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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #939]

Volume 351, Issue 7, October–November 2019, Pages 461-476
Internal Geophysics (Vulcanology)
Developments in the stratigraphy of the Deccan Volcanic Province, peninsular India
The Deccan Volcanic Province has been considered as one of the largest magmatic regions, involving an aerial coverage of ca. 500,000 km2. It is subdivided into four sub-provinces, and holds a unique position in global tectonic models for understanding earth's geodynamics and the impact of voluminous eruptions on the contemporary biosystem and climate system. Published stratigraphic data suggest that volcanic eruption took place from 69 to 64 million years (Ma) ago when the Indian plate passed over the Réunion hotspot. The main phase of volcanic activity consisting of about 80% of total basaltic lava, erupted rapidly, during a short span (<1 Ma) or even less (two or three hundred thousand years), close to chron 29R, straddling to the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary. Recent high-precision age data show that the main volcanic phase is genetically linked to the Chicxulub impact and plume-head of the hotspot, and largely contributed to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. [/url]

This is saying nothing about the mechanism that caused it. How are you saying that the impact caused this melt? Because the paper that you or I cited earlier said that the model movement on the other side of the earth was around 4 m and 220 bar. So the dissipation of the force of impact is greatly decreased. We have seen movements of greater than 4 m today and have not seen this much magma produced. To say something happen is one thing to actually prove the mechanism of how it happened is something totally different.

This is actually what we would expect to happen with the flood model proposed by Walt Brown and Answers in Genesis. Catastrophic plate tectonics would cause huge melts like this and the supercritical water would through rocks and water into space and the upper atmosphere that would eventually find their way back to Earth. This was all predicted by Walt Brown 40 years ago.

Because it's less viscous than rhyolitic magma. Gas escapes more readily.
Cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.
nature nature geoscience 09 May 2022
VOLCANOLOGY
Flood basalt buildup warms climate
Flood basalts are connected to Earth’s most extreme environmental crises, yet warming is sometimes observed before surface eruptions. Modelling reveals that a complex buildup of basalt intrusions into the crust releases enough CO2 to cause this pre-eruptive warming.

Do you even read the stuff you cite your do you just look for headlines? This says before the eruption. Your other article said the eruption was already going on. Which is it? Again what is the mechanism for your complex buildup of basalt intrusions? What is causing the complex build-up? Again surface waves and S-waves do not travel through liquid. So this has to be talking about some sort of P-wave or pressure wave (that is what the P stands for). So where and how is this P-wave generating the heat and pressure to melt and push out 1000 or more cubic kilometers of melt? To say that a P-wave can do this is different than describing how it can do this. So how can a P-wave do this?

Walt Brown predicted this exact situation 40 years ago. His theory also predicted the water that we find under major mountain chains 40 years ago. You see modern plate tectonics has had to change to new discoveries, Walt Brown's theory predicted those discoveries. Catastrophic plate tectonics predicts brittle plates in the mantle that have only increased in over all temperature of about 80 degrees. Flood theory also predicts this major extinction. When modern plate tectonics struggles to do this.

And if you are are saying that CO2 was produced by this plume of magma how was such a large plume made? It could not have been made by any meteor because we would still be waiting on it to rise to the surface for another 2 to 4 hundred years or so.

Walt Brown's theory predicted multiple large plumes of magma from subduction. Remember a Volcanic plume from the core is nothing more than an ad hoc theory to explain volcanism that should not be.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases
You have yet to cite this "fact".

Depending on the viscosity of the magma, the bubbles may start to rise through the magma and coalesce, or they remain relatively fixed in place until they begin to connect and form a continuously connected network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas

The question has always been the amount. 4000000 cubic km of melt come from. Again how and where would the meteor be applying the energy to produce that?

You have it backwards again. Basaltic lava releases gases more readily than rhyolitic lava.
See above. It's not what they told you it is.

Explosive eruptions generally involve magma that is more viscous and has a higher gas content.
https://www.britannica.com/science/volc ... -eruptions

I have always been asking about more not when.

Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

You have not given a mechanism. I have given a mechanism not you.

