The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 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
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 #961

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #0]
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.
You obviously do not understand the insurmountable problems with planet formation, plate tectonics, and comets. And if I were you or anyone else I would not want to try to explain them either.

1. Tectonic plates that are still ridged in the mantle and thousands of degrees cooler than the surroundings. That is how they are detected the temperature difference. Do you believe that they could be in the mantle for hundreds of millions of years and still be thousands of degrees difference in temperature? So do you also believe that the laws of thermodynamics do not exist in the mantle?

2. The carbon problem. Do you believe in a little green carbon planet that gave Earth its carbon? Was it complete with little green men also?

3. Do you have a mechanism for the death of 99% of life on earth? Oh wait, I heard a tale tell once of Carbon dioxide suddenly coming out of the ground one day and killing everything on earth. That is right just one-day carbon dioxide was created in the ground and started to come out. Or at least that is what the Barbarian said the mechanism was. Who cares about geophysics there is no need for that. Forget about energy transfer no need for that either.

4. And then maybe it was carbon dioxide that covered the dead plant and animal life that caused them to become fossilized. Forget about chemistry and mineralization.

5. Then there are all of the problems with planetary formation, to begin with like the migration problem.
  • 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.
  • Your theme by making the statement above seems to be "Who cares about stinking physics." The migration problem is a major major problem. The equation Radius = Mass(central) x Velocity2/F(centripetal) . So as the mass of the protoplanet increases the Centripital force increases which means that the Radius decreases.
You seem to live in a world where inanimate objects can perform miracles to break the laws of physics. You are welcome to live in that world if you wish. I prefer to live in a world that has objective truth. In a world where inanimate objects do not perform miracles. But suit yourself.
Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing.
This is a debate site where ideas are brought up and challenged. I always find it odd when people say things like this. And they always say it when they are losing an argument. It must be their attempt to save face. Because if a person can't debate a flat earther and win, it tells more about that person than it does about the flat earther. Because there is over whelming evidence against their flat earth belief.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #962

Post by Diogenes »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:32 pm [Replying to Diogenes in post #0]
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.
You obviously ....
You obviously did not want to include the most important sentence of my post:
Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing. :D

Your pseudo science claims and lengthy quotes and paraphrases of nonsense spouting pseudo-science blogs do not warrant even reading, let alone arguing with, anymore than does the nonsense from Flat-Earthers and evolution deniers. You have never offered any original thinking as you continue to repeat the nonsense of those opposed to science because it conflicts with religious fantasy. Why anyone bothers to refute your dark aged blather is beyond me. I for one will not contribute to the public airing of intellectual sewage by bothering to take yours seriously.

Anyone who actually wants to understand geology, cosmology, biology or any of the sciences has resort to peer reviewed scientific papers, either directly from the source, or from prestigious universities and encyclopedias like Stanford, Harvard, Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #963

Post by Clownboat »

otseng wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:50 pm Why odd if a hypothesis is a proposed explanation?
You don't seem to understand the difference between something that must be testable (hypothesis) and something that need not be (proposal). The difference is immense and you insist on using them interchangeably in the Science and Religion section no less.
Where did I ever mention about testability? I've only mentioned measurability and falsifiability.
Measurability and falsifiability... two avenues used to test. A hypothesis must be testable. A proposal need not.
Who's sowing confusion by attributing to me something I've not said?
You are by using hypothesis and proposal interchangeably.
Giving definitions from dictionaries is not pretending to talk about faith.
Correct, wouldn't it be odd if a person were to suggest such a thing? I would find such a proposal as odd as well?
Faith in Genesis is religious faith though.
Where have I claimed or tried to do such a thing?
You haven't and you know you can't, so of course you would not claim or try to do such a thing. That was my point by saying: "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?
Faith in Genesis is a religious concept. I don't subscribe to there being a secular faith. I see the religious foisting faith on to others in an attempt to level the playing field though.
You also use proposal and hypothesis interchangeably.
Here's synonyms of hypotheses:
You're still doing it. A hypothesis must be testable, a proposal need not be. You are at war with language when you use them interchangeably (in the science sub forum no less).
If you prefer another synonym, that's fine by me.

