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 otseng in post #829]

If you grant the first two are true, then the third is true automatically, regardless if the hypothesis is confirmed.

That means you would accept Russell Humphreys' explanation for planetary magnetic fields as being a natural explanation, even though it involves the actions of a god being to do something that we know nature did not do (ie. align the nuclear spins of all the H atoms in the ball of water that the planet started out as to create the initial magnetic field). I find this awfully hard to accept as a natural explanation, despite 1 and 2 being valid.

Since nobody is able to answer this, I'll answer it.

There is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes. If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

Neither have reached the status of "scientific explanation" yet. They are interpretations of mathematical models that may or may not turn out to be correct, so are still at the hypothesis stage. String theory gets rid of all but 4 dimensions by mathematical trickery (compatifying and "curling up") that makes them negligibly small. Renormalization is a common mathematical "trick" in physics as well where (here and here) "divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers." I don't think string theorists claim that the needed extra dimensions are necessarily physical, but they arise as part of the number crunching and similar to renormalization some manipulations are done to try and handle them in a consistent way. But string theory is still on the drawing board, and as Clownboat suggests we simply don't know yet if it will turn out to be correct. It isn't yet a scientific explanation, just like multiverses.

[The Barbarian]

YEC would reject uniformitarianism but those that believe in deep time use catastrophic events to explain the extinctions found in the fossil record so they only believe in uniformitarianism when it suits their theory. The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water. They have to involve water otherwise no fossils would form.

I notice that Lyell included catastrophic change in his theory. "Uniformitarianism" says that the same physical laws that exist today have existed since the beginning. It doesn't mean that all change is slow and gradual.

BTW, there are plenty of desert fossils. You don't need water in all cases. But you've pretty much undercut your argument. If water is necessary for fossils to form, then the fossil record would be skewed toward events involving water. Which would invalidate your belief about how 90% (nice even number; how did you calculate that?) of organisms had gone extinct.

[otseng]

And I want to ask again -- How would one even falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes?

I'm going to go out on limb here and make the claim that no human on earth knows the answer to your question at this time or more succinctly, I/we don't know.
That is your answer.
Be well.

There is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes. If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

The bold is just another claim you can make because you're using faith and another reason why we should all abhore faith.

What do you mean I'm making a "faith" claim? You just agreed that "no human on earth knows the answer to your question" and "I/we don't know".

Are you implying that there will be an answer to my question in the future? If so, that would be a faith claim.

You also did not answer my question -- If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

[otseng]

That means you would accept Russell Humphreys' explanation for planetary magnetic fields as being a natural explanation, even though it involves the actions of a god being to do something that we know nature did not do (ie. align the nuclear spins of all the H atoms in the ball of water that the planet started out as to create the initial magnetic field). I find this awfully hard to accept as a natural explanation, despite 1 and 2 being valid.

How would it be any different than proposing other universes and other dimensions? Just because an entity is proposed from another dimension does not make it any different than another dimension being proposed.

Neither have reached the status of "scientific explanation" yet.

They are being presented as though they are. Who in the scientific community says they are not scientific explanations?

I don't think string theorists claim that the needed extra dimensions are necessarily physical, but they arise as part of the number crunching and similar to renormalization some manipulations are done to try and handle them in a consistent way. But string theory is still on the drawing board, and as Clownboat suggests we simply don't know yet if it will turn out to be correct. It isn't yet a scientific explanation, just like multiverses.

Actually, as I've mentioned before, I question scientists use of models as saying they actually exist. But, they do not confine it to simply a description, but claiming it is actual reality. The prime example is the spacetime fabric.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #834]

How would it be any different than proposing other universes and other dimensions? Just because an entity is proposed from another dimension does not make it any different than another dimension being proposed.

Proposed is the operative word ... until there is some confirmation that it exists (other dimensions, gods, etc.) then it is just an idea that may or may not be valid. In case of Humphreys' H2O balls becoming planets with magnetic fields we know with 100% certainty that it is wrong, so that hypothesis can be discarded even without considering the part where a god being swooped in and aligned all the H-atom nuclear spins. Many other hypotheses are still open.

They are being presented as though they are. Who in the scientific community says they are not scientific explanations?

I think the scientific community would refer to them as potential scientific explanations. They are presented as ideas, hypotheses that are not yet confirmed, or in some cases just wild ideas (like the Science channel guy I linked to earlier with his web page of "crazy" ideas relating to multiverses). People have proposed all kinds of crazy things before in science that never panned out.

