Pat Robertson: Young Earth Creationism Isn’t True; Trust Science!

What’s that line about a stopped clock being right twice a day…?

Because Pat Robertson just said something that actually makes sense. (Kind of like that time he supported the legalization of marijuana.)

It comes in response to a woman who wants to know how to explain dinosaurs (that lived millions of years ago) to her skeptical children in a way that’s compatible with the Bible. Robertson uses it as a stepping-off point to talk about how Young Earth Creationism is a lie:

Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher, God bless him, wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said it all took 6,000 years; it just didn’t!

And you go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating, you’ve got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time…

If you fight revealed science, you’re going to lose your children! And I believe in telling them the way it was.

Somewhere, the Creation Museum’s Ken Ham is trying to figure out how to tell his fundamentalist Christian followers that Pat Robertson is a joke.

At which point I’ll agree with Ken Ham.

Damn, Christians telling the truth makes my head hurt.

For what it’s worth, Right Wing Watch points out that Robertson’s company, the Christian Broadcasting Network, is still selling material promoting Young Earth Creationism.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Ed L

    As a Brit would say, I’m gobsmacked. 

  • Maleekwa

    I think a debate between Pat Robertson and Ken Ham is in order. Yackety Sax would be the perfect theme music.

    • Coyotenose

       Choked on some peanuts there, I did.

      • Neal Fournier

        At least you don’t have to spend 10 minutes cleaning soda off a monitor.

  • jose

    Yes yes, we laugh but I bet most people don’t know how to explain how geologists know that cliff over there is a million years old. “Oh it’s because of strata somehow”. Yeah but HOW. In practical terms. Specifics. Actual field work.

    We need outreach! The above is just an example. Knowing this or that fact isn’t as important as acquiring the mindset, learning how do they know. How to figure out stuff. And books aren’t enough. More high schools need to reach agreements with universities and allow kids to go pester and bother research scientists while they work. Every school gets the kids to the milk plant to learn how they process milk but when do they go to a dig site?

    • IndyFitz

      In fifth grade (1979) we did an entire science unit on geology.  I remember going rock hounding at a quarry.  Obviously, in fifth grade, we weren’t getting into radiocarbon dating, but there was no question the Earth was billions of years old.  Bible stuff never came up in class.  Then again, I’m in Maine, not the deep South.

  • Zugswang

    Sounds like Robertson has been reading the Summa Theologica.

    “In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. ”

    • Eric D Red

      This made me laugh.  And it’s exactly the kind of thinking that made a recent discussion I had come to a dead end.

      They outright say it must be right regardless, but that you can interpret it in so many ways that no interpretation needs to stand.  And most of all that you shouldn’t hold up any position because it could be ridiculed.

      There’s so much wrong in that, and it’s a fundamental belief.

      • Zugswang

         My standard reply to that assertion is that if two different Christians can derive opposite interpretations of the same passage, and each be accepted as equally valid, then those passages hold neither substance nor meaning.  And if they do not feel both interpretations are equally valid, then why are they arguing with me?  Shouldn’t they be busily convincing their peers to abandon such heretical beliefs, instead?

        On the other hand, if it means those same Christians will harbor fewer harmful and atavistic beliefs, I’ll grant them their philosophically inconsistent position in the interest of encouraging positive growth.

        • Bad_homonym

          I think if you picked a passage of scripture and asked 730 people what they derived there would be 730 differing ideas in 1/2 degree increments. It would be insurmountable to try and attach degrees of validity to any of these arguements, and only 2 of any type would be diametrically opposed. As for atavistic beliefs, I think the recent rise of reason among the general, and particularly younger generations, with less use for unsubstantiated scriptures becomes a much less likely scenario. Quite simply, an honest appeal to reason leads to real enlightenment. After all “if it be proved with certainty to be false” is something even science doesn’t pretend to ever say. But we can get close enough for all intents and purposes!

          cheers

  • A3Kr0n

    He’s just saying that to throw us into confusion. Don’t let him succeed! We must stand our ground! Unless proven wrong, then we’ll change our position!

  • curtcameron

    Pat Robertson says so many “WTF?” things that the hard-core YEC fundamentalists have written him off long ago.

  • Octoberfurst

     I almost spewed my coffee on to the computer screen listening to Pat say that young earth creationism is wrong!  I can’t believe that Pat Robertson said something that made sense!  Did Hell just freeze over?
     I do wonder what his fundie followers are thinking now. Their heads must be spinning. I mean, Pat just said that the earth is not  6,000 yrs old. Blasphemy!  Off with his head! Seriously, Pat’s statement must have blown their tiny little minds.  LOL.  

  • C Peterson

    Pat Robertson knows perfectly well that Young Earth Creationism must be wrong, since that would make him older than the Universe if it weren’t!

