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.

[brunumb]

I think this is just your religions leaders talking as this claim doesn't make sense...
because you are mistaken about what science is. Science is a method.
1) Ask a question.

Let's test this then. The question is whether forces and laws and nature on earth was the same long long ago.

2) Perform research.

Please cite the research done on the question. Specifically.

3) Establish your hypothesis.

Once we see you do the first steps we can progress to further steps

4) Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
5) Make an observation.
6) Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
7) Present the findings.

Obviously you cannot test the far past nature etc etc etc so these are not applicable whatsoever here.
That means that, clearly, by your own definition, you do NOT use the scientific method for origin issues. Thanks for that.

Compare the two.
Religion: And God said...

He also gave us a universe that shouts out His amazing power and glory. He also gave us hundreds of fulfilled prophesies that certify the authenticity of His words. He also affected the hearts and lives of billions of walking test tubes. Etc. I think John in the bible referred to it as 'innumerable proofs'.

Science: Here is the theory that we have come up with that seems to best explain gravity.

So how do you test gravity on earth in the age of dinosaurs? How do you test gravity on the fringe of the observable universe? If all you are talking about is gravity on earth and area in this present time, well, whoopee doo. That has no application to origin issues!
Busted ye be.

If you accept the fine-tuning of the universe then it should be apparent that changing the fundamental forces of nature such as gravity and the nuclear force that governs radioactivity would require the destruction of that fine-tuning and consequently this universe. So we have every reason to conclude that gravity, electromagnetic forces, radioactive decay rates etc. were pretty much fixed when the universe was formed.

[dad1]

Which is irrelevant. The sodium atoms (to use your Google search result that you pasted in but don't appear to understand) are not "here" ... they are at the distant star.

You do realize the telescopes are here? So all atoms are seen here. You would need to explain why sodium atoms must have originated at the star as is? Remember you can't just make claims here. You need to pony up.

If the spectrum (ie. the pattern of light intensity vs. wavelength) is the same (apart from a red shift) after the photons have travelled millions of light years from the distant star as we can measure here in the lab from sodium atoms in that lab

,

That is a faulty premise. Nothing travels millions of years. The reason you think they do is because of time here and how light moves in space and time here. You only see it here after light arrives. Not there. It is the basis of your inferences that are in question here.

then the sodium atoms at the star have the same atomic structure with the electrons jumping between the same energy levels.

Since you ONLY see it here, why talk about what it is like where the star is? The energy changes may happen here for all we know.

The sodium atoms are the same "there" as they are "here."

You have NO observer there. Period. You have inferences based on what happens here.

If that were not the case, then the spectrum we measure here would be different from the sodium atoms at the distant star, but it isn't.

How many times did anything 'jump' there? On the way here? Once it got here? Etc. You are using beliefs.

If you really think that photons emitted or absorbed from atoms at a distant star

Baby steps. Not that I doubt it but what proof have you that anything was emitted/absorbed at the star?

can travel across space in some random pattern, then magically produce the exact sodium spectrum when we measure them here but not be sodium atoms at the distant star

How would we know how things behave where no time exists at all as we know time or space? You only see it here. If your whole point is that there must be sodium out ther...you must be kidding! So what?

[dad1]

If you accept the fine-tuning of the universe then it should be apparent that changing the fundamental forces of nature such as gravity and the nuclear force that governs radioactivity would require the destruction of that fine-tuning and consequently this universe.

The issue was time. Does time exist out there the same as here? If not, then no sizes or distances are known to any star! Good luck telling us precisely what gravity is like when you do not know how big or far away anything is! As for the nuclear force, do you know what that is and what causes it exactly? Ha. Remember also that all things are seen only here. Can you first of all prove that the nuclear force exists on the edge of the universe? We can proceed from there.

[brunumb]

If you accept the fine-tuning of the universe then it should be apparent that changing the fundamental forces of nature such as gravity and the nuclear force that governs radioactivity would require the destruction of that fine-tuning and consequently this universe.

The issue was time. Does time exist out there the same as here? If not, then no sizes or distances are known to any star! Good luck telling us precisely what gravity is like when you do not know how big or far away anything is! As for the nuclear force, do you know what that is and what causes it exactly? Ha. Remember also that all things are seen only here. Can you first of all prove that the nuclear force exists on the edge of the universe? We can proceed from there.

