Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!

| 240 Comments

Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.

Here’s the clip:

Cue howls of anguished protest from Ken Ham in 3,2,1…

Added: if you don’t see Pat Robertson in the YouTube frame above, then click here to see the video.

240 Comments

If he lived another hundred years, might he acknowledge the evidence that birds evolved as a branch of the dinosaurs?

Hmmm, probably not, but he’s right that it won’t do to fight “revealed science” (an odd term, but ok). It just shows that any such religion lacks either the intellect or the honesty to tell the truth.

Glen Davidson

Well, I’m not surprised he can concede that. Ol’ Patty would surely have seen the dinosaurs back in his youth if there had been any.

So dinosaurs lived before humans! Radiocarbon dating is good! The earth isn’t six thousand years old, that’s just Archbishop Usher not the bible! Sounds like this guy realizes that denying science is just driving people away from the church. More people should get a clue.

3 … 2 … 1!

From Ham’s Facebook page:

Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted o…n Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We don’t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.

And nobody in the 700 Club studio dared stand up and say,

“Hey sir, as long as you’re publicly stating that Christians can’t go up against ‘revealed science’, why don’t you ALSO publicly concede that humans originated on earth via evolving from an ‘ape-like common ancestor’ animal, instead of being naturalistically created directly supernaturally and in the image of God as per Gen 1:26, 2:7, and 2:22?

And while you’re at it sir, why not ALSO publicly concede that death was necessarily present on Earth prior to the Fall as the evolutionists state, thus eliminating Romans 5:12-17 and what it says about what Jesus accomplished?”

Can’t blame evolutionists for exploiting Robertson on this one. He made a Stupid Mistake, and it was both unnecessary and preventable.

He’s a good Q and A man when he sticks to the Bible for his answers—but this time he didn’t stick to the Bible at all, and in fact openly opposed it.

IOW, he ripped off that whole family, starting with that worried Christian woman.

FL

typo error: please remove/ignore the word “naturalistically”

.…typing too fast.

From Ham’s Facebook page:

… we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson.

… We don’t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.

Holy crap. I have actually lived long enough to hear Pat Robertson pilloried, apparently in all seriousness, for his “compromising”.

The Mayans are right. Clearly the end times are nigh.

Note the comment following from fatuous Floyd, the friggen f*cktard.

John said:

3 … 2 … 1!

From Ham’s Facebook page:

Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted o…n Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We don’t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.

Unfortunately for FL, this is a case in which Robertson broke with the sectarian scrip of faking knowledge about science.

When that façade slips – as it apparently did with Robertson – we see an example of the duplicity of sectarians of this genre.

FL, on the other hand, believes that by maintaining the façade of faking knowledge of science, he is getting away with it; a really stupid tactic because it backfires so dramatically. Remember your faking it about entropy, FL?

You can go back to the Bathroom Wall now. Nobody here is interested in your fakery.

…faking knowledge about science.

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

All Robertson had to do was stick with the Bible (like he usually does, btw!), simply tell the Christian lady what the Bible says about the matter, and tell her why it’s important to stick with that, even though evolutionists disagree with the Bible.

Then simply give her a quickie tip or two on how to tactfully and prayerfully discuss the issues with her family so as to slowly help them to believe the Bible’s account. That’s all he had to do.

There’s nothing about “faking science” on this thing. The Christian lady already knew what the evolutionist position was, for her own husband and sons told her straight-up.

IOW, she didn’t have to be told that her family is infected with the Slimy Virus of evolution, and that the family’s spiritual immune system is in danger of collapse. She instead needed to know what the Bible specifically said, and now to relate that specific knowledge to the objections being thrown at her.

Robertson should have stuck with that, or at least bring in somebody who could.

The Bible approach was how Robertson became good as a Christian “Q and A” man. It is grievously sad to see Robertson abandoning the Scripture approach, right when a worried Christian mother needed it most.

FL

FL said:

.

All Robertson had to do was stick with the Bible (like he usually does, btw!), simply tell the Christian lady what the Bible says about the matter, and tell her why it’s important to stick with that, even though evolutionists reality disagrees with the Bible.

FTFY.

