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.

[dad1]

We know from geology that it never happened,

No you don't

and we know from our understanding of how much water is available on Earth that no such a flood could have possibly happened since humans existed on this planet.

God sent the flood and is not limited by where the water came from.

There simply isn't enough water available.

The bible says otherwise, and since the water need not be here anymore you have no way to know. The question is not what water here is now available! That is not even relevant.

And to claim it happened a measly 4500 years ago is even more ridiculous. And yes, we can impose our knowledge of the present, along with observations from past events, to know that 4500 years ago geology was not different.

I already explained where your dates came fro, mostly radioactive dating. Unless there was radioactivity then there are no dates.

This is just another variation of your silly "fishbowl" argument for time and space far from Earth being somehow different ... a convenient catch-all explanation for everything that doesn't jive with the biblical narrative, but without any basis.

The way things are dated is no secret. Nothing to do with a fishbowl.

Another silly bible story, which carries no weight in this forum section.

What carries zero weight in this section is your ability to affirm or deny it. You have no science that deals with God communicating to animals. Or not.

There's no reason to believe any place such as heaven exists, or that it has "windows." It is an imaginary place.

There is no reason to believe heaven does not exist. None. Certainly not from science.

Show evidence that such a nonsensical scenario did not happen?

If something is recorded to have happened thousands of years ago no evidence is available either way. Certainly not of windows in the sky opening. You cannot deny it with evidence or knowledge. Period.

It is just a made up story without any basis in reality whatsoever. It is simple alright, but utter nonsense.

You have no way to know. Your declarations are not based on anything. Personal incredulity does not count.

LOL! And you're offering up wormholes that water travels through from beyond the observable universe, windows to heaven, dinosaurs living alongside humans, angels instantaneously traveling across the universe, and on and on. Please ... this is all pure fiction and imagination.

The record of the past cannot be called imagination by you since you have no way to check.

More nonsense. Now we have the "heaven of heavens"? How many heavens are there?

That is pretty basic bible. The heavens where the birds fly, the heavens where the sun and stars are. Also the third heaven where God is.

What do you think the sky is? Do you have any idea? Have you ever heard of Rayleigh scattering?

You seem to think that is a deep question. 'where is the sky'? Ha

[Diogenes]

A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.

You do not get to make the rules!

Neither do you. The States make the rules.
All 50 States of the United States distinguish between a fetus and a baby, so you are demonstrably wrong in claiming a fetus is a child. Currently, at least 38 States have fetal homicide laws, including states that allow the fetus to be aborted. 29 States have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fe ... -laws.aspx

Even the Bible does not call a fetus a child or even use the word 'abortion.' The Jewish position, based on THEIR Bible, the Old Testament, is that a child's life begins when it takes its first breath.

So, let's review. The State rules disagree with you. The Bible disagrees with you. You are insisting on YOUR opinion and claiming to speak for God, which is the greatest blasphemy of all.

"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
__ Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I take this quote to mean that when one insists that only his interpretation of scripture is correct or his opinion is the only correct view is implicitly stating that HE is above God and above Truth; that his opnion is more important than truth itself.

[Tcg]

The bible says otherwise, and since the water need not be here anymore you have no way to know.

Odd that you'd bring up the bible when the guidelines for this subforum state in part:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."


Tcg

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #571]

No you don't.

That's your response to everything ... but never any backup.

God sent the flood and is not limited by where the water came from.

Then no point in arguing the point in a science and religion debate forum, since your only rebuttals are to quote the bible or preach.

The bible says otherwise, and since the water need not be here anymore you have no way to know. The question is not what water here is now available! That is not even relevant.

The bible doesn't count. This is just more of "the past was different" nonsense without (as always) any justification for how that could be. The total amount of water in the Earth system (planet and atmosphere) has been very close to fixed for many millions of years now. Asteroid impacts over that time are negligible in terms of changing the H2O levels, and volcanic eruptions are the main method of material exchange between sub-crust and atmosphere. The idea that 4500 years ago there was somehow vastly different amounts of water available for a global flood, again, has no basis in reality.

I already explained where your dates came fro, mostly radioactive dating. Unless there was radioactivity then there are no dates.

But there was radioactivity, so that statement is meaningless. Plus, for only 4500 years ago and Noah's flood, there are many other ways to date things besides radioactive dating. There are trees older than that (a Great Basin bristlecone pine known as Methuselah is 4,853 years old), and humans had invented writing so there are written records, civilizations existed, etc. There is no evidence that civilizations were wiped out in a global flood only 4500 years ago. It is a myth.

You have no science that deals with God communicating to animals. Or not.

Of course not ... science does not deal with gods and the supernatural. If my tax dollars went to fund studies of whether gods communicated with animals I'd be very upset.

That is pretty basic bible. The heavens where the birds fly, the heavens where the sun and stars are. Also the third heaven where God is.

The bible doesn't support any claims here, basic or not. But now we have a third heaven? Again, how many heavens are there? Birds fly in the atmosphere, not heaven. The sun and stars are in space outside of the Earth's atmosphere, so also not in heaven. Where is this third heaven?

You seem to think that is a deep question. 'where is the sky'? Ha

I didn't ask where is the sky, I asked what is the sky (or what you think it is). Rayeigh scattering is why we see a "sky" and why it is blue. Nothing whatsoever to do with heaven(s).

