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]

No. There was literally nothing in that post that represented any evidence for creation or for God. You have made no case whatsoever for your position. All your ranting against what science has achieved is totally irrelevant.

I have no need to defend the Almighty, sorry if you had the wrong idea. He can take care of Himself. The evidences He gave mankind speak loudly, and are irrefutable! It also seems noteworthy that, as far as I know, He did not honor science by using it to provide evidence of His creation or existence or even healing or etc. There are many instances where wonders of creation were seen by science, and some men and women of science acknowledged what they discovered or observed. However science itself as a whole did not. If a child was pronounced terminally ill with an incurable disease, for example, and beyond the power of science to help, that is a scientific fact, no? Yet if that child was miraculously and totally healed after prayer by God, the medical profession as a whole would not acknowledge it. Many would scramble for possible alternate explanations that might seem to possibly fit the ting paradigm of science. It would not be accepted by science as evidence that prayer to God can work. There could be no doubt by the doctor who gave the diagnosis based on the latest technology and science that the child was really healed totally. Science would even be used to confirm that there was no longer the deadly disease or condition. Yet no one could 'produce' scientific proof that it was God that healed the child. That does not mean that a miracle really did not happen, it just means that science (in this case medical science) had no power to determine what happened.

So it is with all the miracles of history and in the world today. So it is with all the prophesies that came true and are now history. Some narrow minded science folks would say none of it is real and that there is no scientific evidence for any of it. Others might say that, for example, there really was an Alexander the Great who really did fulfill prophesy and invade many countries very quickly. That he really did leave his kingdom to four parts (to generals). They would say there really was a Median Persian empire that Alexander really did conquer. etc etc. The evidence is real and plentiful. It happened just as ancient prophesies that were written said. That is evidence. Because science was not there, and cannot confirm that Israel really had carefully preserved records (that were kept with rigor and careful procedures by scribes whose job it was to do so meticulously) they might say it is 'unscientific'.

Science has limited vision in what it can see and know. If God is working, for example, of forming a little person in the womb, that does not show up on an ultrasound. The feet and fingers and brain being formed might show up. God's spirit working and being involved is undetectable to science.

What is beyond the scope of science to deal with cannot be held to 'scientific rigor' any more than the Empire State building can be placed inside a little jewelry box. Anyone claiming that there is no building therefore, because it cannot be put in that box, is wrong. They should have the sense to realize that only so much could be expected to fit in that tiny box. If they hold it up as some magic box that determines history and reality that is like people saying God does not exist (or prophesy or miracles etc) unless they fit into that box. In fact they might claim that nothing qualifies as evidence unless it fits in that box.

Got any better arguments?

[dad1]

And yet you are at a complete loss when it comes to refuting any of it.

No more than you are at a loss to refute the tooth fairy. The only thing that requires a refutation is something that has some basis in evidence and fact and reality and science. Nothing about any origin story from science has any of that. You need to support the stories and provide the basis and evidence. Where is the evidence for the first life form? Bring it to a lab and let's have a look? Where is the evidence that your closest living relative is a flatworm? If anyone posts what they think is support or evidence for those origin stories, yes, it is easy to shoot down and refute. Some vague cheerleading statement about how no one can refute any of this is saying nothing at all.

You are not debating anything. You have presented no case whatsoever.

The case is that science has actual limits and cannot cover the things the OP talked about, like Genesis. That is what we are debating, no? Not some imaginary case you think I should have.

Just repeating that science can't disprove creation is empty rhetoric.

Nor can it prove creation. Neither. It can do nothing at all in that department. Anyone pretending it can bears a great burden of proof here. When someone disses Genesis as if they have some evidence of something else far superior, that is to be generous, empty rhetoric.

Prove creation is true.

Since science cannot deal with it at all, what sort of proof would you like? The OP suggested that Genesis was false and dangerous. That is what needs support here. None has emerged. Ho hum.

[brunumb]

[Replying to dad1 in post #682]

The OP summed it up nicely and you have proven the point:
"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."

[JoeyKnothead]

...Can you put you any truth to creation claims?

Truth has no meaning when used as a preference of beliefs. Science is in no position to know truths about God or creation. So if the word truth is used in science, it is a very relative term and about as meaningful as saying 'this is true inside the box'.

That's a bunch of words extra just to say "no".

That's a problem for those who seek to make unscientific claims in a science forum.

No. Only for those pretending science is involved in anything to do with the spiritual, or that it could be.

More libels.

Conversation with you just reinforces my belief that some theists have nothing but insults to defend their position.

Snip remainder before I cross the line of incivility.

