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: 1308
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 1266 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
-
OnlineClownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9382
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1261 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #141You sure had to add a lot of words in order to make the scientific method be what you can only imagine it to be.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:17 pmAllow me:Clownboat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:03 am 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?
1. Questions always reflect one's worldview, one's existing beliefs about reality.
2. Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
3. To form a hypothesis relies on assumptions that we can represent reality through human imagination.
4. Experiments assume that a yet to be performed experiment will always yield the same result as a past experiment.
5. All observations are interpreted, different worldviews held by different people will often yield different interpretations.
6. Analysis assumes that apparent relationships prove real relationships.
7. This last step is to establish whether others agree with your interpretations.
This is old hat, basic fundamentals of science and rationalism, it's rather sad that so few self professing "scientists" seem unaware of this.
What you did is dishonest and a shameful way to debate IMO.
"Questions always reflect one's worldview" and "Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find." Sir, I laugh at you and your desperation, but I do appreciate you bringing the desperation of creationism to our attention.
Let's address the only deception of yours that used the word 'faith'.
Copy/paste: Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
Please define faith as you use it here and then kindly answer the question you chose to dodge.
Copy/paste: is it the same type of faith as believing in one of the available gods?
Readers, ask youself if the word 'faith' should have been used or if you are just seeing a weak attempt at leveling the playing field.
Science a religion both use faith! Ask yourself if that claim seems honest.
Science is the best mechanism humans have come up with so far to arrive at the truth. Science counters the religious beliefs Inquirer has a desire to believe in and they can only complain and cannot come up with a better mechanism. The truth is, they are forced to war with science because science disagrees with what they desire to believe in. They have a dog in the fight and this dog controls their thinking. There appears to be no god helping them to come up with a better mechanism, so we are left with their inaccurate analysis of the method they are forced to be at war with, therefore their thoughts for the most part cannot be trusted.
Ironically, one of the best parts about the scientific method is its ability to overcome bias.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #142Meh, I just did a test right now.
Doctrines of men, backed by empirical evidence though.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!
Why do you need anything more than empirical evidence?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?
I did the test again, during the time it took for me to begin the post and as of this sentence. The results were conclusive, gravity didn't change. That's the particular reasons you were looking for!No, that would only assume that today represents how it always was, for no particular reason.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #143Great. Thanlks for keeping up posted on all these tests you (think you) do.
One example is here
Once again, then, the evidence that the past was the same nature with the same forces and laws on earth? Specify how you (think you) tested that!Doctrines of men, backed by empirical evidence though.
Keep pretending you posted some or that you have some. This is fun.Why do you need anything more than empirical evidence?
I concur. You may claim origin models for the last minute all you like. Never do so using deep time though.I did the test again, during the time it took for me to begin the post and as of this sentence. The results were conclusive, gravity didn't change. That's the particular reasons you were looking for!
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #144Plus, when I asked Inquirer how we can tell which among competing interpretations is correct/accurate, he said we should rely on scientific testing. So I showed him where scientists had tested the interpretation of separate human ancestry against human/primate shared ancestry and found the latter to be the most likely to be correct/accurate by a long shot.Clownboat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pmYou sure had to add a lot of words in order to make the scientific method be what you can only imagine it to be.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:17 pmAllow me:Clownboat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:03 am 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?
1. Questions always reflect one's worldview, one's existing beliefs about reality.
2. Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
3. To form a hypothesis relies on assumptions that we can represent reality through human imagination.
4. Experiments assume that a yet to be performed experiment will always yield the same result as a past experiment.
5. All observations are interpreted, different worldviews held by different people will often yield different interpretations.
6. Analysis assumes that apparent relationships prove real relationships.
7. This last step is to establish whether others agree with your interpretations.
This is old hat, basic fundamentals of science and rationalism, it's rather sad that so few self professing "scientists" seem unaware of this.
What you did is dishonest and a shameful way to debate IMO.
"Questions always reflect one's worldview" and "Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find." Sir, I laugh at you and your desperation, but I do appreciate you bringing the desperation of creationism to our attention.
Let's address the only deception of yours that used the word 'faith'.
Copy/paste: Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
Please define faith as you use it here and then kindly answer the question you chose to dodge.
Copy/paste: is it the same type of faith as believing in one of the available gods?
Readers, ask youself if the word 'faith' should have been used or if you are just seeing a weak attempt at leveling the playing field.
Science a religion both use faith! Ask yourself if that claim seems honest.
Science is the best mechanism humans have come up with so far to arrive at the truth. Science counters the religious beliefs Inquirer has a desire to believe in and they can only complain and cannot come up with a better mechanism. The truth is, they are forced to war with science because science disagrees with what they desire to believe in. They have a dog in the fight and this dog controls their thinking. There appears to be no god helping them to come up with a better mechanism, so we are left with their inaccurate analysis of the method they are forced to be at war with, therefore their thoughts for the most part cannot be trusted.
Ironically, one of the best parts about the scientific method is its ability to overcome bias.
He ignored it completely.
Just like he ignored examples of observed speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, and preCambrian-Cambrian transitional fossils.