  • Mdwelch27

    Everyone is having fun taking the cheap shot at Pat Robertson, but let’s try being human for just a minute.  Now, I know that Mr. Robinson has some very twisted ideas and has done a lot of actual damage to humanity and the advance of rational thought, but let’s give the devil his due.  He is still actually trying to think.  I recognize that his thinking is often fucked up because he is deeply committed to a very complex and complicated system of belief that is completely made-up and misguided, but he is still thinking and occasionally his thinking gets him out from under all that christian bullshit for a brief moment (like today).  So I am going to congratulate him for thinking clearly when he does think and call him out for irrational bullshit when he spouts stupid stuff.  If we encourage him for thinking semi-rationally, maybe he’ll do it again.  Hurray for positive reinforcement.

    In fact, I am going to encourage all of us here to reach out to him in a positive way today – cause you know he is going to be catching a ration of shit from all the fundies.

    • eric

      I mostly disagree.  Its important to consider why he’s rejecting YECism – because YECism will cause kids to reject Jesus. He’s not rejecting YECism (principally) because empirical evidence shows it to be wrong, but because he thinks its bad for club membership retention.

      This is very much a stopped clock phenomena; he happens to be right not because his thought mechanisms are working correctly, but because his broken thinking mechanism just happens to have coincided with the correct answer in this one case.

      • IndyFitz

        Couldn’t agree more!  And he even gave us his line of “reasoning” (such as it is) — that if you argue with revealed science, you’ll lose your children out of your faith.  This is less about what’s right and more about what will keep the flock inside the fence.

    • IndyFitz

      I resemble that. Taking cheap shots at people who routinely say incredibly stupid things is very much being human!

  • TiltedHorizon

    “What’s that line about a stopped clock being right twice a day…?”

    That line does not do justice to the incredible amount “wrong” Pat spews out. Being “right” twice a day sounds like a win…. at least until someone points out that there are 86,400 opportunities (seconds) to be right in a day. Which means the broken clock, which is right twice a day, still trumps Pat’s best.

    • Godlesspanther

      Yes, Pat Robertson is like a stopped clock and will tell the correct time once every twelve hours. 

      Ken Ham is like an angry clock that will never tell the correct time no matter what. 

  • http://twitter.com/_mikeweber Mike Weber

    Wow! I almost fell out of my chair when he started talking about carbon dating without calling it the work of the devil. 

  • http://v1car.wordpress.com/ The Vicar

    Expect a lot more of this kind of thing over the next few years. What this really translates into is that some of the powerful people who run U.S. politics sat down with Robertson and explained to him that climate change is going to cost them a lot of money and power over the next several decades if something isn’t done, and threatened to stop giving the guy his… let’s call them “perks”… if he doesn’t toe the line. We’ll be seeing this several times, inevitably followed by “what do you mean we’re being hypocrites, we’ve always been pro-science”. It will, in fact, become easy to figure out who’s a paid shill and who’s genuinely insane religious — the people who really believe the nonsense will be thrilled that the world is in danger; Christianity in its modern incarnation is a death cult, after all.

    • Soundmind

      Shut up

  • MyScienceCanBeatUpYourGod

    Who are you and what have you done with the real Pat?

  • Guest

    that was unexpected. 
    as a side note, “Damn, Christians telling the truth makes my head hurt.” your head should be hurting a lot. most Christians (maybe the ones outside of the US) are just fine. Having grown up catholic (very actively involved in church) I didn’t meet any of the crazy people you seem to be meeting. Certainly not the creed you are reporting about. But that might be my non-US upbringing.
     I guess selling Creationism and having a different opinion is just business? They are catering to their constituency. I doubt Pat Robinsons company is selling to the mainstream, they are targeting evangelical crazies. This one was probably an unfortunate “slip” (of truth).

    • Guest

      PS: this broad generalization of Christians all being dangerous nutjobs is just like religious people preaching that all atheists are amoral babyeaters.

      • IndyFitz

        Or like people outside the U.S. portraying all non-U.S. religious people as being sane and intelligent and honest?

        • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

          Sir or Madam,
          Neither of my eyebrows remain unsinged, that burn was so good.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Ok everyone start looking for the giant pea pod that this thing came out of and start looking for the real robertson. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-A-Quest/100000875744905 Jason A. Quest

    Robertson is suffering from dementia, and I’m not saying that to be snarky.  He’s getting confused, and accidentally saying things that make sense.

  • Sue Blue

    Just more confirmation that Pat Robertson is going senile.  Lately he’s been flip-flopping on his bible interpretation like a fish out of water.  Not that anything he ever said was worthwhile, mind you.  He’s been an egregious proponent of misogyny and bigotry and his own brand of twisted Christian propaganda for decades; one halfway sensible remark doesn’t  even begin to make up for it.

  • pagansister

    Was Pat smoking the drug he wants legalized, marijuana, when he made that statement?   Sounds like it.  :o) 

  • pagansister

    Was Pat smoking the drug he wants legalized, marijuana, when he made that statement?   Sounds like it.  :o) 

  • abombt1

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/hocus-pocus

    Looks like Pat has believed this for a while, much to Ken Ham’s dismay.

