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 #191

Post by dad1 »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:59 pm 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.
God is a spirit. Have you some evidence He did not infuse the people He chose to write Scripture with His spirit?
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?
Yes. Ask a specific question. I can't guess about what you are confused about.
You mention some vast armada of proofs beyond the scope of science, but didn't provide any examples.
Most people who believe in a spiritual world have reasons. Changed lives, miracles, etc. The bible is full of examples. As people who knew and were actually there said..

Acts 1:3
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:


Please list some of these vast armadas of proofs that escape science for us all to examine.
ALL proofs escape poor little deaf and blind to anything spiritual science! That is like asking a fly to recite Shakespeare.

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 #192

Post by dad1 »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:14 pm
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...
I have several times qualified the word by adding forces and laws. The fundamental forces we know. The laws and forces that make atoms work, and cells work etc etc.

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 #193

Post by Bust Nak »

dad1 wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:00 am No one checked before Babel.
Ah huh, but that's doesn't change the fact that the laws of nature are the same, every time we checked now, does it?
The records say men lived many centuries. All the more reason to question a same state past. Records in Sumer and Scripture.
Why this and not all the more reasons to treat them as myths? Why these and not the Japanese royal family records that trace their lineage unbroken, from the current Emperor Naruhito, all the way back to the creation of the Earth?
You can't the bible is the only record man has from before the flood, period. Ignore it and you have nothing.
You brought up the records in Sumer, that has stuff from "before the flood," but that's beside the point. Without records, we appeal to empirical evidence, that counts for more in my book.
You cannot do that since there are no records.
Why not? That doesn't make sense to me. How does "there are no records" implies "you cannot interpolate?" You seemed to be missing the whole point of interpolation, we use it to deduce things that we have no direct access to. Not having records is exactly the kind of situation interpolation is useful.
It isn't. I use the limits of where man has been or not, limits based on knowledge.
Okay.
Man has been to Mars via probes. That is not in question. The furthest probe is less than one light day away! That is the limit so far, approx the solar system and area. You may make claims about less than one light day. Not about millions of light years away! (regarding what space and time there are like)
That doesn't tell me why you trust the probes when they could have left our local bubble of physical laws. Let me try asking the question in a different way: What's so different between the belief that "the laws of nature were different in the distant past, so radioactive dating does not reflect the true age of a piece of rock" and "the laws of nature are different in a bubble around my pen, so dropping it does not reflect the true mass of the pen," or "the laws of nature are different on Mars, so probe data does not reflect the true surface of the planet?"
It must be based on knowledge. No one was ever there to record life before Babel. So any guess you make as to what nature was like then is not based on fact or knowledge at all.
Our interpolation is based on the laws of physics as they are today, why doesn't that count as based on knowledge or facts? The laws of physics as we know them, aren't knowledge or facts?
That does not cover the distant universe or the nature on earth long before records existed.
I don't know what exactly you meant by "cover." But you asked for empirical evidence that the laws of nature is the same in the distant universe and earth long before records existed, and I gave some to you. Doesn't empirical evidence count as "cover?"

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #194

Post by help3434 »

dad1 wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:58 am
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:59 pm


We don't see the atoms here (!) ... we see the light that was emitted from the atoms that are near the distant star.
And WHERE do you see it? HERE!
The atoms are still at the star (or were millions or billions of years ago when they emitted the light that took that long to get here), but the photons made it to Earth and happen to have the same spectral signature (intensity vs. wavelength) as the same atoms on Earth apart from the red shift.


The atoms we see here are still billions of light years away? Explain? If they are seen here guess where that means they are...here!
The sodium atoms are not here, the photons of light are.

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 #195

Post by dad1 »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:23 am Ah huh, but that's doesn't change the fact that the laws of nature are the same, every time we checked now, does it?
No, you may claim a same nature for as long as you checked. That is not all that long. If Babel was about 4400 BC for example, then that was not that long ago. Since dating heavily relies on collaboration from things like trees and etc that pushes any accuray from radioactive dating even closer to the present. After all if trees grew in weeks and had hundreds of rings, endocrinology is out the window centuries before that cut of of 4400BC. If you are happy with that, fine.
Why this and not all the more reasons to treat them as myths? Why these and not the Japanese royal family records that trace their lineage unbroken, from the current Emperor Naruhito, all the way back to the creation of the Earth?
Not sure if this is what you are talking about

"Kami (Japanese: 神, [kaꜜmi]) are the deities, divinities, spirits, phenomena or "holy powers", that are venerated in the religion of Shinto. They can be elements of the landscape, forces of nature, or beings and the qualities that these beings express; they can also be the spirits of venerated dead people. Many kami are considered the ancient ancestors of entire clans (some ancestors became kami upon their death if they were able to embody the values and virtues of kami in life)."
I also notice the oldest copy is from the 1400s! So if you want to submit this for evidence for the time to creation, sorry. Notice also it consists of deities, spirits. You also will have to allow spirits as evidence. Ha
You brought up the records in Sumer, that has stuff from "before the flood,"
No. That is post flood (hope you didn't get confused by dream dates for that)
but that's beside the point. Without records, we appeal to empirical evidence, that counts for more in my book.
And that is what we have been waiting for you to post.
Why not? That doesn't make sense to me. How does "there are no records" implies "you cannot interpolate?" You seemed to be missing the whole point of interpolation, we use it to deduce things that we have no direct access to. Not having records is exactly the kind of situation interpolation is useful.
There are limits.
That doesn't tell me why you trust the probes when they could have left our local bubble of physical laws.