And that is why I believe it is virtually impossible to actively advocate for creationism in an honest manner.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #145How do I know you have a reliable means of making such an assessment? why should I spend time showing you supporting evidence unless I know you can assess it reliably?
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #146More accusations I see Mr. Fly, you do seem to rely on false accusation a lot during your "science" debates. I have ignored nothing, that I might not have responded to you, that I might have nothing to say, does not prove that I ignored what was said.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:43 pmPlus, when I asked Inquirer how we can tell which among competing interpretations is correct/accurate, he said we should rely on scientific testing. So I showed him where scientists had tested the interpretation of separate human ancestry against human/primate shared ancestry and found the latter to be the most likely to be correct/accurate by a long shot.Clownboat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pmYou sure had to add a lot of words in order to make the scientific method be what you can only imagine it to be.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:17 pmAllow me:Clownboat wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:03 am 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?
1. Questions always reflect one's worldview, one's existing beliefs about reality.
2. Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
3. To form a hypothesis relies on assumptions that we can represent reality through human imagination.
4. Experiments assume that a yet to be performed experiment will always yield the same result as a past experiment.
5. All observations are interpreted, different worldviews held by different people will often yield different interpretations.
6. Analysis assumes that apparent relationships prove real relationships.
7. This last step is to establish whether others agree with your interpretations.
This is old hat, basic fundamentals of science and rationalism, it's rather sad that so few self professing "scientists" seem unaware of this.
What you did is dishonest and a shameful way to debate IMO.
"Questions always reflect one's worldview" and "Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find." Sir, I laugh at you and your desperation, but I do appreciate you bringing the desperation of creationism to our attention.
Let's address the only deception of yours that used the word 'faith'.
Copy/paste: Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
Please define faith as you use it here and then kindly answer the question you chose to dodge.
Copy/paste: is it the same type of faith as believing in one of the available gods?
Readers, ask youself if the word 'faith' should have been used or if you are just seeing a weak attempt at leveling the playing field.
Science a religion both use faith! Ask yourself if that claim seems honest.
Science is the best mechanism humans have come up with so far to arrive at the truth. Science counters the religious beliefs Inquirer has a desire to believe in and they can only complain and cannot come up with a better mechanism. The truth is, they are forced to war with science because science disagrees with what they desire to believe in. They have a dog in the fight and this dog controls their thinking. There appears to be no god helping them to come up with a better mechanism, so we are left with their inaccurate analysis of the method they are forced to be at war with, therefore their thoughts for the most part cannot be trusted.
Ironically, one of the best parts about the scientific method is its ability to overcome bias.
He ignored it completely.
Just like he ignored examples of observed speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, and preCambrian-Cambrian transitional fossils.
And that is why I believe it is virtually impossible to actively advocate for creationism in an honest manner.
The record shows that you ignore forum rules rather a lot, perhaps openly acknowledging this would be a prudent next step if you want to be taken seriously by others.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #147Apparently you must be reminded yet again that this is a debate forum. In a debate, if you do not respond in any way to material presented to you, that is considered both ignoring the material and conceding your opponents' points.
This isn't Trump world where you rebut arguments merely by thinking about them.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #148Stick to the thread subject please, I'm sure the moderators can do without your ongoing uncivil posts.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:10 pmApparently you must be reminded yet again that this is a debate forum. In a debate, if you do not respond in any way to material presented to you, that is considered both ignoring the material and conceding your opponents' points.
This isn't Trump world where you rebut arguments merely by thinking about them.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #149The subject of the thread is about the effects of creationism (taking Genesis literally). Your consistent ignoring of data and info that contradicts your claims is a perfect example of the sorts of behaviors advocacy of creationism forces people to engage in.
LOL...nothing I said is untrue. In a debate forum, you repeatedly ignore information that contradicts your arguments. I'm sure you don't like having that pointed out, but that just means your problem is with reality.I'm sure the moderators can do without your ongoing uncivil posts.
The fact remains, according to the rules of debate you have conceded that speciation is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, the fossil record contains examples of Darwinian gradualism, the fossil record contains preCambrian-Cambrian intermediates, and scientific testing shows that human/primate common ancestry is the vastly superior interpretation of the data over separate human origins.
Again, I'm sure you don't like any of that, but that's not my problem.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #150Your abuse here is a real problem Jose, leave people alone, address their arguments not your demeaning interpretation of their personality.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:28 pmThe subject of the thread is about the effects of creationism (taking Genesis literally). Your consistent ignoring of data and info that contradicts your claims is a perfect example of the sorts of behaviors advocacy of creationism forces people to engage in.
LOL...nothing I said is untrue. In a debate forum, you repeatedly ignore information that contradicts your arguments. I'm sure you don't like having that pointed out, but that just means your problem is with reality.I'm sure the moderators can do without your ongoing uncivil posts.
The fact remains, according to the rules of debate you have conceded that speciation is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, the fossil record contains examples of Darwinian gradualism, the fossil record contains preCambrian-Cambrian intermediates, and scientific testing shows that human/primate common ancestry is the vastly superior interpretation of the data over separate human origins.
Again, I'm sure you don't like any of that, but that's not my problem.