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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
...
We already know that your secular theories do not work.

If a theory or hypothesis doesn't work, "goddidit" is not a reliable answer.

The other problem is that you do not have any workable theory for the mass extinctions.

Same here.

There's a reason they call it "religion", and not science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #980]

All new theories come out of beliefs that scientists have that is why it is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis could really be called a testable belief.

I'd say a testable proposition instead, but that also applies to Brown's giant underground chambers, and Humphreys' balls of H2O for planets. Einstein's hypotheses have been confirmed and stood the test of time and scrunity and most adults on Earth probably know his name. Brown and Humphreys not so much.

Really, Einstein's belief that time and space could slow down and the contract was not a belief.

Not sure how to unpack that ... Einstein's belief wasn't a belief? His development of GR, and his other accomplishments (explanation of photoelectric effect, e=mc^2, etc.) have all been confirmed by experiment and observation. It was only after the eclipse observations that his GR ideas were accepted ... because they had been confirmed by observation and measurement.

Whether they picked them out of thin air or not is really not the issue. The issue is whether can they be tested and can they correct predictions of reality.

If the assumptions can be shown to be wrong (eg. Humphreys' balls of H2O) then the foundation collapses and whatever follows is coincidence, luck, etc.

This is the issue with string theory. String theory makes the assumption that all matter and energy are made from vibrating strings. But it is not a testable hypothesis. Where did the idea of vibrating strings come from? It was a belief that someone had. I forget who it was right now. Although string theory does make the prediction of supersymmetry as of today supersymmetry has not been found.

The phrase "vibrating strings" is just another description meant to provide a buzz word for the public because the mathematics is very difficult . A "string" is a one-dimensional mathematical entity with different vibrational modes, and is more like an energy element with a range of influence comparable to the Planck scale (10^-33 cm). It is easier to say vibrating string.

Inflation theory is nothing more than a belief in materialism that someone made up as an ad hoc theory to save the belief in the big bang theory of materialism. Materialism just has not panned out as a viable theory. This is because inflation theory and the big bang theory existence are linked if one dies the other also dies. They cannot be separated.

And inflation has not been shown to be correct. It is implied (or something like it) but is just a hypothesis. Materialism has done a very good job so far of explaining nature ... far better than old religious texts.

Where did you get this idea from? That the CMB gave off the hydrogen spectrum. I have always understood the CMB to be black body radiation. And that at like 2900 degrees and some change Hydrogen becomes transparent enough to let electromagnetic energy through it.

Once the universe had cooled enough for atoms to form ... those atoms were hydrogen. A universe full of 3000 K H-atoms would look like a black body radiator at 3000 K temperature, and the Planck curve peak for a 3000 K blackbody is about 0.9 um wavelength. This radiation filled the universe. This same radiation is now at about 1 mm wavelength (Planck peak near 2.7 K) due to 13.7 billion years of redshifting. I didn't make this up ... it is the standard mechanism for CMB.

Humphery did solve this problem with his theory.

Riiiight ... it was all over the scientific literature.

We already know that your secular theories do not work.

What is a "secular" theory? As far as I know scientific results are independent of religious beliefs of any kind. Lots of religious people have contributed to science (Newton, Maxwell, Planck and many others).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Really, Einstein's belief that time and space could slow down and the contract was not a belief.

I am not quite sure how to unpack this statement either. I think I have all the words there. It was supposed to say something like "Really, Einstein's belief that time could slow down and space could contract was not a belief." Heavy on the sarcasm. But it lost all effect now.

If the assumptions can be shown to be wrong (eg. Humphreys' balls of H2O) then the foundation collapses and whatever follows is coincidence, luck, etc.

You or no one else has proved Humphrey's big H2O ball wrong. Especially, with the observed fact that the universe has a lithium problem to little of it. In fact, the percentages of Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen in the universe would indicate that Humphrey's big ball of H2O would be more plausible than the current Big Bang model of element formation.

The phrase "vibrating strings" is just another description meant to provide a buzz word for the public because the mathematics is very difficult . A "string" is a one-dimensional mathematical entity with different vibrational modes, and is more like an energy element with a range of influence comparable to the Planck scale (10^-33 cm). It is easier to say vibrating string.

The math is difficult because to produce the universe we know and love these strings have to vibrate in anywhere from 11 to 22 depending on which mathematical solution you choose.

Once the universe had cooled enough for atoms to form ... those atoms were hydrogen. A universe full of 3000 K H-atoms would look like a black body radiator at 3000 K temperature, and the Planck curve peak for a 3000 K blackbody is about 0.9 um wavelength. This radiation filled the universe. This same radiation is now at about 1 mm wavelength (Planck peak near 2.7 K) due to 13.7 billion years of redshifting. I didn't make this up ... it is the standard mechanism for CMB.