FL said:

…faking knowledge about science.

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

All Robertson had to do was stick with the Bible (like he usually does, btw!), simply tell the Christian lady what the Bible says about the matter, and tell her why it’s important to stick with that, even though evolutionists disagree with the Bible.

Then simply give her a quickie tip or two on how to tactfully and prayerfully discuss the issues with her family so as to slowly help them to believe the Bible’s account. That’s all he had to do.

There’s nothing about “faking science” on this thing. The Christian lady already knew what the evolutionist position was, for her own husband and sons told her straight-up.

IOW, she didn’t have to be told that her family is infected with the Slimy Virus of evolution, and that the family’s spiritual immune system is in danger of collapse. She instead needed to know what the Bible specifically said, and now to relate that specific knowledge to the objections being thrown at her.

Robertson should have stuck with that, or at least bring in somebody who could.

The Bible approach was how Robertson became good as a Christian “Q and A” man. It is grievously sad to see Robertson abandoning the Scripture approach, right when a worried Christian mother needed it most.

FL

This is exactly the kind of reality denial that drives people away from religion. Fine by me, just sayin.

FL said:

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

Those big guys sure lived and died fast, seeing as how they universally managed to get themselves buried below any layers containing modern mammals or birds.

Well, you know what they say; “Live fast, Die young, Leave a good looking, instantly interred, corpse”.

FL said:

Not sure what you’re talking about, …

FL

Not just fakery; cynical double-down, triple-down fakery. The stuff you try to master that, instead, just ends up exposing the totally corrupted inner core of your mindless sectarianism.

FL said: She instead needed to know what the Bible specifically said…

Ok, where in the bible does it list the age of the Earth? Be specific, now.

stevaroni said: I have actually lived long enough to hear Pat Robertson pilloried, apparently in all seriousness, for his “compromising”.

The Mayans are right. Clearly the end times are nigh.

I share the feeling. I am indeed stunned, and extremely pleased, to see this video! Many thanks to Dave Thomas for posting it!

Pat Robertson’s words are hard to understand. Does anyone know where there is a transcript of what he said, or would someone like to make one? :-)

FL said:

…faking knowledge about science.

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

Did the incompetent moron who (utterly failed to) teach you Evolutionary Biology teach you that?

What days were flightless birds created on? How about penguins? Or flying fish?

Better yet, where are all the peer-reviewed reports detailing the alleged evidence about all life having been magically poofed into existence by God using magic 10,000 years ago?

Pat Robertson has been a great christian leader and rightly esteemed and famous for it. His comments are fine here but just a few errors. Its not revealed science that these dating methods are accurate and silly to base a whole system of thought upon such things. Nothing wrong with dinos and the bible either. Pat is older now and not listening to modern YEC creationism. He holds strong faith in the truth of the bible and simply is saying there is room to include other things. Yet in fact there is no problem. It’s alright.

A Moron For Jesus babbled:

Pat Robertson has been a great christian leader and rightly esteemed and famous for it. His comments are fine here but just a few errors. Its not revealed science that these dating methods are accurate and silly to base a whole system of thought upon such things. Nothing wrong with dinos and the bible either. Pat is older now and not listening to modern YEC creationism. He holds strong faith in the truth of the bible and simply is saying there is room to include other things. Yet in fact there is no problem. It’s alright.

Then why is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claims made by Young Earth Creationists?

Where is the evidence of Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ riding on Velociraptors, taming Tyrannosaurus, or putting a saddle on Triceratops?

Why should anyone believe anything Young Earth Creationists say if Young Earth Creationists refuse to believe their evidence-free claims? Because people will go to Hell to be raped forever for not blindly believing them?

FL said:

…faking knowledge about science.

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

All Robertson had to do was stick with the Bible (like he usually does, btw!), simply tell the Christian lady what the Bible says about the matter, and tell her why it’s important to stick with that, even though evolutionists disagree with the Bible.

Then simply give her a quickie tip or two on how to tactfully and prayerfully discuss the issues with her family so as to slowly help them to believe the Bible’s account. That’s all he had to do.

There’s nothing about “faking science” on this thing. The Christian lady already knew what the evolutionist position was, for her own husband and sons told her straight-up.

