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.

[Jose Fly]

So people shouldn't study geology, fossils, astronomy, etc.? You just want better trinkets and don't care about (or are actively against) the bigger picture, expanding human knowledge?

That's a good point, and something that's always intrigued me about creationists. If they got their way, what exactly would change with how scientists go about their work?

We already know what Ken Ham and AiG think.....



They expect paleontologists to always have a Bible handy and to read it while on digs. I assume they also expect lab scientists to work similarly (e.g., test tube in one hand, Bible in the other).

ID creationists are less overt in what they want, but I tend to agree with what Dr. PZ Myers said a while ago...."intelligent design" isn't a different way to do science, it's an excuse to not do science. That's because if scientists were to start allowing "God did that" or "God made it that way" as explanations, much of science would come to a halt.

But then I have to remind myself that creationists are as relevant to science as flat-earthers are to cartography. So they can advocate whatever they like, but in reality, no one takes them at all seriously, especially scientists.

[dad1]

Then it is on topic, if we are debating said limits and extent. Pick one.

To be clear then, what is your point about life inside the fishbowl?

Then let's rewind to my original point: Appealing to the Bible can lead to false conclusion, flat Earth being one example.

Old wives tales lead to false conclusions, such as that the bible suggests a flat earth.

Wrong, that's actually a core feature of science. It seems you hold some deep misconception about science.

Not at all, science is about knowing. Not beliefs. If something is unknown it is unknown.

You were the one who said it was time to flush so called science, you were the one who called it a religious farce.

Right and that has to do with things science does not know, not life in the fishbowl where we do know a lot about it.

Was that not a good reason to discard this so called scientific knowledge? Try not to be a stranger to reason.

All knowledge lies within the known, all origin so called science models are based on belief and the unknown.

So you interpret data in a non-scientific way, I'd rather you don't, but I can't exactly stop you. So what? What does any of this have to do with the fact that you were factually wrong about the existence of empirical evidence for our claims about condition in the distant past?

Pretending that using 1000 beliefs and the unknown is a 'scientific way' is lunacy.

Why did you even start, if we are welcome to our scientific beliefs.

You are not welcome to call your beliefs science or scientific in any way. They are raw belief.

I don't have any conspiracy theory about that. But you seemed to have some conspiracy theory about how information collected from distant universe is skewed, you would need to offer real support, i.e. not by appealing to the Bible.

There is no 'information' about time in the far universe. Nor do I have any theory as to what it is like exactly out there. Since we all do not know and must lean on belief alone, I lean on the word of the Almighty about it.

Yes, I have gathered that much. So are you ever gonna get round to the part where you explain why that's important?

As far as the distant universe goes, unless time itself exists there as we know it here, there is no possible way to assign old ages to anything.

Okay, by the same reasoning, you have no idea what time is like in on Mars and all your little interpreting games here and planetary distances etc are useless.

No connection. There are no old age dates about probes and Mars. Man also has frequented the planet with probes.

You still haven't explained why you draw the line where you did.

For space (and therefore also the nature of time in distant space) the line was stated often and clearly. As far as man has been or even sent probes to can be called the known. Beyond that line is the unknown. That line as of today is less than one light day away.

[dad1]

So people shouldn't study geology, fossils, astronomy, etc.? You just want better trinkets and don't care about (or are actively against) the bigger picture, expanding human knowledge?

Knowledge is not belief or not knowing. When you try to superimpose beliefs onto the unknown, that is anything but knowledge. Geology can maybe tell us what sort of formations oil is likely to be found. The reasons for those formations and the ages is belief based. When a body of 'science' includes a plethora of heavy beliefs we need to know how to sort what is what and not just swallow the package deal that includes many belief based scenarios.

There is so much unadulterated crap embedded in what is called science today, that one must filter the truth and solid knowledge based stuff from the demented fantasies.

[Jose Fly]

Geology can maybe tell us what sort of formations oil is likely to be found.

Yep, and they do so specifically via an old earth, evolutionary framework.

Using Microfossils in Petroleum Exploration

[dad1]

Geology can maybe tell us what sort of formations oil is likely to be found.

Yep, and they do so specifically via an old earth, evolutionary framework.

Using Microfossils in Petroleum Exploration

And is it hard to do the same using young earth beliefs?
Here is a sample. So God created the earth and all creatures including man in six days. The world at the time was likely a different nature, no one knows. Assuming then (rather than assuming nature was the same as now) it was different, we can assume that most creatures including man would not have made it into the fossil record. We likely did not last long enough in that former nature to do so. Of course some things for whatever reasons did leave remains, and so we have some record. Man and most animals did not leave remains probably then. So man and most animals were alive and here but they would not have left remains and were unable to leave fossilized remains. As God said to Adam, from dust to dust (rather than to bones in the ground)
So, the record is all about using beliefs to interpret it.

[Jose Fly]

Geology can maybe tell us what sort of formations oil is likely to be found.

Yep, and they do so specifically via an old earth, evolutionary framework.

Using Microfossils in Petroleum Exploration

And is it hard to do the same using young earth beliefs?
Here is a sample. So God created the earth and all creatures including man in six days. The world at the time was likely a different nature, no one knows. Assuming then (rather than assuming nature was the same as now) it was different, we can assume that most creatures including man would not have made it into the fossil record. We likely did not last long enough in that former nature to do so. Of course some things for whatever reasons did leave remains, and so we have some record. Man and most animals did not leave remains probably then. So man and most animals were alive and here but they would not have left remains and were unable to leave fossilized remains. As God said to Adam, from dust to dust (rather than to bones in the ground)
So, the record is all about using beliefs to interpret it.

If you and other YEC's believe that, then you need to create your own framework that's based on YEC and show how it produces superior results. Anything short of that is just empty rhetoric.

