The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
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

Post by 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.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #171

Post by dad1 »

brunumb wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:34 am
The whole basis of the scientific method is to mitigate against bias, faith, and delusion in order to get to the truth.
That is less than an old wives tale. When the basis for models for origins in science is 100% faith based that mitigates nothing.
Theories are tested and retested and new information sought to build even better theories and models.


There is no theory about a same state past and no tests, ever. Try to be real.
What is also noteworthy is that it is ordinary people with a passion for knowledge doing all of this, not imaginary devils.
If they had even a mild interest in knowledge they would not build models on faith alone.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #172

Post by brunumb »

Diogenes wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:12 pm 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.
I have learned that the hard way. Science denial from theists who are prepared to believe an old book of unsubstantiated stories is just the height of absurdity. It recalls that gag about playing chess with a pigeon. Nothing to be gained but a headache.
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.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
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 #173

Post by Bust Nak »

dad1 wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:12 pm The research specifically that the forces and laws of nature were the same on earth always?
Like what?
The only experiment you have done so far is failing over and over as well as avoiding the issue repeatedly.
I addressed this so-called issue directly. The laws haven't changed in the past thousand years, therefore it's reasonable to believe that they haven't changed in the distant past either. It's a non-issue.
It cannot be discarded for those that include the distant past in models using that belief.
Watch me.
You are welcome to engage in your little last Thursdayism all you like though.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll just stick to empirical evidence.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #174

Post by dad1 »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:44 am Like what?
If you do not know, then it is clear what you have. Science does not cover that.
I addressed this so-called issue directly. The laws haven't changed in the past thousand years, therefore it's reasonable to believe that they haven't changed in the distant past either. It's a non-issue.
I agree (you can extend the goalpost a thousand years from the few minutes that was claimed earlier). Even two thousand years. Even three thousand years! No problem. If that is all you want to date, we should be OK. History tells us things were the same for the most part.
Watch me.
We have been watching, yet nothing in the way of support for your belief that nature was the same on earth in the distant past has been posted. What is to watch?
Thanks but no thanks, I'll just stick to empirical evidence.
Though you have none you still try to pretend. Strange.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #175

Post by Inquirer »

Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:17 pm
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?
Allow me:

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.
You sure had to add a lot of words in order to make the scientific method be what you can only imagine it to be.
What you did is dishonest and a shameful way to debate IMO.
I understand science better than most here, if you need training wheels when debating me then get some.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm "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.
I stand by those remarks, they are truths.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm 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.
There is no "correctly" though, once again you err at a fundamental level.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm 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?
Faith in the sense of trust, firm belief.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm 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.
Trust is trust, be it in God or human theories, same thing.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm Science is the best mechanism humans have come up with so far to arrive at the truth.
Science has nothing to do with truth.
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:55 pm 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.
There is not and never has been any conflict between God and what God has created.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
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 #176

Post by Bust Nak »

dad1 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:37 pm If you do not know, then it is clear what you have. Science does not cover that.
Why not?
I agree (you can extend the goalpost a thousand years from the few minutes that was claimed earlier). Even two thousand years. Even three thousand years! No problem. If that is all you want to date, we should be OK. History tells us things were the same for the most part.
Why would it be a problem to date things beyond three thousand years? Why not 4 billion years? What's wrong with extrapolate from the data that we do have to form conclusion about things we don't have direct access to? I know you are not completely opposed to that idea of extrapolating, that you took my word for it when I said my pen dropped like it should, would qualify as an example of extrapolating from what you know about the laws of physics local to where you are, to some other location, possibly a thousand miles away.
We have been watching, yet nothing in the way of support for your belief that nature was the same on earth in the distant past has been posted.
That history tells us things were the same for the most part is the support for my belief that nature was the same on earth in the distant past, it has been posted. Why isn't this good enough for you? It is for me.
Though you have none you still try to pretend. Strange.
I point once more to my experimental results of this pen I am dropping, as I am typing this out, once more confirming uniformitarianism. 3 successes in as many posts.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #177

Post by dad1 »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:55 pm Why not?
My guess is that the reason science cannot cover whether the past nature on earth was the same is because they are too busy believing and assuming it must have been the same. But whatever the reasons, it is what it is.
Why would it be a problem to date things beyond three thousand years? Why not 4 billion years?

