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.

[brunumb]

This is an area of the forum where you must have more than beliefs for your claims. You have demonstrated that you don't. WE do not need to hear you natter on about other beliefs.

OK then dad1, perhaps it is time for you to man up. How old do you believe the earth is and what evidence led you to that age?

[dad1]

It does, you just can't understand why because you know nothing about spectroscopy and related subjects. Strike 1.

Except I do, and it is fairly simple, so that phony excuse does not fly. You have beliefs that give distances in the universe that rest upon the belief that time exists there as we know it here.

How far man or a physical probe has been from Earth is irrelevant as to how the distances to objects are determined. Stike 2.

False, the light you see is here, right here. Not more than a light day away! Your imaginary baseball game does not help you.

Yes, atoms here exist a certain way. You see all things here. Connect the dots.

The atoms emitting the light are not here, they are at the distance object.

How distant we do not know. How they would exist in light that was not in our time..you do not know...etc.

Another key point that you can't seem to grasp. The atoms emitting the light at the distance object are still at the distant object

Belief based. They are here in light now, or their traces/spectrum. Not there.

(or were 700 years ago).

Circular reasoning resting solely on a belief.

The very fact that the multiple spectral lines from multiple atoms and molecules are in exactly the same pattern (vs. wavelength) in both places is what tells us a great deal about the environment (and time) at the distant object. Strike 3.

Whatever exists here in the fishbowl is not of any relevance to outside the fishbowl. How distant any star is you do not know. Nor does seeing traces of atoms in light HERE tell us diddley about time in the far universe and that should be obvious.
Your belief set remains exposed. Hung out to dry.

[dad1]

OK then dad1, perhaps it is time for you to man up. How old do you believe the earth is and what evidence led you to that age?

There is no evidence for creation or when it happened. It is a matter of belief. The issue here is that your beliefs have been conflated with science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #472]

Except I do, and it is fairly simple, so that phony excuse does not fly.

You say that, then you make these statements (underlines mine):

Nor does seeing traces of atoms in light HERE tell us diddley about time in the far universe and that should be obvious.

How they would exist in light that was not in our time..

They are here in light now, or their traces/spectrum.

These prove beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of spectroscopy or how it works. Hoist by your own petard.

The atoms are not "here in light now" (whatever that means ... it makes no sense). The atoms are at the distance source, their electrons fall from higher energy levels to lower energy levels, emitting photons whose wavelength corresponds to the difference in the energy levels. There are many different upper and lower energy levels creating a range of emitted wavelengths in a specific pattern for each atom or molecule (ie. an emission spectrum).

These photons are emitted at the distant source, and travel through space to reach Earth. The atoms don't travel to Earth ... they remain at the source. The very fact that the spectrum we obtain here is identical to the spectrum of the same atom or molecule created on Earth in a lab is proof that nothing is changing the emission spectrum from where it was originally emitted (at the distant source). This destroys your argument that it is somehow being changed or converted as it enters the "fishbowl." For that to make any sense at all the original emitted spectrum from the distant source would have to be different from the same atom or molecule on Earth, and magically converted to the correct spectrum near Earth. That obviously doesn't happen and is pure nonsense.

[dad1]

You say that, then you make these statements (underlines mine):

Nor does seeing traces of atoms in light HERE tell us diddley about time in the far universe and that should be obvious.

How they would exist in light that was not in our time..

They are here in light now, or their traces/spectrum.

These prove beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of spectroscopy or how it works. Hoist by your own petard.

It works on belief when you look at stuff here and pretend that tells us about time itself somewhere else. I kid you not.

The atoms are not "here in light now" (whatever that means ... it makes no sense).

It means that the light in which you see traces of those atoms is right here. From earth or the area of this solar system (fishbowl) The distance to where it came from you do not know (that depends on whether time also exists as we know it all the way) The time it took to get here we do not know. You simply look at light IN OUR time and imagine that this means things that you choose to believe.

The atoms are at the distance source

No. You see them here. Not there. They are here. IN our fishbowl time. Nowhere else ever. You have not been anywhere else. You only have imagination and religion.