I would prefer you not ask if a scientific proposal must be testable when in fact you mean hypothesis.
Then why use the Bible to define faith?

This topic is about taking Genesis literally, something done via religious faith. There is the Genesis story, and billions of people accept it as being true because they have applied faith to a claim made in a book that they 'hope' is true. What if I believe in multiverses because I really 'hope' they are real. Would you find my reasoning debilitating?
Secular scientists are already proposing non-naturalistic explanations (multiverse and additional dimensions), which are faith-based (according to secular definitions of faith).
What's your point? Seems like you are trying to justify the debilitating effect of hoping that Genesis literally true.
Your argument seems to be, "look, their reasoning is also bad". Surely you see your own admittance in this?
As testified by you, these explanations are not scientific. Yet, here we are, secular scientists are proposing non-scientific explanations. Why is this?
I don't know and it is not the topic of debate. Something you are desperately trying to avoid discussing it seems.
How would you know what I really know? Isn't that a faith based statement?
I don't know what you know. Now, via faith, something we should all abhor, I could claim that I know what you know. First, I have to hope that I know what you know, then I apply faith and my hope is internally justified. Therefore, don't use faith.
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.
Neato. I find your position to be debilitating. Specifically for any faith based reasons for accepting something in the story you hope to be real.
If something is 90% certain that it is true, would it be abhorrent to believe it is true?
It would be unjustified to believe it to be true. It is only abhorrent when people apply faith, claim it is true and then feel justified to judge others because of a faith based belief that cannot be shown to be true. Faith is the abhorrent part. It is a literal mechanism to allow a human to believe that a falsehood is true. Want to believe that a falsehood is true, use faith or be duped. Neither are something to be proud of.
I don't think what you are attacking is "faith" per se, but religion.
Nope, faith is to blame. Without the un-earned confidence that faith supplies, parents wouldn't be threatening their children with eternal hell torment.
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.
I agree. Religious faith is not logical. Specifically the Genesis story, talking animals, conjuring up food, walking on water and dead bodies reanimating to walk the streets. Want to believe in such things? Apply faith. I find this debilitating, don't you?
If you are equating "religious faith" as blind faith, yes, I would agree.
Religious faith is blind. It is the confidence in a belief that a person hopes is real. This confidence is unjustified and is debilitating as it allows a human to believe any claim that they hope is real to be real.
A scientist proposing other universes does not have this hope. They aren't even offering hypotheses yet and proposals need not be tested nor should they be believed. Even if a person really, really, really hopes the scientist proposal is correct. This would allow faith to enter in and I find faith debilitating. Don't you?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

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 #964

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #962]
You obviously did not want to include the most important sentence of my post:
Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing.
Oh, but I did respond to this quote. I even quoted this quote when I stated the following.
  • Answering this nonsense is as fruitful as arguing with a Flat Earther... and sometimes amounts to the same thing.

    This is a debate site where ideas are brought up and challenged. I always find it odd when people say things like this. And they always say it when they are losing an argument. It must be their attempt to save face. Because if a person can't debate a flat earther and win, it tells more about that person than it does about the flat earther. Because there is over whelming evidence against their flat earth belief.
Or have no idea how to answer the argument put forward. Which I imagine is the case in this instant.
Anyone who actually wants to understand geology, cosmology, biology or any of the sciences has resort to peer reviewed scientific papers, either directly from the source, or from prestigious universities and encyclopedias like Stanford, Harvard, Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia.
Wikipedia!!! Oh wow. Thanks, you made me laugh out loud. And the funniest thing is that you even wrote it down. Just so you know I will help you out here.
Yea, this article is not from Harvard or MIT (MIT would be the one known for their science expertise) or Stanford. But just try using Wikipedia at any university and see what the professors say to you.
Your pseudo science claims and lengthy quotes and paraphrases of nonsense spouting pseudo-science blogs do not warrant even reading, let alone arguing with, anymore than does the nonsense from Flat-Earthers and evolution deniers.
Pseudo science claims from pseudo-science blogs ouch that hurts is that really true? Oh. Let me review.