To be honest I don't! When I see the anomaly in both probes that has a gain or loss of time, I get suspicious! (despite them grasping at straws to provide an explanation that it was due to thrusters or some such being a little wonky or whatever)
But I allow the benefit of the doubt for the sake of being generous to the other side's arguments and saving time. After all we are talking about less than one lousy light day!
Let me try asking the question in a different way: What's so different between the belief that "the laws of nature were different in the distant past, so radioactive dating does not reflect the true age of a piece of rock" and "the laws of nature are different in a bubble around my pen, so dropping it does not reflect the true mass of the pen," or "the laws of nature are different on Mars, so probe data does not reflect the true surface of the planet?"
One is observable, and testable. The past on earth is long gone.
But I do have one possible test that translates to the present physical world. I have a prediction. (rather an extrapolation based on prophesy in the bible) Of course I could be wrong, but in following the logic and the bible it does lead me to make a duduction about the forces and laws of nature on earth today. But maybe that is another thread. (Long story short I think that in the coming last several years, or just after, the nature and forces will again change abruptly!)
Our interpolation is based on the laws of physics as they are today, why doesn't that count as based on knowledge or facts?
It does if you do not try to project that into the future or far past on earth.
The laws of physics as we know them, aren't knowledge or facts?
Today they are. We have not checked the future or far past on earth for that. Instead they have used these present forces to model what the future and far past are like.
I don't know what exactly you meant by "cover."
I mean they have no way of observing and testing.
But you asked for empirical evidence that the laws of nature is the same in the distant universe and earth long before records existed, and I gave some to you. Doesn't empirical evidence count as "cover?"
Not when that evidence regards invisible forces and laws of nature that existed many many thousands of years ago. Your pen falling does not cover that.
Last edited by dad1 on Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #196

Post by dad1 »

help3434 wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 5:46 am
dad1 wrote: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:58 am
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:59 pm


We don't see the atoms here (!) ... we see the light that was emitted from the atoms that are near the distant star.
And WHERE do you see it? HERE!
The atoms are still at the star (or were millions or billions of years ago when they emitted the light that took that long to get here), but the photons made it to Earth and happen to have the same spectral signature (intensity vs. wavelength) as the same atoms on Earth apart from the red shift.


The atoms we see here are still billions of light years away? Explain? If they are seen here guess where that means they are...here!
The sodium atoms are not here, the photons of light are.
That is interesting, but if true changes nothing about how much time the light took to get here. But do explain. How can light that is here contain stuff that is elsewhere?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #197

Post by Clownboat »

Inquirer wrote:If you contest something I said then state your case, don't berate me just because you don't like what I said.
Here are some things I contested in the post you quoted that you ignored, but then accused me of berating you instead.
1. If I said these words, or the words above, would they come across as prideful and arrogent to you?
2. What god are you referring to and what did this god create?
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
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 #198

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #196]
That is interesting, but if true changes nothing about how much time the light took to get here. But do explain. How can light that is here contain stuff that is elsewhere?
This has been explained in many (recent) prior posts ... have you already forgotten those discussions and explanations? Maybe review the posts in your own thread "Starlight and Time" where all of this was discussed in detail:

viewtopic.php?t=39621
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

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #199

Post by Clownboat »

dad1 wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:07 am God is a spirit.
Please show you speak the truth.
Have you some evidence He did not infuse the people He chose to write Scripture with His spirit?
I never claimed there was a god that did not infuse people to write holy books, so why would I provide evidence for something I have not said? You put the cart before the horse, because for all we know, all sorts of gods told people to write all sorts of holy books, right?
Most people who believe in a spiritual world have reasons.
Of course they have reasons. I note that Schizophrenics also have reasons for hearing what they hear. Your words have taught us nothing.
Changed lives, miracles, etc. The bible is full of examples.
So are other holy books. What is your take on other holy books?
As people who knew and were actually there said..

Acts 1:3
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Do you argue that this holds as much weight as claims from other holy books? Are you of the impression that your holy book is special and the rest are not?
ALL proofs escape poor little deaf and blind to anything spiritual science! That is like asking a fly to recite Shakespeare.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
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: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #200

Post by Clownboat »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:23 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #196]
That is interesting, but if true changes nothing about how much time the light took to get here. But do explain. How can light that is here contain stuff that is elsewhere?
This has been explained in many (recent) prior posts ... have you already forgotten those discussions and explanations? Maybe review the posts in your own thread "Starlight and Time" where all of this was discussed in detail:

viewtopic.php?t=39621
Due to the bold above...
I would like to note the OP:
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally - Bam
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