Jump to content


Photo

Pat Robertson, Dinosaurs, And The Age Of The Earth

Robertson Dinosaurs Radiocarbon Dating

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

Another "open mouth-insert foot" by Pat Robertson. The original article I got this from is here.



It's hilarious (and sad) that he appeals to radiocarbon dating as support for an old age for dinosaurs and thereby demonstrates just how ignorant he really is of the subject and of the limitations (<100,000 years b.p.) of radiocarbon dating. What I find particularly disturbing is his statement at the end about fighting "revealed" science. Hmm...

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:53 AM

"Revealed Science?"
  • FaithfulCenturion likes this

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:06 AM

"Revealed Science?"


Yeah. But the sad fact is that there are so many Christians who are influenced by that man.

#4 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:09 AM

"Revealed Science?"


Yeah. But the sad fact is that there are so many Christians who are influenced by that man.


Yes, but on Theological Biblical matters, he is very knowledgeable. And, just like with anyone, you NEVER just take someones word on something, because NON of us have ALL the answers.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

The question hinges on dinosaurs. And Robertson responds with a question about the age of the earth. This is only remotely connected.
But then there is even reference towards dinosaurs in the bible, i.e. Behemoth.
He also mentions carbon dating which is in fact a weak argument against a young earth.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:00 PM

The question hinges on dinosaurs. And Robertson responds with a question about the age of the earth. This is only remotely connected. But then there is even reference towards dinosaurs in the bible, i.e. Behemoth. He also mentions carbon dating which is in fact a weak argument against a young earth.


I totally agree, but absolutely nothing he said was of theological construct. In fact, if I recall correctly, Robertson said that Dinosaurs were "Pre" Bible. Which, of course makes no sense because the Bible begins with "In the beginning". Further, there are many references that seem to denote what we NOW call dinosaurs (remember: the word "Dinosaur" is but a few hundred years old.

I must also posit that MANY of the Christian leaders of today (and the recent past) falter at the "literal" six day origin (far more than you'd like to think). Are they correct? Not according to the Bible OR the scientific method (the scientific method says absolutely NOTHING about the beginning of the heavens or the Earth). SO, whenever you hear a professed Christian theologian making claims of an old Earth, ask for their 'scriptural reference' first.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#7 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

... SO, whenever you hear a professed Christian theologian making claims of an old Earth, ask for their 'scriptural reference' first.

I'd say first ask them what gave them the idea that the earth is billions of years old. This is a bit more open for a number of responses.

#8 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:32 AM

... SO, whenever you hear a professed Christian theologian making claims of an old Earth, ask for their 'scriptural reference' first.

I'd say first ask them what gave them the idea that the earth is billions of years old. This is a bit more open for a number of responses.


Either way works for me.

#9 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:39 AM

Please read this.
http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm

c-14 AMS testing is the most sophisticated a carbon testing method known to man at the moment, this new cleaning process has has helped Christians to date actual cones that is not supposed ot have any c-14 in them due to the idea they are 65 million year sold. Actually not only do they have C14 they also ahve soft tissue. The pont is an allosaurus from Canada came in at 16,000 years, and man, Dinos, and Mammoths are all contemporaries. This bodes for young age....
  • Bonedigger likes this

#10 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:57 AM

Please read this. http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm c-14 AMS testing is the most sophisticated a carbon testing method known to man at the moment, this new cleaning process has has helped Christians to date actual cones that is not supposed ot have any c-14 in them due to the idea they are 65 million year sold. Actually not only do they have C14 they also ahve soft tissue. The pont is an allosaurus from Canada came in at 16,000 years, and man, Dinos, and Mammoths are all contemporaries. This bodes for young age....


Exactly Reptoman. The consistent, measurable presence of C14 in dinosaur tissue and bones blows the millions of years ago scenario right out of the water.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 October 2013 - 03:53 AM

Please read this. http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm c-14 AMS testing is the most sophisticated a carbon testing method known to man at the moment, this new cleaning process has has helped Christians to date actual cones that is not supposed ot have any c-14 in them due to the idea they are 65 million year sold. Actually not only do they have C14 they also ahve soft tissue. The pont is an allosaurus from Canada came in at 16,000 years, and man, Dinos, and Mammoths are all contemporaries. This bodes for young age....

Exactly Reptoman. The consistent, measurable presence of C14 in dinosaur tissue and bones blows the millions of years ago scenario right out of the water.

