it. Sadly, for those deep in the well of religious belief, science continues to discredit stories written by anonymous ancient writers from an age of superstition and general ignorance that are accepted purely on faith.dad1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pm
Exposing belief based stories that should never have been included in what science is, does not knock anything but a fraudulent belief set that is misrepresented as science.Actually making the same mistake over and over is called insanity. That is what is done in origins models. The only evidence needed is the evidence that science uses beliefs.If science has got it wrong, then present the evidence and prove it.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #129Yoou have nothing to support your same state past fantasy upon which all origin models rest. Hoo hawbrunumb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 8:19 pmSo, you've got nothing that actually refutes any of the knowledge science has accumulated so far. Got it. Sadly, for those deep in the well of religious belief, science continues to discredit stories written by anonymous ancient writers from an age of superstition and general ignorance that are accepted purely on faith.dad1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:54 pm
Exposing belief based stories that should never have been included in what science is, does not knock anything but a fraudulent belief set that is misrepresented as science.Actually making the same mistake over and over is called insanity. That is what is done in origins models. The only evidence needed is the evidence that science uses beliefs.If science has got it wrong, then present the evidence and prove it.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #130[Replying to dad1 in post #126]
So you still have nothing to offer but this kind of meaningless word salad? Since you obviously can't refute any of the actual science, how about telling us when the "times of Genesis" were, and how you come up with that time period? And please don't resort to a "dreamscape la la land of faith based circular what if fable manufacturing" ... that would discredit your answer.All within the dreamscape la la land of faith based circular what if fable manufacturing.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain