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.
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 863 times
- Been thanked: 1266 times
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #1___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #591With child means a woman is now with a child in her. Nothing hard to grasp at all about that.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #592I will cause it to rain is hardly bringing the water to Earth, particularly via a wormhole from who-knows-where. Too funny.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #593Nope. But if you can refute the evidence, do so.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #594Nope. To be with child is just an old fashioned way of saying that a woman is pregnant.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #595The point is He did it. Since we know windows were opened to bring the water, it is fine to ask how water could be brought in and so much that it covered the planet. It would be insulting to say God thought raining would do that.
Genesis 6:7
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them
To do this we need more than rain. It needed to rain oceans!
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #597No it means a child is in the woman.
Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy
The word for a baby in the woman is the same word as for a baby out of the womb. Notice it was not a 'lump of tissue' or a 'fetus' here!
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #5982nd challengeJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:22 pmI use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.dad1 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:52 pmYou 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.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:34 pm A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.
Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.dad1 wrote:And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.JK wrote: I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...dad1 wrote: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.JK wrote: I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.
I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.
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?dad1 wrote: Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.
I never said otherwise.dad1 wrote:People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.JK wrote: If he's the one that's pregnant.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.dad1 wrote: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.JK wrote: I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.
First challenge.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.dad1 wrote:JK wrote: 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.
First challenge.
Let me update my answer then...Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.
I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.
I challenge you to show God sends babies.dad1 wrote: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.JK wrote: What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?
First challenge.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- 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 #599[Replying to dad1 in post #583]
The question "why is the sky blue" is common in chemistry classes and exams. The reason is Rayleigh scattering which scales as the 4th power of wavelength. Shorter wavelengths at the blue/violet end of the spectrum (light from the sun) are scattered far more strongly than light at the longer wavelength (red) end of the spectrum, making the sky appear blue during the day. But when the sun is near sunrise or sunset its light travels through much more atmosphere to get to the observer and much of the blue light is scattered away leaving more of the reddish light to reach the observer and the sky can appear red.
A child would not understand this, and might easily buy into silly stories of global floods in the recent past (which you constantly bring up, not your opponents) because they don't know any better and have no science education. But when science is brought to bear on the flood story it is easily shown to be just a myth with virtually no possibility of having occurred. Saying "yes it did because the bible says so" carries no weight here, especially when the physical evidence against it is so thoroughly convincing.
I won't respond to the rest of your post because it is just more of the exact same empty statements as every other post where you cannot actually refute anything with valid arguments.Who knows what the sky looked like pre flood? But even little children know what the sky is. Ever heard one ask 'why is the sky blue'?
The question "why is the sky blue" is common in chemistry classes and exams. The reason is Rayleigh scattering which scales as the 4th power of wavelength. Shorter wavelengths at the blue/violet end of the spectrum (light from the sun) are scattered far more strongly than light at the longer wavelength (red) end of the spectrum, making the sky appear blue during the day. But when the sun is near sunrise or sunset its light travels through much more atmosphere to get to the observer and much of the blue light is scattered away leaving more of the reddish light to reach the observer and the sky can appear red.
A child would not understand this, and might easily buy into silly stories of global floods in the recent past (which you constantly bring up, not your opponents) because they don't know any better and have no science education. But when science is brought to bear on the flood story it is easily shown to be just a myth with virtually no possibility of having occurred. Saying "yes it did because the bible says so" carries no weight here, especially when the physical evidence against it is so thoroughly convincing.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #600Why would anyone want to refute some high school explanation of why the sky is blue? You happen to be correct on that one. The question is..so what?
Right, and...so?The question "why is the sky blue" is common in chemistry classes and exams. The reason is Rayleigh scattering which scales as the 4th power of wavelength. Shorter wavelengths at the blue/violet end of the spectrum (light from the sun) are scattered far more strongly than light at the longer wavelength (red) end of the spectrum, making the sky appear blue during the day. But when the sun is near sunrise or sunset its light travels through much more atmosphere to get to the observer and much of the blue light is scattered away leaving more of the reddish light to reach the observer and the sky can appear red.
You seem to be pretending it is something someone contested, that the sky appears blue? Strange diversion.A child would not understand this
You once again bring up the flood. Why??, and might easily buy into silly stories of global floods in the recent past (which you constantly bring up, not your opponents) because they don't know any better and have no science education.
You have made it clear that no science exists to deal with windows of heaven opening thousands of years ago. (or pretty well any other aspect of the flood year). Why are you pretending otherwise now?But when science is brought to bear on the flood story it is easily shown to be just a myth with virtually no possibility of having occurred.
Saying no it did not without any possible chance of having any science to support your claims there were no windows of heaven opened is empty words.
Saying "yes it did because the bible says so" carries no weight here
Oh, and do stop pretending you or anyone else has any science to deal with the fountains of the deep, or windows of heaven etc. You have no case at all, just baseless doubts.especially when the physical evidence against it is so thoroughly convincing.
[/quote]