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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #690]

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.

Thanks for elaborating ... it shows very clearly that you don't have the slightest understanding of how evolution actually works. Life evolves over time and flatworms are much farther back on our relationship tree than, say, other primates. But flatworms are members of the animal kingdom, so closer to us than bacteria. There is a sequence to all of this stuff and although it may sound good to use flatworms vs. humans in your science bashing, it does nothing to help your argument.

Stellar evolution describes how stars change (evolve) over their lifetimes. Darwinian evolution describes how life evolves over time. Neither concern themselves with how stars form, or how life originated. But as I said earlier, creationists always ignore this and insist otherwise for no apparent reason other than simply misunderstanding simple definitions. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ... just another redefinition on your part that demonstrates yet again that you are completely misunderstanding the subject.

Evidence that does not require the theory is not evidence.

What does that even mean? It makes no sense at all.

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

Ditto ... did you just make up CRB as you were typing this gibberish?

A record of actual people and events is what the bible is largely about.

Right ... 600 year old people having kids and living to 900+ years. Sure ... solid stuff.

Like when people badmouth Genesis for no reason.

It isn't for no reason ... it is that science has shown, conclusively, that the universe was not created 6000 years ago by an imaginary god being and the Earth was not covered by a global flood some 4500 years ago. Defense of these kinds of literal interpretations of Genesis is hopeless in modern times.

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!

The fusion results were announced today, and are just another example of science pushing ahead on a very complicated problem with the goal of eventually reaching an economically viable energy source that can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide centuries of much cleaner energy. Long way to go still, but what has religion done for us lately that will actually help mankind? Nothing.

All faith based. No science.

You say that constantly, but have yet to back it up with anything. Science has positively debunked Noah's flood, and since you can't refute it you simply repeat the above line every time. Maybe make a waving white flag GIF and past that in instead ... it would be far more relevant.

Abraham is a historical character.

A character alright ... a historical fictional character. He supposedly lived to 175 years, which no human has ever done. He is as fictional as Adam, Noah and all the rest of the Genesis characters.

[dad1]

Thanks for elaborating ... it shows very clearly that you don't have the slightest understanding of how evolution actually works.

I am not sure if you display cognitive dissonance or a deep lack of comprehension.

Life evolves over time and flatworms are much farther back on our relationship tree than, say, other primates. But flatworms are members of the animal kingdom, so closer to us than bacteria. There is a sequence to all of this stuff and although it may sound good to use flatworms vs. humans in your science bashing, it does nothing to help your argument.

You want to pretend this elaboration on the fable of evolution is news? I think most here know the claims and the theory. What matters is that they claim animals and man evolved from that sort of thing. (over how much invented imaginary time doesn't matter) The point remains that this story is used to try and explain where we came from.

Stellar evolution describes how stars change (evolve) over their lifetimes.

No. It describes projected beliefs used to try to explain what we see out there. Bottom line is that it also is an attempted explanation of where the universe came from. It is part and parcel with the big bang. Together these stories try to replace creation or provide an explanation of where it all came from.

Darwinian evolution describes how life evolves over time. Neither concern themselves with how stars form, or how life originated.

Yes, when you actually think cockroaches and flatworms are family and ancestor related, that qualifies as a creation replacement story.

But as I said earlier, creationists always ignore this and insist otherwise for no apparent reason other than simply misunderstanding simple definitions. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ... just another redefinition on your part that demonstrates yet again that you are completely misunderstanding the subject.

Yes it is connected. Both describe man coming from lower animals. In the case of the abiogenesis nonsense, it starts earlier in imaginary time with an imaginary ancestor!

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

Ditto ... did you just make up CRB as you were typing this gibberish?

Typo. Cmb. Creation Microwave Background. (cosmic microwave background)

Right ... 600 year old people having kids and living to 900+ years. Sure ... solid stuff.

Yes. Being raised from the dead to prove it was true. Very solid stuff, as if the fulfilled prophesies and evidence in lives of believers. Rock solid.

It isn't for no reason ... it is that science has shown, conclusively, that the universe was not created 6000 years ago by an imaginary god being and the Earth was not covered by a global flood some 4500 years ago

. No actual science proves any such thing. Only beliefs splattered on evidence and welded into a semi plausible story shows, in their own mind that it is believable. That is actually a dangerous delusion and evidence that believing the faith based stories of science has dibilitating effects.

Defense of these kinds of literal interpretations of Genesis is hopeless in modern times.

False. It is here to stay, despite many minds closing off and many hearts rejecting truth. It is not going anywhere. The bible says this about it.

Isa 11:9 - for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord , as the waters cover the sea.
And of the time just before that the bible says this
Isa 60:2 -For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people

See, science is mentioned in the bible!:)

The fusion results were announced today, and are just another example of science pushing ahead on a very complicated problem with the goal of eventually reaching an economically viable energy source that can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide centuries of much cleaner energy.

That is not faith based science as all origin sciences are.

Long way to go still, but what has religion done for us lately that will actually help mankind? Nothing.

What has God done that science can see? No more than dancers help a blind person very much. What has He done that billions of believers of all ages have seen? Plenty. Hundreds of prophesies are fulfilled, how did science miss that one? It seems to be selective blindness.

You say that constantly, but have yet to back it up with anything.

Yes. I can show all claims about origins or creation from science to be faith based only. That is everything that is needed!