IOW, she didn’t have to be told that her family is infected with the Slimy Virus of evolution, and that the family’s spiritual immune system is in danger of collapse. She instead needed to know what the Bible specifically said, and now to relate that specific knowledge to the objections being thrown at her.

Robertson should have stuck with that, or at least bring in somebody who could.

The Bible approach was how Robertson became good as a Christian “Q and A” man. It is grievously sad to see Robertson abandoning the Scripture approach, right when a worried Christian mother needed it most.

FL

Can you quote out the Hebrew word from Genesis that means dinosaur? Remember, since the text is literal, it has to be a word that and educated Hebrew speaker (somewhere between he tenth and third centuries BC) would have recognized as meaning dinosaur. A generic term meaning land animal won’t do–to the audience that would only have meant hyenas, sheep, lizards, and other animals they were familiar with.

Then can you do the same for marsupial?

Robert Byers said:

Pat Robertson has been a great christian leader and rightly esteemed and famous for it. His comments are fine here but just a few errors. Its not revealed science that these dating methods are accurate and silly to base a whole system of thought upon such things. Nothing wrong with dinos and the bible either. Pat is older now and not listening to modern YEC creationism. He holds strong faith in the truth of the bible and simply is saying there is room to include other things. Yet in fact there is no problem. It’s alright.

Well, Bob, what about operation blessing? You Remember that. Robertson told his sheep he needed money to buy 2 airplanes to transport relief supplies to Rwanda. But it turned out the planes were used to transport equipment to the diamond mine he had got in Zaire by bribing Mubutu. Is that what a Christian leader would do? The attorney general of Virginia didn’t think so, and opened up an investigation against Robertson for fraud and mis-use of his tax-exempt status. But then Robertson contributed $35,000 dollars to his re-election campaign and somehow charges were never brought. That’s exactly what Jesus would be doing if he were here now, isn’t it?

Feeding trolls may be fun, but please take a break and do a reality check. Even William Jennings Bryan admitted an old earth 87 years ago. “Scientific” YEC is a mid-20th century concoction that is dying a slow death. If anything it’s fellow “Darwinists” who keep it on life support. Polls show that the average evolution-denier “on the street” who hasn’t given 5 minutes’ thought to the “when” questions is more likely to admit an old earth when the questions are worded unequivocally. The ones to watch out for are those who play dumb about the “when” questions, and have at best vague denial or uncertainty about common descent. They’re almost certainly in on the scam.

FL said:

Not sure what you’re talking about, Mike. The Bible is very clear about when the land animals (including dinosaurs) and humans were created. They were both created on the sixth day (literal 24-hour day).

Right. This would be the same Bible that states in Genesis 1 that plants were created on the third day and on the sixth day animals followed by humans, but in Genesis 2 states that plants and animals were created after humans.

Helena Constantine said:

Can you quote out the Hebrew word from Genesis that means dinosaur? Remember, since the text is literal, it has to be a word that and educated Hebrew speaker (somewhere between he tenth and third centuries BC) would have recognized as meaning dinosaur. A generic term meaning land animal won’t do–to the audience that would only have meant hyenas, sheep, lizards, and other animals they were familiar with.

Then can you do the same for marsupial?

This is going to be rich.

Either FL will ignore your questions entirely, and show us, yet again, what an impotent, ignorant Coward For Jesus he always is, or he’ll open his big, fat mouth, and show us, yet again, how his alleged Biology teachers were utter failures were at teaching him Biology.

Really, FL is the typical idiotic literalist Creationist.

Creationists like FL argue that the Bible means that rabbits are ruminants because eating one’s own feces is the same as chewing cud, nevermind that a) they aren’t, and b) the original Hebrew translations of the Bible referred to hyraxes, not rabbits, and hyraxes neither chew cud, nor eat their own feces.

Bobby just cant deal with the fACt that radio carbon dating has been calibrated back 50,000 years. He has no answer whatsoever for this evidence, he just pretends it doesnt exist and hopes no one will notice. This is exactly what drives people away from religion, ignorant fools spouting off, proudly displaying their ignorance in front of people who know better. Maybe hell start demanding that people believe that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around the earth in order for people to join his special club. In fact, im sure thats exactly what he would do if he thought he could get away with it.