• blackbody radiation is energy radiated by any object or system that absorbs all incident radiation.

But the problem is how smooth the CMB is. There should be more temperature variation in it according to theory.

Riiiight ... it was all over the scientific literature

Just wait. Someone will wait until Humphrey is dead and then claim they proved his theory correct. At least the structure of the universe part.

I think his big ball of H2O is safe. Because it does not help solve the matter problem the secular theories have.

What is a "secular" theory? As far as I know scientific results are independent of religious beliefs of any kind. Lots of religious people have contributed to science (Newton, Maxwell, Planck and many others).

A secular theory is a theory that is still believed even though it cannot be proved or even has been falsified by observable theories. An example would be most of the theories proposed in cosmology today. Evolution is another one.

[The Barbarian]

The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water.

Polystrate tree fossils show this is a false assumption. They are formed by gradual silting of trees over many, many years. Such a formation is now forming near my house, as a forest flooded by a dam is now gradually burying them year after year.

They have to involve water otherwise no fossils would form.

The newly-identified lizard species, named Retinosaurus hkamtiensis, was trapped in an araucarian tree resin about 110 million years ago (Albian age of the Cretaceous period).

“You’re looking into the face of an animal that lived when the dinosaurs were roaming around,” said Villanova University’s Professor Aaron Bauer.

The piece of amber with a well-preserved juvenile Retinosaurus hkamtiensis was recovered from the Hkamti District at Patabum, in close proximity of the Jade mines in the northern Myanmar Central Basin.

The specimen was analyzed through a CT scan, which allowed the paleontologists to create 3D renderings of the lizard.
https://www.sci.news/paleontology/retin ... 10535.html

And "90%" is a nice round number. Data supporting that?

A geologist has discovered a pair of fossil footprints that researchers say are the oldest of their kind in the Grand Canyon, dating back 313 million years.
Researchers said the fossils show two animals passing at different times along the slope of a sand dune.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/90494300 ... and-canyon

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #983]

You or no one else has proved Humphrey's big H2O ball wrong.

OK ... give us a mechanism for how the inner 4 planets in our solar system (all rocks) got that way by starting as balls of H2O. How does H2O turn into Fe, Si and all of the other elements and compounds Earth is presently made of and has been since it formed some 4.6 billion years ago (so this conversion would had to have beem relatively rapid)? And what held the balls of H2O together long enough for this magic nucleosynthesis to happen? Where these balls of H2O also stars with nuclear fusion going on to generate the heavier atoms? If so, where did the extreme pressures and temperatures come from in such small balls of H2O to generate fusion given that the hydrogen atoms were bound up in H2O? Nothing about this balls of H2O story makes any sense ... Humphreys needed an initial magnetic field and manufactured one with this ridiculous idea based on the "waters above' from the bible as a convenient source of the H2O.

Especially, with the observed fact that the universe has a lithium problem to little of it.

What does this have to do with planets starting out as balls of H2O? The story would actually make more sense if they started out as balls of Li. At least it would be a solid!

I think his big ball of H2O is safe. Because it does not help solve the matter problem the secular theories have.

It is certainly safe from being taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community, and it does not solve any problems "secular theories" have because it is nonsense.

A secular theory is a theory that is still believed even though it cannot be proved or even has been falsified by observable theories. An example would be most of the theories proposed in cosmology today. Evolution is another one.

Falsified by observable theories? That's another one to try and unpack. So you're claiming that evolution is believed but cannot be proved, or has been falsified? I think that horse has been beaten to death here too many times now, so I won't go there.

[otseng]

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).

What I'm talking about is the ideas, concepts, proposals, or whatever you wish to call them, by scientists offering additional dimensions and other universes as explanations. You acknowledge these are not measurable and not falsifiable. Since you mention testability, it's doubtful these are testable as well. So, even by your definition, a proposal is an appropriate term.

My point is why are scientists are offering explanations that are not scientific and arguable non-natural? Isn't that debilitating?

You are at war with language when you use them interchangeably (in the science sub forum no less).

Actually, I'm trying to bring it back to the main point, whereas you try to divert from the argument by quibbling over words.

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.

Again, if you claim faith is "blind faith", then I'd agree. But if it is faith coupled with rational argumentation, there is nothing wrong with it.

What if I believe in multiverses because I really 'hope' they are real. Would you find my reasoning debilitating?

Come to think of it, yes, it is. Do you believe multiverses are real? How do you know it is real?

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?

My charge is skeptics like to attack Christians when secularists are guilty of the same thing. Both are offering non-scientific explanations that are not measurable, not falsifiable, and not testable. Both are using faith (as defined by dictionaries).

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.

I am discussing the topic.

"Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.'"

What is meant by "magic"? I'm assuming it means reference to the supernatural.

