Firstly, the whole 6000 years thing was thought up by ONE preacher interpreting what he thought the years in the bible added up to.
That is not the words of the bible. That is the words of a man trying to figure out how old things are by using a book.
I go by this:
Day-Age Theory
The Day-Age Theory reconciles views by arguing that the Creation “days” were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory’s name implies: the “days” each lasted an age. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the Creation “days” is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.
Except that they take place in the wrong fucking order. Unless you think science will discover that the earth popped free of the big bang before the stars, jackass.
Then it’s not exactly a summary of modern science, is it? It’s not being metaphorical, it is simply inaccurate, asshole. It’s like you said an atom was made up of water. Genesis has almost everything else made before the stars. That’s not metaphorical, jackass, it’s just what a small mesopotamian tribe thought happened, because they were savages far distant from modern science, fucktard.
“It’s not being metaphorical, it is simply inaccurate, asshole”
so anyone who uses metaphors is “an inaccurate asshole” according to your standards. There went anyone who uses a language system.
“It’s like you said an atom was made up of water”
It’s about using whatever it takes to make someone understand something. I could use dogs and cats to describe atoms if it would help someone understand.
“Genesis has almost everything else made before the stars”
Right, because it’s not science. It’s an imperfect approximation to describe creation because they didn’t have all the scientific “tools” we now have.
Having a discussion is one thing, but insulting me with “asshole” “fucktard” and “jackass” every other sentence just shows how immature and hateful you really are.
Resorting to insults to prove your point clearly show you don’t want to debate but denigrate, so talking to you is pointless.
Of course I only want to denigrate, you stupid shit. Pay fucking attention.
It’s not an analogy because an analogy would be a representation of a set of concepts through some variety of metaphor or representation which preserves in some way the relationship between those concepts. But, as you were too fucking stupid to note, that did not happen. Regardless of the scaling of time or other shit you use to rationalize this absurdity, it doesn’t exactly fucking teach anyone anything that really happened, since even the fucking order of events is so ludicrously wrong as to be laughable. You might have some argument for your stupid as fuck notions if they had at least been in the right order and roughly correct, but they aren’t so they are as stupid as shit. Not to mention the wholesale creation of shit is about as far as one gets from a gradual natural process. It’s amazing what you can convince your dumbshit self about, though. If an Israelite wrote that the sky was mayo, I’m sure you stupid ass would call that an analogy and therefore infallible too. What an asshole you are.
“Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is “the surface of the waters” of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.
What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first “day” (Genesis 1:1, ~16×109 years ago) (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4). In Genesis 1:2, God was “hovering or brooding” over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8×109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as “hovering or brooding” is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.
Both science and God (8) have told us that at the earth’s creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, “darkness was over the surface of the deep.” Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now “separated light from darkness” (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).
Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0×109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) plants and fruit trees bearing fruit. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third day was at least several years long, and could not possibly be just 24 hours.
Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;’” “Let there be” is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). At this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years – obviously more than 24 hours long.”
Hahaha jesus don’t you get tired doing such an absurd fucking dance to try to justify a little fairy tale? Oh sure, even though it reads like a primitive creation story, and even though it appears to have originated as a primitive creation story, and even though it expresses nothing even vaguely like independently verifiable truths in your view, it MUST be true because it’s in the bible hahah! Watching you bend over backward to try to twist things to match science is just fucking pathetic. It makes way more sense that the israelites thought that first there was nothing but ocean, and that the stars were little lights that God hung up there.
For fuck’s sake, if the Bible refutes geocentrism, if it says that cloud cover was removed, etc., why did we have to wait until science discovered those things before they were in the Bible? No one thought that two thousand fucking years ago, did they? It’s because you are just making it fit whatever you want, like a gullible jackass. It’s pathetic.
You’ve returned. Great. Welcome back! We are trying to do better on the obscenity front here. Can you clean it up? You’re a smart guy capable of making an argument without going down that road…something I don’t recall from you earlier.
I am paying attention. If you can’t clean it up then you will be gone. Apparently you can’t make a serious intellectual argument without obscenities. This is why there are so many ex-liberals out there. If your goal is “to be as obscene as possible” than clearly you don’t have much going in the way of goals. Perhaps, as Michael Vick suggested about himself today, you “need to grow up.”