    • Marco Conti

      Indeed. There is a passage I find very revealing in the article. This is Ken Ham talking about Pat Robertson being a Old Earth Creationist and what that means:

      “…as soon as you allow for millions of years of Earth’s history, then death, diseases (like cancer), suffering, and pain, etc., existed before sin—which destroys the foundation of the Gospel.”

      this is the fundamental issue the Vatican and now Pat Robertson have to deal with when admitting to an old earth. So far, I have not heard a justification to this issue that was logically satisfactory. I heard things such as the Garden of Eden being an actual physical place where the laws of physics were suspended and where A&E lived and committed the sin. Obviously, a bit hard to disprove as always when dealing with magic that happened millions of years ago, but if you admit to an old earth, that’s what you have to justify.

      • Troels Jakobsen

        Old Earth creationists believe in an old Earth, but they take most other things literally, like the Garden of Eden, so many of them believe the Earth is 4.5 gy old, but also that humans were created fully formed (Adam & Eve) about 6000 years ago.

  • Darwin’s Dagger

    An Old Earth Creationist is still a Creationist.

  • Marco Conti

    Wow! I am going to file this among “things I never thought I would hear”.
    Maybe Pat has a couple of brain cells still functioning.

    His point is actually very valid from their point of view. The scientific evidence for a billion years old earth is crushing. You may be able to wiggle your way out of this or that argument, but the convergence of evidence is what makes it undeniable, except for the very deluded.

    Robertson knows that in a fair fight, young earth creationism hasn’t got a chance. Something the Vatican discovered a long time ago. If you claim the Bible is inerrant, then you calculate the age of earth  based on it and you end up with a wildly different age than the evidence attests, then doubting the rest is only natural. 

    Pat’s position, like the Vatican’s is a lot harder (but obviously not impossible) to debunk. 
    I am not sure we should be happy about this. It’s a lot easier to convince people to think for themselves when the religious are completely irrational.

  • Edmond

    So, while I realize that this is just a clip, and there may be much more to this segment (which I am NOT going searching for), but…. did he answer the woman’s question?  She wanted to be able to explain dinosaurs to her teens in a way that supported the Bible, and Pat sent her down the path of science, but that DOESN’T support the Bible.  What can she tell her kids from this?  If they start investigating scientific research on origin subjects (on Pat Robertson’s advice no less, LOL), then what happens when they try to support the story of Adam & Eve with evolution?  What if they study linguistics, and see that it doesn’t support the Tower of Babel story?  Won’t this push them FURTHER from religion?  There’s only so much “The Bible as metaphor” you can take before you get to “The Bible as myth”.  How do these people keep all this STRAIGHT?

    This DOES make your head hurt.

  • Leighcopeland

    And how long after God knocked Paul off his horse would you have still been rehearsing Paul’s past, all the terrible things he said and did and how you’re just much to smart to be taken in as if this were some kind of God’s providence and aid to his church?

  • Nicholas Joseph

    Ken Ham will just say that Robertson was not divinely inspired when he answered that question. It’s not like they have to prove any of this stuff.

  • John

    I always wondered why Young Earthers were so adamant about the age of the world. Bishop James Ussher came up with the year 4004 BC for the Creation, but just who the hell was Ussher when he was at home? Why did his little arithmetic problem come to have a stature equal to the Bible (which is a pretty big deal to a Christian)?

    • Guest

      If  you add up the ages of some lineage in the old testament, you get the 4004 number.

  • Aspieguy

    I’m sure that Mr. Robertson will be disowned because he isn’t ‘a true christian”.

  • SeekerLancer

    While part of me is thrilled to hear him say this it’s not that shocking, even the fundies don’t all agree on what to be fundie about and this is a prime example.

  • Lasjdf

    What’s going to happen next?  Will liberals start applying evolutionary principles to government policies and prevent a future like that show in “Idiocracy” from happening?

  • donna

    Pat roberston obviously only listens to talking heads. Carbon dating proves the young earth theory not the old earth. Taken to its limit, this dating cannot go beyond 50,000 years. And even with this time frame limitation, it is completely unreliable based on flawed dating of present century rocks AND one must use many assumptions with this method. So he is wrong. Not to mention that he totally is either unaware or has a dishonest agenda , when he ignores resent findings of fossilized  dinosaur bones found by evolutionary scientists that still have soft tissue. The claim that it is a chicken is absurd when it is just as closely  related to frogs in its protein sequence. He also ignores the cave drawings of men and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that look exactly like the ones in our recent century have been put together. I have to laugh at those who Laugh at young earth evidence , they have no definitive proof, and revert to name calling.

    • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

      You are correct that carbon dating is more limited.  This is why other isotopes are used for older samples.  Moreover, indexing is frequently used to show how old a fossil is.  This looks at species in order of appearance and overlapping periods of contemporaneous existence.   Indexing is less accurate, but it does help place what species have coexisted.  For example, fossilized bones of modern wolves and any of the herbivorous dinosaurs a wolf would have preyed upon appear together.

      YEC is the most absurd position alive today.  It is the modern equivalent of the flat earth society.

      YEC requires that its proponents deny all of modern science – physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and biology.

      • donna

        no facts on your side, just assumptions and name calling. We have facts.

        • Deven Kale

           “no facts on your side, just assumptions and name calling. We have facts.”

