Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bonedigger

Pat Robertson, Dinosaurs, And The Age Of The Earth

Recommended Posts

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 (

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Revealed Science?"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read this.

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.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....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

[media]

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/2012/08/30/bill-nye-blasts-todd-akin-challenges-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/article/new-creationist-cosmology-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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms