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

#21 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 - 10:31 PM

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)
Link: http://www.icr.org/a...ogy-no-time-at/

 

Are you aware that you just engaged in an exercise in quote-mining? The quote you cited was in reference to Humphreys' dissatisfaction with his 1994 cosmology. If you would actually read farther than the quote you cited, you'd find that the Acts and Facts series you linked to is a reiteration of the JOC article I hyperlinked to above, where Humphreys derives a new metric (for the Pioneer anomaly) that he uses in his white hole cosmology.
 

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.

 

And Humphreys deals with the deficiencies of the Schwarzschild equations by deriving a new metric in the paper I hyperlinked in my post above. Apparently you are not aware of Humphreys' current cosmology, in spite of your referencing an Acts and Facts series that summarizes it.

 

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.

 

Outlandish as compared to what? The ad hoc invention of unobservable "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" that is supposed to comprise the majority of the universe in order to rescue an impoverished Big Bang cosmology?



#22 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 04 November 2013 - 08:00 AM

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.

 

So you are comfortable standing with those who deny the existence of God, many of whom hate Christiantiy. Does that do your conscience good? 

 

Nonetheless, you are wrong. God did not 'guide evolution' because evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The world was created exactly the way the Lord said He did it in Genesis and no compromise with modern 'science' theory needs to be appealed to. Furthermore, the Creator did not wait until Darwin (1859) to inform the world as to the real truth about what He did in His creation. Such a notion is ludicrous and an insult to Him as the Creator.

 

Moses was right and Darwin was wrong.

 

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.

 

Those are your figures, not God's. Why do you think this is a problem for God? I don't agree with your math because you have no way of knowing just how much that expansion involved and at just what rate of velocity that expanision took place. But apparently you have no problem expanding human history far beyond what the chronologies of scripture would allow...(especially as it concerns the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ as mentioned in Luke 3)...never mind all of the out-of-place fossils, footprints, and artifacts that are completely in the wrong location for evolution to even be considered to be a true theory. There are too many to list here but I can do so elsewhere.

 

But further than that,   you deny the logic of the expansion with your arbitrary physics but you apparently also deny that the scriptures that teach that expansion. Am I right? I will ask you plainly: DID the Creator expand ('stretch') his universe after the creation as the scriptures teach it? If you answer 'yes' then why do you doubt He could have made the stars and galaxies seem much farther away now then they were in the early years of earth's history? If 'no' then how can you claim to be a Christian since you don't believe in such teachings?



#23 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:08 AM

"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[sic])"

God's word says " כֹּֽה־אָמַר יְהוָה גֹּאֲלֶךָ וְיֹצֶרְךָ מִבָּטֶן אָנֹכִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כֹּל נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם לְבַדִּי רֹקַע הָאָרֶץ מי אתי "

or

"οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ λυτρούμενός σε καὶ ὁ πλάσσων σε ἐκ κοιλίας ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ συντελῶν πάντα ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος καὶ ἐστερέωσα τὴν γῆν τίς ἕτερος "

References to what this MEANS is a matter of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Your use of נָטָה seems to have the denotation of expansion, growth, and/or pliability.
the parallelism in Zech 12:1 seems to be denoting the "laying down of". Search the Psalms and other poetic works to see how parallelism is used. The poetic use of נָטָה is similar in the way it is used to "incline the ear" and function for describing an "outstretched arm/hand." Yes, it is being elongated, but arguably not in an elastic way - it's the action, not the substance."
Consider other uses of נָטָה like in Isaiah 44:13. Now, Isaiah may be describing a tape-measure, but I would invite you to consider that this is an expression for "laying down an ruler" - again, look at the action.

Now it may be that God layed down an expanding universe. It may be that God layed down a universe that He caused to expaned after creation. It may be that God layed down a universe that had every appearance of having expanded. These are the arguments I'm not getting into.

I'm just careful not to make God say something He may not have said.

#24 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 04 November 2013 - 12:05 PM

"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[sic])"

God's word says " כֹּֽה־אָמַר יְהוָה גֹּאֲלֶךָ וְיֹצֶרְךָ מִבָּטֶן אָנֹכִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כֹּל נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם לְבַדִּי רֹקַע הָאָרֶץ מי אתי "

or

"οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ λυτρούμενός σε καὶ ὁ πλάσσων σε ἐκ κοιλίας ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ συντελῶν πάντα ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος καὶ ἐστερέωσα τὴν γῆν τίς ἕτερος "

References to what this MEANS is a matter of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Your use of נָטָה seems to have the denotation of expansion, growth, and/or pliability.
the parallelism in Zech 12:1 seems to be denoting the "laying down of". Search the Psalms and other poetic works to see how parallelism is used. The poetic use of נָטָה is similar in the way it is used to "incline the ear" and function for describing an "outstretched arm/hand." Yes, it is being elongated, but arguably not in an elastic way - it's the action, not the substance."
Consider other uses of נָטָה like in Isaiah 44:13. Now, Isaiah may be describing a tape-measure, but I would invite you to consider that this is an expression for "laying down an ruler" - again, look at the action.

