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]

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.

This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but I will go with the actual work of professionals in the field over your baseless denials every single time.

The fact remains, the old-earth evolutionary framework is utilized in the petroleum industry for locating oil, and has been for a very long time. You saying "Nuh uh, it's all faith" is not only absurd, it comes across as rather childish.

[dad1]

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

Sitting in your closer looking through a little peephole does not actually show you what time itself is like in the far universe, Buzz.

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

The bible does not teach a flat earth.

"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...

The bible does not teach any such foolish thing.

"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.

Try finding some brighter lights on the strand.

Either we can say we know what time is like in the distant universe, or we cannot say we know the distance to Mars.

Except there is no connection at all. You might as well say if a butterfly flaps it's wings somewhere in China this month, that all the theories you care to cook up are valid.

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.

No, one of them is here the other is there. The issue is not here but there. You have never seen any atom or light or spectra anywhere else but here. How is that supposed to tell you what time is like out there?

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

Better to just admit defeat than to keep trying to raise that canard.

There is no pretence, you are just wrong about the scientific way, it absolutely is based on beliefs,

Honestly, you need say no more. You just admitted defeat.

beliefs such as: the universe is orderly,

Creationists believe the obvious as well. That is no feather in your religion's cap.

that there is consistency in how the universe operates;

Same as above, ditto for creation believers. One caveat though, creationists usually have enough sense to realize that the consistency is based on how God wants and orders His universe to operate. Inn the future that will be a different way since He is changing up this whole universe like you change socks.

that there are natural causes for everything that happens; that we can understand these causes by careful observation.

That is unsupportable belief. All you can detect is the natural, so if there were an underlying spiritual cause you would not have any way to know.

And yet there you are saying you know the distance to Mars, that's a raw belief.

No, it is an observed and tested and repeated event. If you have some reason to claim all the probe launches were fake then post it. If you have evidence that data was changed from man's probes coming to earth post it. Otherwise it is a non issue and has zero relevance to anything outside the area of this earth solar system.

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

It is not theory that no probes have been even a light day away from earth yet. I kid you not. Learn your limits, play within it.

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.

Nothing about the known can be said to be like the unknown. All such ignorance based claims are bad religion. Not science.

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.

I have not raised that issue. I have said it does not matter to the topic of what time far far far beyond anywhere man has ever been or will be is like. You are trying to conflate the unknown with the known to excuse your dreaming and scheming about origins.

Okay, so what?

So why would I care about what happens in a particle accelerator in Switzerland, or a lab in Bombay when looking at the unknown far universe and the nature of time there? The moles I want to whack are not ones that pop up across the street on a machine, but those that are here raising their heads against God and creation. Unless a post is relevant and addresses the issues, it is a diversion and waste of time.

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.

--case in point--

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.

Think of it this way, I did not draw the line science did. Man did. The furthest away from earth man or his machines have been is as far as the line goes. Beyond that no man has ever been.

Why do you draw the line at where man has sent probes to, as opposed to where man has set foot on, for example?

Actually, I would prefer to draw the line at where man has actually been. But as I said I am being very generous with poor little so called science for the sake of argument. (in plain English, for the sake of not wasting time arguing like you do on what is totally insignificant and irrelevant)
So quit trying to justify your religious beliefs using strawmen and canards and deal with the issues at hand in an honest way.

[dad1]

This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but I will go with the actual work of professionals in the field over your baseless denials every single time.

No professional has ever been to the far universe to observe what time is like or to the distant past on earth to observe here what the forces and laws were like. Not a one. Ever. Your adamant zealousness for unsupportable beliefs lies exposed.

The fact remains, the old-earth evolutionary framework is utilized in the petroleum industry for locating oil, and has been for a very long time.

False. They have attributed the patterns laid down in a young earth as being old. The oil is not found by the imagined age but by the pattern. Your dating is faith based. Don't confuse that with thinking that means the layers and patterns are not real. Fossils also. The evidence is real, but your tired old belief set is not needed to interpret evidence.

[Jose Fly]

This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but I will go with the actual work of professionals in the field over your baseless denials every single time.

No professional has ever been to the far universe to observe what time is like or to the distant past on earth to observe here what the forces and laws were like. Not a one. Ever. Your adamant zealousness for unsupportable beliefs lies exposed.

The fact remains, the old-earth evolutionary framework is utilized in the petroleum industry for locating oil, and has been for a very long time.

False. They have attributed the patterns laid down in a young earth as being old. The oil is not found by the imagined age but by the pattern. Your dating is faith based. Don't confuse that with thinking that means the layers and patterns are not real. Fossils also. The evidence is real, but your tired old belief set is not needed to interpret evidence.

This is just ridiculous and definitely not worth my time. I've no interest in playing out the Argument Sketch.

[dad1]

This may or may not come as a surprise to you, but I will go with the actual work of professionals in the field over your baseless denials every single time.

No professional has ever been to the far universe to observe what time is like or to the distant past on earth to observe here what the forces and laws were like. Not a one. Ever. Your adamant zealousness for unsupportable beliefs lies exposed.

The fact remains, the old-earth evolutionary framework is utilized in the petroleum industry for locating oil, and has been for a very long time.

False. They have attributed the patterns laid down in a young earth as being old. The oil is not found by the imagined age but by the pattern. Your dating is faith based. Don't confuse that with thinking that means the layers and patterns are not real. Fossils also. The evidence is real, but your tired old belief set is not needed to interpret evidence.

This is just ridiculous and definitely not worth my time. I've no interest in playing out the Argument Sketch.

Sorry that the delusional results of your imposed belief system onto evidences is indistinguishable to you from the evidence itself. You see anyone can apply their beliefs to evidence. You need more. Some people have the ability to grab a crowbar and divest your beliefs from the facts and evidence.

[Bust Nak]

Sitting in your closer looking through a little peephole does not actually show you what time itself is like in the far universe...

Buzz. It gives us an idea of what it's like.

The bible does not teach a flat earth.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The point was appealing to the Bible can lead to a false conclusion, such as a flat Earth. You are not addressing my actual claim.

Try finding some brighter lights on the strand.

As above, the point was, there are many dull lights on the stand. No amount of bright lights can nullify the dull lights' existence.

Except there is no connection at all.

Incorrect. The connection is this: both the distance to Mars and to distant stars used the same model, based on the same assumptions.

No, one of them is here the other is there. The issue is not here but there. You have never seen any atom or light or spectra anywhere else but here. How is that supposed to tell you what time is like out there?

Mars is out there too. You have never seen any atom or light or spectra anywhere else but here. How is that supposed to tell you what time is like out there on Mars?

Better to just admit defeat than to keep trying to raise that canard.

No thanks, I think I'll carry on. Feel free to let me have the last word if you are not interested in defending your position.

Honestly, you need say no more. You just admitted defeat.

Meh, that's not a win for you because nobody cares. Nobody care that science is based on assumptions, because science is supposed to be based on assumptions, big whoop.

Creationists believe the obvious as well. That is no feather in your religion's cap.

I wasn't presenting it as some feather in a cap, I was pointing out the fact that science has always been based on assumption at its very core since its inception, you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

Same as above, ditto for creation believers. One caveat though, creationists...

Whatever. Not interested in the details of your religious beliefs, only interested in how it interacts with science.

That is unsupportable belief. All you can detect is the natural, so if there were an underlying spiritual cause you would not have any way to know.

Ah huh. Which means you were wrong when you denied that science is supposed to be based on unsupported beliefs. Somehow you see it as a victory, for pointing out science is exactly what it is supposed to be.

No, it is an observed and tested and repeated event.

So is the distance to stars in the distant universe, observed, tested repeatedly, yet you want to say it's unknown, not very consistent of you.

If you have some reason to claim all the probe launches were fake then post it. If you have evidence that data was changed from man's probes coming to earth post it. Otherwise it is a non issue and has zero relevance to anything outside the area of this earth solar system.

If you have some reason to claim all the signals received from deep space were fake then post it. If you have evidence that data was changed from stars coming to earth post it. Otherwise it is a non issue and has zero relevance to anything anywhere.

It is not theory that no probes have been even a light day away from earth yet.

