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
- Sage
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 645 times
- Been thanked: 989 times
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #1"... the vast majority of your arguments are based on either bluffing about your scientific understanding or a genuine, bafflingly obtuse misunderstanding of it."
_ Difflugia [to EarthScienceguy]
_ Difflugia [to EarthScienceguy]

- Diogenes
- Sage
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 645 times
- Been thanked: 989 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #951If, in order to believe in your God, you have to resort to the anti-science drivel of Walt Brown, Ken Hamm, AIG and the various pseudo sciences and false beliefs of that contradiction in terms, "Creation Science," then it's time to find another god, one that does not require you to do violence to common sense and scientific observation. The efforts of those who repeat such rubbish only serve to prove the point of this thread, that Taking Genesis Literally has a Debilitating Effect on the reasoning process.
Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing.
Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing.

"... the vast majority of your arguments are based on either bluffing about your scientific understanding or a genuine, bafflingly obtuse misunderstanding of it."
_ Difflugia [to EarthScienceguy]
_ Difflugia [to EarthScienceguy]

- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19426
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #952Why odd if a hypothesis is a proposed explanation?
Where did I ever mention about testability? I've only mentioned measurability and falsifiability.You have been asking about testability.
Who's sowing confusion by attributing to me something I've not said?You sow confusion by using them interchangeably and now double down it seems.
Giving definitions from dictionaries is not pretending to talk about faith.This is a religious forum and we are specifically discussing taking Genesis literally. This is done via religious faith, so for accuracy, I will not pretend to be talking about some other form of faith that is not pertinent.
Where have I claimed or tried to do such a thing?Good luck using secular faith to arrive at Genesis being a real event.
And when you say "secular faith", what do you mean by that? Do you mean there's a distinction between secular faith and religious faith?
Here's synonyms of hypotheses:You also use proposal and hypothesis interchangeably.
proposals, conceptions, conjectures, theories, theses, suppositions, ...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hypotheses
If you prefer another synonym, that's fine by me.
We're talking about scientists proposing non-natural explanations.It is not ironic as we are discussing taking Genesis literally. Religious faith is used to justify religious beliefs, not some secular faith.
Then why use the Bible to define faith?The Bible is not authoritative.Why do you keep bringing up the Bible in our discussions? Do you accept it as authoritative?
The confusion is in skeptics claiming science only provides naturalistic answers whereas the Bible (in particular Genesis) only makes blind faith-based claims. This is false. Secular scientists are already proposing non-naturalistic explanations (multiverse and additional dimensions), which are faith-based (according to secular definitions of faith). As testified by you, these explanations are not scientific. Yet, here we are, secular scientists are proposing non-scientific explanations. Why is this?All references to faith being debilitating are discussing religious faith, specifically in taking Genesis literally. It appears to me that your best defense here is in trying to sow confusion about the topic.
How would you know what I really know? Isn't that a faith based statement?I'm not saying faith is a mechanism to arrive at a truth claim.
Yet it is. Religious faith, like the type needed to take Genesis literally is the mechanism that allows a person to believe that Genesis (and other religious concepts) is (are) truth. So you may not be saying it, but it is still accurate. I think you know this and this could be why you seek help from some secular version of faith in place of religious faith. Now this is something I do find ironic.
Here's my position. Yes, I accept many claims in the Genesis as literal. Can I prove the to be true? No. Can I show empirical evidence to support these claims? Yes. Is it by blind faith that I believe Genesis? No. Do I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports Biblical claims instead of secular claims? Yes.
If something is 90% certain that it is true, would it be abhorrent to believe it is true?All I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with someone having a belief that involves faith.
What! There is nothing wrong with adding in a mechanism that will literally allow a potential false thing to be believed as true? I cannot agree with this. Faith should be abhorred.
I don't think what you are attacking is "faith" per se, but religion.And some will tell children that they will burn in hell for eternity for not also believing in their specific faith claim. If something isn't absolute truth, why pretend that it is via faith? Faith should be abhorred, not embraced or encouraged.Sure, they cannot logically prove their belief is absolute truth.
