Posted on 02/06/2014 8:33:34 AM PST by PapaNew
Creationist Ken Ham is having his 15 minutes, following a live debate on evolution held between himself and Bill Nye “The Science Guy” on Tuesday.
And while you’d expect most folks to deem Nye the winner (which they have), Ham is receiving criticism from a source you might not expect: televangelist Pat Robertson.
On the Wednesday edition of his TV show, “The 700 Club,” Robertson indirectly implored Ham to put a sock in it, criticizing Ham’s view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] … who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson began. “There ain’t no way that’s possible … To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”
“We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science,” Robertson continued, “and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”
“Let’s be real,” Robertson begged, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Yes and post #122 is a thoughtful discussion about that. I responded by describing why I think there are those who have no problem with the discoveries of true, non-agenda-driven science, and those who are threatened by new verifiable information that might challenge their religious views.
There was no reason for Christ to correct the Bilbe because he never read that the Earth was the age that you imply.
Obviously the Sun in the center of our solar system, but earth is center of the Universe.
The Bible leaves it open for discussion. There’s strong Biblical reasons to go with the Gap Theory but to each his own.
The real point here is the issue in the debate between creationism and Darwinism is not the age of rocks but the origin of living things.
That is correct. Otherwise, the results would be agenda driven...
No. No it isn’t. Not even by a long shot. We are not even in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy.
There is no “scientific evidence” for an old Earth.
There is technocratic propaganda, manufactured out of thin air, that apparently has you hooked, but it is in no way ‘science.’
There is plenty of science here: http://www.setterfield.org/
But I know you’re afraid to touch it.
.
That nay not be as insane as you may think. He does say that this is his favorite jewel and Mt Zion specifically. I would find it hard to believe that we were just some back alley, far removed from prominence, in light of the scriptures.
So someone who says “All true science can do is uncover what’s been in the Bible all along.” has no agenda?
Have you studied Observation Science like Mr. Ham?
If not, how do you know?
Have you been to all corners of the universe and taken measurements?
The Bible talks about a “firmament” 15 times. When the old testament was written all educated people believed there was a literal invisible dome above the earth that separated the heavenly ocean from the earth. Stars were embedded into it and the sun and moon moved across it.
Did the Bible lie about this model? Or do you believe that you must believe in the firmament because it’s described in the Bible?
It’s in the scriptures. Maybe someone can start a Smokey back room thread where we can present this. Remember the Moab Stone (roughly 800BC) had no scientific evidence either and was denounced by the Higher Critics of the day, un till they found it a couple of hundred years ago.
“Observation Science “
What is that? Sounds like a made up term.
That has nothing (zero) to do with the absence of current, viable "young earth" evidence.
And it is exactly the smarmy, sarcastic sort of arrogant, egotistical rudeness that Ken Ham is famous for resorting to when he knows he can't "prove" his baseless and absurd YEC claims.
I accept that model as operative and descriptive of reality. No problem at all. Oh, and the sun rises in the east in my neighborhood, too.
First of all “Mr. Ham” has not studied nor does he engage in anything close to “Observation Science” whatever that is even supposed to mean.
Next I would ask you; have you ever been to the Moon? You see it but how if you’ve never personally been there, how do you know that it isn’t just an optical illusion and that it really exists? You were not the Apollo 11 mission so do you then think that since you were not there to personally observe it, that it really didn’t happen?
I’ve traveled to England and Canada but I’ve never traveled to France nor have I ever been to Paris and so since I’ve not been there to personally take measurements of the Eiffel Tower, it may not very well exist or it could be much larger or much smaller if it even exists at all if I were to follow your line of what passes for “reasoning”.
I’ve never seen a volcano up close and personal either but I am pretty sure they exist. I’ve never met a live Tyrannosaurs Rex but I am pretty sure they once inhabited the Earth. I was not personally present when the Declaration of Independence was written, but I’m pretty sure it was written in Philadelphia in 1776 by a bunch of now dead white guys. But since I wasn’t there to observe it, how do I or you know that the Declaration wasn’t written by a bunch of rasifarians or even space aliens…..
Mr. Ham also believes and promotes the idea that dinosaurs were once vegetarians and that they peacefully coexisted with humans, much like our modern pets, dogs and cats, that they were even taken aboard the Ark.
Since neither you or Ken Ham was there to witness this; how do you know that Ham is telling the truth? Where you on the Ark? Did you take measurements and personally count the number of animals brought on board? And if you were, I’d really like to know what you feed them and who got the short end of the straw and was given the nasty task of cleaning out the “litter boxes” of the elephants and T-Rex’s.
Has SCIENCE proved that yet? :)
There are tons of evidence for an old earth.
There is technocratic propaganda, manufactured out of thin air, that apparently has you hooked, but it is in no way ‘science.’
As opposed to your opinion to the contrary.
There is plenty of science here: http://www.setterfield.org/
And even more science here: http://www.talkorigins.org/
But I know you’re afraid to touch it.
I'll take a look at it. I love comedy.
No, there is no such evidence.
Misinterpretation of misunderstood data is never evidence of anything but foolish unscientific bias, you being an amateur example.
.
Yes there is a great deal of evidence.
Misinterpretation of misunderstood data is never evidence of anything but foolish unscientific bias, you being an amateur example.
It works for you and Ham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.