Now it may be that God layed down an expanding universe. It may be that God layed down a universe that He caused to expaned after creation. It may be that God layed down a universe that had every appearance of having expanded. These are the arguments I'm not getting into.

I'm just careful not to make God say something He may not have said.

 

No you aren't. The Hebrew word for 'stretcheth' (as per Isaiah 44:24) is  natah,  naw-taw' 

(Strongs Exhaustive Concordance):
 
Quote: 'a primitive root; to stretch or spread out; by implication, to bend away (including moral deflection); used in a great variety of application (as follows):--+ afternoon, apply, bow (down, - ing), carry aside, decline, deliver, extend, go down, be gone, incline, intend, lay, let down, offer, outstretched, overthrown, pervert, pitch, prolong, put away, shew, spread (out), stretch (forth, out), take (aside), turn (aside, away), wrest, cause to yield.'
 
The fact that the word 'stretcheth' has a number of different meanings and connotations depending upon its usage and application in scripture does not change the fact that this passage and several others refer to God expanding His created universe. 
 
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
 
There is absolutely nothing in this verse that compels us to force a symbolical interpretation into what God told us through the prophet that He did. The 'womb' is real/literal; the creation is real/literal; the heavens are real/literal; the earth is real/literal and therefore the 'stretching' is also real/literal.
 
You are just attempting to make scripture say what you want it to say in order to make it fit your chosen philosophy.
 
'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...' Exodus 20:11

  • Salsa likes this

#25 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:36 PM

"No you aren't."

- Yes, Yes I am. I'm being careful to let scripture speak on it's own terms, and I am open to what the passage may or may not be saying. This is exegesis, not doubt.

"There is absolutely nothing in this verse that compels us to force a symbolical interpretation into what God told us through the prophet that He did. The 'womb' is real/literal; the creation is real/literal; the heavens are real/literal; the earth is real/literal and therefore the 'stretching' is also real/literal."

I'm sorry if you thought I was saying the "stretching" wasn't real/literal. Poetic yes, but still real and literal (as it may be intended to be understood). My observations (yes, these are coming from my sinful and flawed mind), suggestions and invitations are to the idea that the passages are not making reference to the expansion of the universe. This does not mean that God is not expanding the universe, or that He did not expand the universe. On a practical level, you could say they are one and the same - but that does not mean it is a fact that God is speaking of an expanding universe / redshift stars / etc in these texts. I'm suggesting that it is saying He created Isaiah's life in the womb, and made the heavens and the earth.

It would appear that to assert as fact that God is referencing the expansion of the universe in this (and other texts) is attempting to make scripture say what you want it to say in order to make it fit your chosen philosophy.

The philosophy I was running with was the assumption that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, and that Scripture interprets Scripture. So please let me know if you have a problem with that.

I think you will enjoy yourself investing more time in learning more Hebrew. Lexicons are great, but there is always more to pick up. I invite you to study Hebrew parallelism, idioms, metonymy, and other things concerning the language. It's fun!


"'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...' Exodus 20:11"

- and I wasn't arguing against any of this in any way, shape, form, or implication.


Again, I am trying to be careful not to make God say something he has not said.

#26 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 04 November 2013 - 03:39 PM

"No you aren't."

- Yes, Yes I am. I'm being careful to let scripture speak on it's own terms, and I am open to what the passage may or may not be saying. This is exegesis, not doubt.

 

No, you are not. You are an agnositc who is not being led by the Holy Spirit in the interpretation and understanding of the plain text of scripture. I gave you the Hebrew derivation and meaning from a very common source and you have rejected it without giving adequate scriptural or grammatical justification.

 



"There is absolutely nothing in this verse that compels us to force a symbolical interpretation into what God told us through the prophet that He did. The 'womb' is real/literal; the creation is real/literal; the heavens are real/literal; the earth is real/literal and therefore the 'stretching' is also real/literal."

I'm sorry if you thought I was saying the "stretching" wasn't real/literal. Poetic yes, but still real and literal (as it may be intended to be understood). My observations (yes, these are coming from my sinful and flawed mind),...