          When I see responses like this, all I ever hear is “I know you are, but what am I?! Nyah! :P

        • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

          I have one simple fact for isotope dating that you can confirm for yourself:

          Q(t) = Q(0) * e^(kt)

          This is the equation for radioactive decay.  Most people learn this in high school.

          I also have another – the speed of light is 300M m/s.  This means when a start is 1M light years away, it took a 1M years for the light to arrive.  This more or less completely destroys the YEC position.

          YEC is fact free – only lies, distortions, and non-scientific re-interpretation of data.

          • donna

            We talked about the light issue where its speed may not have been the same when the earth was created. I also believe according to scripture that there are reasons to believe this. But since you do not believe in God that argument is not a good one for you. But anyway here is another discussion on light.http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7

  • http://twitter.com/Holsteinlange Jessica Lange

    Donna, do you have any scientific background whatsoever? Where is your proof that carbon dating supports a young earth theory? Where is your  proof of cave drawings that show men and dinosaurs together? You’re incredibly dishonest and downright wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not. Evolution has been seen and catalogued, creationism has not. Evolution is fact, creationism is not.

    • donna

      First of all Pat R. said wrongly that Christians don’t even believe in dinosaurs. They believe in them but also that they walked with man. Dinos are mentioned 20 times in the Bible. Alexander the Great , Marco Polo , Pliny, and Herdious journaled accounts of Dinos. There are plenty of ancient cave drawings , temple and stone depictions of Dinos.http://www.google.com/search?q=ta+prohm+temple+dinosaur&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&rls=en&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Laq3UNeVN8PaywHUoYCgBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1066&bih=671.  also:http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/The%20Strange%20ICA%20Stones%20of%20Peru.pdf.
      Also before the word “dinosaur” in 1841 was coined, they were called Dragons. You are well aware of dinosaur depictions that cross cultures in stories and carvings across the globe.
      Concerning carbon 14. This dating dates parent/daughter elements of carbon 14 and 12
      when something dies it loses carbon 14 and doesnt replenish it, so it gets less and less and eventually  after about 100,000 years something would be emptied of carbon 14. That is why when you carbon date a dino at a billions years old you would not find any carbon 14. But we do find it in Dinosaurs: 1990 university of Arizona carbon dated a dino bone at 16,000 years. 1981 currie found a dino bone in alaska unfossilized. 
      I am not a scientist but there is way too much info that is not taught in our text books that we cannot refute as scientific, and historic evidence that dinosaurs lived with man and that they could not possibly be more than thousands of years old.

      • donna

        correction in above “DRAGON depictions that cross cultures…” 

      • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

        Where to begin….  First of all, Carbon 14 dating is only good for specimens 100,000 years old or less, so this is not used to date a dinosaur.  Immediately, your story falls apart for inaccuracies.  Also, dinosaurs did not appear billions of years ago.  In fact, the oldest dinosaur fossils are less than 300 million years old.  If you can’t even accurately reflect the accepted time lines for dinosaurs, how can you refute anything?

        The placement of dinosaur bones in sedimentary rock shows that they were never contemporaneous with humans.  Why don’t we find fossils of say modern cattle and dinosaurs together?  It would seem that cows would be excellent prey for carnivorous dinosaurs.  This is called indexing species by which ones walked the earth together.

        The mythological creatures referenced in ancient stories were not dinosaurs – the physical descriptions do not match.

        What YEC folks do is focus on anomalies, ignoring the overwhelming corroborating evidence that shows dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions of years old and never co-existed with humans.

        • donna

          they were dinosaurs. all you have to do is look and see the likeness and read the accounts and hear the description. Most dinos were no more than 3 feet.  And just because I said billions instead of millions does not make the facts wrong. It doesn’t matter if it is millions instead of billions because they are both way off.
          OEF tend to ignore facts that are right in front of their face if they look. They just blow them off as…anomelies .
          Here is another fact. The geographic strata does not even exist on earth the way the text books show. And how do the scientists determine the age of the “layers”? IF you look in an old encyclopedia you can read for yourself that they figure the age by the fossils in it. And guess how they determine the age of the fossil? By the age of the layer it is in. This is a fact.
          “the mythological creatures were not dinosaurs” that is your statement and it has no factual basis. 
          I gave facts. carbon 14 dating info speaks for itself regardless of my personal lack of research on millions and billions. 
          I also gave pictures.  I would suggest you research and be intellectually honest in everything you read. Seriously don’t just let people make up your mind for you.

          • Deven Kale

             I looked at the pictures you linked to. They look nothing like a dinosaur. The closest it could possibly come is a stegosaurus, but even then it’s only a rough resemblance, and quite a few problems. Number one, Stego’s have long necks, the creature depicted has a short neck. Number two, they have long tails, the creature depicted has a short tail. Number three, they have spines on the ends of their tail (a rather distinctive feature), and the creature depicted has no spines. Number four, Stegosaurus has a short, egg-shaped head, the creature depicted has a roughly square shaped head with a crest.

            In other words, this looks nothing like a Stegosaurus. The next likely culprit is a triceratops, but even that doesn’t fit because it’s missing all three horns which give it that name. Tri-cera-tops literally means three-horned-head. I really don’t know what they’re trying to depict there, but it sure doesn’t look like any dinosaur I know of.