, their electrons fall from higher energy levels to lower energy levels,

In the fishbowl that is how it works. But you ONLY see it after it gets here! So you cannot impose 'how long it takes to fall to another energy level THERE! (or in transit)

emitting photons whose wavelength corresponds to the difference in the energy levels.

How else would it be here in our time? All you are saying is that here we know it takes so much time to change levels. IRRELEVANT!

There are many different upper and lower energy levels creating a range of emitted wavelengths in a specific pattern for each atom or molecule (ie. an emission spectrum).

NONE of which you have EVER seen anywhere BUT here in the fishbowl in our time.

These photons are emitted at the distant source

How distant you have no idea. You simply assign distances based on the belief time also exists the same out there. Total conjecture with no basis at all.

, and travel through space to reach Earth.

How long it took to get here you also do not know.

The atoms don't travel to Earth ... they remain at the source

The atoms are only seen in the traces in the spectrum, right? They must be atom caused, because they match atoms here. Right? Think about it, that does not tell us anything whatsoever about time there.

. The very fact that the spectrum we obtain here is identical to the spectrum of the same atom or molecule created on Earth in a lab is proof that nothing is changing the emission spectrum from where it was originally emitted (at the distant source).

That is the fly in your religious ointment. Ever consider that traces in light that we see here ARE here??! How could they NOT be identical here?? The issue is THERE. Not here.

This destroys your argument that it is somehow being changed or converted as it enters the "fishbowl." For that to make any sense at all the original emitted spectrum from the distant source would have to be different from the same atom or molecule on Earth, and magically converted to the correct spectrum near Earth. That obviously doesn't happen and is pure nonsense.

Even if the hydrogen or etc were the same out there, by the time we see it, it is here. So any time involved in anything, whether getting here, or transotioning to another energy level etc cannot be know simply by looking at traces in light here. Period.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #475]

It means that the light in which you see traces of those atoms is right here. From earth or the area of this solar system (fishbowl) The distance to where it came from you do not know (that depends on whether time also exists as we know it all the way) The time it took to get here we do not know. You simply look at light IN OUR time and imagine that this means things that you choose to believe.

I made no mention of time in the comment the above responded to. It doesn't matter whether the distant atoms are on Mars, on Pluto, or something far outside of your imaginary fishbowl, or how long it took the light to get to Earth. The fact that the spectral line patterns are the same in every case is all the proof that is needed to confirm that the atoms exist at the distant source exactly as they do here, they absorb and emit light exactly the same way by the same mechanisms, etc.

The time it took to get here we do not know. You simply look at light IN OUR time and imagine that this means things that you choose to believe.

You've yet to produce any rational justification for how light, time, etc. could be different "out there" compared to here. It is a claim you keep making for no apparent reason because it does nothing to help your argument. If things were different "out there" they could be in your favor or against you, equally, given that you've presented zero in the way of details or options or mechanisms. All you've done is hand-wave that "we don't know", ignoring all the evidence like spectroscopy that shows that we do know (if you only understood how it works).

No. You see them here. Not there. They are here. IN our fishbowl time. Nowhere else ever. You have not been anywhere else. You only have imagination and religion.

Yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about. We don't see atoms here because they are not here and never get here. We see photons emitted by the remote atoms which tells us a lot about them in their present location ... far, far away and outside of your imaginary fishbowl. The photons are here, the atoms that emitted them are there. It isn't complicated.

So you cannot impose 'how long it takes to fall to another energy level THERE!

The wavelength of the light tells which energy levels are involved. The time it takes for the electrons to transition between levels "there" is exactly the same as it is here, because the atoms are identical to the atoms here and anywhere else in the universe. We know this from the spectra they emit.

How else would it be here in our time? All you are saying is that here we know it takes so much time to change levels. IRRELEVANT!

The wavelengths of the spectral lines tell us the atomic or molecular structure "there" is identical to what it is here. The time it takes for electrons to transition is not related to the wavelength of the emitted photons ... that depends on the energy levels involved, which are identical to what we see here. We know this from the spectra.