Actually, as I've mentioned before, I question scientists use of models as saying they actually exist. But, they do not confine it to simply a description, but claiming it is actual reality. The prime example is the spacetime fabric.

But the spacetime "fabric" is not described as some physical medium like the luminiferous aether, or anything physical. It is a conceptual model (a mathematical framework ... Minkowski space-time) for describing gravity and light in General Relativity. It is "real" in the same sense that calculus is real, or a mathematical function is real.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

I notice that Lyell included catastrophic change in his theory. "Uniformitarianism" says that the same physical laws that exist today have existed since the beginning. It doesn't mean that all change is slow and gradual.

He had to include a catastrophic change in his theory because of the overwhelming evidence of worldwide catastrophic change. Which caused major extinction. The problem is the cause of these worldwide extinction events. Many of these are said to be caused by volcanic events. But what would cause the tectonic plates to move enough to cause this much volcanic activity? We see large eruptions that may decrease the temperature of the earth by maybe a degree or so like the large volcanic eruption in the Philippians back in the 90s. What we do not see are large volcanic supervolcanic eruptions. There is evidence that there were large supervolcanic eruptions in the past but we do not see those large eruptions today. But what supplied the energy in the tectonic plates to produce this much energy in the tectonic plates?

Another is global cooling because of a decrease in CO2. This is hard to believe because the CO2 levels were actually higher in the past than they are today. According to the rocks we have been at a CO2 minimum. So the mechanism of a decrease in CO2 is a little unbelievable. This is true of most glaciation theories. The problem is the conditions needed to have an ice age. Warm ocean water temperatures and cold air temperatures.

BTW, there are plenty of desert fossils. You don't need water in all cases. But you've pretty much undercut your argument. If water is necessary for fossils to form, then the fossil record would be skewed toward events involving water. This would invalidate your belief about how 90% (nice even number; how did you calculate that?) of organisms had gone extinct.

You will need some type of citation on your desert fossil belief. Or maybe a description of what type of fossilization you are speaking of. And yes most if not all fossils need water to form and yet we see fossilized remains all over the world. The other problem is that fossils have to form in an adiabatic environment. Oxygen would cause the organism to decompose, so that means that the dead organism would have to be covered quickly after it died. Which would indicate some sort of moving water. And again we see this happening all over the world.

Actually, 90% is low the "extinction event" that is said to occur at the end of the Permian killed 96% of life on Earth. Again how were all of these organisms covered deep enough so that oxygen could not get to the organism and decompose it? The following reason does not indicate how this would cause the fossilization of organisms across the planet.

• Intense volcanic activity in Siberia. This caused global warming. Elevated CO2 and sulphur (H2S) levels from volcanoes caused ocean acidification, acid rain, and other changes in ocean and land chemistry.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

I notice that Lyell included catastrophic change in his theory. "Uniformitarianism" says that the same physical laws that exist today have existed since the beginning. It doesn't mean that all change is slow and gradual.

He had to include a catastrophic change in his theory because of the overwhelming evidence of worldwide catastrophic change.

Yeah, scientific theories are funny that way. They get constructed to account for the facts.

Which caused major extinction.

As you know, the geologic record has a number of such extinctions, mostly gradual, but at least one rather sudden case (the K-T boundary shows that almost all large land animals died off rapidly after the Chixulub asteroid strike)

The problem is the cause of these worldwide extinction events.

The unification of Pangea, for example, reducing coastal areas, is an example.

Many of these are said to be caused by volcanic events.

The one case I can think of is the regional vulcanism of the Deccan Traps which might well have been caused by the Chixulub event which happened at the same time.

But what would cause the tectonic plates to move enough to cause this much volcanic activity?

A very large body striking the Earth for example.

We see large eruptions that may decrease the temperature of the earth by maybe a degree or so like the large volcanic eruption in the Philippians back in the 90s. What we do not see are large volcanic supervolcanic eruptions.

Yes. The Deccan Traps likely contributed to the "nuclear winter" effect caused by the Chixulub strike.

There is evidence that there were large supervolcanic eruptions in the past but we do not see those large eruptions today.

Yellowstone Park is a caldera of such a supervolcano. It devastated an area now covered by many states.

But what supplied the energy in the tectonic plates to produce this much energy in the tectonic plates?