If there's no evidential support for something, there's no need to believe it is literally true. What you are talking about is blind faith. And I agree that blind faith is not a logical way to arrive at truth.And here is when faith becomes the problem I have been alluding to. In place of logical reasoning and evidence, faith allows a belief to be believed as true (Genesis, talking animals, living in a fish, conjuring up food, walking on water, flying on winged horses and on and on).But if they have logical reasoning and evidence, then their belief is justified, even if they do not have concrete proof.
If you are equating "religious faith" as blind faith, yes, I would agree.We need to encourage logical reasoning and evidence and abhor the idea of faith when trying to arrive at truth claims. This is why I see religious faith as debilitating.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19426
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #953Please provide a definition of faith then if you do not accept the ones I gave. And also provide a reference to the definition so we know it's not just something you made up.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:59 pm That doesn't absolve the religious folks who promote Truth(tm) but then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it.
- JoeyKnothead
- Under Probation
- Posts: 20394
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 3491 times
- Been thanked: 2249 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #954Now we gotta fuss over "faith"?otseng wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:02 pmPlease provide a definition of faith then if you do not accept the ones I gave. And also provide a reference to the definition so we know it's not just something you made up.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:59 pm That doesn't absolve the religious folks who promote Truth(tm) but then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it.
Please note, dictionaries track the usage of terms, and definitions are only as strict as folks abide by those definitions.
This does present some interesting notions within a thread that considers the problems with taking certain biblical accounts literally.
Who here ain't ever heard someone carry on about "The one 'true' god", but can't show they speak truth about that god?
And then, based on their inability to show they speak truth, get all upset when ya call em a liar?
Oh, they're happy with their personal definition of 'truth', but lose their minds when it's pointed out they also fit your personal definition of "liar". That usage suddenly becomes just too burdensome a cross to bear. Now they're offended, as they expect you to play along with their 'Truth(tm)'.
The problem with taking biblical claims that can't be shown to be true as, well, true, is that once you drink that first sip, there's a whole well full of Kool-aid you're expected to finish off.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 5725 times
- Been thanked: 2932 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #955Not to mention so many different flavors to choose from.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:46 pm The problem with taking biblical claims that can't be shown to be true as, well, true, is that once you drink that first sip, there's a whole well full of Kool-aid you're expected to finish off.

Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19426
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #956You're the one complaining about definitions -- "then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it".JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:46 pmNow we gotta fuss over "faith"?otseng wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:02 pmPlease provide a definition of faith then if you do not accept the ones I gave. And also provide a reference to the definition so we know it's not just something you made up.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:59 pm That doesn't absolve the religious folks who promote Truth(tm) but then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it.
In other words, skeptics needs to make up definitions and quote mine the Bible (which they do not consider authoritative) to make a straw man argument.Please note, dictionaries track the usage of terms, and definitions are only as strict as folks abide by those definitions.
I gave people plenty of chance to argue against the claims of Genesis in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? Since they were not able to adequately respond to it, they retreated and created this thread.This does present some interesting notions within a thread that considers the problems with taking certain biblical accounts literally.
Just because some people can't argue well doesn't mean good arguments do not exist.Who here ain't ever heard someone carry on about "The one 'true' god", but can't show they speak truth about that god?
Because that's an ad hom comment.And then, based on their inability to show they speak truth, get all upset when ya call em a liar?
If there's any arguments I made not based on evidence and based on faith in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?, please point those out.The problem with taking biblical claims that can't be shown to be true as, well, true, is that once you drink that first sip, there's a whole well full of Kool-aid you're expected to finish off.
- JoeyKnothead
- Under Probation
- Posts: 20394
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 3491 times
- Been thanked: 2249 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #957My point is that Christians themselves argue over what the Bible means, then carry on about it being so true. I note you accept biblical errancy, which I consider is the way to go. But then if it's errant, it can't all be true, as some others like to declare.otseng wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:32 am Please provide a definition of faith then if you do not accept the ones I gave. And also provide a reference to the definition so we know it's not just something you made up.You're the one complaining about definitions -- "then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it".JK wrote: Now we gotta fuss over "faith"?
Accusing atheists of one thing doesn't mean some Christians ain't doing them another, or the same.otseng wrote:In other words, skeptics need to make up definitions and quote mine the Bible (which they do not consider authoritative) to make a straw man argument.JK wrote: Please note, dictionaries track the usage of terms, and definitions are only as strict as folks abide by those definitions.
That said, I'll be happy to consider retracting anything I've personally posted that can fit your claim here. Like with my recent confusion regarding "son of man", I, not fully understanding, did err in my take on the issue. While I still think I have a reasonable assumption, I retracted when I found out Christians were quite emphatically opposed, if only doctrinally, against my assumption.
It can't possibly be they were tired of correcting you over and over again? It can't possibly be the topics for that thread became so varied they wanna concentrate on this particular bit?otseng wrote:I gave people plenty of chance to argue against the claims of Genesis in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? Since they were not able to adequately respond to it, they retreated and created this thread.This does present some interesting notions within a thread that considers the problems with taking certain biblical accounts literally.
Nor does thinking one's presented a good argument mean they have.otseng wrote:Just because some people can't argue well doesn't mean good arguments do not exist.JK wrote: Who here ain't ever heard someone carry on about "The one 'true' god", but can't show they speak truth about that god?
Tell that to promoters of a book chock full of ad homs.otseng wrote:Because that's an ad hom comment.JK wrote: And then, based on their inability to show they speak truth, get all upset when ya call em a liar?
I reject the idea that in promoting the Bible as a virtue, folks should be immune to the ad homs that book bestows on others. (While understanding the importance of trying to keep this site as civil as possible)
otseng wrote: [quoteJK]
The problem with taking biblical claims that can't be shown to be true as, well, true, is that once you drink that first sip, there's a whole well full of Kool-aid you're expected to finish off.
There's plenty in there doing just that.otseng wrote: If there's any arguments I made not based on evidence and based on faith in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?, please point those out.
That said, I agree with that OP, where biblical errancy doesn't mean we can't find us a chestnut in there among it. I just can't get past that goofy Genesis tale to find em.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #958[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
1. The whole idea of a plume forming a hotspot is nothing more than an ad hoc theory trying to explain volcanism in a spot where it should not be.
2. The idea of a meteor hitting the earth and causing some sort of volcanic or gas expelling I am not sure Barbarian has decided what it is that caused it. It seems like he is suggesting that CO2 was just coming out of the ground. Like the Earth had a big sneeze or something. But how can tell with those crazy deep timers? Next thing you know they will be talking about little green people or planets that brought carbon to earth. But the fairy tale goes that whatever it was it produced enough CO2 to destroy most living things on earth. In other words some kind of mechanism that we do not know made a bunch of carbon dioxide in which we do not know how and killed everything on the earth and then covered all of the dead animals with water so that we can find them today as fossils. Now, this would be an example of working backward and using an overactive imagination.
3. How would most of the fossils then be covered with water to form the fossils that we find.
4. Accretion really.
7. And then the crazy problem in cosmology with the struggle to even produce the type of reality that we experience.
All of the above breaks the laws of physics. So who or what is going to produce the miracle that can overcome the problem that physics places on your model? You might want to say that you do not believe in some sort of being to overcome these problems but then you are left with all of the above not being possible because they all break the laws of physics.
1. The killing of most living things on Earth. (This is something that your deep-time theories struggle to do.)
2. Energy to create multiple huge basalt floods
3. Tectonic plates at the core-mantle boundary that are cool enough to cause deep earthquakes. (a huge problem for deep time)
4. Carbon on the Earth and in the mantle.
5. Explain both short-period and long-period comets.
I am not understanding why you would not believe that a layer of water 50 km under the earth would not be pressurized and would not have potential energy. A rough estimate of the pressure needed is a pretty simple calculation.
No green embryos crashing into Earth or any of the other crazy stuff.
You are really accusing creationists of working backward.Face it .... Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago from the accretion disk surrounding the sun after it formed, and its geology has been changing ... slowly ... ever since. This is what the actual evidence shows. Brown, Humphreys and their ilk are just working backwards from bible stories to try and justify their YEC beliefs, and evidently are paid attention to by some people simply because they happen to have Ph.Ds in a science field (mechanical engineering for Brown).