Ok, where in the bible does it list the age of the Earth? Be specific, now.

The age of the Earth is an inference (and if you have a problem with using inferences, you’re in rational trouble already!) that is drawn from the clear Genesis statements of each day of Creation Week being a literal 24-hour-day. Combined with the genealogies (and ages) listed in Gen 5 and elsewhere, you can calculate a range of between 6000-10000 years for the age of the earth.

What you WON’T get, of course, is 4.6 billion years.

FL

Can you quote out the Hebrew word from Genesis that means dinosaur?

Oh, you don’t want to deal with those land animals (ALL of them) being created exclusively on the Sixth Day? Don’t like T-Rex being one of the regulars at Adam and Eve’s petting zoo?

Heh! That’s how evolutionists work – gotta duck the clear statements of Genesis, no matter what.

FL

Duck? Ignore. Yawn.

But then Robertson contributed $35,000 dollars to his re-election campaign and somehow charges were never brought. That’s exactly what Jesus would be doing if he were here now, isn’t it?

So in fact, Robertson gets only the usual hate and suspicion from the atheists and evolutionists, no matter what he says on TV, whether it’s Old-Earth or Young-Earth.

Atheists and evolutionists are totally happy to EXPLOIT what Robertson said there, because (unbelievably!) he didn’t even cast ANY challenges on ANY of the evolutionist or uniformitarian claims at all.

You guys & gals got a complete free pass from Robertson on his way-too-short answer. That’s the only reason why this thread was created. I’d have done the same thing if I were an atheist or an evolutionist.

But other than exploiting him, it’s still the same ole “I-Hate-Pat (and-Pat’s-Jesus-too)” gig for you atheists and evolutionists.

So really, nothing was gained. And now the door has been opened further for Daniel Dennett’s “Universal Acid” to wreck more corrosion and erosion on that Christian lady and her family. And it’s likely going to happen, oh yes.

That Christian mother would have been better off watching bed-hopping soap-operas on that day.

FL

Pat Robertson has been an Old-Earth Creationist for a long time. I found this segment on another blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explor[…]tionism.html

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. Part of the reason scientists believe this theory stems from the movement of the planets. Study of the cosmos indicates that the planets are still moving away from each other. Imagine that we took a big balloon that had not been expanded, put little dots all around it, and then began to blow up the balloon. As we blew up the balloon, the dots would get farther and farther apart. That is similar to what astronomers observe has been happening to our universe during these 15 billion years.”

Or you can read the page at Google books.

What is new here is the public visibility with which Robertson has proclaimed his rejection of the Young Earth. From a Christian point of view, it is very commendable that he did so in response to a Christian mother concerned about her husband and children. Salvation does not depend on the age of the earth.

I’m having a Jesus moment: right now I feel more joy over Pat Robertson than I do about Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. This is great news! Don’t let the trolls ruin it.

Dave Thomas said:

Before y’all click thru to FL’s post at the Bathroom Wall, here’s a Spoiler:

FL didn’t supply a chapter or verse where the Bible specifies the earth’s age, or mentions dinosaurs.

Hell will freeze over, thaw, and Satan will be demoted to staff manager at a retirement center in Boca Raton before FL will supply a chapter or verse where the Bible specifies the earth’s age, or mentions dinosaurs.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Another Spoiler Alert: FL did exactly what I warned him not to do, namely citing “genealogies” as a method for calculating the Age of the Earth.

He also mentioned “dinos”, but outside of saying they were supernaturally created on the same day as Humans, he forgot to mention the chapter and verse that actually mentions “dinosaurs.”

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

If that’s how you want to amuse yourself in your spare time, that’s fine.

But remember, you came in here preaching that Robertson was wrong not to agree with you that the Bible explicitly and clearly says that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

What you fail to understand is that the Bible carries no instruction manual for finding the age of the earth. Nowhere does it say

Oh, if you’re curious about how old the Earth is, simply tally up the genealogies in Genesis 5 to get an accurate age.