I tried engaging in reasonable debate, and it was met with fucking hostility and contempt. Unsurprising, it’s a conservative site, populated by a variety of assholes.
Get out on the wrong side of the bed today Mr. P? I thought liberals were the “tolerant of diversity” crowd. Take a couple aspirin and come back in the morning.
The illness I have isn’t cured by aspirin; it’s called Stupid Fucking Conservative Echo Chamber. But no, this site was completely a good idea. There’s nothing like declaring that your site is biased in favor of particular agenda to foster healthy debate, you stupid ass.
Like NBC, CBS, The NYT, Wasington Post, LA Times etc etc etc…The liberal echo chamber. You hear a different opinion and you freak….as I recall the last time you simply…ahhh…cut and ran…a liberal specialty.
Absolutely, I remember the last time CBS issued a press release about how they were a liberal station.
Oh holy shit, unintentional bias at a media outlet is a hell of a lot different than outright official dedication to bias, you say? Say it ain’t so!
But no, it’s totally cool that you want to slam on me for being unable to sustain single-handedly a continuous debate against the entire site, that’s awesome. You have to excuse me, I am going to go catch the Half Hours News Hour now… oh shit, what is this? CANCELED?!
You put your finger on the point exactly. CBS does NOT issue a press release saying they are a liberal network. They say they are unbiased…and are, in fact, liberal, using their network news to push a liberal agenda under the guise of balance. This is the problem. Why not ‘fess up that ole Dan, Katie, Walter etc etc are all liberals and they have a liberal agenda? As to the Half Hour…has it been canceled? I have to admit I didn’t find it consistently funny, a function of writers not politics. Saturday Night Live occasionally has the same problem.
Naturally they are biased, everyone is biased. But they, like most media outlets, attempt to maintain as unbiased an attitude as possible, because they have some goddamn idea of journalistic values. There are numerous instances of individual bias, and perhaps even an aggregate bias. But all of them, even FOX, try to stay as unbiased as possible. This is because any rational discussion or debate is doomed from the start if the participants all decide one side is right most of the time (i.e. conservatives) and makes it policy, idiot!
It’s the difference between accidentally hitting your thumb with a hammer, and intentionally smashing it with glee. Naturally, only a conservative would do the latter. HEY LOOK I CAN GENERALIZE TOO AWESOME.
No, everyone is not biased. And they most certainly do NOT attempt to maintain as unbiased an attitude as possible. If this were so Fox would never have the audience it does, and CBS,NBC,ABC would not be hemorraging viewers as they have done. The existence of a by now massive belief that the mainstream media tilts left is by itself testament that something is way out of whack with the networks etc. The journalistic values of which you speak are not journalistic values – they are liberal truisms masquerading as journalism. For that matter this goes on in the protestant mainline churches (and I belong to one of these.) The other night Christiane Amanpour did an interview with a conservative Christian who said he thought teenage girls at his school should have skirts at knee length – and she compared him to…THE TALIBAN! The interview took place following a rock concert for Christians. Say again…a rock concert. The Taliban? Helloooooooo! I don’t think so. But SHE clearly thought so. This is nutty stuff, and so hilariously biased it is…well, hilarious. Except that when it comes to serious things like say…Iraq or Vietnam there are serious consequences.
Of course everyone is biased. No one can maintain the perfect objectivity necessary for nonbias. Are you really so stupid? The only difference is that Qube doesn’t even bother to try.
Doesn’t even try? We are a conservative site. Does The Nation try to be unbiased? Does Air America pretend they are trying to be unbiased? They – and we – are partisans. And what’s with the name calling all the time?
I thought I made it perfectly clear what was with the name-calling: I think you are stupid beyond measure, as is this site. It’s an asinine idea.
Do you think it is a coincidence that Air America is failing too? And I assume you are failing, asshole, because you are taking ads from the slimiest advertisers that slink the web.
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!
frogman302 on Aug 26
Firstly, the whole 6000 years thing was thought up by ONE preacher interpreting what he thought the years in the bible added up to.
That is not the words of the bible. That is the words of a man trying to figure out how old things are by using a book.
I go by this:
Day-Age Theory
The Day-Age Theory reconciles views by arguing that the Creation “days” were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory’s name implies: the “days” each lasted an age. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the Creation “days” is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.
mr_phaethon on Aug 26
Except that they take place in the wrong fucking order. Unless you think science will discover that the earth popped free of the big bang before the stars, jackass.
frogman302 on Aug 26
“take place in the wrong fucking order”
I said take it as a metaphor. Is a metaphor scientific? Nope.