1. The whole idea of a plume forming a hotspot is nothing more than an ad hoc theory trying to explain volcanism in a spot where it should not be.
2. The idea of a meteor hitting the earth and causing some sort of volcanic or gas expelling I am not sure Barbarian has decided what it is that caused it. It seems like he is suggesting that CO2 was just coming out of the ground. Like the Earth had a big sneeze or something. But how can tell with those crazy deep timers? Next thing you know they will be talking about little green people or planets that brought carbon to earth. But the fairy tale goes that whatever it was it produced enough CO2 to destroy most living things on earth. In other words some kind of mechanism that we do not know made a bunch of carbon dioxide in which we do not know how and killed everything on the earth and then covered all of the dead animals with water so that we can find them today as fossils. Now, this would be an example of working backward and using an overactive imagination.
3. How would most of the fossils then be covered with water to form the fossils that we find.
4. Accretion really.
- a. One major problem is that developing gas giants through core accretion takes too long. According to the best current models, the process requires several million years longer than the typically observed lifetime of the stellar gas disks from which planets are born. Who cares about physics let's just use our overactive imagination and make something up.
- b. The other main difficulty is the so-called "migration" problem. Protoplanets are not sitting stationary in the gas disks as they bulk up. Due to gravitational interactions with the disks, the protoplanets swirl rapidly inwards toward their central stars in what scientists call "Type 1" migration. Models predict that this death spiral can take as little as 100,000 years.
This so-called "migration" problem is the toughest challenge facing theorists trying to explain gas giant formation through core accretion, said Alan Boss, a planet formation expert at the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
"The migration problem is scary," Boss told SPACE.com. "[The models] are off by a factor of 10 or 100, so you really have to wonder if there's going to be a solution here." https://www.space.com/2206-death-spiral ... stems.html
- Over the past two decades, large strides have been made in the field of planet formation. Yet fundamental questions remain. Here we review our state of understanding of five fundamental bottlenecks in planet formation. These are the following: (1) the structure and evolution of protoplanetary disks; (2) the growth of the first planetesimals; (3) orbital migration driven by interactions between protoplanets and gaseous disk; (4) the origin of the Solar System's orbital architecture; and (5) the relationship between observed super-Earths and our own terrestrial planets. Given our lack of understanding of these issues, even the most successful formation models remain on shaky ground. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 16JE005088
- And this is from people that believe accretion can actually happen. But "say la vie" right who cares about physics?
- 5. Where did Earth's carbon come from? A planetary embryo. Right. That is not working backward at all. And how did that carbon get in the mantle and not boil away? I wonder if it was complete with little green men also. Since it was a green planet.
- Research by Rice University Earth scientists suggests that virtually all of Earth’s life-giving carbon could have come from a collision about 4.4 billion years ago between Earth and an embryonic planet similar to Mercury.
In a new study this week in Nature Geoscience, Rice petrologist Rajdeep Dasgupta and colleagues offer a new answer to a long-debated geological question: How did carbon-based life develop on Earth, given that most of the planet’s carbon should have either boiled away in the planet’s earliest days or become locked in Earth’s core? https://astrobiology.com/2016/09/where- ... %20Mercury.
- Research by Rice University Earth scientists suggests that virtually all of Earth’s life-giving carbon could have come from a collision about 4.4 billion years ago between Earth and an embryonic planet similar to Mercury.
7. And then the crazy problem in cosmology with the struggle to even produce the type of reality that we experience.
All of the above breaks the laws of physics. So who or what is going to produce the miracle that can overcome the problem that physics places on your model? You might want to say that you do not believe in some sort of being to overcome these problems but then you are left with all of the above not being possible because they all break the laws of physics.
Observations that must be explained by any theory.Walt Brown's hydroplate model has no real-world evidence to support it, and some of it is pure nonsense (eg. the magic supersonic water fountains threw water and rocks far out into space to create comets and asteroids, a 35-45 deg sudden rotation of Earth's axis, etc,). There could be no mountains pre-flood, or meteorite impacts (as these were only created at the start of the flood according to Brown) and many other problems.