We don't need to consider out there when it comes to things like radioactive decay occurring right here. If the universal constants are fine-tuned, then radioactive decay rates cannot have changed and there is no basis for challenging our dating of periods here on Earth. Young Earth is dead in the water.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #112]

You do realize the telescopes are here? So all atoms are seen here. You would need to explain why sodium atoms must have originated at the star as is? Remember you can't just make claims here. You need to pony up.

The telescopes are here, but the emitting sodium atoms are near the star as shown by the red shifted spectrum. That is how we know the sodium atoms are at the star and not here (or near) to Earth. It is very simple.

Since you ONLY see it here, why talk about what it is like where the star is? The energy changes may happen here for all we know.

The light from the sodium atoms originates where the sodium atoms are, not somewhere between their location and Earth. The energy changes (of the electrons changing energy levels in the sodium atom, which creates the photons) don't happen anywhere between the emitters and our telescopes.

You have NO observer there. Period. You have inferences based on what happens here.

The emitted photons are our "observer." If you understood the first thing about how the photons are generated (and spectroscopy) you'd know this. But you clearly do not.

How many times did anything 'jump' there? On the way here? Once it got here? Etc. You are using beliefs.

See above ... the photons we're detecting were emitted by the sodium atoms at the star. The whole point is that they don't randomly change wavelength between the star and Earth apart from the red shifting, which is understood very well (by anyone who knows the first thing about spectroscopy and what red shift is caused by).

Baby steps. Not that I doubt it but what proof have you that anything was emitted/absorbed at the star?

The photons that create a spectrum here when wavelength resolved. That is the proof. You just don't understand how it all works.

How would we know how things behave where no time exists at all as we know time or space?

You have shown nothing at all to support your idea that time behaves differently anywhere else in the universe, or that photons behave differently, etc. It is an utterly empty and baseless claim that is unfortunately (for you) the crux of all of your rebuttals, and why they fall flat. As you said above ... pony up.

[dad1]

The telescopes are here, but the emitting sodium atoms are near the star as shown by the red shifted spectrum. That is how we know the sodium atoms are at the star and not here (or near) to Earth. It is very simple.

That does sound simple. So you see the light HERE. Then you see that the light was red shifted. So you deduce that that shifting happened at the star. Why exactly?

The light from the sodium atoms originates where the sodium atoms are,

The light is seen here. Of course all light here that comes from far away has the signature of various elements in it. But those atoms are here when you see them. A lot can happen to light if it went from a space far away that has no time as we know it! Merely seeing light once it gets here does not tell us what time is like there in any way shape or form.

The energy changes (of the electrons changing energy levels in the sodium atom, which creates the photons) don't happen anywhere between the emitters and our telescopes.

You know this how? You have never been further than a telescope! How would you know what a different space and a different time would or would not do?

The emitted photons are our "observer."

Those photons are here. That is where they are observers.

If you understood the first thing about how the photons are generated (and spectroscopy) you'd know this.

If you comprehended enough to know you do not know anything about what time is like out there you would realize you do not know what effects it may have on things.

See above ... the photons we're detecting were emitted by the sodium atoms at the star.

I can agree that sodium and other things were out there where the star is. What we don't know is how light is affected, including the traces of the elements it contains in a space and time that is different and totally unknown.

The whole point is that they don't randomly change wavelength between the star and Earth apart from the red shifting

You are in no position to say what a different space and time are like and how they affect light. Nor can you even claim any red shifting may not be due to the different time and space.

The photons that create a spectrum here when wavelength resolved. That is the proof.

Here is the key word. the spectrum as you say created is here. The interpretation of that spectrum is based on realities here. Not there.


You just thought you understood how it all works.


You have shown nothing at all to support your idea that time behaves differently anywhere else in the universe[/quote]

You have shown nothing at all to support your idea that time behaves or exists the same anywhere else in the universe.

[dad1]

We don't need to consider out there when it comes to things like radioactive decay occurring right here.

Great then make no claims about out there including origins or distances.

If the universal constants are fine-tuned,

What universe constants? You live in the fishbowl and have been nowhere else.

then radioactive decay rates cannot have changed

I am not sure if you are talking about on earth or the far universe. However, if the forces and nature on earth were different in the distant past then we would not be looking at a change in rates! We would be asking if there was any radioactive decay at all. How would we know what processes would result if different forces and laws were acting upon them?? You see ho our present forces and nature act on isotopes, and result in decay, and assume that must also be how it always was.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #116]

That does sound simple. So you see the light HERE. Then you see that the light was red shifted. So you deduce that that shifting happened at the star. Why exactly?