mmm, what about the carbon planet with green men? Slabs in the mantle and cold slabs in the mantle.
Are you calling MIT a pseudo-science institution?
You have never offered any original thinking as you continue to repeat the nonsense of those opposed to science because it conflicts with religious fantasy.
I don't need to because MIT, BBC, Phys.org, Sci. News, and other scientific papers already support Catastrophic plate tectonics and most of Brown's theories.
Why anyone bothers to refute your dark-aged blather is beyond me. I for one will not contribute to the public airing of intellectual sewage by bothering to take yours seriously.
And this is from someone who believes that Wikipedia is a scholarly publication. Why don't you just say, "I don't know how to refute your argument?" From seeing what you have written before that would be more accurate.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #965

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:54 pmBecause if a person can't debate a flat earther and win, it tells more about that person than it does about the flat earther. Because there is over whelming evidence against their flat earth belief.
The question is whether the "win" condition is about convincing the debate opponent or convincing the audience.

Convincing even an average audience member that a flat-earther is wrong is easy for the exact reason you say, but convincing a flat-earther that they're wrong is generally far more difficult. For that reason, a lot of online debates with flat-earthers end up being metacontests between the flat-earther's opponents. Who can write the most elegant and understandable argument and still have the flat-earther fail to understand? Who can corner the flat-earther into tacitly acknowledging her failure, even if it's by an awkward change of subject? Who can engage with the flat-earther's scientific mistakes at the most detailed and intimate level, despite being beyond the ken of the flat-earther herself? In many of these situations, the flat-earther becomes a foil for her opponent, rather than honest competition. If the audience members, by and large, already know that the flat-earther's arguments and scientific analyses are valueless on their own, then the joy may lie in recognizing the skill with which the opponent engages with or rebuts the flat-earther's claims. Judging is in the manner of a freestyle competition, with points being awarded for even conflicting feats like defeating an argument in a way that the flat-earther doesn't notice or identifying a contradiction in such a way that even the flat-earther can't fail to notice.

I'm reminded of a few seemingly unrelated adages:
  • "If you're not the customer, then you're the product."
  • "If you've played a few hands of poker and still haven't figured out who the sucker is, it's you."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #966

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #965]
The question is whether the "win" condition is about convincing the debate opponent or convincing the audience.
I have won many times on this platform. And no one has admitted that they lost. It is not really about the win it is about the increase in knowledge that comes from the debate. It is about whether your chosen belief can withstand the challenge that comes upon it in a debate format. And the knowledge that is gained about your argument and the opposing argument.

I am much more knowledgeable now than I was when I started writing on this forum a few years ago. I have appreciated people like you and DrNoGods that have challenged my arguments and frustrated me at times. It forced me to learn more. I enjoy arguing against a sharp mind.

That is why I do not understand these people who say things like, "Why anyone bothers to refute your dark aged blather is beyond me. I for one will not contribute to the public airing of intellectual sewage by bothering to take yours seriously." Tell me why you think it is "dark aged blather" support your position. If you do not want to support your position why say things like that? If you do not want to support your position why are you on a debate site, start a blog.

I will get off my soap box now.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #967

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:33 pmThat is why I do not understand these people who say things like, "Why anyone bothers to refute your dark aged blather is beyond me. I for one will not contribute to the public airing of intellectual sewage by bothering to take yours seriously." Tell me why you think it is "dark aged blather" support your position.
At the risk that you want an honest answer, it's because the vast majority of your arguments are based on either bluffing about your scientific understanding or a genuine, bafflingly obtuse misunderstanding of it. You quote incredibly low-level scientific concepts and invariably misrepresent them. Whether that's intentional or not, those misrepresentations are tedious for your opponents to correct. You're also insulting in your responses. The combination is that it is often in the same breath that you are so obviously mistaken that you belittle those most able to explain to you why that is. It's toxic. You shouldn't be surprised that when one engages with you, the reasoning behind the responses might also be toxic.