            Also, look at all of the images around the one in question, notice something they all have in common? Plants. Each image has some sort of plant-life in it, but it’s suspiciously absent in this one. Oh wait, unless the “plates” on it’s back that make everybody think it’s a Stegosaurus happen to be leaves. After all, with something that takes this much effort to make, I think it’s reasonable to expect some consistency.

            • donna

              Here is part of the problem . You think that because our scientists have put together a stegosaurus , that it is an absolute replica of a real one . Further even if it doesn’t look exactly like the american interpretation who says that it still can’t be a dinosaur. Our interpretation is the one that is probably less perfect, than a depiction from ancient temples and inca indians. I am amazed that you do not see these as dinosaurs, your child would.

              • Deven Kale

                These? It’s one image. I don’t see a dinosaur. I see what is most likely some large mammal, probably related to a Rhinoceros, against a backdrop of very large leaves.

                You think telling me that a child, with an immature brain incapable of critical thought, would see this as a dinosaur would give me pause? A child only ever sees what they want to see, they have no way of considering all the evidence and coming to a valid conclusion, their brains just aren’t that sophisticated yet. I don’t know the name of that fallacy, but I’ll make one up for you: argumentum ad infantum.

                • donna

                  Okay, if we can’t look simply at two likenesses and say they are the same without being a scientists or a critical thinker, we are in trouble. I know of a dog that is called a Golden doodle. He is so cute. But he has straight hair. All of the Golden doodles have curly hair and are not as cute. So he is a Golden doodle but it just so happens that the recessive gene became dominant in him. One kind of animal can look different in some ways although I would argue the stegosaurs is definitely without a doubt a stegosaurus.But you ignore all of the other facts. I have not offered anything but facts and you are ignoring the obvious in order to prove your premise..the world is old, there is no God and evolution is a fact.

                • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

                  There are many christians who accept the old earth, evolution and god.  Maybe you should look at the Catholic church???

                • donna

                  they are wrong too.

          • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

            Right… you are re-interpreting evidence to fit your story, ignoring things like isotope dating (other than C14).  The indexing method does not provide precise dating but relative dating, meaning positional.  For example, you will never find fossils of modern mammals with dinosaurs.  How do you explain that “anomaly?”

            Yes… the YEC evidence is focused on finding anomalies, and not the truth.  The TRUTH is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth.

            Moving away from fossils, how do explain light from distant stars that are millions of light years away?  This by itself more or less blows up the YEC position.

            Ninth grade earth science seems to be a subject you skipped.  

            What reason would scientists possibly have for denying a young earth if that were the truth?  Please elaborate on this conspiracy.

            • donna

              Well, OEC have ways of measuring things like the carbon dating and isotope and it is not only flawed but unreliable and based on much assumption. they seem to measure geochemical characteristics not age. This is over my head but I have seen the data showing the unreliability of it. 
              The star light is a legitimate debate that neither side has definitive answers to. But a very logical assumption for those YEC is that light speed was not always constant. It has been proven in labs that light speed can be slowed down, it is influenced by gravity. so it is not a stretch to look at this theory.
              How do you explain lack of transitional fossils? Even top evolutionary scientist see the problem: Steve j. Gould: “the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary  stages between major transitions and organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Harvard university paleo- biology writing.

              Richard Leaky: “ biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes modern humans and various ancestoral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately the fossil record is somewhat incomplete the best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in evidence

              David Pilbeam “ if you brought a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got , he’d surely say forget it, there isn’t enough to go on.

              New theory they have “punctuated equilibrium” Evolution did not happen gradually , it  happened quickly.  The problem is this is an ad hock theory to bring sense to the lack of transistion. There has never been a scientific observation of this in a lab in the history of science.

              And finally (although) there is so much more evidence on my side, the reason the young earth theory cannot be considered in the evolutionary science community is because it would completely wipe out the theory of evolution. They need millions of years for this to be true.

              • http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss

                Ah yes… making the magical claim that the speed of light has changed… please.  This is what the YEC proponents must resort to in order to make the math work.  Definitive answer?  There is no doubt that with a telescope we can see objects millions of light years away.  In fact the Hubble telescope has identified objects 12 Billion light years away.  What makes more sense? Our observed physics is true or that magic happened and all the constants of the universe were in flux for what we see as billions of years?

                The absurdity of the YEC position causes it to collapse because whenever something conflicts we are told “the constants of the universe are not true,” or “relativity requires that the speed of light actually changed” or “insert ridiculous never observed condition here.”

                Ignoring evolution by itself, the evidence of an old earth is overwhelming and uncontroversial.  The ONLY people who question it are the religious who insist on a reinterpretation of all science.

                Coming back to evolution, I found it laughable that YEC quote Gould.  Guess what!? He was an evolutionist!  The introduction of punctuated equilibrium was a re-calibration of evolution to account for periods of stability and rapid change under sudden environmental changes.  Darwin’s theory has long since been updated with modern genetics, biochemistry, and petabytes of morphological data.  No, Darwin did not get it right, but he was on the right track.  Think of the ancient Greeks who were refined by Newton who was then corrected with Relativity and quantum mechanics.