[Diogenes]

The bible says otherwise, and since the water need not be here anymore you have no way to know.

Odd that you'd bring up the bible when the guidelines for this subforum state in part:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

I pointed this out in post #534.* He failed to join issue and went back to his "windows of heaven."

__________________
*

Those premises are bible based.

So what? In any debate on this forum, references to the Bible are not evidence.
From the guidelines to this forum, "Science and Relgion:"

While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

viewtopic.php?t=216

Therefore, your "Bible based" claims might as well be from the Quran, The Lord of the Rings, Necromancy, Mickey Mouse, or any other ancient superstition or other discredited religious manifesto.

[brunumb]

There was water according to the bible on the other side of space where the stars are. It was apparently transported (beam me up Scotty sort of thing) via stargate/wormhole type windows here. Simple. Try to show evidence that did not happen!

Not necessary since you are unable to show that it did happen. The Bible is not evidence. The Bible consists of claims which actually require supporting evidence. What you believe is completely irrelevant in these circumstances.

[JoeyKnothead]

A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.

You do not get to make the rules! Babies that are unborn are just little people. They used to say a woman was 'great with child' not great with fetus'! You want to call the victims of murder another name so that it seems less evil.

I use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.

I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.

Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.

I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.

Me too. But if she is carrying a machine gun and had uttered threats against a guy on the other side of that street, I am for the police stopping her.

I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...

I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.

Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.

Is that the judgement of a god you can't show exists? Or the judgement of religious busybodies, and boy howdy, we know they exist?

If he's the one that's pregnant.

People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.

I never said otherwise.

I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.

He told us in Scripture and He Himself while here confirmed that is true. His words are no mystery. No one can show God does not exist. The people who know Him know He exists.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.

First challenge.

My position is to stand with a woman's right to control her body.

It is the child's body we are talking about. The woman who is pregnant also has a responsibility to care for the other body God sent in to her womb.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

First challenge.

Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.

Let me update my answer then...

I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.

What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?

Knowing God sends babies, and that anyone that hurts the little people will have to face Him for the crime, I have every right and duty to tell the truth on the issue.

I challenge you to show God sends babies.

First challenge.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches

[Diogenes]

God sent the flood and is not limited by where the water came from.

Correct, according to the Bible God can do anything. God is not limited by anything. He is absolutely omnipotent and can do everything in an instant according to Christian dogma.

So...
Why did he need six days to create the Earth? And why did he have to rest on the 7th day? Why did he only create Adam and later, upon reflection decide Adam needed a 'help meet' and have to make her from Adam's rib? Why not make them both at the same time? And why not just create them from nothing? Why did he need to use "dust?"

The answer to these questions should be obvious. 'God' is an invention of man. Men wrote these stories, myths, and then injected men's ideas of logic, concluding God could do anything without limit. Then other men came along and used 'logic' to try to explain how things happened. They tried to make their stories believable, so interjected a sequence of events to try to make their myths more credible.

If their 'God' were truly omnipotent, the story could have read, "In the beginning God created everything in an instant, by merely thinking it so. And thus, it became." But no, this would not have met the requirements of myth. Myths need stories. They need steps, increments, stages. So the 'God' takes six days. Then he is tired and must rest. This 'God' is very much like the men who invented the stories. He progresses step by step, then he rests. This 'God' is a character invented by men, based on men who work day to day, then tire and rest. 'He' does not exist except as a man made character in a story.
A true God would have done it all in an instant... about 4 billion years ago.

[dad1]

Neither do you. The States make the rules.
All 50 States of the United States distinguish between a fetus and a baby, so you are demonstrably wrong in claiming a fetus is a child. Currently, at least 38 States have fetal homicide laws, including states that allow the fetus to be aborted. 29 States have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Child sacrifice is condoned in many places. That does not mean that a child in the womb is not a child. It simply means some states are so depraved and wicked that they chose to name the victims they kill something else. So what? That did not change the little people in the womb into anything else.

Even the Bible does not call a fetus a child or even use the word 'abortion.' The Jewish position, based on THEIR Bible, the Old Testament, is that a child's life begins when it takes its first breath.

If a woman was great with child, that is calling it a child! Even in Genesis we see this.

Genesis 16:11
And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
etc etc etc.

So why would Genesis or any other part of the bible use a modern word for a child in the womb (fetus)?

We just saw God's word speak. Your false accusations are noted. The states can call who they kill anything they like. It changes nothing.

"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
__ Samuel Taylor Coleridge

If Christ is the truth then no one could love Him more than the truth.

I take this quote to mean that when one insists that only his interpretation of scripture is correct or his opinion is the only correct view is implicitly stating that HE is above God and above Truth; that his opnion is more important than truth itself.

That has no relation to the patently obvious in the bible that requires no interpreting such as how a woman who was pregnant had a child in there!

[dad1]

Odd that you'd bring up the bible when the guidelines for this subforum state in part:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."
Tcg

Odd that every time a poster mentions the flood that comes from the bible. There IS no evidence that there is no God or that the flood was not real or the windows of heaven or spirits etc. So where there is no science to bring up, why would you falsely claim anyone said the bible was 'scientific evidence'?? Let's be honest.