Yes, that much is not under dispute. You have a pet theory that the signals from across the universe somehow does not reflect the condition of where the signal originated from, that's what I was referring to as your conspiracy theory. Once again you have failed to address my actual point.

Nothing about the known can be said to be like the unknown.

Well, there you go. Take your own advice and stop calling the knowledge of the distant universe unknown, it's nothing like the unknown. All such ignorance based claims are bad religion. Not science.

I have not raised that issue. I have said it does not matter to the topic of what time far far far beyond anywhere man has ever been or will be is like.

And you are wrong for saying that, for the reason I stated: it does matter because they are connected. The same way all of science are connected because they are built upon the on the same foundational assumptions, uses the same methodology. There is no conflation because they are deeply connected.

So why would I care about what happens in a particle accelerator in Switzerland, or a lab in Bombay when looking at the unknown far universe and the nature of time there?

I don't know why you would. I can tell you why I would care though: I would care because I am a rational and curious person, and I would like to learn about how the universe function via scientific means.

The moles I want to whack are not ones that pop up across the street on a machine, but those that are here raising their heads against God and creation. Unless a post is relevant and addresses the issues, it is a diversion and waste of time.

It's being addressed thus: the moles you want to whack and the one across the street on a machine are connected by sharing the same base assumptions. The mallet you are swinging hits all the moles.

Think of it this way, I did not draw the line science did.

Science did draw a line, at the big bang, not a light day away. You decided to draw it at elsewhere, so you need to justify not using the line science drew.

The furthest away from earth man or his machines have been is as far as the line goes. Beyond that no man has ever been.

Yes, as you've pointed out a million times before. That still doesn't explain why you draw the line there. Tell me why?

Actually, I would prefer to draw the line at where man has actually been.

So draw it there and flush the so-called knowledge about the distance to Mars, like I told you before.

But as I said I am being very generous with poor little so called science for the sake of argument. (in plain English, for the sake of not wasting time arguing like you do on what is totally insignificant and irrelevant)
So quit trying to justify your religious beliefs using strawmen and canards and deal with the issues at hand in an honest way.

It's not a strawman when you've confirmed it multiple times that you draw the line at where man has sent probes to. I don't care whether it is your actual stance or just a temporary one you take up for the sake of argument. That's the stance you presented, and it is the stance I am arguing against, my honesty is not in question here. For the n-th time, you've confirmed that you draw the line where you did according to your personal whim, without answering the "so what?" question. Like I said, you ought to face the fact that you don't have any justification other than that it helps you reconcile your own religious beliefs. You being "generous" is exactly the sticking point here, your "generosity" is arbitrary, based only on your religious interpretation. Be consistent, draw the line at the moon's orbit, then we can move on.

[brunumb]

No professional has ever been to the far universe to observe what time is like or to the distant past on earth to observe here what the forces and laws were like. Not a one. Ever. Your adamant zealousness for unsupportable beliefs lies exposed.

Irrelevant. There is no logical reason for the properties of space-time to randomly change throughout the universe. Proposing otherwise is totally unjustified. It is not simply a matter of referring to "out there" and suggesting it could be different. We are out there. Everywhere is out there. The universe is space-time and you need to be able to support your claims with more than hand-waving and saying we don't know.

[dad1]

Irrelevant. There is no logical reason for the properties of space-time to randomly change throughout the universe.

Being ignorant of what time out there is like, you are in no position to dictate to us what is logical out there. The universe need not conform to your little preconceptions and fishbowl ideas. Once you admit no one has ever been out there and you don't know, all of your guesses and hunches and ideas about what should exist and how go out the window.

We are out there.

Don't you wish. Face it you are right here.

Everywhere is out there.

Thanks Obi Wan Kanobi.

The universe is space-time

That is meaningless since spacetime is a concept developed here based on time here and space here. Let's see if you can clock the speed of light millions of light years out in space? Can you do that, as we can clock light speed on earth?
Learn your little limits.

[dad1]

The bible does not teach a flat earth.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The point was appealing to the Bible can lead to a false conclusion, such as a flat Earth. You are not addressing my actual claim.

Try finding some brighter lights on the strand.

As above, the point was, there are many dull lights on the stand. No amount of bright lights can nullify the dull lights' existence.