Of course, but our evolutionary friends will use a prevarication, convoluted rhetoric, or historical revisionism to side-step that issue as well. Where it really gets sticky (no pun intended) is in the soft tissue remains. You already know the answer to that, and yet the dancing always starts the “Evo” conversation. But, this statement from the link just makes me smirk: "As with most scientific dating schemes certain assumptions must be made for the method to be useful."   25r30wi.gif 



#12 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:01 AM

Another "open mouth-insert foot" by Pat Robertson. The original article I got this from is here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sKIymtsOAc&feature=player_embedded

It's hilarious (and sad) that he appeals to radiocarbon dating as support for an old age for dinosaurs and thereby demonstrates just how ignorant he really is of the subject and of the limitations (<100,000 years b.p.) of radiocarbon dating. What I find particularly disturbing is his statement at the end about fighting "revealed" science. Hmm...


480px-2003013-godzilla_facepalm_godzilla
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#13 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 November 2013 - 03:53 AM

haha nice one lol



#14 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

I have to say I find the Bill Nye picture pretty offensive. Even if it's entirely true, it still appears to be more antagonistic than helpful. I don't want to use potentially bad analogies, so I will just leave it at that. Thank you.

#15 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:11 AM

I have to say I find the Bill Nye picture pretty offensive. Even if it's entirely true, it still appears to be more antagonistic than helpful. I don't want to use potentially bad analogies, so I will just leave it at that. Thank you.

 

I don't like it either. Deliberate ridicule is not what we should be about...presenting evidence that Nye & company (fellow evolutionists) is. But though I don't care for the picture above I don't have any sympathy for Mr. Nye who said, 

 

"Look, these people they're f______ retarded. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures h*m*s*xuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"

 

 http://dailycurrant....llenges-debate/

 

Oh, about 46% of our nations population thats how many. How many take atheists like Nye seriously? About 16% according to Gallup national poll last year.

 

We have the evidence on our side (strongly so) and until Nye provides evidence that evolution is even possible in the first place he is going to be on the losing end of things until kingdom comes. Then there will be no more arguments.



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 November 2013 - 05:15 PM

"Look, these people they're f______ retarded. Rape can't cause pregnancy? Breastmilk cures h*m*s*xuality? I caused a hurricane by challenging creationism? Who can possibly take these people seriously anymore?"

 

 http://dailycurrant....llenges-debate/

 

Oh, about 46% of our nations population thats how many. How many take atheists like Nye seriously? About 16% according to Gallup national poll last year.

 

And, according to that same poll, 47% take evolution seriously.  Further 68% of those who accept evolution believe it a process of creation used by God, which pretty much refutes claims evolution must be atheistic.  Over the last 30 years, or so, in multiple Gallup polls, around 75% of those who accept evolution are NOT atheists.

 

Speaking for myself only, rejection of Genesis literalism has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the Earth and much more to do with astronomy and physics.  When we observe events, they took place in the past.   For example, what we see on the moon took place over a second ago; for the Sun, it's 8 minutes; for the next nearest star, it's 4.3 years.  Then we get to other objects like Sn1987a (167,000+ years) and the galaxy Adromeda (2.4 million years).... and we haven't even begun discussing the really distant ones.....


 



#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:19 PM

And, according to that same poll, 47% take evolution seriously.  Further 68% of those who accept evolution believe it a process of creation used by God, which pretty much refutes claims evolution must be atheistic.  Over the last 30 years, or so, in multiple Gallup polls, around 75% of those who accept evolution are NOT atheists.

 

Speaking for myself only, rejection of Genesis literalism has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the Earth and much more to do with astronomy and physics.  When we observe events, they took place in the past.   For example, what we see on the moon took place over a second ago; for the Sun, it's 8 minutes; for the next nearest star, it's 4.3 years.  Then we get to other objects like Sn1987a (167,000+ years) and the galaxy Adromeda (2.4 million years).... and we haven't even begun discussing the really distant ones.....


 

 

The Gallup figures on the 2012 chart do not bare up your percentage.

 

  Galluponcreationvsevolution_zpsfd431275.