                With traditional science, data can be confirmed.  For the YEC, you must “believe” which is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

                • donna

                  of course the creation scientist knew that Gould was an evolutionist! that is why it was quoted! Regarding light:http://www.icr.org/article/uncertain-speed-light/http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/starlight
                  Darwin did not get it right , but we are easily fooled and the world was. concernig transitional fossils consider this,
                   a mouse evolved into a dog. At some point the birth of one mouse began looking like a dog. Over thousands of years these part mouse part dog animals gradually turned more and more into dogs. If eveolutionis true we should be able to find in the ground and historoicall record, some fossils of mice and some fossils of dogs but millions of fossils of the transition animals. If animals did not evolve, we would only find fossils of original species with a few strange anomilies. 
                  The Fossil record shows the latter.There are no transitional fossils.   The few anomilies are used by the evolutionists to point to transition. However, these very few cases are deformities. For use to conclude that these are transition fossils there would be an overwhelming majority of these types of fossils in the fossils record. Deformities happen all of the time . eg: baby born with a 6 in tail in india.  There was a baby born with legs fused together that they called the mermaid baby. …a genetic deformity. No evolutionist would claim that this baby is a transition from a mermaid to a person. We must follow this logic with animals also.I know we will never agree but God got a hold of me and I know because of the way my life was transformed supernaturally that God is real and creation is truth. But I understand you don’t believe, I respect your opinion. :)

                • Deven Kale

                   a mouse evolved into a dog? Cite your source please. As far as I know, it was something like a weasel, not even a rodent at all.

                • donna

                  lol. the example was meant to show the that there is no evidence for evolution because there are no transitional fossils. IT was not meant to be an example from the assumed transitions of the theory itself. Because, it doesn’t matter there is no such thing.

                • Deven Kale

                   So basically, what you’re saying is that evolution can’t be true because, what, you say so? You claim that the evolution of dogs is impossible, and yet you don’t even know the evolutionary history of them? You’re argument that evolution is impossible is that a dog couldn’t have evolved from a mouse. Well guess what? You’re right, because they didn’t evolve from mice, or even rodents, but weasels (The link is obviously not an original source, it’s meant as a summary).

                  Where you’re wrong is that evolution is impossible and that there are no transitional fossils (if you’re talking things like the crocoduck, then you’re right there as well because that’s evolutionarily impossible). Evolution has been observed in labs, and common descent is confirmed primarily through genetics (for example, if a god created all creatures, why would he even use DNA for all of us? There must be simpler systems he could have used, or multiple systems, or combinations of DNA and non-DNA systems. The simple fact that all earth life has DNA is evidence for common descent by itself, but scientists have even better evidence than just that). It’s one of the most well-supported scientific theories ever, and without it much of biology, germ theory, and other fields would make no sense whatsoever. Plus any attempt to discredit evolution by those knowledgeable enough to do so have failed.

                  I get the impression that you haven’t read anything about evolutionary theory at all outside of your favorite Christian apologist websites. It’s like I’m talking to a teenager here with her fingers in her ears going “la la la” every time I say anything. You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about, and yet you claim to be some sort of authority on the subject and that everybody should listen to you.

                  I suggest you educate yourself at least a little bit about the real claims of evolutionary theory and not just trust what you’ve been told by apologists. As an introduction I would recommend a book called “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. It’s easy to read, relatively short, and full of information. If you doubt anything he has to say, all of his references are easily found except for just a few that are no longer accessible. It’s a great introduction to evolutionary theory for those who don’t know the basics.

                • donna

                  wow, you are not very respectful. But usually people who don’t have facts revert to insults. I do read apologetics, I listen to debates from both sides, I read articles from both sides and was brought up in school with the teaching that evolution was a fact period.  you however read only one side and any ohter is a joke to you.  there are no legitimate transitionalfossils found that would show macroevolution took place and their should be thousands and thousands with a few fully transitioned. But we find the opposite. Microevolution or lateral adaptation , that happens within species is a different  story. i am talking about darwinian evolution that theorizes animals transistioned from species to species. this is not based on evidence.

      • Deven Kale

         I remember reading about that somewhere. If I recall correctly, dinosaur bones are treated with a form of lacquer to help protect them from deterioration. The bone that was tested at that time had already been treated, and so the date of 16,000 years was from the carbon contents of the lacquer, and not the bone itself. I’ll see if I can find a source for this later, I don’t have time to really search it out right now.

        • Deven Kale

          Found a good one. A fully sourced research article of the exact specimen you’re speaking of by Bradley T. Lepper, the curator and Site Archaeologist for the Ohio Historical Society’s Newark Earthworks and Flint Ridge State Memorials.

          http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon%20Dates%20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdf

          And as it turns out, it wasn’t lacquer like I was thinking, but (mostly) shellac. I apologize for getting it wrong earlier.

