The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 854 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #1

Post by 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.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 854 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #951

Post by Diogenes »

If, 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. :D
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20420
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #952

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:23 am
otseng wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:57 am I use the term proposal as an idea that is proposed.
Odd that you said this in post 917 then: "Proposal and hypothesis can be used interchangeably."
Why odd if a hypothesis is a proposed explanation?
You have been asking about testability.
Where did I ever mention about testability? I've only mentioned measurability and falsifiability.
You sow confusion by using them interchangeably and now double down it seems.
Who's sowing confusion by attributing to me something I've not said?
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.
Giving definitions from dictionaries is not pretending to talk about faith.
Good luck using secular faith to arrive at Genesis being a real event.
Where have I claimed or tried to do such a thing?

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?
You also use proposal and hypothesis interchangeably.
Here's synonyms of hypotheses:

proposals, conceptions, conjectures, theories, theses, suppositions, ...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hypotheses

If you prefer another synonym, that's fine by me.
It is not ironic as we are discussing taking Genesis literally. Religious faith is used to justify religious beliefs, not some secular faith.
We're talking about scientists proposing non-natural explanations.
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible in our discussions? Do you accept it as authoritative?
The Bible is not authoritative.
Then why use the Bible to define faith?
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.
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?
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.
How would you know what I really know? Isn't that a faith based statement?

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.
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.
If something is 90% certain that it is true, would it be abhorrent to believe it is true?
Sure, they cannot logically prove their belief is absolute truth.
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.
I don't think what you are attacking is "faith" per se, but religion.
But if they have logical reasoning and evidence, then their belief is justified, even if they do not have concrete proof.
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).
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.
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.
If you are equating "religious faith" as blind faith, yes, I would agree.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20420
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #953

Post by otseng »

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 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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #954

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:02 pm
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 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.
Now we gotta fuss over "faith"?

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

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6594 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #955

Post by brunumb »

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.
Not to mention so many different flavors to choose from. ;)
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.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20420
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #956

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:46 pm
otseng wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:02 pm
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 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.
Now we gotta fuss over "faith"?
You're the one complaining about definitions -- "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.
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.
This does present some interesting notions within a thread that considers the problems with taking certain biblical accounts literally.
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.
Who here ain't ever heard someone carry on about "The one 'true' god", but can't show they speak truth about that god?
Just because some people can't argue well doesn't mean good arguments do not exist.
And then, based on their inability to show they speak truth, get all upset when ya call em a liar?
Because that's an ad hom comment.
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.
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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #957

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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.
JK wrote: Now we gotta fuss over "faith"?
You're the one complaining about definitions -- "then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it".
My 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:
JK wrote: Please note, dictionaries track the usage of terms, and definitions are only as strict as folks abide by those definitions.
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.
Accusing atheists of one thing doesn't mean some Christians ain't doing them another, or the same.

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.
otseng wrote:
This does present some interesting notions within a thread that considers the problems with taking certain biblical accounts literally.
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.
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:
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?
Just because some people can't argue well doesn't mean good arguments do not exist.
Nor does thinking one's presented a good argument mean they have.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote: And then, based on their inability to show they speak truth, get all upset when ya call em a liar?
Because that's an ad hom comment.
Tell that to promoters of a book chock full of ad homs.

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.
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.
There's plenty in there doing just that.

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

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #958

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
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).
You are really accusing creationists of working backward.

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.
6. And this is just planet formation. There are also severe problems with star formation.

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.
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.
Observations that must be explained by any theory.
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.
Now with regards to the thought in your wiki article about boiling the water and atmosphere.
  • 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.
3rd There is no heat problem because the escaping supercritical fluid is reducing the temperature.

No green embryos crashing into Earth or any of the other crazy stuff.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20420
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #959

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead 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.
:approve:
It can't possibly be they were tired of correcting you over and over again?
If they corrected with evidence and a reference, you might have a point. Otherwise, your claim would not apply.
Nor does thinking one's presented a good argument mean they have.
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 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)
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.
There's plenty in there doing just that.
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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #960

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:22 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:50 am It can't possibly be they were tired of correcting you over and over again?
If they corrected with evidence and a reference, you might have a point. Otherwise, your claim would not apply.
Logic kinda stands on its own.

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.
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?
Why not just go on and submit your arguments to peer-reviewed journals, and quit waiting around for someone else to present theirs?

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.
otseng wrote:
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)
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 get it. I was just offering an alternate perspective.

And I'll be the first in line to say you do so even handed and honest.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote: There's plenty in there doing just that.
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.
I'm saying there's folks in that thread who are knocking your position around like a fraternity knocks back alcohol.

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

Post Reply