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #682]

The OP summed it up nicely and you have proven the point:
"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."

More succinctly, we can say 'much of the debate in the topic of science consists of unbelievers who cannot address the validity of Genesis yet who fiercely pretend otherwise, never caring that they cannot post any evidence or support'. These same people attempt to associate their inabilities and the inability of science to even deal with creation issues with some imagined superiority over the actual often verified record of creation that man does have, in a pretense of having some secret knowledge of science that they, golly gee can never get it up to post.

[dad1]

That's a bunch of words extra just to say "no".

It actually was pointing out that the little box of science cannot contain the truths of creation. Period. We should also note that no evidences outside the box of science are accepted by you. So your game seems to have been. 'It doesn't matter that science cannot and does not deal with creation and Genesis, I am demanding science for all creation claims, nya nya nya' I prefer a mature approach to discussion.

That's a problem for those who seek to make unscientific claims in a science forum.

No. Only for those pretending science is involved in anything to do with the spiritual, or that it could be.

More libels.

If you call it false that science only involves the physical world, that is a claim that must be supported by proof that science does involve and cover the spiritual. We wait. Yes for you to back up your own claim.

Conversation with you just reinforces my belief that some theists have nothing but insults to defend their position.

Science lovers and devotees should never be offended when admitting or learning that science does not know it all.

Snip remainder before I cross the line of incivility.

I would suggest you did not step into a ring where a KO is inevitable.

[brunumb]

[Replying to dad1 in post #682]

The OP summed it up nicely and you have proven the point:
"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."

More succinctly, we can say 'much of the debate in the topic of science consists of unbelievers who cannot address the validity of Genesis yet who fiercely pretend otherwise, never caring that they cannot post any evidence or support'. These same people attempt to associate their inabilities and the inability of science to even deal with creation issues with some imagined superiority over the actual often verified record of creation that man does have, in a pretense of having some secret knowledge of science that they, golly gee can never get it up to post.

You keep on missing or perhaps dodging the point. Science makes no claims regarding any creation event. That's your ball game. You have the burden of proof regarding your claim that creation as described in Genesis is the truth. Science is not obliged to disprove your story, but it may address your evidence and offer anything that would clearly refute your claim. The big problem is that all you have is a few pages of an ancient story and no means to validate the contents. That has nothing to do with science. Attacking straw men will not help you prove that your creation story is the truth. If you find fault with things like the age of Earth or of this iteration of the universe as determined scientifically, then present evidence, not just denial, that clearly demonstrates that those things are incorrect.

[dad1]

You keep on missing or perhaps dodging the point. Science makes no claims regarding any creation event.

Yes it does. Stellar evolution, the big bang, the theory of evolution. These all try to tell us where life and the universe came from. How could this be news to you?

That's your ball game. You have the burden of proof regarding your claim that creation as described in Genesis is the truth.

No I don't, God already proved Scripture was true. I need no more proof and science cannot address it either way. The burden of proof falls on science for it's origin claims. It cannot bear that burden because it uses belief only as a basis. God's record in Genesis has nothing to do with science and that is almost certainly by design! It is important to remember, then, that science cannot be used as some standard or thing that creation has to measure up to.

Science is not obliged to disprove your story

This is about science proving it's own stories.

, but it may address your evidence and offer anything that would clearly refute your claim.

False. Science cannot tell us how God created all things. Science cannot begin to tell us anything about creation or God. It is the antithesis of an authority and not even a minor player in that field.

The big problem is that all you have is a few pages of an ancient story and no means to validate the contents.

It is validated in a million ways and all through the world and history. It needs no approval of a deaf and blind handicapped little so called science, that cannot even address the issues.

Attacking straw men will not help you prove that your creation story is the truth.

Science has nothing to do with creation. Pretending otherwise will never work.

If you find fault with things like the age of Earth or of this iteration of the universe as determined scientifically, then present evidence

The ONLY evidence required is showing that all those claims are faith based. That KOs the stories something fierce. No other evidence is needed of course. Baseless stories that rest only on faith are a dime a dozen.

, not just denial,

The stories are not confirmed so need not be denied as anything other than fanciful empty belief based fables with zero value or merit or credibility.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #688]

Stellar evolution, the big bang, the theory of evolution. These all try to tell us where life and the universe came from.

2 of 3 don't. Stellar evolution tells us how stars change over time, not how they form (which we also know much about). The Big Bang is a hypothesis for how the universe we live in now may have formed, and it has some evidence to support it but is not definitive yet. Evolution says nothing about how life originated ... a point that creationists seem incapable of understanding. So of the 3 things you listed only the Big Bang "tries to tell us" how the universe formed, and it is only our best hypothesis at the moment based on actual evidence that does indeed exist (unlike for any of the Genesis stories).