[The Barbarian]

Volume 351, Issue 7, October–November 2019, Pages 461-476
Internal Geophysics (Vulcanology)
Developments in the stratigraphy of the Deccan Volcanic Province, peninsular India
The Deccan Volcanic Province has been considered as one of the largest magmatic regions, involving an aerial coverage of ca. 500,000 km2. It is subdivided into four sub-provinces, and holds a unique position in global tectonic models for understanding earth's geodynamics and the impact of voluminous eruptions on the contemporary biosystem and climate system. Published stratigraphic data suggest that volcanic eruption took place from 69 to 64 million years (Ma) ago when the Indian plate passed over the Réunion hotspot. The main phase of volcanic activity consisting of about 80% of total basaltic lava, erupted rapidly, during a short span (<1 Ma) or even less (two or three hundred thousand years), close to chron 29R, straddling to the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary. Recent high-precision age data show that the main volcanic phase is genetically linked to the Chicxulub impact and plume-head of the hotspot, and largely contributed to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

This is saying nothing about the mechanism that caused it.

Here's another:
Chicxulub and the deccan eruptions: Just a coincidence?
Date: May 4, 2015
Source:
Geological Society of America
Summary:
Scientists have addressed the 'uncomfortably close' occurrence of the Chicxulub impact in the Yucatan and the most voluminous phase of the Deccan Traps flood basalt eruptions in India. Specifically, the researchers argue that the impact likely triggered most of the immense eruptions of lava in India -- that indeed, this was not a coincidence, but a cause-and-effect relationship.

This is actually what we would expect to happen with the flood model proposed by Walt Brown and Answers in Genesis.

No. These events cannot be accounted for by Brown's new hypotheses, nor does he try to do so.

Catastrophic plate tectonics would cause huge melts like this and the supercritical water would through rocks and water into space and the upper atmosphere that would eventually find their way back to Earth. This was all predicted by Walt Brown 40 years ago.

Problem is there's still no evidence for it. And Brown "predicted" Deccan Traps, which were known long before he came up with his prediction.

Because it's less viscous than rhyolitic magma. Gas escapes more readily.

Cite this from anywhere and you might learn something.

nature nature geoscience 09 May 2022
VOLCANOLOGY
Flood basalt buildup warms climate
Flood basalts are connected to Earth’s most extreme environmental crises, yet warming is sometimes observed before surface eruptions. Modelling reveals that a complex buildup of basalt intrusions into the crust releases enough CO2 to cause this pre-eruptive warming.

Do you even read the stuff you cite your do you just look for headlines?

Apparently, you don't. Notice that the less viscous magma releases gases even before eruptions.

Again surface waves and S-waves do not travel through liquid.

As you learned, less-viscous magma releases gases without the need for S waves or surface waves. Perhaps you don't know the difference between S waves and P waves. Do you understand why they aren't required for offgassing?

In spite of what you were told, less-viscous magma will release gases more readily than rhyolitic magma.

No surprise that the Siberian traps are mainly basaltic, and as you know, that sort of lava more quickly releases gases

You have yet to cite this "fact".

It's not news to geologists that this happens:

Depending on the viscosity of the magma, the bubbles may start to rise through the magma and coalesce, or they remain relatively fixed in place until they begin to connect and form a continuously connected network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas

The question has always been the amount.

No, your questions was whether or not basaltic lava releases gases more readily. As I showed you, they do.

You have it backwards again. Basaltic lava releases gases more readily than rhyolitic lava.
See above. It's not what they told you it is.

Explosive eruptions generally involve magma that is more viscous and has a higher gas content.
https://www.britannica.com/science/volc ... -eruptions

Just pointing out that the model of geologists has a mechanism and creationists don't.

You have not given a mechanism.

Geologists gave us a mechanism.

You have given a belief.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #941]

This is actually what we would expect to happen with the flood model proposed by Walt Brown and Answers in Genesis. Catastrophic plate tectonics would cause huge melts like this and the supercritical water would through rocks and water into space and the upper atmosphere that would eventually find their way back to Earth. This was all predicted by Walt Brown 40 years ago.

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.

He's done the usual YEC approach of assuming the end result (ie. a biblical story) and then working backwards to try and come up with a scientific explanation to fit it. And, as usual, such efforts are too full of holes to be consistent and with too many unjustified assumptions. Even some fellow YECs don't believe his "theory" has any validity.

https://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

and of course even superficial scientific analysis of his hydroplate theory shows it has no credibility:

http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hydroplate_theory

https://joycearthur.com/evolutioncreati ... te-theory/

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).

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I'm not saying faith is a mechanism to arrive at a truth claim. All I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with someone having a belief that involves faith.

Plenty fair.

Sure, they cannot logically prove their belief is absolute truth.

Such is a problem for that bunch that claims something as truth, only they can't show it is.

Perhaps only in religion does what constitutes truth have to be so fussed about.