The atoms are only seen in the traces in the spectrum, right?

NO ... the atoms are not "seen" here. The photons they emit are measured here and their wavelength patterns tell us what atom or molecule is responsible. If nature (light, time, etc.) were different there then the spectra would be different, but they are not. If the "fishbowl" somehow changed the wavelengths then the spectra would be different here, but they are not. Nothing supports your silly idea that somehow things are different outside of a certain distance from Earth. You have no case to make, which presumably is why all you can do is repeat the same thing over and over without any scientific or other support for it.

How could they NOT be identical here??

Through some crazy scheme like you keep suggesting where the photons emitted by the distant atoms are somehow transformed between there and here. If that were the case then the spectra would NOT be identical here, but they are. Your own argument would require that the spectra be different here!!! But they aren't. This is independent of how far away the atoms are or how long it took the light to get here. Apart from a potential redshift (which also destroys your "argument"), the wavelength patterns of every atom or molecule ever detected are the same no matter where the source is located relative to Earth.

Even if the hydrogen or etc were the same out there, by the time we see it, it is here.

Again, we don't see the hydrogen atoms here, we see the photons emitted by the hydrogen atom "there." But see above ... if your silly idea that the photons somehow got transformed on their travel we would not see the same spectrum here as from hydrogen on Earth ... it would be different. You're shooting yourself in the foot over and over.

[dad1]

I made no mention of time in the comment the above responded to.

Well why have you not addressed the issue then? What else matters?

It doesn't matter whether the distant atoms are on Mars, on Pluto, or something far outside of your imaginary fishbowl, or how long it took the light to get to Earth.

Says a guy that has not even been a light second away from earth! The light you see the atoms in is here. In every case. No exception, you have been nowhere else.

The fact that the spectral line patterns are the same in every case is all the proof that is needed to confirm that the atoms exist at the distant source exactly as they do here, they absorb and emit light exactly the same way by the same mechanisms, etc.

Or that once the light gets here it then exists a certain way here. Who knows? In any case, who cares? Having hydrogen out there does not mean that time is the same there! What happened before the light got here we don't know. All you can say is that once it arrives, we see traces of hydrogen in the light, so that we can assume there is also hydrogen at the star. Big deal. That does not mean that time is the same.

You've yet to produce any rational justification for how light, time, etc. could be different "out there" compared to here.

Or you that is is the same. Believe whatever you like, Do not pretend to know.

It is a claim you keep making for no apparent reason because it does nothing to help your argument.

The claim is that you do not know. Not that time and/or space exists a different precise way.

If things were different "out there" they could be in your favor or against you, equally,

False. Only in your mind may things be out of control for God. The only thing that matters in a science discussion is whether science knows. It does not. All godless speculation therefore becomes moot.

given that you've presented zero in the way of details or options or mechanisms.

No one needs to explain how God created. What matters is that science sure doesn't know.

All you've done is hand-wave that "we don't know", ignoring all the evidence like spectroscopy that shows that we do know (if you only understood how it works).

Nothing to ignore about you seeing light in your closet. The far universe does not need to conform to your closet observations.

Yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about. We don't see atoms here because they are not here and never get here. We see photons emitted by the remote atoms which tells us a lot about them in their present location ... far, far away and outside of your imaginary fishbowl. The photons are here, the atoms that emitted them are there. It isn't complicated.

Bingo. So you now admit that the atoms are not at source but here and that you use beliefs to imagine how they got here.

The wavelength of the light tells which energy levels are involved. The time it takes for the electrons to transition between levels "there" is exactly the same as it is here, because the atoms are identical to the atoms here and anywhere else in the universe. We know this from the spectra they emit.

Absurd. You only see light here. The photons are here. You have never seen energy levels change anywhere else, so you project that into the great unknown in a belief based frenzy.

The wavelengths of the spectral lines tell us the atomic or molecular structure "there" is identical to what it is here.

Structure smucture. How much time here is involved in getting something a certain way (structure) has no bearing on time involved out where time is not the same. If an electron orbited, say, an atom here at a certain rate, that does not mean the same is true out there, regardless of structure.