You’re taking it all literally(not metaphorically), attacking one area, and saying that it’s all wrong because it’s not science.
It’s like me describing an atom as made up of little balls floating around a center and you calling me an idiot because atoms “aren’t little balls”.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Then it’s not exactly a summary of modern science, is it? It’s not being metaphorical, it is simply inaccurate, asshole. It’s like you said an atom was made up of water. Genesis has almost everything else made before the stars. That’s not metaphorical, jackass, it’s just what a small mesopotamian tribe thought happened, because they were savages far distant from modern science, fucktard.
frogman302 on Aug 27
“it’s not exactly a summary of modern science”
nope, metaphor…for the third time.
“It’s not being metaphorical, it is simply inaccurate, asshole”
so anyone who uses metaphors is “an inaccurate asshole” according to your standards. There went anyone who uses a language system.
“It’s like you said an atom was made up of water”
It’s about using whatever it takes to make someone understand something. I could use dogs and cats to describe atoms if it would help someone understand.
“Genesis has almost everything else made before the stars”
Right, because it’s not science. It’s an imperfect approximation to describe creation because they didn’t have all the scientific “tools” we now have.
Having a discussion is one thing, but insulting me with “asshole” “fucktard” and “jackass” every other sentence just shows how immature and hateful you really are.
Resorting to insults to prove your point clearly show you don’t want to debate but denigrate, so talking to you is pointless.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Of course I only want to denigrate, you stupid shit. Pay fucking attention.
It’s not an analogy because an analogy would be a representation of a set of concepts through some variety of metaphor or representation which preserves in some way the relationship between those concepts. But, as you were too fucking stupid to note, that did not happen. Regardless of the scaling of time or other shit you use to rationalize this absurdity, it doesn’t exactly fucking teach anyone anything that really happened, since even the fucking order of events is so ludicrously wrong as to be laughable. You might have some argument for your stupid as fuck notions if they had at least been in the right order and roughly correct, but they aren’t so they are as stupid as shit. Not to mention the wholesale creation of shit is about as far as one gets from a gradual natural process. It’s amazing what you can convince your dumbshit self about, though. If an Israelite wrote that the sky was mayo, I’m sure you stupid ass would call that an analogy and therefore infallible too. What an asshole you are.
frogman302 on Aug 27
“Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is “the surface of the waters” of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.
What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first “day” (Genesis 1:1, ~16×109 years ago) (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4). In Genesis 1:2, God was “hovering or brooding” over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8×109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as “hovering or brooding” is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.
Both science and God (8) have told us that at the earth’s creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, “darkness was over the surface of the deep.” Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now “separated light from darkness” (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).
Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0×109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) plants and fruit trees bearing fruit. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third day was at least several years long, and could not possibly be just 24 hours.
Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;’” “Let there be” is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). At this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years – obviously more than 24 hours long.”
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Hahaha jesus don’t you get tired doing such an absurd fucking dance to try to justify a little fairy tale? Oh sure, even though it reads like a primitive creation story, and even though it appears to have originated as a primitive creation story, and even though it expresses nothing even vaguely like independently verifiable truths in your view, it MUST be true because it’s in the bible hahah! Watching you bend over backward to try to twist things to match science is just fucking pathetic. It makes way more sense that the israelites thought that first there was nothing but ocean, and that the stars were little lights that God hung up there.
For fuck’s sake, if the Bible refutes geocentrism, if it says that cloud cover was removed, etc., why did we have to wait until science discovered those things before they were in the Bible? No one thought that two thousand fucking years ago, did they? It’s because you are just making it fit whatever you want, like a gullible jackass. It’s pathetic.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
Mr. P….
You’ve returned. Great. Welcome back! We are trying to do better on the obscenity front here. Can you clean it up? You’re a smart guy capable of making an argument without going down that road…something I don’t recall from you earlier.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Uh, no, I can’t clean it up. I am obviously trying to be as obscene as possible. You clearly have not been paying attention.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
I am paying attention. If you can’t clean it up then you will be gone. Apparently you can’t make a serious intellectual argument without obscenities. This is why there are so many ex-liberals out there. If your goal is “to be as obscene as possible” than clearly you don’t have much going in the way of goals. Perhaps, as Michael Vick suggested about himself today, you “need to grow up.”