But if they have logical reasoning and evidence, then their belief is justified, even if they do not have concrete proof.

But as we see so often when examining supernatural claims, there's one bunch that ain't got em the first bit of logic, reasoning, but have heaping helpings of faith

[otseng]

Perhaps only in religion does what constitutes truth have to be so fussed about.

It's not only in religion. We see it everywhere, whether in politics, news, education, medicine, health, et al.

[The Barbarian]

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).

Um... really? I thought the guy had some kind of expertise in geology.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #946]

Um... really? I thought the guy had some kind of expertise in geology.

According to Wikipedia and other sources, he has a B.S. from West Point and a Ph.D in mechanical engineering from MIT, and spent 21 years in the military retiring in 1980 as a full colonet in the U.S. Air Force. Since then he and his wife constitute the "Center for Scientific Creation." If he has any expertise in geology it was apparently picked up on his own, and he's certainly capable of learning as indicated by his Ph.D.

But all of that doesn't support his hydroplate description ... especially the initial conditions required and the formation of comets and asteroids. He, like Russell Humphreys, try to come up with scientific descriptions that fit the biblical narratives which are taken to be literally true (they are both YECs), and they work backwards from those stories to produce their descriptions. Humphreys' planetary magnetic field "theory" is a similar effort ... all the planets started as balls of H2O, god the aligned the nuclear spins of all the H atoms to create the initial magnetic field, then the fields decay exponentially over time with a decay constant chosen to match observations in a few cases. But like Brown's hydroplate idea ... the initial conditions are simply declared to be so.

[Clownboat]

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."

Here some definitions of hypothesis:
<snipped>

You have been asking about testability. A hypothesis must be testable, a proposal need not. You sow confusion by using them interchangeably and now double down it seems.

Strange you'd offer scripture when I asked you for a definition for a term.

It's not strange to me. I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing missionary. I grew up in faith and abandoned it after I was set free from my religious beliefs. This is the faith I know and more importantly the faith that is required in order to take Genesis literally.

I think the difference here is you've narrowed your view of faith purely from a religious point of view.

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.

I'm viewing the term faith from a secular point of view.

Good luck using secular faith to arrive at Genesis being a real event. You also use proposal and hypothesis interchangeably.

And mine are from dictionaries. Kinda ironic to me that I use dictionaries to define it and you use the Bible.

It is not ironic as we are discussing taking Genesis literally. Religious faith is used to justify religious beliefs, not some secular faith.

As far as I'm aware, it is only biblical teaching that instruct a person to not be luke warm.

Why do you keep bringing up the Bible in our discussions? Do you accept it as authoritative?

The Bible is not authoritative. Please see the topic of this thread that we are engaged in discussing. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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). 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.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #946]

Um... really? I thought the guy had some kind of expertise in geology.

According to Wikipedia and other sources, he has a B.S. from West Point and a Ph.D in mechanical engineering from MIT, and spent 21 years in the military retiring in 1980 as a full colonet in the U.S. Air Force. Since then he and his wife constitute the "Center for Scientific Creation." If he has any expertise in geology it was apparently picked up on his own, and he's certainly capable of learning as indicated by his Ph.D.

Fact is, I've never taken any courses in Earth science. I'm a biologist. But the revolution in understanding geophysics in the 1960s led me to start reading as much as I could about it. Spent a lot of library time on that. In fact, it was pretty useful to know some of that in my zoology work. "How the Earth Works" was a huge help, but mostly lots of time in the stacks, reading.

But all of that doesn't support his hydroplate description ... especially the initial conditions required and the formation of comets and asteroids. He, like Russell Humphreys, try to come up with scientific descriptions that fit the biblical narratives which are taken to be literally true (they are both YECs), and they work backwards from those stories to produce their descriptions. Humphreys' planetary magnetic field "theory" is a similar effort ... all the planets started as balls of H2O, god the aligned the nuclear spins of all the H atoms to create the initial magnetic field, then the fields decay exponentially over time with a decay constant chosen to match observations in a few cases. But like Brown's hydroplate idea ... the initial conditions are simply declared to be so.

Which is O.K. as a religious belief, but not very good science.

[JoeyKnothead]

Perhaps only in religion does what constitutes truth have to be so fussed about.

It's not only in religion. We see it everywhere, whether in politics, news, education, medicine, health, et al.

"Wellthatbunchthere'sa-doingit."

That doesn't absolve the religious folks who promote Truth(tm) but then hafta fuss so much about the definition of it.