In the case of the Deccan Traps it was quite possibly the Chixulub event:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac7549

The Yellowstone eruption was because the site is over a "hot spot" in the mantle that remains largely stationary, while the crust moves over it. There are traces of other eruptions when other parts of the plate were over it.

Another is global cooling because of a decrease in CO2.

Or an increase:
New Research Uncovers Cause of Earth’s Largest Mass Extinction
Findings show rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels were behind the end-Permian event
https://www.montclair.edu/newscenter/20 ... xtinction/

BTW, there are plenty of desert fossils. You don't need water in all cases. But you've pretty much undercut your argument. If water is necessary for fossils to form, then the fossil record would be skewed toward events involving water. This would invalidate your belief about how 90% (nice even number; how did you calculate that?) of organisms had gone extinct.

You will need some type of citation on your desert fossil belief.

Researchers have discovered a nearly complete fossil of a dinosaur which appears to have been caught in a collapsing sand dune.
The Seitaad ruessi fossil, described in the journal PLoS One, is a relative of the long-necked sauropods that were once Earth's biggest animals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583911.stm

And yes most if not all fossils need water to form and yet we see fossilized remains all over the world. The other problem is that fossils have to form in an adiabatic environment. Oxygen would cause the organism to decompose, so that means that the dead organism would have to be covered quickly after it died. Which would indicate some sort of moving water.

See above. But I do agree with you that fossilization is rare unless water is present. This is why fossils only indicate a tiny percentage of animals and times. Meaning the fossil record is skewed.

Actually, 90% is low the "extinction event" that is said to occur at the end of the Permian killed 96% of life on Earth.

The rise in CO2. But perhaps by "life" you mean "animals." This likely wouldn't have been devastating to microbes or to many plants. Do you have data?

Again how were all of these organisms covered deep enough so that oxygen could not get to the organism and decompose it?

Collapsing sand dune in the case I showed you. A lucky underwater landslide in the Early Cambrian (Burgess Shale) gives us a picture of the soft-bodied fauna of that time; without this singular event, we'd be pretty much in the dark about those organisms. We don't know how many other such ecosystems were lost forever because no such event happened.

[Clownboat]

What do you mean I'm making a "faith" claim? You just agreed that "no human on earth knows the answer to your question" and "I/we don't know".

Your claim: "There is no way to falsify the proposal of other dimensions and universes".
This is a faith based claim. You don't know if there will be a way to falsify other dimensions and universes, yet you made the claim anyway. I detect no evidence or reasoning in your claim, just faith, therefore making this a faith claim.

Saying "I don't know" or in this case, "no human knows" is an honest claim, devoid of any faith.

Are you implying that there will be an answer to my question in the future?

My claim is that no human knows the answer to your question and you are taking that statement as me implying something. This is on you.

Person A: What are you having for dinner?
Person B: I don't know.
Person A: So you are implying that you are having pizza for dinner?
Person B:

If so, that would be a faith claim.

How can "I/we don't know" be a claim? Faith or no faith, I don't know is to not make a claim.
To make a claim is to assert that something is the case. 'I don't know' is the lack of asserting.

You also did not answer my question -- If it's not possible to falsify them, how can they even be considered scientific explanations?

Any scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. What specific scientific explanation (hypothesis?) are you refering to here? Perhaps you are confused about what a scientific explanation is?

Scientific explanations are the results of scientific observations and measurements obtained via bias-free studies, whether experimental or non-experimental by design. In fact, scientific explanations are hypotheses that research repeatedly confirms as true under different circumstances.

You're basically asking, how can something that research repeatedly confirms as true, be false. A better question is why would you consider something as false if research repeatedly confirms it as true.
Do note that a scientific explanation is not the same as a theory. Noting that research repeatedly confirms a hypothesis does not justify a person to then use faith and claim the hypothesis as valid or not valid. It's still a hypothesis.

[The Barbarian]

Do note that a scientific explanation is not the same as a theory. Noting that research repeatedly confirms a hypothesis does not justify a person to then use faith and claim the hypothesis as valid or not valid. It's still a hypothesis.

To be precise, a theory is a scientific explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence after the fact. That is, a theory must involve the repeated testing of predictions, after which it is accepted as a theory. How much repetition? Depends on what people in the discipline think it should be. No one announced the general acceptance of Newton's theory of gravitation as official. It's just that the theory cleared up so many problems and was verified so many times that there ceased to be any doubt that it was a good theory.

[JoeyKnothead]

Deleted post because others already covered what I was getting at.