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: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 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 #621Today, of course. Notice that it was not today? We don't even know what nature was like at the time and what laws and forced existed.
Says who? In other words not known to you. I could make educated guesses as to how God may have done it. Science only deals in the present physical only world. Much of Genesis involves more.Beside that, there is no mechanism by which such a thing could occur.
- 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 #622[Replying to dad1 in post #619]
More proof that you don't understand how any of it works.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe.html
Science doesn't "imagine" time. It exists as a real thing. You're the one who pulled 70 millions years from the behind (presumably ... you never mentioned how you came up with that number), then equated it somehow to 4500 years with no explanation or justification.In your mind, perhaps. In reality, the time imagined by science is belief based rather than real time that existed in reality. If someone imagines that a flood that happened say, 4500 years ago was a flood that happened 70 million years ago that does not change the time it actually occurred.
That was 66 million years ago, and we do know with 100% certainty that no humans were around 66 million years ago. Is the K-T boundary (now called the K-Pg boundary ... you need to keep up) where you are getting your 70 million year number? If so, then this is all even more ridiculous than I thought. Are you trying to claim that the K-Pg iridium layer was laid down only 4500 years ago, and connected to Noah's flood? Did the iridium also come blasting down through wormholes or windows to heaven with the water?Except that you have no way to know humans did live around the time of the KT layer.
Very likely? More guesswork. Modern humans appeared only during the last roughly 0.0065% of Earth's existence ... for the initial 99.9935% there were no humans. Are you now claiming that all the humans who existed before the mythical flood simply returned to dust (during a flood !!) or decayed too fast when in fact most fossils are associated with regions where water is prevelant (oceans, river beds, etc. where O2 can be cut off to delay or prevent decomposition). None of this makes any sense, but we already knew that.As already mentioned earlier in this thread, it is very likely that most animals and mankind returned to dust or decayed, too fast to leave fossilized remains or bones! Your belief based misconceptions about man not being here are all sitting on faith alone. Man was here from the getgo!
All are faith based.
More proof that you don't understand how any of it works.
You just shot yourself in the foot yet again. Read a little bit about how these lists are put together and used with artifacts from the various times (click the + sign next to Key Events):Wrong. Name any record that is 4500 years and show the basis foor the dating!! hint: I have been down that road before, Long story short, using Egypt for example, the dating comes down to a king list...need I say more?
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/afe.html
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
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #623This is just getting sillier and sillier. We have an allegedly intelligent being using wormholes to transport water and dumping it through windows onto the earth. It magically shifts continents around at great speed restructuring the planet and changing nature. It then vacuums away all the excess water that would have been needed to cover the planet to the tops of the highest mountains. It has eight people build a giant wooden boat to ride out the destruction with all the animals that need to be saved. The drowned world then recovered almost as soon as the flood waters were gone. Meanwhile, every problem associated with this event is simply countered with God-magic. What is truly ridiculous is that just a little of that God-magic was all that was necessary to disappear all those pesky people that dissed off the deity in the first place. The flood scenario was totally unnecessary and simply paints this deity as a prize doofus.dad1 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:44 pm
Today, of course. Notice that it was not today? We don't even know what nature was like at the time and what laws and forced existed.
Says who? In other words not known to you. I could make educated guesses as to how God may have done it. Science only deals in the present physical only world. Much of Genesis involves more.Beside that, there is no mechanism by which such a thing could occur.
Around the end of the last ice age about 12000 years ago sea levels rose dramatically and inundated many societies all around the world. There are numerous flood myths that arose out of all those catastrophes. The Noachian flood is just one of them. Check out some of the others. If reading is an issue, some are described in the interesting new series on Netflix called Ancient Apocalypse.
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: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #624Yes, you need to say more because a biblical genealogy list, consisting of unverified people existing for unverified years, is how creationists have homed-in on an Earth age of around only 6000 years.
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 #625Time exists alright. The invented time dreamed up on the sole basis of beliefs that science uses is wholly imagined. Time itself is quite real. The flood was something like a real 4500 years ago (or whatever exact number)
Simple. There is a layer of sediment found worldwide, the KT layer as it used to be called. In this layer is stuff that comes from space and the inner earth (iridium) which is where the flood water also came from. Science dates that I think about 65 or 66 depending on what site we read, million years ago. I rounded up for simplicity.