That, FL, is as “subjective” as subjective gets. It depends strongly on how one interprets the Bible. You are doing a doubly-subjective activity: first, interpreting the Bible as suggesting genealogy tallies as a method for deriving Earth’s age, and secondly, with your specific tallies that amount to 6,000 years.

And there are lots of other interpretations. Seeing as we’re all entitled to our own interpretations of scripture, all these interpretations are equally valid.

Pat Robertson’s statements PROVE there are multiple interpretations that are not in agreement.

I asked you to justify YOUR particular interpretation with a clear and non-subjective verse of the Bible.

You have FAILED.

Everyone sees that, FL, except you.

And that doesn’t speak well of your intelligence.

FL said:

Another Spoiler Alert: FL did exactly what I warned him not to do, namely citing “genealogies” as a method for calculating the Age of the Earth

Okay, here’s a sincere question for you, Dave. Why, specifically, do you warn Christians not to cite Biblical genealogies and make use of them (in conjunction with other Scriptures like the six-day thing) to calculate the age of the Earth?

It’s one thing to say “I disagree”, but this?

FL

Well Forgetful Floyd you’re doing the same thing Ussher did, the only difference between he two of you is Ussher thinks Jesus was coming back in 1997. The problem with what you are doing is that your making an inference of something which said was clearly established. Your argument is “well, if you add up these dates you get the age of the Earth.” The problem is you were asked for chapter and verse which you said would clearly state the age of the Earth, instead of providing that, you told us to do what Ussher did and do some vague math.

Dave Thomas said:

But remember, you came in here preaching that Robertson was wrong not to agree with you that the Bible explicitly and clearly says that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

What you fail to understand is that the Bible carries no instruction manual for finding the age of the earth. Nowhere does it say

Oh, if you’re curious about how old the Earth is, simply tally up the genealogies in Genesis 5 to get an accurate age.

That, FL, is as “subjective” as subjective gets. It depends strongly on how one interprets the Bible. You are doing a doubly-subjective activity: first, interpreting the Bible as suggesting genealogy tallies as a method for deriving Earth’s age, and secondly, with your specific tallies that amount to 6,000 years.

And there are lots of other interpretations. Seeing as we’re all entitled to our own interpretations of scripture, all these interpretations are equally valid.

Pat Robertson’s statements PROVE there are multiple interpretations that are not in agreement.

I asked you to justify YOUR particular interpretation with a clear and non-subjective verse of the Bible.

The principle articulated here by Dave Thomas is an ancient one, dating back at least to the 39 Anglican Articles:

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/t[…]rticles.html

Article 6 is the one of interest here:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Emphasis mine.

The 39 Anglican Articles date from 1563 and the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. I don’t know if Dave Thomas has been to seminary or is simply being sensible, but he is correct: Christian doctrine under sola scriptura is derived from the direct teaching of Scripture; and that means book, chapter, and verse. No “necessary inferences” allowed. You can make all sorts of calculations and inferences on your own time, but under Pat Robertson’s terminology those deductions are “not inspired”.

apokryltaros said:

FL refuses to explain why implying that the dinosaurs were among the “land animals” that were magically poofed into existence on the 6th day of Creation is supposed to be a “clear and objective” discussion of dinosaurs in the Bible.

I wonder if it’s because he wants (to be, by proxy) the Bible to be the ULTIMATE authority on dinosaurs, without actually going through the trouble of learning to be an authority on dinosaurs.

I wonder if Ichthyosaurs were poofed on the 6th day?

I wonder if Ichthyosaurs were poofed on the 6th day?

That sounds fishy to me!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn[…]_GLu.k#d404b said: I wonder if Ichthyosaurs were poofed on the 6th day?

Animals of the water (as well as those of the sky) were created on the 5th day. The 6th day was for land animals (including humans).

Land plants (grasses, herbs, fruit trees are specifically mentioned) were created on the 3rd day.

There is no mention of other living things being created on any of the days. Maybe burrowing animals are understood to be part of day 6, but what about internal parasites and symbionts? I’d guess that fungi were either considered to be plants or else were understood to be spontaneously generated.

Funny thing about fungi is that they’re closer related to animals than they are to green plants.