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
I tried engaging in reasonable debate, and it was met with fucking hostility and contempt. Unsurprising, it’s a conservative site, populated by a variety of assholes.
I encourage you to ban me.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
Get out on the wrong side of the bed today Mr. P? I thought liberals were the “tolerant of diversity” crowd. Take a couple aspirin and come back in the morning.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
The illness I have isn’t cured by aspirin; it’s called Stupid Fucking Conservative Echo Chamber. But no, this site was completely a good idea. There’s nothing like declaring that your site is biased in favor of particular agenda to foster healthy debate, you stupid ass.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
Like NBC, CBS, The NYT, Wasington Post, LA Times etc etc etc…The liberal echo chamber. You hear a different opinion and you freak….as I recall the last time you simply…ahhh…cut and ran…a liberal specialty.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Absolutely, I remember the last time CBS issued a press release about how they were a liberal station.
Oh holy shit, unintentional bias at a media outlet is a hell of a lot different than outright official dedication to bias, you say? Say it ain’t so!
But no, it’s totally cool that you want to slam on me for being unable to sustain single-handedly a continuous debate against the entire site, that’s awesome. You have to excuse me, I am going to go catch the Half Hours News Hour now… oh shit, what is this? CANCELED?!
jeffmogul on Aug 27
You put your finger on the point exactly. CBS does NOT issue a press release saying they are a liberal network. They say they are unbiased…and are, in fact, liberal, using their network news to push a liberal agenda under the guise of balance. This is the problem. Why not ‘fess up that ole Dan, Katie, Walter etc etc are all liberals and they have a liberal agenda? As to the Half Hour…has it been canceled? I have to admit I didn’t find it consistently funny, a function of writers not politics. Saturday Night Live occasionally has the same problem.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Naturally they are biased, everyone is biased. But they, like most media outlets, attempt to maintain as unbiased an attitude as possible, because they have some goddamn idea of journalistic values. There are numerous instances of individual bias, and perhaps even an aggregate bias. But all of them, even FOX, try to stay as unbiased as possible. This is because any rational discussion or debate is doomed from the start if the participants all decide one side is right most of the time (i.e. conservatives) and makes it policy, idiot!
It’s the difference between accidentally hitting your thumb with a hammer, and intentionally smashing it with glee. Naturally, only a conservative would do the latter. HEY LOOK I CAN GENERALIZE TOO AWESOME.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
No, everyone is not biased. And they most certainly do NOT attempt to maintain as unbiased an attitude as possible. If this were so Fox would never have the audience it does, and CBS,NBC,ABC would not be hemorraging viewers as they have done. The existence of a by now massive belief that the mainstream media tilts left is by itself testament that something is way out of whack with the networks etc. The journalistic values of which you speak are not journalistic values – they are liberal truisms masquerading as journalism. For that matter this goes on in the protestant mainline churches (and I belong to one of these.) The other night Christiane Amanpour did an interview with a conservative Christian who said he thought teenage girls at his school should have skirts at knee length – and she compared him to…THE TALIBAN! The interview took place following a rock concert for Christians. Say again…a rock concert. The Taliban? Helloooooooo! I don’t think so. But SHE clearly thought so. This is nutty stuff, and so hilariously biased it is…well, hilarious. Except that when it comes to serious things like say…Iraq or Vietnam there are serious consequences.
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
Of course everyone is biased. No one can maintain the perfect objectivity necessary for nonbias. Are you really so stupid? The only difference is that Qube doesn’t even bother to try.
jeffmogul on Aug 27
Doesn’t even try? We are a conservative site. Does The Nation try to be unbiased? Does Air America pretend they are trying to be unbiased? They – and we – are partisans. And what’s with the name calling all the time?
mr_phaethon on Aug 27
I thought I made it perfectly clear what was with the name-calling: I think you are stupid beyond measure, as is this site. It’s an asinine idea.
Do you think it is a coincidence that Air America is failing too? And I assume you are failing, asshole, because you are taking ads from the slimiest advertisers that slink the web.
JuneBug on Aug 28
mr_phaethon on Aug 28
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!
JuneBug on Aug 29
I think you are stupid beyond measure
mr_phaethon on Aug 29
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!