 

Secondly, we don't deny that modern measurements of distance to stars/galaxies/quasars, etc. are in the millions of light years. But God's Word says that the Creator expanded His universe (in 17 different passages of scripture: i.e. Isaiah 44:24, Zech. 21:10) so that what appears so far away now was not that far away in the day of Adam and Eve. We think that their view of the heavens was much different than it is now:

 

starryskyinAdamstimeperhaps.jpg

 

So the things we see that look as if were millions years ago were not that long ago...and they were not that far away in the early years of world history. Furthermore, there is no such thing as 'pre-history'.



#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:23 PM

As you can tell, I'm new here.  How do you get this quote thing to work?

 

Calypsis4 wrote:

The Gallup figures on the 2012 chart do not bare up your percentage.

 

  Galluponcreationvsevolution_zpsfd431275.

 

 

Pi responds:

Actually, they do.  In fact, I used the same chart.  For that poll, 46% "believe God created humans in their present form."  It also says 47% (32% who believe "Humans evolved with God guiding" plus 15% who believe "Humans evolved but God had no  part in the process.") accept evolution.  Of the 47% who accept evolution, 68% (32/47) believe God guided the process and 32% (15/47) believe He did not.

 

 

Calypsis4 wrote:

But God's Word says that the Creator expanded His universe (in 17 different passages of scripture: i.e. Isaiah 44:24, Zech. 21:10)

 

Pi responds:

The expansion of the universe is not in question.  However, it is not nearly great enough to support YEC.  Stretching the heavens would also stretch the light in them.  This would easily been seen as a huge redshift even in such (astronomically) nearby objects as Sn1987a and Andromeda.  Sn1987a exhibits no significant red shift and Andromeda is blue shifted.

 

 

Calypsis4 wrote:

so that what appears so far away now was not that far away in the day of Adam and Eve.  We think that their view of the heavens was much different than it is now:

 

Pi answers:

Putting it in perspective.  To get twelve billion years of stretching in only 6,000 years would be a 2 million to one expansion.  That would place the Sun (distance 93 million miles) less than 50 miles from Earth.  Andromeda would be only one light year distant and Earth would bask in the glow of a trillion stars just over one light year away.  The radiation would sterilize the planet.  Their view of the heavens would have been very different indeed.



#19 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:10 PM

As you can tell, I'm new here.  How do you get this quote thing to work?

 
If you click the quote button at the bottom of the post you want to quote, it will add it to the reply box at the bottom of the page. You can type your response there, or, what I usually do is go into the full editor using the "More Reply Options" button. If you want to break the quote into separate sections as I did here, there are different ways you can do that. For example, you can quote the same post multiple times and delete the extraneous sections from each one while responding in between. Personally, I find it easier to just turn the BBCode off (the little button at the upper left corner of the toolbar above your reply window if you select "More Reply Options" to go into the full editor). Then I just copy and paste the open and close quote codes (the stuff in brackets) where they need to go to split the post. It takes some experimentation. In full editor mode you can also preview your post to make sure you got all of the formatting situated correctly.
 

Pi responds:
The expansion of the universe is not in question.  However, it is not nearly great enough to support YEC.  Stretching the heavens would also stretch the light in them.  This would easily been seen as a huge redshift even in such (astronomically) nearby objects as Sn1987a and Andromeda.  Sn1987a exhibits no significant red shift and Andromeda is blue shifted.

 

I'm curious, Pi. Are you familiar at all with Humphreys' White Hole Time Dilation cosmology?



#20 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:49 PM

I'm curious, Pi. Are you familiar at all with Humphreys' White Hole Time Dilation cosmology?

 

Thanks for the help with the quote function.

 

I'm aware of Humphrye's White Hole cosmology.  Are you aware he has admitted it won't work for objects near earth?

"Humphreys was never fully satisfied with its details because a) the solution did not provide enough time dilation for nearby stars and galaxies, "  (co-authors Vardiman and Humphreys)

 

 

The problem is that using the Schwarzschild field equations, we find it takes 2000 solar solar masses to make the minimum size event horizon that will work (one with a radius equal to Earth).  A more realistic volume (say out to the orbit of the moon) takes 200,000 solar masses.  Humphreys' proposal simply doesn't work for most of the Milky Way.

 

Creationist scientists have been trying to deal with the light travel time problem for decades and their proposed solutions get more and more outlandish.  The most recent being Dr. Jason Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention which proposes light travels at different velocities toward and away from the observer.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Robertson, Dinosaurs, Radiocarbon Dating

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users