TomS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn[…]_GLu.k#d404b said: I wonder if Ichthyosaurs were poofed on the 6th day?

Animals of the water (as well as those of the sky) were created on the 5th day. The 6th day was for land animals (including humans).

Land plants (grasses, herbs, fruit trees are specifically mentioned) were created on the 3rd day.

There is no mention of other living things being created on any of the days. Maybe burrowing animals are understood to be part of day 6, but what about internal parasites and symbionts? I’d guess that fungi were either considered to be plants or else were understood to be spontaneously generated.

what about salamanders?

What about amphibians, and marine vegetation?

Let’s not forget the Giraffe:

The Camelopardalis is mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy. The name translates as a description between a camel and a leopard, and some scholars had assumes that this was a description of the giraffe. However, other biblical scholars have argued that giraffes have never been indigenous to Israel or the surrounding area, and that the name probably refers to the mouflin, a wild sheep that lives in that area.

Other than this questionable reference, the bible does not mention giraffes.

Here’s a List of animals in the Bible.

Funny, it doesn’t mention dinosaurs, brontosaurus, apatosaurus, T-rex, or anything!

It’s Deuteronomy 14:5:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang[…]69&t=KJV

Strong’s Concordance H2169 - zemer

From the Blue Letter Bible:

1) mountain sheep, mountain goat, moufflon, gazelle, chamois (meaning uncertain)

a) a certain animal allowed as food (specific species uncertain)

b) perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown

The zemer was undoubtedly a terrestrial tetrapod, which puts its creation on Day 6 according to TomS. Since TomS is graciously answering biblical questions with considered and thoughtful responses, I thought I’d get mine in. Tom, have you ever heard of a pygarg?

Deu 14:5 The hart 354, and the roebuck 6643, and the fallow deer 3180, and the wild goat 689, and the pygarg 1788, and the wild ox 8377, and the chamois 2169.

Carl Drews said:

It’s Deuteronomy 14:5:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang[…]69&t=KJV

Strong’s Concordance H2169 - zemer

From the Blue Letter Bible:

1) mountain sheep, mountain goat, moufflon, gazelle, chamois (meaning uncertain)

a) a certain animal allowed as food (specific species uncertain)

b) perhaps an extinct animal, exact meaning unknown

The zemer was undoubtedly a terrestrial tetrapod, which puts its creation on Day 6 according to TomS. Since TomS is graciously answering biblical questions with considered and thoughtful responses, I thought I’d get mine in. Tom, have you ever heard of a pygarg?

Deu 14:5 The hart 354, and the roebuck 6643, and the fallow deer 3180, and the wild goat 689, and the pygarg 1788, and the wild ox 8377, and the chamois 2169.

Addax. — A kind of antelope (antilope addax) with twisted horns; it very probably corresponds to the dîshõn of the Hebrews and the pygarg of the divers translations (Deuteronomy 14:5). (form wiki link above)

There is no reason for us to think the Earth is only a few thousand year old, even if the Bible is taken literally. Some Christians think the “days” referred to in the Genesis creation accounts mean ages instead. Others think there were indeed TWO creation accounts and that the one featuring Adam and Eve was the second one, while the first occured farther in the past. Still others say there was a gap, or several gaps, in the creation sequence, so that there were long periods of time between (some of) the days of creation.

What we DO know is that the Earth is billions of years old. Bible or no Bible, it cannot be less than many millions of years in age, period.

DS said:

Yes Rondo, thanks for the link.

Now why is it that these guys always cite papers that prove them wrong and think no one will notice? I guess they just assume that no one will actually read the paper because they haven’t.

I wish someone would count up the number of lies that Floyd has told just on this thread alone. The rules of the site specifically say not to make an ass of yourself. Floyd has definitely stepper over the line and turned around and spat on it. If he cannot be banned permanently he should at least be restricted the the bathroom wall. Why should anyone have to waste their time pointing out his egregious behavior and trying to get him to act like an adult?

I’m willing to take up that challenge, all I ask in return for my trouble, is that you spell my name right.

First, Floyd quote-mines both Richard Dawkins and Carol Cleland, that’s two right there.