        • donna

          First of all the reason the creation scientists sent samples under false pretenses is because the labs would have automatically assumed it was millions of years old. In a similar way these labs also mis aged the rocks that were sent from mt saint helens and more. Lacquer would never be something that would skew the dating by millions of years. further, the point is that you can’t carbon date dinosaur bones if they are millions of years old and the fact that unfossilized bones have been found should cause you to at the very minimum ..wonder. But no, you and others find ad hoc explanations rather than think it possible. There is way way too many facts that the evolutionary scientists or OEF refuse to publish in peer review publications. 

          • Deven Kale

             You’re actually right, without the shellac (as I already mentioned, I was wrong about the lacquer) it wouldn’t have dated to 16,000 years. There would have been no date at all! The reason the date was 16,000 years was because the bones they received were not full bones, but only parts of them which had fallen off at some point and were then coated in the shellac. Read the article I posted, it gives all the information you need, and it’s fully sourced. Every question you have will be answered there.

            • donna

              exactly my point. They were given bones to date without thinking they were dinosaur bones. Shellac would have been detectable unless they were inept at their job. So they detected carbon in the bones! Just like the Alaskan example and the Schwietzer example. If you read about he Schwieter finding in the Science publications , it had evolutionists baffled . Then someone decided that they had better come up with an explanation. The point is that dinosaurs can be carbon dated and if the scientists let them we would know the truth. Your theory is a pure guess since there is not scientific test performed and the indexing within layers is false.

              • Deven Kale

                Well, no. The samples are prepared before being sent to the lab, which in this case means they’re crushed into a powder by the creationists, before the lab had even knew about them. When the lab received the sample, they had no idea the shellac was there because all they did was throw them into the radiocarbon dating machine, as requested. You can’t blame the lab for doing their job.

                But I get it. You don’t actually care about facts, or truth. You’ll only believe that which confirms your beliefs, and rational explanations for phenomena mean nothing. I regret thinking you were actually interested in reality, I’ll not make that mistake again.

                • donna

                  resorting to insults. If you took a cow bone with shellac, I doubt the lab would have a problem dating the cow within the time frame they existed. Why? because the bone composition would have carbon in it still as well as the carbon of the lacquer. The bones sent to the lab were dinosaur bones that STILL HAD CARBON because dinosaurs are within the age of the half life being measured.  you cannot determine the age of a dinosaur with your theory. There are the other unfossilized bones that you are not talking about.

                • Deven Kale

                   No… If you carbon date a modern cow bone coated in shellac, then you’ll get a modern date. Why? Because they both have modern levels of c14 in them.

                  When you date a dinosaur bone coated in modern shellac, you get a date somewhere between the death of the dinosaur and the hardening of the shellac. Why? Because the dinosaur bone has no c14 in it, while the shellac does. All the c14 that was in the bone has decayed to c12 or been replaced, while the shellac has modern levels. With the modern C14 in the shellac and the C12 from the shellac and whatever was left in the dinosaur bone, (in this case) you get a date of about 16,000 years ago. Without the shellac, you get an error, because there’s no C14 in the bone.

                  Why haven’t I said anything about the unfossilized bones? Because I couldn’t find anything about them. I don’t even know if they exist. I even found a bunch of stuff about the guy who supposedly found them, but nothing about him finding them. Not even anything about him finding them on his Wikipedia page, which is especially damning.

                  Ya know what? I’m bored trying to explain science to you. Take a class or something, maybe then you’ll learn. Good day.

                • donna

                  insults. if you get bored trying to win a debate you might not want to engage. I am not trying to win. Neither side has all of the answers, I am merely giving you evidence you have never heard. And because you haven’t, you dismiss it. The carbon 14 dating is going around in circles because you refuse to believe that it is possible that it was a dinosaur bone, based on the facts that others have been discovered and that there are historic accounts of them within the time frame that carbon could be detected.  the reason you don’t read about thiese is because the evolutionary scientists    won’t publish them but the creation scientists will. so go onto a creation science web sight and research it and decided for yourself it they are lying, just like marco polo, alexander the great, plin,and herodeous. All liars. but not evolutionary scientists they are bastions of truth. Another very good resource that shows the evolutionary people being unscrupulous in their deception is the documentary “expelled”. 

                • Deven Kale

                  I’m surprised I have to tell you this, but “creation science” websites aren’t really known for their credibility. If the only source there is for these un-fossilized dinosaur bones you speak of is a “creation science” website, then you have nothing that anybody but a creationist (or someone with a creation bias) would consider evidence.

                  As for all of your other claims, I’ve obviously already heard of them. How would I be so quick to show you their refutation if I hadn’t already researched it? Your claims here make no sense. The only legitimate claim made by a reputable lab that the results of a C14 test done on a dinosaur bone gave any results at all is the one from Arizona, in which they were coated in shellac. There are no other valid examples. Either the fact that it was a dinosaur bone is in question, or the lab used dubious processes. You have no valid evidence in support of your claims. Unless you can show me a source I haven’t seen yet, and it’s not like I haven’t looked.