Nor should we expect dim lights to light up the unknown universe.

Incorrect. The connection is this: both the distance to Mars and to distant stars used the same model, based on the same assumptions.

Mars is out there too. You have never seen any atom or light or spectra anywhere else but here. How is that supposed to tell you what time is like out there on Mars?

Mars is no more relevant than your closet in this debate.

I was pointing out the fact that science has always been based on assumption at its very core since its inception, you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

False. Testing assumptions repeatedly and observation make assumptions known. The universe was never observed by man since we never left the area here. Nor tested. You merely sit here in the fishbowl projecting beliefs.

So is the distance to stars in the distant universe, observed, tested repeatedly, yet you want to say it's unknown, not very consistent of you.

The only thing tested and observed is tested and seen here. Not there. Repeatedly. Hilarious that you try to paint this as something else, Buzz Lightyear.

If you have some reason to claim all the signals received from deep space were fake then post it.

Since the distant universe is unknown no one can post anything about what time is like out there. That includes science, which does use beliefs that it is a certain way ignorantly.

Yes, that much is not under dispute. You have a pet theory that the signals from across the universe somehow does not reflect the condition of where the signal originated from, that's what I was referring to as your conspiracy theory. Once again you have failed to address my actual point.

It is clear that when we receive the light and data in it here IN our time and space, that this is not known to reflect what time out there is like. No one is going out there to prove that it is any way at all. You must declare ignorance. Instead you issue little proclamations and dictates of what the unknown is like based on nothing at all.

Well, there you go. Take your own advice and stop calling the knowledge of the distant universe unknown, it's nothing like the unknown

Then tell us what time is like out there exactly? How much time, for example does light take to move from a billion light years away to say, 500 million light years away? How do you clock that?

And you are wrong for saying that, for the reason I stated: it does matter because they are connected.

Nothing connects direct knowledge of the far universe with direct knowledge of the solar system and area. Not in the way of telling us what space and time out there are like. Nothing but belief. (your specialty)

I don't know why you would. I can tell you why I would care though: I would care because I am a rational and curious person, and I would like to learn about how the universe function via scientific means.

A lab in Bombay tells us about what time billions of light years away...how?

Science did draw a line, at the big bang, not a light day away. You decided to draw it at elsewhere, so you need to justify not using the line science drew.

No the line is how far man has been. Not the fantasies based on beliefs like the BB

The furthest away from earth man or his machines have been is as far as the line goes. Beyond that no man has ever been.

Yes, as you've pointed out a million times before. That still doesn't explain why you draw the line there. Tell me why?

You being "generous" is exactly the sticking point here, your "generosity" is arbitrary, based only on your religious interpretation. Be consistent, draw the line at the moon's orbit, then we can move on.

Not at all. The distance man has been from earth is well known. Allowing for probes with no men in them is being generous.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #399]

It is clear that when we receive the light and data in it here IN our time and space, that this is not known to reflect what time out there is like.

Receiving light here does tell us a lot about how the light was generated "there", despite your inability to understand the process and refusal to learn something about it. We know what light is. It is an elecromagnetic wave that travels at a speed in vacuum given by the relationship of a few parameters that Maxwell and others worked out in the 1800s. Since atomic and molecular absorption and emission of photons is time dependent, the fact that the spectra appear the same here when it originated at a distant source (apart from a redshift) proves that the atoms and molecules "there" are identical to the ones here on Earth, and that light interacts with matter identically in both places (and so travels at the same speed). You can stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept this all you like, but that doesn't change the facts. Nothing is magically changing the characteristics of the light as it travels here from a great distance to reach Earth. Science does actually know this (even if you don't).

Plus, your single argument against anything and everything that "we haven't sent a probe there so can know nothing", beside being demonstrably wrong, doesn't help your argument that stars might not be millions and billions of light years away. If we really did know nothing, then time, light, etc. could be "different" in ways that hurt your argument just as well as helping it. Each would be equally likely, and you've provided literally nothing in the way of evidence to support the idea that things are different "out there" in either direction, or the same as here. All you've done is hand wave and reference bible stories, and denigrate science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.