[dad1]

Geology can maybe tell us what sort of formations oil is likely to be found.

Yep, and they do so specifically via an old earth, evolutionary framework.

Using Microfossils in Petroleum Exploration

And is it hard to do the same using young earth beliefs?
Here is a sample. So God created the earth and all creatures including man in six days. The world at the time was likely a different nature, no one knows. Assuming then (rather than assuming nature was the same as now) it was different, we can assume that most creatures including man would not have made it into the fossil record. We likely did not last long enough in that former nature to do so. Of course some things for whatever reasons did leave remains, and so we have some record. Man and most animals did not leave remains probably then. So man and most animals were alive and here but they would not have left remains and were unable to leave fossilized remains. As God said to Adam, from dust to dust (rather than to bones in the ground)
So, the record is all about using beliefs to interpret it.

If you and other YEC's believe that, then you need to create your own framework that's based on YEC and show how it produces superior results. Anything short of that is just empty rhetoric.

Whether creatures used to be able to leave remains or not has nothing to do with results. The 'results' of believing nature was the same and that therefore the fossil record must represent a progression of life evolving from each other is just a belief and has zero results.

[Jose Fly]

Whether creatures used to be able to leave remains or not has nothing to do with results. The 'results' of believing nature was the same and that therefore the fossil record must represent a progression of life evolving from each other is just a belief and has zero results.

This is what makes interactions with creationists so difficult in places like this. I literally just showed you how an old earth evolutionary framework produces results in oil exploration. Now here you are responding with basically "Nuh uh".

In real life, I would laugh at you and question your intelligence and/or sanity. But we can't do that here, even though your reply most certainly warrants it. Oh well.

[dad1]

Whether creatures used to be able to leave remains or not has nothing to do with results. The 'results' of believing nature was the same and that therefore the fossil record must represent a progression of life evolving from each other is just a belief and has zero results.

This is what makes interactions with creationists so difficult in places like this. I literally just showed you how an old earth evolutionary framework produces results in oil exploration. Now here you are responding with basically "Nuh uh".

In real life, I would laugh at you and question your intelligence and/or sanity. But we can't do that here, even though your reply most certainly warrants it. Oh well.

This is not a forum to preach your religion. There is nothing old earth about layers. Older layers under younger layers for example does not mean millions of years older. It can mean centuries or etc. The reasons you assign old ages are all 100% faith based. Period. You showed nothing at all. The same results occur believing the oldest layers are 6000 ears old or billions of years old.

[Bust Nak]

To be clear then, what is your point about life inside the fishbowl?

The point is it shows us what life is like outside of the fishbowl.

Old wives tales lead to false conclusions, such as that the bible suggests a flat earth.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. How am I suppose to interpret your comment?

"Old wives' tales lead to false conclusion, just like the Bible leads to the false conclusion that the Earth is flat?" Yes, it does, I am glad you agree. Or...

"It is an old wives' tale that the Bible suggests a flat Earth?" No, it's not an old wives' tale. The Bible does suggest a flat Earth, I've personally interacted with many Christians who uses the Bible to defend their flat Earth thesis.

Not at all, science is about knowing. Not beliefs. If something is unknown it is unknown... that has to do with things science does not know, not life in the fishbowl where we do know a lot about it.

Either we can say we know what time is like in the distant universe, or we cannot say we know the distance to Mars. To be consistent one must treat both claims the same, because both of these claims use the same model based on the same assumptions. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. Pick one, either accept both or reject both.

All knowledge lies within the known, all origin so called science models are based on belief and the unknown.

That's the same for Mars model, that too is based on the same belief and unknown you were attacking.

Pretending that using 1000 beliefs and the unknown is a 'scientific way' is lunacy.

There is no pretence, you are just wrong about the scientific way, it absolutely is based on beliefs, beliefs such as: the universe is orderly, that there is consistency in how the universe operates; that there are natural causes for everything that happens; that we can understand these causes by careful observation. You have a problem with the bolder part I bolded? Then you have a problem with the very basis of science.

You are not welcome to call your beliefs science or scientific in any way. They are raw belief.

And yet there you are saying you know the distance to Mars, that's a raw belief. You don't know anything about Mars, you are leaning on belief alone. Why is it okay when you do it, but we are not welcome to? Not very consistent of you.

There is no 'information' about time in the far universe. Nor do I have any theory as to what it is like exactly out there. Since we all do not know and must lean on belief alone, I lean on the word of the Almighty about it.

That's exactly what I was referring to as your "conspiracy theory," thanks for confirming it.

As far as the distant universe goes, unless time itself exists there as we know it here, there is no possible way to assign old ages to anything.

That's the same for the near space too, unless time itself exists there as we know it here, there is no possible way to assign distances to anything. You assume it is the same, you say you have no reason to believe it is not - you are not welcome to call your beliefs as to the distance to Mars "knowledge" by your own reasoning.

No connection. There are no old age dates about probes and Mars. Man also has frequented the planet with probes.

Okay, so what? You still have no idea what time is like in on Mars and all your little interpreting games here and planetary distances etc are useless, to borrow your own words.

For space (and therefore also the nature of time in distant space) the line was stated often and clearly. As far as man has been or even sent probes to can be called the known. Beyond that line is the unknown. That line as of today is less than one light day away.

Here you are telling me where you draw your line again, I heard you the first time round, there really is no need to tell me for the 100th time. The problem is you are still not explaining why you draw the line where you did. Why do you draw the line at where man has sent probes to, as opposed to where man has set foot on, for example? You mentioned that you have no reason to believe information sent back from probes is tampered with, okay, so how does that justify drawing the line at probes?

Face it. You don't have any justification other than that it helps you reconcile your own religious beliefs.