                • donna

                  anyone following this discussion can see if they are honest that the things I have brought up are legitimate. Just because it comes from a website that people who agree with you have considered credible does not mean it is not. Many Phd scientists believe that the creation evidence is the most credible. You can deny it all day long but i can give you a long list of them if you want. just look at both sides without being so emotional about the side that you have been brought up to believe is incredible, only faith and mythological.  think outside of your presupposition boundaries and critically think as you look at ALL facts. GradyMcmurty is an ex evolutionary scientist , a member of the mensa society therefore deserves a look by those not quite as smart or informed like you and me.

      • Deven Kale

         Oh and also, is it so hard to imagine that people were finding dinosaur bones even way back then, calling them dragons, and writing fanciful stories about people fighting them? Pretty easy for me to imagine that. Seems pretty likely, actually.

        • donna

          They did not “find” dinosaur bones. Do we dig up bones of horses or cows? they lived with the dragons. That is what they were called before 1841. You are also missing the point that in almost every culture around the globe there were stories and pictures of dragons  and their is no way others would copy stories back then.  And if you don’t believe the actual journaling of actually trips that the meant I mentioned above wrote about. I just don’t know what to say. It is clear. Unless.. that was made up too. Its is so interesting how EVRYTHING the YEF bring up as evidence is made up or unscientific but EVERYTHING the OEF bring up is logical and real based on facts even though it is conjecture. Wow it is so clear to me.

          • Deven Kale

             What are YEF and OEF?

            • donna

              YOu or another person in this conversation started with the abrev young earth folks and I continued with Old earth folks. :)

  • Thin-ice

    “Carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time”???

    He shows that he STILL doesn’t know much about science. I’m sure he doesn’t even know the term “radiometric” to go along with the one word he does know, “radiocarbon”.

    Oh well, it’s a tiny, minute, baby step in the right direction.

  • GakuseiDon

    Pat Robertson has been saying similar things for years. This is from
    his 2002 book, “Bring it on”, page 135 (page viewable on Amazon):

    “The current theory which I accept points to a big bang theory as the
    beginning of creation, when about 15 billion years ago an
    extraordinarily dense mass exploded, and out of that came an expanding
    universe.”

    He also writes that “the Bible was not written as a science book”, though
    goes on to call evolution a “pseudo-science”. Robertson is a product of his time. Old Earth Creationism was more
    fashionable 50 years ago. The worrying thing is that YEC has increased in popularity in recent
    decades, so Robertson’s comments are a throwback to an earlier age and not an indication of a trend away from YEC.

    This is part of “redefining the enemy”, in this case that all evangelicals, and almost anyone who wears their Christianity on their sleeves, are YECs. (I’ve seen some atheists insistent that CS Lewis and WL Craig are YECs, for example). I suspect that Robertson’s comments will soon be forgotten, so that when he makes the same comments in 5 years, atheists will be surprised (again!) and see this as an indication (again!) that evangelism is turning away from YEC. Unfortunately this is not the case.

  • Jupiah

    “If you fight revealed science, you’re going to lose your children!”
    Wow, that is surprisingly insightful of him. I guess not every fundamentalist Christian is entirely ignorant of why their numbers are dwindling with every new generation.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KR3WX4DCBEOLDZGUYKKXNDGP44 SOD

    all religions people make my head hurt over and over and over and over

  • Oldehippy

    I certainly don’t agree with 99.999% of what Pat Robertson says but I don’t pay attention to what he says either. I believe in creationism and science. I don’t see any reason why not. When physics can explain how to join the micro with the macro, maybe I’ll say there is no god. Of course, then I’ll want an explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which scientists say comprise over 90% of the universe. Then maybe a picture of an electron, an actual electron, would go a long way too. The point here is that, there are many things that “men of god” claim that are wrong. That doesn’t mean there is no god. It means arguing with the crazy people to prove something is real  is like trying to ride a stationary bicycle across country. You’re really not going to get anywhere. But that doesn’t mean there is no truth about god. Just that you’re asking a whackjob to explain something he knows less about than science.

  • zuma

    Let’s construct how rock strata were formed through Great Flood:
    a) The sea level kept on increasing as a result of continuous rains so as to cause a Great Flood.

    b) As a result of sea waves, many dead creatures that would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as old rocks to be pushed up to the land so as to form the first layer of rock strata. There were many living creatures still alive to struggle for their survival.

    c) As the rains continued, another group of dead creatures would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as different rocks to be pushed up to the land as well to form the second layer of rock strata on different day. Some living creatures might still be alive to struggle for their survival.

    d) As the rains continued without ceasing, the dead dinosaurs’ bones that would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as iridium would have been pushed up to the land by strong sea waves to form k-t boundary on different day. Some living creatures might still be alive to struggle for their survival.

    e) As the rains continued without ceasing and some living creatures would still struggle for their survival, many living creatures might have been dead not long ago would be pushed up to the land so as to form additional layer of rock strata on different day.

    f) As the rains continued, the final batch of animals perished. Sea waves caused these dead creatures to be pushed up to be land to form the upper limit of strata.

    g) As the rains continued without ceasing, the strong sea waves would have pushed the seashells up on top of the mountain.

    h) When the rains ceased, rock strata were formed on top of the land and that is what we called, mountain.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X