You're the one who pulled 70 millions years from the behind (presumably ... you never mentioned how you came up with that number)
I explained clearly that in real time the flood was something like that long ago. I also explained that the way science dates all things is belief based and that their dates had no reality by that number of years, and exponentially less after that time!, then equated it somehow to 4500 years with no explanation or justification.
That was 66 million years ago, and we do know with 100% certainty that no humans were around 66 million years ago.
No you do not in any way know that. You believe that. Back up your claim and show how you think you know.
Yes. Your dates as I pointed out many times have zero reality beyond something like 4000 years ago or so. I would highly question any date science gives that is over 3800 years.If so, then this is all even more ridiculous than I thought. Are you trying to claim that the K-Pg iridium layer was laid down only 4500 years ago
As I said that is my current guess., and connected to Noah's flood?
Remember I said that is where science says it comes from. But if there was iridium deep under the earth, yes, of course the fountains of the deep erupting would have brought some up.Did the iridium also come blasting down through wormholes or windows to heaven with the water?
From the record in the bible yes. In fact God Himself mentioned it.Very likely?
Rather than saying you will be bones or fossilized, He said this
Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
It is reasonable to assume in that former different nature that was the normal way it happened!
Modern humans appeared only during the last roughly 0.0065% of Earth's existence
Totally false. You mean only then can you start to detect them! After the nature change a lot was different. One big difference was likely that men no longer returned to dust quicly when they died. They also were dying many many times faster than they used to. No wonder places like Egypt were so concerned with tombs!
The old nature still existed, so why would they not?? The new nature did not arrive until, probably, the days of Peleg when the world divided (continental separation included, as well as nations and languages)Are you now claiming that all the humans who existed before the mythical flood simply returned to dust (during a flood !!)
or decayed too fast when in fact most fossils are associated with regions where water is prevelant (oceans, river beds, etc. where O2 can be cut off to delay or prevent decomposition).
Yes and in this new present nature that is how it works. Men also leave bones and remains. Not back then apparently! Water or not. There was only a small percent of creatures that could leave remains in the former nature. If you wonder what they are, just look at the oldest fossil record! Knowing this the tall tales of Darwin become stark raving comedy!
Name any dating method that does not rest on a belief in a same nature in the past!? They ALL do!
More proof that you don't understand how any of it works.
If you have some point from a link, post it rather than posting a link to read. If you think you can support king list dating, go ahead! Been there done that. You will not succeed if you try.You just shot yourself in the foot yet again. Read a little bit about how these lists are put together and used with artifacts from the various times (click the + sign next to Key Events):
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #626So, being unable to defend your dating claims and king lists, you try to ridicule the bible. Ho hum
- 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 #627I pologize for the wall of text, but the troll in me won't be denied
Really, this first bit here has you displaying an utter ignorane of what it means to debate.
Please offer a more detail timeline beyond "fast" for this separation of continents.
Does science "know" anything that might support your claims?
Quit picking on science for it's failures, and start presenting something to lessen your own.
All you're doing is quoting the book making the claims to support the claims that book you quote claims.
I reckon we'd all do well to watch for cows plummeting back to earth.
This whole "you can't prove it ain't" is among the most ignorant forms of debate I've ever encountered.
So we dismiss those stories and seek to determine if your own stories are the truth.
A challenge to a claim is not a denial of it. I simply seek to determine if the claim/s you present are true and factual.dad1 wrote: Also your denials of Genesis.
One can't prove a negative.dad1 wrote: There is no science support for any claim, for example that there were no portals in the sky that were opened and closed.
Really, this first bit here has you displaying an utter ignorane of what it means to debate.
I object to the scandalous accusation that I'm not being forthright and honest.dad1 wrote: So do not pretend...
So I seek to determine if your interpretation of said evidence can stand to scrutiny.dad1 wrote: ...that it is Genesis that has no science to support it. There is evidence all around that we can interpret as support for the flood, and cities and characters recorded in Genesis.