1. The killing of most living things on Earth. (This is something that your deep-time theories struggle to do.)
2. Energy to create multiple huge basalt floods
3. Tectonic plates at the core-mantle boundary that are cool enough to cause deep earthquakes. (a huge problem for deep time)
4. Carbon on the Earth and in the mantle.
5. Explain both short-period and long-period comets.
I am not understanding why you would not believe that a layer of water 50 km under the earth would not be pressurized and would not have potential energy. A rough estimate of the pressure needed is a pretty simple calculation.
- The shear strength of rock increases with compression, so at 50 km it would be somewhere around 1500 Mp/m2 x 50000 = 7.5 E13 pa. this acting over 1 E18 m3 of water. 7.5 E31 J. That is more than enough energy to send all of the TNO's into orbit.
- 1st There seems to be some confusion about the flow of energy. This is not an asteroid impact that would add energy to the earth's system. The energy is already in the earth's system as potential energy. In fact, energy would be leaving the Earth's system and adding it to the solar system's energy.
- 2nd Water is under high pressure and then the pressure is reduced to 1 atm. P1/T1 = P2/T2 so the temperature would decrease to near absolute zero. Supercritical fluids are used all of the time and drug manufacturing. A fine solid powder is produced. The particles are small because of how fast the supercritical fluid is cooled.
No green embryos crashing into Earth or any of the other crazy stuff.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 19426
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 302 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #959JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 amLike with my recent confusion regarding "son of man", I, not fully understanding, did err in my take on the issue. While I still think I have a reasonable assumption, I retracted when I found out Christians were quite emphatically opposed, if only doctrinally, against my assumption.

If they corrected with evidence and a reference, you might have a point. Otherwise, your claim would not apply.It can't possibly be they were tired of correcting you over and over again?
As I've stated before, I'm willing to stand by my arguments and put it to the ultimate test by submitting a paper on the TS to peer-reviewed journals. Any skeptic willing to take me up with this challenge with their own paper submission?Nor does thinking one's presented a good argument mean they have.
I cannot enforce what is written in the Bible. But, I can enforce what people write on this forum, no matter what source they use, including the Bible.I reject the idea that in promoting the Bible as a virtue, folks should be immune to the ad homs that book bestows on others. (While understanding the importance of trying to keep this site as civil as possible)
Not sure what you mean. You mean other people are making arguments not based on evidence or are you referring to me? Either way, please provide the post that you are referring to.There's plenty in there doing just that.
- JoeyKnothead
- Under Probation
- Posts: 20394
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 3491 times
- Been thanked: 2249 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #960Logic kinda stands on its own.otseng wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:22 amIf they corrected with evidence and a reference, you might have a point. Otherwise, your claim would not apply.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 am It can't possibly be they were tired of correcting you over and over again?
In the bit about the shroud, you can't show the blood, nor the image is that of someone who never had their blood analyzed, or their picture taken, that we can compare.
Why not just go on and submit your arguments to peer-reviewed journals, and quit waiting around for someone else to present theirs?As I've stated before, I'm willing to stand by my arguments and put it to the ultimate test by submitting a paper on the TS to peer-reviewed journals. Any skeptic willing to take me up with this challenge with their own paper submission?
I mean, if I could figure out what it is the wimmins really want, I'd be in a headlong rush to be the first to publish.
I get it. I was just offering an alternate perspective.otseng wrote:I cannot enforce what is written in the Bible. But, I can enforce what people write on this forum, no matter what source they use, including the Bible.JK wrote: I reject the idea that in promoting the Bible as a virtue, folks should be immune to the ad homs that book bestows on others. (While understanding the importance of trying to keep this site as civil as possible)
And I'll be the first in line to say you do so even handed and honest.
I'm saying there's folks in that thread who are knocking your position around like a fraternity knocks back alcohol.otseng wrote:Not sure what you mean. You mean other people are making arguments not based on evidence or are you referring to me? Either way, please provide the post that you are referring to.JK wrote: There's plenty in there doing just that.
As I mention above, your carrying on about the TS fails in the most obvious way - an inability to match the blood and image to anyone in the relevant period of time and place.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin