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]

With child means pregnant. You can change the meaning to prop up your emotional argument, but that makes no difference to what is the truth.

With child means a woman is now with a child in her. Nothing hard to grasp at all about that.

[brunumb]

The water was brought here by God in the bible. You have no science to address or refute that.

The Bible does not say the water was brought here by God.

Oh. Let's hear Him tell us Himself then

Genesis 7:4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth

I will cause it to rain is hardly bringing the water to Earth, particularly via a wormhole from who-knows-where. Too funny.

[brunumb]

You are mistaken. There are aspects of it that are interpreted incorrectly. The evidence itself says nothing of the sort though.

Nope. But if you can refute the evidence, do so.

[brunumb]

With child means pregnant. You can change the meaning to prop up your emotional argument, but that makes no difference to what is the truth.

With child means a woman is now with a child in her. Nothing hard to grasp at all about that.

Nope. To be with child is just an old fashioned way of saying that a woman is pregnant.

[dad1]

I will cause it to rain is hardly bringing the water to Earth, particularly via a wormhole from who-knows-where. Too funny.

The 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!

[dad1]

You are mistaken. There are aspects of it that are interpreted incorrectly. The evidence itself says nothing of the sort though.

Nope. But if you can refute the evidence, do so.

Easy to do. Offer some.

[dad1]

With child means pregnant. You can change the meaning to prop up your emotional argument, but that makes no difference to what is the truth.

With child means a woman is now with a child in her. Nothing hard to grasp at all about that.

Nope. To be with child is just an old fashioned way of saying that a woman is pregnant.

No 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]

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

2nd challenge

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #583]

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'?

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.

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.

[dad1]

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.

Why 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?

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.

Right, and...so?

A child would not understand this

You seem to be pretending it is something someone contested, that the sky appears blue? Strange diversion.

, 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 once again bring up the flood. Why??

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.

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?

Saying "yes it did because the bible says so" carries no weight here

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.

especially when the physical evidence against it is so thoroughly convincing.

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.
[/quote]