<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DI and ID vs. GR</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:41:47 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Drunk Vegan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-101854</link>
		<dc:creator>Drunk Vegan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-101854</guid>
		<description>I think all of you trying to &quot;do the math&quot; here are missing the point. The quote isn&#039;t literally saying &quot;a day is exactly a thousand years, really!&quot; It&#039;s saying that time is relative, and that t ime is irrelevant to an omniscient God.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think all of you trying to &#8220;do the math&#8221; here are missing the point. The quote isn&#8217;t literally saying &#8220;a day is exactly a thousand years, really!&#8221; It&#8217;s saying that time is relative, and that t ime is irrelevant to an omniscient God.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheBlackCat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-101591</link>
		<dc:creator>TheBlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-101591</guid>
		<description>The 6000 comes from the genealogies of the bible, that is what person had what other person as a child.   These start with Adam and go all the way to historical rulers.  So unless you expect us to believe that Noah lived for over over a third of a billion years (950years*365,000=346,750,000 years), then you have to stick to the 7 days.  It would also require that humans have existed for well over two billion years.  So if you don&#039;t see humans living for hundreds of millions of years and existing since the middle precambrian, around the time of the first eukaryotes and about a billion years prior to the first multicellular organisms, then you would have to stick to the 7 days being 1000 years.  That would be 7 days*1000years/1 day + 6000 years (or 10,000) = 13,000 years.  (or 17,000).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 6000 comes from the genealogies of the bible, that is what person had what other person as a child.   These start with Adam and go all the way to historical rulers.  So unless you expect us to believe that Noah lived for over over a third of a billion years (950years*365,000=346,750,000 years), then you have to stick to the 7 days.  It would also require that humans have existed for well over two billion years.  So if you don&#8217;t see humans living for hundreds of millions of years and existing since the middle precambrian, around the time of the first eukaryotes and about a billion years prior to the first multicellular organisms, then you would have to stick to the 7 days being 1000 years.  That would be 7 days*1000years/1 day + 6000 years (or 10,000) = 13,000 years.  (or 17,000).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Ansorge</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-101541</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Ansorge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-101541</guid>
		<description>Actually, if one day = 1000 years, multiply by 365 days/yr = 365000 years/metaphorical &quot;year&quot; times 6000 = 2,190,000,000 &quot;real&quot; years, which is within 50% of the mark,,,

See! We CAN tie ourselves in biblical knots,,,

GAry 7</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, if one day = 1000 years, multiply by 365 days/yr = 365000 years/metaphorical &#8220;year&#8221; times 6000 = 2,190,000,000 &#8220;real&#8221; years, which is within 50% of the mark,,,</p>
<p>See! We CAN tie ourselves in biblical knots,,,</p>
<p>GAry 7</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheBlackCat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-101134</link>
		<dc:creator>TheBlackCat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-101134</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;1. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This number was invented by scholars who estimated the lifetimes of each generation mentioned in the Bible, adding, before that, 7 days to create the universe.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

It didn&#039;t require much estimation, the &quot;begats&quot; (so-and-so begat so-and-so), along with lifespans, are fairly complete in the bible.

&lt;blockquote&gt;2. The Bible does however mention that time is relative. Which is impressive for a book written 2,000 years before Einstein:

“A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day.”

So the Bible itself tells you not to take the time listed in the Bible literally.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Except it refers to there being &quot;day and night&quot;, and besides even 17,000 years is still orders of magnitude off from what it should be.

&lt;blockquote&gt;3. Why must every generation have been written in the Bible? Is God really that verbose?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Apparently he is.  It explicitly states that a certain person is the child of another person, and how long those people lived.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>1. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This number was invented by scholars who estimated the lifetimes of each generation mentioned in the Bible, adding, before that, 7 days to create the universe.</p></blockquote>
<p>It didn&#8217;t require much estimation, the &#8220;begats&#8221; (so-and-so begat so-and-so), along with lifespans, are fairly complete in the bible.</p>
<blockquote><p>2. The Bible does however mention that time is relative. Which is impressive for a book written 2,000 years before Einstein:</p>
<p>“A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day.”</p>
<p>So the Bible itself tells you not to take the time listed in the Bible literally.</p></blockquote>
<p>Except it refers to there being &#8220;day and night&#8221;, and besides even 17,000 years is still orders of magnitude off from what it should be.</p>
<blockquote><p>3. Why must every generation have been written in the Bible? Is God really that verbose?</p></blockquote>
<p>Apparently he is.  It explicitly states that a certain person is the child of another person, and how long those people lived.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drunk Vegan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-100794</link>
		<dc:creator>Drunk Vegan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-100794</guid>
		<description>Young-Earthers:  Is God a Poor Writer?