God already proved Scripture was true.

This is just preaching, and clearly the basis for everything you post. Why bother "debating" science and religion when your only reference is the bible. The whole point seems to be to bash science by repeating the same comments over and over and over, while offering up nothing in return but "the bible says so." You've literally provided nothing beyond this, ever, and it carries no weight in this section of the forum.

It needs no approval of a deaf and blind handicapped little so called science, that cannot even address the issues.

Brilliant ... how could anyone argue with this level of sophisticated counterargument? Many examples and arguments have been presented on the impossibility of Noah's flood, and other stories from Genesis, but your response is to ignore them all and continue to claim that nothing has ever been put forth. People can read you know.

Baseless stories that rest only on faith are a dime a dozen.

Yes ... I can direct you to Genesis, first book of the bible, for plenty of examples of exactly this.

[dad1]

2 of 3 don't.

Yes they all do. If TOE tells us your relative today is a flatworm, that is a claim of where you came from. If they claim all stars evolved, that is a claim about where stars came from. If they say a little hot plasma soup (or whatever) pooped out the entire universe, that is a claim on where the universe came from. Of course the evo folks distanced themselves from the extreme absurdity and unsupportable part of where they say we came from in the very beginning...a first lifeform..and named that abiogenesis does not change a thing.

Stellar evolution tells us how stars change over time,

No one was there to check millions of years ago. So how do they know most stars were not created?

not how they form (which we also know much about).

No you do not. You have beliefs involving great time spans.

The Big Bang is a hypothesis for how the universe we live in now may have formed, and it has some evidence to support it but is not definitive yet.

Evidence that does not require the theory is not evidence. Evidence that can have creation beliefs also applied with the same outcome is not evidence! The CRB (creation remnant background) for example.

Evolution says nothing about how life originated ..

Moot point. It divorced that aspect of the theory as mentioned and gave it a new name. When the theory of evolution teaches that flatworms are your closest living relative (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1 ... 062150.htm) that is trying to tell us where we came from. That is also using the fossil record to impose and project beliefs on to interpret. It is also doing the same to other evidences such as genetic.

it is only our best hypothesis at the moment based on actual evidence that does indeed exist (unlike for any of the Genesis stories).

That means nothing at all. It simply means that your beliefs led you to an interpretation of evidences.

This is just preaching,

No it is fact. Saying it is not is preaching! Proof? Preaching beliefs is what origin science is all about. A record of actual people and events is what the bible is largely about.

Why bother "debating" science and religion when your only reference is the bible.

It only becomes a resort when we see that science is also just beliefs. At that point we either all be quiet since only beliefs are available, or we offer our beliefs as better supported. Since science beliefs are not supported at all, but beliefs foisted on to evidences, it is no wonder they are loathe to run a race with any other beliefs!! They have no hope or chance.

The whole point seems to be to bash science by repeating the same comments over and over and over, while offering up nothing in return but "the bible says so." You've literally provided nothing beyond this, ever, and it carries no weight in this section of the forum.

The thing that was brought out and supported was that beliefs form the basis for origin science claims. That is all important in a science discussion! As for the bible record I think most of the time that is mentioned is defensively. Like when people badmouth Genesis for no reason. It behooves the informed poster to mention that there is nothing on earth better supported.

Brilliant ... how could anyone argue with this level of sophisticated counterargument?

Easy. I might even be able to do it if I wanted. You simply need to prove that science is informed and sees all things, and hears truth etc. I might argue if I was playing the Devil's advocate that science does know a heck of a lot of things. I hear tomorrow they might announce a major breakthrough on fusion energy for example. So I might make a case that science is anything but blind to a lot of things. I would still lose, though, because science is very blind to God the spiritual and creation!

Many examples and arguments have been presented on the impossibility of Noah's flood,

All faith based. No science.

and other stories from Genesis, but your response is to ignore them all and continue to claim that nothing has ever been put forth. People can read you know.

Yes we can. You have nothing to ignore and almost nothing that even addressed the issues! Certainly nothing that is not faith based.

Yes ... I can direct you to Genesis, first book of the bible, for plenty of examples of exactly this.

Abraham is a historical character. Ask the Muslims. Ask the Christians. Ask the Jews. Joseph is buried in Israel, people visit his tomb. Trying to compare this with some singularity that sprouted into a hot soup and expanded quickly into the whole universe is not rational.