Since scientists are also proposing non-scientific explanations, then there is no difference with Christians proposing non-scientific explanations (God). Neither are measureable, falsifiable, or testable. Both have an element of faith required (using dictionary definitions) when proposing non-natural explanations.

If one wants to claim Christians "becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily", then this charge would also apply to scientists.

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.

Right, you don't know what I know, esp if you claim you know what I don't know about myself. So, you contradict yourself that you say don't use faith yet you made the following statement about me:

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.

So the irony is you using faith about what I know when you also claim you do not use faith and abhore it.

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.

So even if there are rational arguments and evidence to support something, it is still debilitating?

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.

Oh wow. Then on what basis can one believe something 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.

Faith is not the abhorrent part in your example. It is when people "feel justified to judge others because of a faith based belief that cannot be shown to be true" that would be disagreeable. If people hold ridiculous beliefs and don't impose or judge their beliefs on others, who cares what they believe, even if they believe it by blind faith.

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.

The issue is not what they believe and how they believe in it, but what they do with that belief.

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?

Never argued for any of the examples you mentioned, well except for perhaps resurrection. If there's valid arguments and evidence to support claims in the Bible and all other explanations are lacking, then it's entirely reasonable to accept Biblical claims. So, no, it is not debilitating.

If you are equating "religious faith" as blind faith, yes, I would agree.

Religious faith is blind.

I'm now not even so sure about this.

It is the confidence in a belief that a person hopes is real.

And if there's arguments and evidence behind it, there's nothing wrong with it.

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.

Huh? People don't need to believe things that scientists propose?

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?

If you are saying even scientists are proposing things that are debilitating, then I'd agree and rest my case.

[Diogenes]

My charge is skeptics like to attack Christians when secularists are guilty of the same thing. Both are offering non-scientific explanations that are not measurable, not falsifiable, and not testable. Both are using faith (as defined by dictionaries).
....
Since scientists are also proposing non-scientific explanations, then there is no difference with Christians proposing non-scientific explanations (God). Neither are measureable, falsifiable, or testable. Both have an element of faith required (using dictionary definitions) when proposing non-natural explanations.

If one wants to claim Christians "becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily", then this charge would also apply to scientists.

This represents an attempt at equivocation, to make different concepts or practices appear the same, a logical fallacy. Claiming gods exist or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was globally flooded 4000 years ago are qualitatively and significantly different from scientific theories that may be falsifiable or testable.

The reason belief in a Flat or Young Earth or a global flood is intellectually debilitating is because if those beliefs persist they do so despite evidence the beliefs are false. To maintain a false belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary requires the believer to make some kind of intellectual or academic adjustment. Often this adjustment comes at the expense of valuing science or even truth and logic themselves. This is done to preserve a false belief held for non scientific reasons. Evidence, "your own two eyes," must be degraded in deference to a belief based on tradition or indoctrination, or both.

When a scientist postulates an inflationary multiverse to explain phenomena or to work out reasons to explain confusing data, scientists are aware they are using a theoretical framework that may or may not be testable. Then they work out the testing, always willing to modify or reject the hypothesis as the ever emerging data and theoretical work demand. Scientists are well aware they may have to reject their working theories or admit they cannot prove or disprove their ideas.

As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe even impossible, to test. Without the ability to prove or disprove their ideas, there’s no way for scientists to know how well a theory actually represents reality. It’s like meeting a potential date on the internet: While they may look good on digital paper, you can’t know if their profile represents their actual self until you meet in person.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180958813/

The opposite is the case with the claim of the religious fundamentalist with holding a literal interpretation of Genesis. The latter will never surrender the irrational claim based on pure belief due to tradition/indoctrination. However, the fundamentalist WILL sacrifice logical methodology and rationality to disregard data and preserve the unwarranted belief.

The scientist develops hypotheses to explain facts. The fundamentalist starts with a claim, then works backward to try to find or invent 'facts' to support belief.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #985]

OK ... give us a mechanism for how the inner 4 planets in our solar system (all rocks) got that way by starting as balls of H2O. How does H2O turn into Fe, Si and all of the other elements and compounds Earth is presently made of and has been since it formed some 4.6 billion years ago (so this conversion would had to have beem relatively rapid)? And what held the balls of H2O together long enough for this magic nucleosynthesis to happen? Where these balls of H2O also stars with nuclear fusion going on to generate the heavier atoms? If so, where did the extreme pressures and temperatures come from in such small balls of H2O to generate fusion given that the hydrogen atoms were bound up in H2O? Nothing about this balls of H2O story makes any sense ... Humphreys needed an initial magnetic field and manufactured one with this ridiculous idea based on the "waters above' from the bible as a convenient source of the H2O.

I am not sure if Humphreys goes through his nucleosynthesis theory.