The time it takes for electrons to transition is not related to the wavelength of the emitted photons ... that depends on the energy levels involved, which are identical to what we see here. We know this from the spectra.

No, you assume that energy in our space and time must be the same. Energy levels here tell us nothing about time there, regardless of how much time is involved here with molecules or atoms etc.

NO ... the atoms are not "seen" here. The photons they emit are measured here and their wavelength patterns tell us what atom or molecule is responsible.

Tomato, tomatoe. In other words what you see is here! The only thing not here is what you believe happened to get it the way we see it here! Knowing 'what atom' exists out in a star tells us nothing about time or space there. Regardless of how it forms or behaves IN our time!

If nature (light, time, etc.) were different there then the spectra would be different, but they are not.

You seem to be conflating nature with time. The issue for deep space is time, not laws of nature. The only place I see the nature and forces being an issue is here on earth in the far past. That we also do not know. But if time itself did not exist as we know it, out in deep space, then nothing (whether atoms or molecules or light moving etc) we see here that involves time can be claimed to involve the same time. Nothing.

If the "fishbowl" somehow changed the wavelengths then the spectra would be different here, but they are not.

No, the fishbowl is nothing but a zone where our time and space exists. When something enters this zone it must then exist here, in our space and time.

supports your silly idea that somehow things are different outside of a certain distance from Earth. You have no case to make, which presumably is why all you can do is repeat the same thing over and over without any scientific or other support for it.

Through some crazy scheme like you keep suggesting where the photons emitted by the distant atoms are somehow transformed between there and here.

The time involved is what would not be the same. Not the hydrogen persay, that we know about. Hydrogen exists in both our time and space as well as out there, one would assume. How long light took to get here, however, with traces of that hydrogen in it, we do not know. How long any energy level changes took, we do not know...etc.

If that were the case then the spectra would NOT be identical here, but they are.

Identical to...what we see in the fishbowl generally. Hydrogen here exists here. If time here and space were different, then we may still have hydrogen.

Your own argument would require that the spectra be different here!!! But they aren't.

False. All spectra seen is here. Nothing about time far away is related to what we see here.

This is independent of how far away the atoms are or how long it took the light to get here.

Bingo

Apart from a potential redshift (which also destroys your "argument")

Not at all. Shifting involves time! The causes you assign to redshift are also out the window.

, the wavelength patterns of every atom or molecule ever detected are the same no matter where the source is located relative to Earth.

You see them only here. You detect them here. They exist here. How would hydrogen NOT be hydrogen here? That tells us nothing of distances to stars or what time is involved with anything hydrogen does out there.

Again, we don't see the hydrogen atoms here, we see the photons emitted by the hydrogen atom "there."

Right. In other words the light is here, and info about the hydrogen in that light is also here, and all that is in our time.

But see above ... if your silly idea that the photons somehow got transformed on their travel we would not see the same spectrum here as from hydrogen on Earth ... it would be different.

The light you see exists in the fishbowl. It is not that hydrogen, for example was transformed. It would be that the light itself now exists in our time. The mere existence of hydrogen in the light does not help your claims about time out in far space.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #477]

The mere existence of hydrogen in the light ...

This pretty much sums up your complete misunderstanding of how any of this works.

[brunumb]

No, the fishbowl is nothing but a zone where our time and space exists. When something enters this zone it must then exist here, in our space and time.

You need to prop up your argument with some relevant facts. What observations suggest that time will be different depending on where you are in the universe? When we look out in all directions the universe looks very much the same. So, what would cause time to be different and why? How are these different time zones established and distributed through space? What is the physics behind them? If there is no compelling reason for time to be different depending on where you are, what is the basis for your hypothesis?

By the way, the time it takes for electrons to change energy levels in atoms is irrelevant. The spectrum produced depends on the difference in energy levels of the transitions the electrons make.

[brunumb]

[Replying to dad1 in post #477]

The mere existence of hydrogen in the light ...

This pretty much sums up your complete misunderstanding of how any of this works.

It's like saying that if you turn on a torch, when the emitted light arrives at a destination, so does the torch.