 

Well, you said that. I didn't. 

 

 

suggestions and invitations are to the idea that the passages are not making reference to the expansion of the universe. This does not mean that God is not expanding the universe, or that He did not expand the universe. On a practical level, you could say they are one and the same - but that does not mean it is a fact that God is speaking of an expanding universe / redshift stars / etc in these texts. I'm suggesting that it is saying He created Isaiah's life in the womb, and made the heavens and the earth.

 

Yes, but it does. Because the observation matches the scriptures. The old testament prophets mentioned that the stars were innumerable and beyond human ability to count them( Genesis 22:17, Hebrews 11:12): SO...........you must either accept that they actually SAW countless numbers of stars with the naked eye or else you must admit that they were told this fact supernaturally by God. But it must be one or the other. Either way it does not bode well for an agnostic or an atheist.

 

My point here is that in our day it is easy to count the number of stars above us with the naked eye...which would number no more than a several hundred or at most a few thousand on a clear night. So how did the ancients KNOW that the stars were innumberable unless they had a much better view of them with the naked eye than we do? 

 

It would appear that to assert as fact that God is referencing the expansion of the universe in this (and other texts) is attempting to make scripture say what you want it to say in order to make it fit your chosen philosophy.

 

No, this is your difficulty, not ours...ergo the point I just made before your last statement. Think about it.
 

The philosophy I was running with was the assumption that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, and that Scripture interprets Scripture. So please let me know if you have a problem with that.

 

If that be so then why do you call yourself an 'agnostic'. Please correct me on this matter for I am unfamiliar with you.

 

I think you will enjoy yourself investing more time in learning more Hebrew. Lexicons are great, but there is always more to pick up. I invite you to study Hebrew parallelism, idioms, metonymy, and other things concerning the language. It's fun!

 

Well, that is a rather arrogant thing to say to one who has utilized Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and lexicons for over 40 yrs. My library shelves right in front of me are full of them.  

"'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is...' Exodus 20:11"
 

- and I wasn't arguing against any of this in any way, shape, form, or implication.

Again, I am trying to be careful not to make God say something he has not said.

 

The question is do you even believe what He so clearly said in the text of Exodus I gave you?



#27 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 04 November 2013 - 05:01 PM

"No, you are not."

- I find this persistence in speaking to my motives far more arrogant than suggesting you look deeper into Hebrew.

Yes, I am trying to be careful in letting Scripture speak on its own terms.

"You are an agnositc who is not being led by the Holy Spirit in the interpretation and understanding of the plain text of scripture."

1) And yet even the demons can speak the truth of recognizing the Christ.

2) Are you privy to all the whims of the Holy Spirit? Are you claiming to know the entirety of when and how the Spirit moves and uses all of creation?

... I encourage you to continue on in proclamation of the Gospel and the story of God - and I encourage you to exercise caution when making statements concerning the Holy Spirit.

- As for the stars being innumerable, again, we can look at the texts. Surely they are innumerable for mankind, but not innumerable for God. He knows how many stars there are, just as sure as He knows how many hairs are on your head. I don't know that the ancients KNEW that they were innumerable as a matter of revelation, as much as it could be determined from nature.

anarithmētos - innumerable. Or, from the construction of the word, "an arithmetos." arithmeto- to number.. "an" is a negation - like anarchy. One can't number or count them. I think a glance at any desert, even today, one could say "I cannot count all these grains of sand." We go back to the parallelism and see that stars being juxtaposed in the same way. It does not follow that the statements have to conclude NECESSARILY that God is revealing a cosmic truth.

It APPEARS you're less familiar with Hebraic hyperbole. If you would like to explore areas where God seems to speak in Hyperbole, we can do so. Hyperbole does not mean that God does not keep his promises, or that God is a liar, or that the Word of God has errors.

"No, this is your difficulty, not ours...ergo the point I just made before your last statement. Think about it."

- I'll do some thinking about it. I invite you to share in the thinking.

"If that be so then why do you call yourself an 'agnostic'. Please correct me on this matter for I am unfamiliar with you."

- We can get into that another time. I find it off-topic, but if you find it significant to the discussion then let me know.

"Well, that is a rather arrogant thing to say to one who has utilized Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and lexicons for over 40 yrs. My library shelves right in front of me are full of them."

I apologize for causing offense. I still suggest you move beyond the basics of lexicons and dig into the grammar and linguistics.

This goes back to my point
" I gave you the Hebrew derivation and meaning from a very common source and you have rejected it without giving adequate scriptural or grammatical justification."