1. EDWARD A. BOUDREAUX, B.S., M.S., PH.D. took Humphreys's idea and proposed a mechanism where Hydrogen and oxygen are used to produce all of the elements we see in nature. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... roceedings


2. I still like the idea of Walt Brown's Z-pinch creating the elements from oxygen and hydrogen because of the relative consistency of elements across the universe.

• ‘The relative abundances of the various isotopes of different elements are repeatedly found in similar ratios in stars, in the interstellar medium, in meteorite fragments and in the earth’s crust. The similarity of these ratios cannot be accidental, and the detailed explanation of the hundreds of known abundance ratios provides a severe task for the theory of stellar evolution.’ Harwit, M., Astrophysical Concepts, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, p. 304, 1982

• ‘Relative abundances of elements [throughout the cosmos] have been exhaustively studied. … The most important result of these studies is the fact that the chemical composition of the universe is surprisingly uniform [emphasis in original]. Gamow, G., The Creation of the Universe, Mentor Books, New York, p. 49, 1952

Especially, with the observed fact that the universe has a lithium problem to little of it.
What does this have to do with planets starting out as balls of H2O? The story would actually make more sense if they started out as balls of Li. At least it would be a solid!

The big bang theory says that Lithium should be the 3rd most abundant element but it is not.

Falsified by observable theories? That's another one to try and unpack. So you're claiming that evolution is believed but cannot be proved, or has been falsified? I think that horse has been beaten to death here too many times now, so I won't go there.

The math says it can't happen sorry. No one has proven that incorrect. In fact, all examples put forward have supported that fact.

So yes evolution is definitely a secular theory. Because evolution as a mechanism for the vast diversity of life from single-cell organisms is not even hard to prove false.

[JoeyKnothead]

My charge is skeptics like to attack Christians when secularists are guilty of the same thing. Both are offering non-scientific explanations that are not measurable, not falsifiable, and not testable. Both are using faith (as defined by dictionaries).
....
Since scientists are also proposing non-scientific explanations, then there is no difference with Christians proposing non-scientific explanations (God). Neither are measureable, falsifiable, or testable. Both have an element of faith required (using dictionary definitions) when proposing non-natural explanations.

If one wants to claim Christians "becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily", then this charge would also apply to scientists.

This represents an attempt at equivocation, to make different concepts or practices appear the same, a logical fallacy. Claiming gods exist or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was globally flooded 4000 years ago are qualitatively and significantly different from scientific theories that may be falsifiable or testable.

The reason belief in a Flat or Young Earth or a global flood is intellectually debilitating is because if those beliefs persist they do so despite evidence the beliefs are false. To maintain a false belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary requires the believer to make some kind of intellectual or academic adjustment. Often this adjustment comes at the expense of valuing science or even truth and logic themselves. This is done to preserve a false belief held for non scientific reasons. Evidence, "your own two eyes," must be degraded in deference to a belief based on tradition or indoctrination, or both.

When a scientist postulates an inflationary multiverse to explain phenomena or to work out reasons to explain confusing data, scientists are aware they are using a theoretical framework that may or may not be testable. Then they work out the testing, always willing to modify or reject the hypothesis as the ever emerging data and theoretical work demand. Scientists are well aware they may have to reject their working theories or admit they cannot prove or disprove their ideas.

As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe even impossible, to test. Without the ability to prove or disprove their ideas, there’s no way for scientists to know how well a theory actually represents reality. It’s like meeting a potential date on the internet: While they may look good on digital paper, you can’t know if their profile represents their actual self until you meet in person.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180958813/

The opposite is the case with the claim of the religious fundamentalist with holding a literal interpretation of Genesis. The latter will never surrender the irrational claim based on pure belief due to tradition/indoctrination. However, the fundamentalist WILL sacrifice logical methodology and rationality to disregard data and preserve the unwarranted belief.

The scientist develops hypotheses to explain facts. The fundamentalist starts with a claim, then works backward to try to find or invent 'facts' to support belief.

It's nice when the big brains do my work for me.

Of course scientists "invent" or "imagine" stuff as they build their hypothesi, it's just they know that if they ever want their initials on the high score at Nobel pinball, they're gonna hafta prove their claims to an exceedingly high degree of reliability.

With religion, "God works in mysterious ways" is good enough for the high score at Jesus pinball.

[Diogenes]

The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water.

Polystrate tree fossils show this is a false assumption. They are formed by gradual silting of trees over many, many years. Such a formation is now forming near my house, as a forest flooded by a dam is now gradually burying them year after year.

You are quite right to prove ESG wrong, but HE wrote that, not me.

In post #7 EarthScienceguy wrote:

The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water.

I did not and would not write this. If EarthScienceguy attributed this to me, then he does not even understand his own claims.