I was thinking about how people could possibly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, when geologic evidence (irrefutable evidence collected for centuries) points to 4.5 billion years for the Earth, and astronomy has shown that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

If the universe and everything in it were only 6,000 years old, we would be unable to see any stars further away than 6,000 lightyears, because the light would not have reached us yet. This is clearly not the case.

If the Earth itself were only 6,000 years old, it would still be molten lava from the giant impact that formed the moon. Obviously this is not the case.

In any case, let&#039;s ignore the evidence for a second and just apply some logic to the Bible.

1. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This number was invented by scholars who estimated the lifetimes of each generation mentioned in the Bible, adding, before that, 7 days to create the universe.

2. The Bible does however mention that time is relative. Which is impressive for a book written 2,000 years before Einstein:

&quot;A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day.&quot;

So the Bible itself tells you not to take the time listed in the Bible literally.

3. Why must every generation have been written in the Bible? Is God really that verbose?

Even an amateur author knows that there are times when it is wise to skip ahead in the plot. Has every generation of humans that ever lived done something worth mentioning? Isn&#039;t it logical to assume that sometimes there was simply nothing worth mentioning, so God (or the writers who transcribed the Bible) simply skipped ahead?

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old is ultimately a sign of a lack of faith, not a confirmation of it. You are limiting your God to being a poor writer who blabs all day about irrelevancies. I doubt He appreciates the sentiment.

So the next time you see someone bring up the &quot;the Earth is only 6,000 years old&quot; crap, direct them to this post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Young-Earthers:  Is God a Poor Writer?</p>
<p>I was thinking about how people could possibly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, when geologic evidence (irrefutable evidence collected for centuries) points to 4.5 billion years for the Earth, and astronomy has shown that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.</p>
<p>If the universe and everything in it were only 6,000 years old, we would be unable to see any stars further away than 6,000 lightyears, because the light would not have reached us yet. This is clearly not the case.</p>
<p>If the Earth itself were only 6,000 years old, it would still be molten lava from the giant impact that formed the moon. Obviously this is not the case.</p>
<p>In any case, let&#8217;s ignore the evidence for a second and just apply some logic to the Bible.</p>
<p>1. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This number was invented by scholars who estimated the lifetimes of each generation mentioned in the Bible, adding, before that, 7 days to create the universe.</p>
<p>2. The Bible does however mention that time is relative. Which is impressive for a book written 2,000 years before Einstein:</p>
<p>&#8220;A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years is as a day.&#8221;</p>
<p>So the Bible itself tells you not to take the time listed in the Bible literally.</p>
<p>3. Why must every generation have been written in the Bible? Is God really that verbose?</p>
<p>Even an amateur author knows that there are times when it is wise to skip ahead in the plot. Has every generation of humans that ever lived done something worth mentioning? Isn&#8217;t it logical to assume that sometimes there was simply nothing worth mentioning, so God (or the writers who transcribed the Bible) simply skipped ahead?</p>
<p>Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old is ultimately a sign of a lack of faith, not a confirmation of it. You are limiting your God to being a poor writer who blabs all day about irrelevancies. I doubt He appreciates the sentiment.</p>
<p>So the next time you see someone bring up the &#8220;the Earth is only 6,000 years old&#8221; crap, direct them to this post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: themadlolscientist</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-100716</link>
		<dc:creator>themadlolscientist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-100716</guid>
		<description>I tend to go with the explanation I learned when I was a lot younger:

There is no gravity. The universe sucks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tend to go with the explanation I learned when I was a lot younger:</p>
<p>There is no gravity. The universe sucks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DLC</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/comment-page-1/#comment-100654</link>
		<dc:creator>DLC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/13/di-and-id-vs-gr/#comment-100654</guid>
		<description>Obviously Newton was wrong. Gravity is too complex.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously Newton was wrong. Gravity is too complex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