Second, Floyd says we can’t test Macroevolution, we can and do. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]ciation.html

Third, Floyd says that we’ve never found an “apelike common ancestor,” we have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o[…]an_evolution

Floyd claims 2 Timothy 3:16 says that the bible must be taken literally, it doesn’t.

Floyd claims Jesus accepted the historical claims of genesis, he quotes Matthew 19 to bolster his claim. The problem is, I only found one TINY verse that even vaguely support Floyd here, Matthew 19:4, and that only mentions men and women being created at the same time in the beginning. That’s it, no fall from grace, no Garden of Eden, and no flood. Floyd is just adding things to the bible here.

Floyd then compounds his lies about Matthew 19 by saying that Jesus explicitly called it “history,” Jesus NEVER did that! No where in Matthew 19 is the word “history” even uttered, not history, not historical, no variation of the word history exists in Matthew 19. Floyd is just “inferring” things again.

Floyd says historical science can’t be tested, and he quotes AIG to that effect, but in the very article before his AIG quotes, Carol Cleland explicitly tells us how to test historical science. I’m counting this lie as two lies, because if Floyd read Carol Cleland’s article he would know historical science could be tested. In which case he’s just being a lying duplicitous shit bag by denying what Carol Cleland’s article said, or Floyd didn’t read the article, in which case, he’s being a lying duplicitous shit bag for using a peer reviewed article to artificially bolster his case.

Now, the absolute biggest lies Floyd has said is, that dinosaurs and the age of the Earth can only be “inferred.” Floyd has told us time and time again that the bible must be taken literally, in fact he’s giving Pat Robertson shit for this very reason. Floyd then goes on to make “inferences,” use metaphors, but worst of all, as I’ve already pointed out elsewhere, he ADDS things to the bible.

The reason this is the biggest lie of all is because it’s the very reason Floyd is commenting on this article, he wants to give Pat Robertson shit for not taking the bible literally, only to demonstrate that Floyd himself doesn’t do that.

Now let’s count the total: 12 confirmed lies. I’m sure there are more, and other posters will be happy to pick up my work. All the times he ran, ignored posts, and tried to pretend he was better than everyone, are all various different forms of lying, but I didn’t want to bother counting them all.

The point of all this is that Floyd is a lying duplicitous shit bag, who needs to be banned to the Bathroom Wall, if not outright banned entirely. Thank you.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Rando said: Floyd claims 2 Timothy 3:16 says that the bible must be taken literally, it doesn’t.

IMHO, it’s pointless to argue with someone about what a particular Biblical proof-text means. But I’d mention the brief discussion given in Wikipedia Biblical inspiration

There are a few different concepts which are sometimes confused:

literal Meaning “not figurative”, or “what the writer intended”, or “what a reader can be expected to understand”.

inerrant No mistakes.

Sola Scriptura The only source of information.

Note that “inerrant” could allow that there are other sources of reliable information, while “Sola Scriptura” means that one doesn’t need anything other than the Bible.

inspired Written under Divine guidance.

TomS said:

Sola Scriptura The only source of information.

Note that “inerrant” could allow that there are other sources of reliable information, while “Sola Scriptura” means that one doesn’t need anything other than the Bible.

As written, this is not quite correct. Sola Scriptura expresses the belief that the Bible contains all the information necessary for salvation – one doesn’t need, for example, secret gnostic knowledge or the traditions of the church to be saved. It doesn’t mean that no other sources of information are allowed, which is how part of TomS’s comment reads. (Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point – I’m sensitive to the nuance involved because fundamentalists tend to take sola scriptura farther than I think the reformers intended. I’ve also been reviewing student papers for the last three hours and am in the nit-pick/clarify zone…)

The usual formulation I’ve seen is that there are five solae of the Reformation – Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), Sola fide (“by faith alone”), Sola gratia (“by grace alone”), Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”), and Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”).

[Some of the above was cribbed from Wikipedia, which is correct in this case.]

SWT said:

TomS said:

Sola Scriptura The only source of information.

Note that “inerrant” could allow that there are other sources of reliable information, while “Sola Scriptura” means that one doesn’t need anything other than the Bible.