To allegorize, consider that you're playing poker. Your opponent has four aces and you have ten high. You absolutely insist that you have won the round. You insist that your opponent not only show her hand, but prove that four aces does, in fact, beat a ten high. This goes on for hours. Strictly as a game of poker, it's not fun. A lot of people walk away, often just leaving the pot on the table because it's hardly worth taking at that point. Some stay because there are other stimulating challenges, like getting you to admit that you don't understand one of the rules (but of course you understand all of the others). In that environment, it's possible that you eventually learn a few of the rules and get better at the game, but the cost is very high for the other players. Many just find a different table where everybody already knows the rules.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #968

Post by brunumb »

Please note that in the following quote GOD-DID-IT was not originally present but I have added it in as a possible answer to the problem posed.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:32 pm You obviously do not understand the insurmountable problems with planet formation, plate tectonics, and comets. And if I were you or anyone else I would not want to try to explain them either.

1. Tectonic plates that are still ridged in the mantle and thousands of degrees cooler than the surroundings. That is how they are detected the temperature difference. Do you believe that they could be in the mantle for hundreds of millions of years and still be thousands of degrees difference in temperature? So do you also believe that the laws of thermodynamics do not exist in the mantle?
GOD-DID-IT

2. The carbon problem. Do you believe in a little green carbon planet that gave Earth its carbon? Was it complete with little green men also?
GOD-DID-IT

3. Do you have a mechanism for the death of 99% of life on earth? Oh wait, I heard a tale tell once of Carbon dioxide suddenly coming out of the ground one day and killing everything on earth. That is right just one-day carbon dioxide was created in the ground and started to come out. Or at least that is what the Barbarian said the mechanism was. Who cares about geophysics there is no need for that. Forget about energy transfer no need for that either.
GOD-DID-IT

4. And then maybe it was carbon dioxide that covered the dead plant and animal life that caused them to become fossilized. Forget about chemistry and mineralization.
GOD-DID-IT

5. Then there are all of the problems with planetary formation, to begin with like the migration problem.
  • 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.
GOD-DID-IT
  • Your theme by making the statement above seems to be "Who cares about stinking physics." The migration problem is a major major problem. The equation Radius = Mass(central) x Velocity2/F(centripetal) . So as the mass of the protoplanet increases the Centripital force increases which means that the Radius decreases.
GOD-DID-IT

You seem to live in a world where inanimate objects can perform miracles to break the laws of physics. You are welcome to live in that world if you wish. I prefer to live in a world that has objective truth. In a world where inanimate objects do not perform miracles. But suit yourself.
How clever to allow foranimate objects like human-god hybrids to break the laws of physics and perform miracles. But I guess that is necessary when miracles have to be accepted as objective truth with no supporting evidence.
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: 20499
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 #969

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:57 am 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.
The blood and image has been analyzed by scientists. Photos have also been taken of the shroud. If you're saying 1st century scientists have not analyzed the shroud and 1st century photographers have not taken a picture of Jesus, then no, that did not happen.
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.
I probably will someday. But the point is this is the ultimate test of truth, to subject it to review under the professionals. I'm willing to do it. If skeptics are not willing to do it, then it shows the skeptics position is weak.
And I'll be the first in line to say you do so even handed and honest.
:approve:
I'm saying there's folks in that thread who are knocking your position around like a fraternity knocks back alcohol.
And they also have a hangover afterwards.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #970

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:43 am [re: publishing a paper for peer review by experts]
I probably will someday. But the point is this is the ultimate test of truth, to subject it to review under the professionals. I'm willing to do it. If skeptics are not willing to do it, then it shows the skeptics position is weak.

This statement (that those who don't publish have "weak positions") is grossly illogical. And that is in addition to the fact you have NOT published your 'paper' (if it even exists) for peer review by appropriate experts.

Many of us are skeptical of many claims, such as the Earth being flat, or the Earth being only 6000 years old, or that evolution is not a fact, or that some men are gods. That we don't publish papers for peer review of these absurd claims definitely does NOT show the skeptic's position is 'weak.' Among other problems with this horrible excuse for argument, is the fact that reputable scientific journals would not even entertain publishing 'papers' that merely give additional support for known facts.
Last edited by Diogenes on Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

Post Reply