Where have you shown the bible is an accurate account of this claim?dad1 wrote: Three of the great religions on earth all accept that Abraham (who was a contemporary with Noah in his young years, tradition says) lived. We even know where he is buried and his wife.
Possibility is not actuality.dad1 wrote:I look at the KT layer as a possible flood layer.JK wrote: But go ahead now and show us all how we can confirm you speak truth regarding...
1. The flood
Meteorites, and, well, earth explains that without any godly invocations.dad1 wrote: Sediment worldwide that has traces of stuff in it that come from space and the inner earth!
Again, possibility is not actuality.dad1 wrote: I look at Yucatan as a possible...
Have you been able to locate this "fountain of the deep", or are you still stuck in possiblity mode?dad1 wrote: ...remnant of a fountain of the deep that erupted (violent ejecta and impact from down to up).
What specific year, and what specific material do you refer to here?dad1 wrote: I also look at the complete lack of evidence in science for rejecting any of the key elements of the flood year.
Please offer a more detail timeline beyond "fast" for this separation of continents.
That "science doesn't know" says nothing about the validity of your claims.dad1 wrote: The main truth on a science forum that I speak is that science doesn't know.
Does science "know" anything that might support your claims?
Please present these "millions" for cross examination.dad1 wrote: Millions have met the Spirit it was done by.
The bible was written after the events it seeks to predict.dad1 wrote: Prophesies in the bible confirm beyond doubt that God had to have written them.
Please present these talking test tubes for cross examination.dad1 wrote: Billions of human test tubes have tested Him and say that it was a success!
You haven't even established it as an accurate record of the past, so saying it can tell about the future is a bit off.dad1 wrote: Much of the bible is known history, so the parts that are not known about the future or past can be trusted.
I object to any implication I'd ignore what I considered evidence.dad1 wrote: If you ignore...
And the theist has faith.dad1 wrote: ...all evidence of God then one has only belief as to where the universe came from. Science has only belief on the issue of universe origin.
I've never seen a man open a window he couldn't even show existed. Nor have I seen a spirit that can't be shown to exist to open a window that can't be shown to exist.dad1 wrote:Hey, ever seen a man able to do that!?JK, continuing to present challenges to claims wrote: 4a. The windows of
4b. heaven
4c. Were opened
4d. by a spirit,
It's your claim. It's you who's in a position to present some means by which we may confirm you speak truth.dad1 wrote: Science has no clue whether they were opened of not, or even what they might be. So you are in no position to confirm or deny.
Quit picking on science for it's failures, and start presenting something to lessen your own.
It's been recorded that a cow jumped over the moon.dad1 wrote: 5a. The door of the ark
5b. was closed by a spirit.
That is what is recorded.
All you're doing is quoting the book making the claims to support the claims that book you quote claims.
A... challenge... to... a... claim... is... not... a... denial... of... that... claim.dad1 wrote: Science did not exist yet, so you tell us what authority you have in a science forum to deny the record?
dad1 wrote: You see, if you had cameras back then on trees, and paparazzi monitoring the ark day and night, you might be able to speak with some knowledge. As it is no possible evidence aside from the record exits either way. That means it is undeniable.
I reckon we'd all do well to watch for cows plummeting back to earth.
As did your using the bible to support its own claims.dad1 wrote:Again, no science is offered, only the predictable allusion and pretense that you have some science hidden somewhere that you 'could' post if you wanted. Sorry, that act expired long ago.JK wrote: I caution the observer against thinking you're this dumb.
As I've made no such claim, I'm under no burden here. Take this issue up with whomever did.dad1 wrote: When posters claim the windows of heaven were not there the onus is on them to show they speak the truth.
I object to the libelous accusation that I'm not being honest in my endeavors here.dad1 wrote: Pretending...
As you quote your religious text in an effort to show that religious text presents claims that're real.dad1 wrote: ...that unless modern physical only science has hard evidence for something, then it never existed is not a sane proposition. That is about like saying 'unless my religion OKs something, it is not real..la la la la la'
No. And with your posts we have some data to suggest it's accurate.dad1 wrote: The OP claims that Genesis is a falsehood that causes ill effects, basically. Did you miss that?
Take it up with them.dad1 wrote: Posters have denied Genesis here six ways from Sunday offering no science at all as support.
No, you claim such, while having failed, quite miserably, to show you speak truth in this regard.dad1 wrote: It was also pointed out that the bible is supported in many ways in historical accuracy, and history that was prophesy but that is now all a done deal.
I must have missed the part where you presented these untold millions for cross examination.dad1 wrote: It was also pointed out that God was tested in untold millions of lived repeatedly, and passed.
As I point out that not one poster here's been able to put any truth to those bible claims.dad1 wrote: I will also point out that the claims of creation and Genesis, windows of heaven, etc are bible claims, not claims of posters here.
That's worthy of a Ric Romero lifetime achievement award.dad1 wrote: When the claims were written down there was no science.
Maybe, but there's none that supports it.dad1 wrote: There is no science that refutes it.
That's because science relies on the rigorous collecting of facts and unemotional interpretation thereof.dad1 wrote: Science cannot even address the key elements of creation and the flood, and spirits.
And don't blame the observer when they pass your claims over and use the Shinola instead.dad1 wrote: Don't blame me that science cannot support any denial of things like the windows of heaven having opened, or confirm them.
This whole "you can't prove it ain't" is among the most ignorant forms of debate I've ever encountered.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #628No. You actually ridiculed yourself. Try reading the exchange with some understanding. I'm guessing the "ho hum" referred to you wiping some egg off your face.dad1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:57 amSo, being unable to defend your dating claims and king lists, you try to ridicule the bible. Ho hum
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 #629JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:19 am So we dismiss those stories and seek to determine if your own stories are the truth.Another way to put that is whhen it comes to belief, we can choose. Is that so bad?What way have you to determine if windows of heaven were opened in the flood? HaA challenge to a claim is not a denial of it. I simply seek to determine if the claim/s you present are true and factual.One call call truth a negative if one wanted. However science cannot confirm or deny the windows of heaven. Since you can't wave them away with science what have you left to wave them away exactly?One can't prove a negative.I think anyone that claims that the windows of heaven never opened is talking through their hat. So let's be honest and admit it.I object to the scandalous accusation that I'm not being forthright and honest.What sort of scrutiny since science is unable to be used?So I seek to determine if your interpretation of said evidence can stand to scrutiny.If Joseph's tomb is there in Israel, what would you suggest, it was some long running con job?Where have you shown the bible is an accurate account of this claim?I am just being humble and allowing that I could be wrong. Science should try that.Possibility is not actuality.That is the name of the game! Explain all evidence without God. Great definition of modern science at least the origin branches. But you know, if many branches on a tree are dead and rotten, that says a lot about the tree itself also.Meteorites, and, well, earth explains that without any godly invocations.Nor is it not a strong educated guess.Again, possibility is not actuality.There was not one fountain but many. The fountains of the deep were opened. Now once a fountain or conduit to the inner earth gets closed, what would it look like? Have you some reason to claim it could not look like a crater?Have you been able to locate this "fountain of the deep", or are you still stuck in possiblity mode?In the bible the people were in the ark a little over a year. That year.What specific year, and what specific material do you refer to here?Well, not hundreds of millions of years. Not millions of years. Not even thousands of years. Walt Brown (for different reasons) envisioned it to have taken hours if I recall. I don't really care. If it took a few years, that would be fine. A few months. A few weeks or days. We do not know.Please offer a more detail timeline beyond "fast" for this separation of continents.On a science forum it does! If you have no science for claims like there was no windows of heaven or flood etc what do you have?? God validated His word in ways other than science.That "science doesn't know" says nothing about the validity of your claims.We have mentioned a few things, such a worldwide sediment layer with iridium. However science uses beliefs to interpret evidence, so it will always interpret using it's belief system. The evidence supports Genesis. The interpretation of belief based science only supports it's little self.Does science "know" anything that might support your claims?How would you propose to cross examine believers of all ages? Keep it real.Please present these "millions" for cross examination.A claim you could never support.The bible was written after the events it seeks to predict.
Let's look at Jesus prophesying that the temple would be destroyed, not a stone upon another left. That happened after He died and rose and went back to heaven. Hardly after the fact.
I am supposed to have hundreds of millions of living and even more dead come marching to your living room for 'interrogation'?Please present these talking test tubes for cross examination.It is established. Prophets also prophesied about things in their time so people would know that the future stuff also was true. But this is not a bible thread.You haven't even established it as an accurate record of the past, so saying it can tell about the future is a bit off.What you may consider may be considered by others to be ignoring what you refuse to consider.I object to any implication I'd ignore what I considered evidence.Great. So? At least believers know they are supposed to have faith, it is a good thing! In science you are supposed to have more.And the theist has faith.
So does that mean no one ever opened a window until you were born??I've never seen a man open a window he couldn't even show existed.So all spirits must report to you even if what they did was thousands of years ago? 'Hey spirits, no door or window opening or anything else till you report to me'Nor have I seen a spirit that can't be shown to exist to open a window that can't be shown to exist.
It is God's record not my claim. If you have some way to check events in the far past, get back to us.It's your claim. It's you who's in a position to present some means by which we may confirm you speak truth.Yoour refusal to believe Scripture does not mean it is a failure. On the contrary.Quit picking on science for it's failures, and start presenting something to lessen your own.
No. That is a poem. We need to learn the difference between historical detailed records and children's rhymes. I have to tell you this?It's been recorded that a cow jumped over the moon.No. I am looking at the facts and evidence and what is known and carefully weighing things in an honest and intelligent way.All you're doing is quoting the book making the claims to support the claims that book you quote claims.A challenge based on nothing is more of a doubt than a challenge.A... challenge... to... a... claim... is... not... a... denial... of... that... claim.I actually use the experience and tests and observations of a good part of mankind. I also use the fossil record, the plate movements, radioactive isotopes etc etc etc etc.As did your using the bible to support its own claims.Great, so whatever poster that was, listen up here.As I've made no such claim, I'm under no burden here. Take this issue up with whomever did.Well, if you honestly have any evidence there were no windows of heaven or other things in Genesis, what are you waiting for?I object to the libelous accusation that I'm not being honest in my endeavors here.On a science forum the concern should be dealing with the issue and what the text says, not that it is some other religion than that of so called science.As you quote your religious text in an effort to show that religious text presents claims that're real.Great so you did not miss that the OP was what I said.No. And with your posts we have some data to suggest it's accurate.
Hard to remember who is who because it is like talking to a hall full of JWs who all more or less use the same set of ideas and beliefs.Take it up with them.dad1 wrote: Posters have denied Genesis here six ways from Sunday offering no science at all as support.Being a science forum I don't want to spent too much time on the bible. But there were hundreds of prophesies Jesus fulfilled. Such as being born in Bethlehem to a virgin. That was no failure but a startling success.No, you claim such, while having failed, quite miserably, to show you speak truth in this regard.Or not.As I point out that not one poster here's been able to put any truth to those bible claims.That is a whole lot of nothing for science then!Maybe, but there's none that supports it.Science has no facts and has collected squat about windows of heaven. Really.That's because science relies on the rigorous collecting of facts and unemotional interpretation thereof.They can use the toilet paper label for beliefs if they like. What they cannot do is deny that origin sciences are belief based.And don't blame the observer when they pass your claims over and use the Shinola instead.Let's not forget you can't prove it is either! HaThis whole "you can't prove it ain't" is among the most ignorant forms of debate I've ever encountered.
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #630You do not accept the bible or the scholarly attempts to get some idea of when the patriarchs lived. If it is in the bible it is verified! Jesus rose from the dead and He verified it was true. If you mean that poor little science cannot begin to be able to verify or deny Genesis makes it unverified...good luck with that!brunumb wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:06 amNo. You actually ridiculed yourself. Try reading the exchange with some understanding. I'm guessing the "ho hum" referred to you wiping some egg off your face.dad1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:57 amSo, being unable to defend your dating claims and king lists, you try to ridicule the bible. Ho hum
That just means that science has no capacity to verify it's way out of a paper bag on these things.