Science has positively debunked Noah's flood

That statement has less weight than an old wives tale.

, and since you can't refute it

There is nothing to refute. Your statement is bad humor based on nothing.

Maybe make a waving white flag GIF and past that in instead ... it would be far more relevant.

I am not the one with a need to wave here. I have a hard enough time trying to be humble about destroying origin science.

A character alright ... a historical fictional character. He supposedly lived to 175 years, which no human has ever done.

You wave Abraham away. Guess his tomb where his wife and he are buried is a conspiracy theory?

He is as fictional as Adam, Noah and all the rest of the Genesis characters.

Unbelief and a lack of knowledge about the past does not make it go away or not be real. Your best reply would have been to say you do not know.

[brunumb]

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.

If you want to stand by that response then please present the so-called proof provided by God that Genesis is true. Obviously science will not come into it in any way as you have said many times.

[dad1]

If you want to stand by that response then please present the so-called proof provided by God that Genesis is true. Obviously science will not come into it in any way as you have said many times.

OK great so you want evidence from places other than science. The evidence includes fulfilled prophesy, and changed lives, as well as the known historical accuracy of real places and events. Knowing much of the bible is true, we can trust the parts no one can check.

[brunumb]

If you want to stand by that response then please present the so-called proof provided by God that Genesis is true. Obviously science will not come into it in any way as you have said many times.

OK great so you want evidence from places other than science. The evidence includes fulfilled prophesy, and changed lives, as well as the known historical accuracy of real places and events. Knowing much of the bible is true, we can trust the parts no one can check.

The notion of fulfilled prophecies was debunked over a century ago. Only the desperate still cling to this falsehood.
The majority of Christians were raised in the faith and had their beliefs inculcated from birth. Hardly any scope for changed lives. That said, their are countless other religious texts and self-help books that have changed lives but are hardly testament to creationism.
Real places and real events occur in other books from Gone With The Wind to James Bond novels. Hardly a compelling criterion on which to base the truth of the bible and its creation story.
Oh, well, if that's the best you've got it's probably time for you to move on and try your luck with a more gullible audience.

[dad1]

The notion of fulfilled prophecies was debunked over a century ago. Only the desperate still cling to this falsehood.

No idea what you think you are talking about.

The majority of Christians were raised in the faith and had their beliefs inculcated from birth. Hardly any scope for changed lives.

Lives are affected and changed regardless of when one started believing. Moot point.

That said, their are countless other religious texts and self-help books that have changed lives but are hardly testament to creationism.

Great so I conclude that other spirits that do stuff also exist. The bible calls those demons or fallen angels.

Real places and real events occur in other books from Gone With The Wind to James Bond novels.

None of which are thousands of years old and none of which are not fiction, and none of which Jesus proved were true.
So, unlike constantly changing belief based stories from so called science on origins, which have no witnesses, no validation, no historical confirmation, no lives changed, no prophesies that are not impossible to validate (involving millions of imaginary years) Scripture is time honored and sealed with a world of proofs. So called science beliefs really do not want to meet Scripture in the field of battle, because it would be like an ant against seven herds of wild angry elephants, assisted by a pride of lions and a pack of wolves, and heavy artillery! That is why origin stories are offered as something other than the belief based stories that they are. They hide behind the skirt of actual science and knowledge and wear the same costume.

[otseng]

I am not sure if you display cognitive dissonance or a deep lack of comprehension.

Moderator Comment

It's best to just respond back with facts about evolution rather than replying back with an accusation.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

Scripture is time honored and sealed with a world of proofs.

No it's not and more and more people are waking up to that fact every day. Without childhood indoctrination propagating unfounded beliefs most religions would not survive to the extent they have done. There are no proofs in the Bible, it is a collection of unsupported claims and opinions. As science uncovers more and more of the mysteries of the universe, ancient tales of gods and magic will become less and less relevant. Of course there will always be the diehards who are unable to give up their security blankets and promises of eternal bliss singing hymns of praise to their chosen deity.

[dad1]

No it's not and more and more people are waking up to that fact every day.

Yes it is.

Without childhood indoctrination propagating unfounded beliefs most religions would not survive to the extent they have done.

Jesus was not born to a virgin and rose from the dead? That is the foundation of Christian belief. The only thing unfounded here is baseless doubts.

There are no proofs in the Bible

I disagree, and will agree with Scripture on that. Acts 1:3
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

, it is a collection of unsupported claims and opinions.

Your claim is all that is not supported.

As science uncovers more and more of the mysteries of the universe

Building fantasy models based on beliefs is not uncovering anything. Science is in the dark on almost all mysteries of the universe.

, ancient tales of gods and magic will become less and less relevant.

Or the opinion of scoffers will become irrelevant to all, not just many or most. But thanks for your prophesy, for what it is worth.

Of course there will always be the diehards who are unable to give up their security blankets and promises of eternal bliss singing hymns of praise to their chosen deity.

I think the word for that is believers.

[brunumb]

Jesus was not born to a virgin and rose from the dead? That is the foundation of Christian belief. The only thing unfounded here is baseless doubts.

There are all sorts of stories of magical births and resurrections in ancient literature. Yours is just another one that has no foundation and is simply believed because the story has been propagated through generations of indoctrination of vulnerable minds. That's the bottom line.