How far does good history go back? Egypt? We have records of people and what life was like, how long they lived etc. Would that not be evidence nature was the same? There are no records from before the flood and even the tower of Babel. I am not sure written language was even needed before Babel since all people spoke the same language.
What's wrong with extrapolate from the data that we do have to form conclusion about things we don't have direct access to?
That only works as long as the rules are the same. If nature and forces were not the same that does not work at all.
I know you are not completely opposed to that idea of extrapolating, that you took my word for it when I said my pen dropped like it should, would qualify as an example of extrapolating from what you know about the laws of physics local to where you are, to some other location, possibly a thousand miles away.
I think they should put the know (knowledge) back in science. Only extrapolate as far as we know it has to apply. For example I cannot sit on earth and watch an hour on a watch go by, and then extrapolate that to mean that at the edges of the universe, time also passed or existed that same way. No one has ever been anywhere hardly in this universe and there is no instruments that tell us what time out there is like.
That history tells us things were the same for the most part is the support for my belief that nature was the same on earth in the distant past, it has been posted. Why isn't this good enough for you? It is for me.
That history has not been going on all that long! There is no history (aside from the bible) of the time before the flood. Nor the time before Babel! The tower of Babel was at a known time and in the lifetime of Abraham some have said. It is said that Peleg (born after the flood) was about 5 or six years old at the time of Babel. It was in the days of Peleg that the earth was divided. So there is no real history that deals with the kind of time spoken about in the origin models of science.
I point once more to my experimental results of this pen I am dropping, as I am typing this out, once more confirming uniformitarianism. 3 successes in as many posts.
We will weigh your evidence. A pen dropped. Whoopee doo

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
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 #178

Post by Bust Nak »

dad1 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:11 pm My guess is that the reason science cannot cover whether the past nature on earth was the same is because they are too busy believing and assuming it must have been the same.
Why wouldn't we assume it was the same when it is in fact the same every time we check?
How far does good history go back? Egypt? We have records of people and what life was like, how long they lived etc. Would that not be evidence nature was the same?
Yes? All the more reason to think past nature on earth was the same as it is now.
There are no records from before the flood and even the tower of Babel...
The dubious appeal to the Bible aside, that's the whole point of extrapolation, to fill in the gaps where we lack direct access.
That only works as long as the rules are the same. If nature and forces were not the same that does not work at all.
Yes? So use extrapolate and conclude that nature and forces were the same?
I think they should put the know (knowledge) back in science. Only extrapolate as far as we know it has to apply. For example I cannot sit on earth and watch an hour on a watch go by, and then extrapolate that to mean that at the edges of the universe, time also passed or existed that same way. No one has ever been anywhere hardly in this universe and there is no instruments that tell us what time out there is like.
Okay, why is the cut off point at the edge of the universe and not Mars? The rovers and probes we sent there, could be operating under different laws of physics for all you really know, the data it sends back could have just been distorted as it travel back to us in such a way that it looks like it's the same.
That history has not been going on all that long! There is no history (aside from the bible) of the time before the flood... So there is no real history that deals with the kind of time spoken about in the origin models of science.
Again, so what, when we can extrapolate? You keep point it out there are things that we don't have direct access to, as if it's some shocking revelation, I really don't get why you have such a big problem with extrapolation.
We will weigh your evidence. A pen dropped. Whoopee doo
You asked for empirical evidence, it's not my fault the request can be fulfilled trivially with a mere drop of a pen.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #179

Post by Clownboat »

dad1 wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:16 pm
Clownboat wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:04 am And that my friends... is Christianity in a nutshell.

You can even get the T-Shirt:
God said it, I believe it and that settles it.
The application was for science. It does not matter what or why they believe anything. All that matters is knowledge and verifiable fact. That is why it does not matter what they believe. That does not apply to solid well grounded beliefs such as about the beliefs in things and beings that are spiritual. There is a vast armada of proofs completely beyond the scope and reach and abilities of science for those! It is just that poor little pimply so called science is not invited to that party and was not given the address.
I typed my words because they show a common theme in Christianity.
That theme is a faith based belief that a god said things and they are to be believed even though it was actually humans that penned the said words (many times after generations of oral tradition). I also note that humans of all types believe all sorts of god claims. Nothing noteworthy IMO.

What I want to know is, why did you type the words you typed? Did they have a purpose like mine did? If so, what was the purpose of your words? Can you break it down for me like I did?

You mention some vast armada of proofs beyond the scope of science, but didn't provide any examples. Please list some of these vast armadas of proofs that escape science for us all to examine.
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

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #180

Post by Clownboat »

dad1 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:37 pm We have been watching, yet nothing in the way of support for your belief that nature was the same on earth in the distant past has been posted. What is to watch?
I'm watching a person that believes in spirits, talking snake/donkeys, living in a belly of a whale for 3 days, sorcering up fishes and loaves and dead bodies by the hundreds reanimating to walk the streets of Jerusalem complain about a mechanism for arriving at truth that we call science. It's fasinating!

One thing is certain though, nature was different in the distant past. I would think you meant to use a different word, but realizing some of the other odd beliefs you do hold (talking donkeys), perhaps you don't know what you mean when you use the word nature.

na·ture
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Nature was different in the past. You seem lost...
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

Post Reply