- I'm familiar with natah and I accept your source and the definitions that followed. I'm suggesting you look at the use of the word in context of Scripture. I'm sorry you have not found the Scripture I have used to be adequate justification.

The use of "natah," I'm suggesting and discussing with you, does not necessarily mean that God is revealing the expansion of the universe. This, again, does not mean that God did not cause the universe to expand. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm inviting you to spend time in a concordance
http://www.bluelette...gs=H5186&t=NKJV


I am trying to be careful not to make God say something He didn't.


"The question is do you even believe what He so clearly said in the text of Exodus I gave you?"

This is certainly a question. We can move on to this question at a later time.

#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

Note to Bonedigger:  I acknowledge your comments about Humphreys and will get to them as soon as I have time.  Right now, this response doesn't take a lot of time, so I'm addressing it first.

 

 

So you are comfortable standing with those who deny the existence of God, many of whom hate Christiantiy. Does that do your conscience good? 

 

Disagreement on one issue does not mean we disagree on all.  One thing I've learned is that it's much easier to get someone to change their position to agreement with yours if you are agreeable rather than confrontational. 

 

As I see it, Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was right when he wrote that even infidels have knowledge gained from experience and observation.  It is damaging to the faith to demand, as a condition of salvation, they accept things they know to be false from their own experience.  Briefly stated, it makes you, and your beliefs look foolish.  In other words, I believe YEC does great harm to the propagation of the faith. 

 

It does my conscience neither good nor harm.

 

 

Nonetheless, you are wrong. God did not 'guide evolution' because evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The world was created exactly the way the Lord said He did it in Genesis and no compromise with modern 'science' theory needs to be appealed to. Furthermore, the Creator did not wait until Darwin (1859) to inform the world as to the real truth about what He did in His creation. Such a notion is ludicrous and an insult to Him as the Creator.

 

Moses was right and Darwin was wrong.

 

Can I take that as meaning: "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion."   If so, there is no point in continuing our conversation.

 

 

Those are your figures, not God's. Why do you think this is a problem for God?

 

Not if 99.999999999% of the universe is nothing but deception.  The God I worship is not deceptive.

 

 

 I don't agree with your math because you have no way of knowing just how much that expansion involved and at just what rate of velocity that expanision took place.

 

I thought you said you accept the distances.  If you do, the math is quite easy and the velocity of expansion doesn't matter.  If God stretched the space, the light in that space will also be stretched.  How do you think it was determined that the universe is expanding?  The stretching of the light would be easily observable and measurable.  In fact, it would provide absolute proof of a 6,000 year old universe. 

 

 

But apparently you have no problem expanding human history far beyond what the chronologies of scripture would allow

 

None at all.  I reject the doctrine of sola scriptura.  I believe God speaks to us through His creation as well as His word.  Nor do I believe the Bible is a comprehensive, complete listing of everything that went on.

 

 

 never mind all of the out-of-place fossils, footprints, and artifacts that are completely in the wrong location for evolution to even be considered to be a true theory. There are too many to list here but I can do so elsewhere.

 

When I make a claim about fossils, footprints, and artifacts, they would be a topic of discussion.  It's one of the reasons I was unable to come to terms with Dr. Brown about a debate.  He demanded I defend a lot of stuff that is completely irrelevant to my issues with his model.

 

 

But further than that,   you deny the logic of the expansion with your arbitrary physics but you apparently also deny that the scriptures that teach that expansion. Am I right?

 

You couldn't be more wrong.  We know the universe is expanding and we have measured the expansion.  Unfortunately, there is far too little of it to support YEC.  I apologize for my lack of clarity in my first response to you when I clearly said expansion of the universe (or stretching of the heavens, if you prefer) is not an issue.

 

 

 If you answer 'yes' then why do you doubt He could have made the stars and galaxies seem much farther away now then they were in the early years of earth's history?

 

"Seem?"  I thought you accept the distances as real.  Stretching the heavens would leave clear evidence.  The evidence is not there.... at least not to the extent needed to make YEC a viable alternative.

 

 

 If 'no' then how can you claim to be a Christian since you don't believe in such teachings?

 

You want to know what I believe?  OK.  Here it is:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. 

 



#29 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 05 November 2013 - 02:28 PM

Note to Bonedigger:  I acknowledge your comments about Humphreys and will get to them as soon as I have time.

 

No problem, and no hurry wink.png



#30 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:26 PM

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...



Turns out that he is a False Prophet (Like Benny Hinn)
Wow.. Who would have thought! Maybe church "leaders"
should stop calling God a Liar about HIS creation ...

http://www.forgotten...trobertson.html

Did he sign the "Clergy Letter Project"?





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