It didn't happen at the star ... that is were the initial emission originated. Red shift is a cummulative effect due to the light travelling from the star to Earth over great distances, and has 3 basic causes. Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

The light is seen here. Of course all light here that comes from far away has the signature of various elements in it. But those atoms are here when you see them.

We don't see the atoms here (!) ... we see the light that was emitted from the atoms that are near the distant star. The atoms are still at the star (or were millions or billions of years ago when they emitted the light that took that long to get here), but the photons made it to Earth and happen to have the same spectral signature (intensity vs. wavelength) as the same atoms on Earth apart from the red shift. This is why we know the sodium atoms (or whatever atom or molecule is producing the spectrum) have the same atomic structure, energy levels, etc. in both places.

You know this how? You have never been further than a telescope! How would you know what a different space and a different time would or would not do?

There's no reason whatsoever to believe that space and time are different in other parts of the universe. I know that's the entire basis of every rebuttal you've made, but you have no basis for asserting that this is the case and can't offer any support for that claim. It "could" be different doesn't cut it against all of the observations that suggest that isn't the case.

Those photons are here. That is where they are observers.

But they originated at the distant star. You're missing the entire point.

I can agree that sodium and other things were out there where the star is. What we don't know is how light is affected, including the traces of the elements it contains in a space and time that is different and totally unknown.

Wrong ... we can see that the spectrum (pattern of intensity vs. wavelength) for a given atom or molecule is the same as it is at the distant star, apart from a red shift. You aren't understanding the major implication of that fact.

[brunumb]

We don't need to consider out there when it comes to things like radioactive decay occurring right here.

Great then make no claims about out there including origins or distances.

If the universal constants are fine-tuned,

What universe constants? You live in the fishbowl and have been nowhere else.

then radioactive decay rates cannot have changed

I am not sure if you are talking about on earth or the far universe. However, if the forces and nature on earth were different in the distant past then we would not be looking at a change in rates! We would be asking if there was any radioactive decay at all. How would we know what processes would result if different forces and laws were acting upon them?? You see ho our present forces and nature act on isotopes, and result in decay, and assume that must also be how it always was.

Before you engage in sweeping dismissals please enlighten yourself on fine-tuning, universal constants and the fundamental forces of nature. You have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand them well enough, if at all, in order to argue about how things might have been different in the past. If there is any basis for your claims then you should be able to support them with appropriate mechanisms and processes that could have led to changes between the past and now.

[dad1]

It didn't happen at the star ... that is were the initial emission originated. Red shift is a cummulative effect due to the light travelling from the star to Earth over great distances, and has 3 basic causes.

Great, so you are hooped then. If what you see is supposedly caused in transit, and time is different on the way, voila! That does not even address the issue of whether time exists the same out there or not.

As for red shift, the issue is not what shifts light in the fishbowl! It seems obvious if time and space were different that could affect the light and cause a shift!

We don't see the atoms here (!) ... we see the light that was emitted from the atoms that are near the distant star.

And WHERE do you see it? HERE!

The atoms are still at the star (or were millions or billions of years ago when they emitted the light that took that long to get here), but the photons made it to Earth and happen to have the same spectral signature (intensity vs. wavelength) as the same atoms on Earth apart from the red shift.

The atoms we see here are still billions of light years away? Explain? If they are seen here guess where that means they are...here!

This is why we know the sodium atoms (or whatever atom or molecule is producing the spectrum) have the same atomic structure, energy levels, etc. in both places.

Soon as you explain how the light streaming in here is billions of light years away.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe that space and time are different in other parts of the universe.

Can you see what you are typing? Who cares about some 'reason to believe'? The only thing that matters in a science claim is what is known, not believed.

But they originated at the distant star. You're missing the entire point.

Yes, and now the light is here, in our time and space when we see it. You can't just look here at what would shift light or what would cause an energy change etc and then try to apply that to the far universe as well.

Wrong ... we can see that the spectrum (pattern of intensity vs. wavelength)

You do realize wavelength frequency involves time? Waves of any kind involve time. So what would intensity vs wavelength tell us about time itself in the far universe? You only see waves in our time.

for a given atom or molecule is the same as it is at the distant star, apart from a red shift.

The redshift can be caused by something other than what you think. The temperatures we think that the wave with greater frequencies have also might be inapplicable to distant space if time is different. What is frequent here in our time, might be for example far more frequent in a different space and time. So temperatures are wrong, why the light was shifted is wrong, how long it took to get here is wrong, the size of the star and distance is wrong etc etc.