As written, this is not quite correct. Sola Scriptura expresses the belief that the Bible contains all the information necessary for salvation – one doesn’t need, for example, secret gnostic knowledge or the traditions of the church to be saved. It doesn’t mean that no other sources of information are allowed, which is how part of TomS’s comment reads. (Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point – I’m sensitive to the nuance involved because fundamentalists tend to take sola scriptura farther than I think the reformers intended. I’ve also been reviewing student papers for the last three hours and am in the nit-pick/clarify zone…)

The usual formulation I’ve seen is that there are five solae of the Reformation – Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), Sola fide (“by faith alone”), Sola gratia (“by grace alone”), Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”), and Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”).

[Some of the above was cribbed from Wikipedia, which is correct in this case.]

Of course, in all of FL’s attempts at arguments (like his attempt on this thread), FL argues that Sola Scriptura is not only the only way to learn anything, but also actively denigrates all other forms of learning as being evil nonsense and blatant devil worship. Though, he’ll actively deny what he said in order to either get out of having to justify his inanity, or when he realizes the blowback from his inanity threatens to make him look like an even bigger, stupider Idiot For Jesus.

I should apologize for being careless in my statement and thank you for the clarification.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

So… after the usual Floyd-ing, I’ve completely lost the thread.

I think I need some reference.

What is the official, mainstream protestant line on Dinosaurs these days?

1) Do most denominations “officially” say dinosaurs existed (it’s a real question, I used to know an assistant minister who was certain dinosaur bones were deceptions left by Satan).

2) Do most denominations “officially” think dinosaurs frolicked in the garden, a la’ Ken Ham?

3) Do most denominations “officially” think dinosaurs got on the ark?

I think the answers are, respectively, “yes”, “maybe” and “don’t ask about this one”, but since I tend to have relatively few “sane” conversations about this stuff with the very religious, I really don’t know.

For ‘mainline’ denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), I’m pretty sure the answers would be yes, no, and no – with the qualification that for the last two questions, the Garden and Ark would be considered metaphorical anyway.

Just Bob said:

For ‘mainline’ denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), I’m pretty sure the answers would be yes, no, and no – with the qualification that for the last two questions, the Garden and Ark would be considered metaphorical anyway.

Most of the Mainline Protestant denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), wisely concern themselves with matters of Salvation and helping widows and orphans in their distress (James 1:27); they do not take an Official position on scientific questions like dinosaurs and the age of the earth. But you can find some Baptists like Albert Mohler trying to add non-Biblical doctrine about evolution:

Albert Mohler said:

For one thing, there’s the issue of human ‘descent’. Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God’s image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species.

TIME Magazine August 15, 2005, page 35.

Mohler was at that time President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Individual members can take their own positions. Since dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, they were neither in the Garden of Eden (~10 kya) or in the Flood (~7 kya, according to Walter Pittman). I am using approximate dates for those mainline Protestants who take a non-metaphorical view of Genesis 3-11. Just Bob has it correct: the unofficial answers are yes, no, and no.

stevaroni said:

So… after the usual Floyd-ing, I’ve completely lost the thread.

I think I need some reference.

What is the official, mainstream protestant line on Dinosaurs these days?

1) Do most denominations “officially” say dinosaurs existed (it’s a real question, I used to know an assistant minister who was certain dinosaur bones were deceptions left by Satan).

2) Do most denominations “officially” think dinosaurs frolicked in the garden, a la’ Ken Ham?

3) Do most denominations “officially” think dinosaurs got on the ark?

I think the answers are, respectively, “yes”, “maybe” and “don’t ask about this one”, but since I tend to have relatively few “sane” conversations about this stuff with the very religious, I really don’t know.

The position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (my denomination) is that “the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction” because affirming or denying evolutionary theory is not necessary to uphold a Biblical doctrine. I don’t recall there being “official” positions about dinosaurs in the garden or on the ark – again, these are not necessary to uphold the essential tenets of the faith.

TomS said:

I should apologize for being careless in my statement and thank you for the clarification.

No problem! Theology has its own jargon and your clarification of “literal,” “inspired,” and “inerrant” is important to those trying to make what sense they can about debates within the larger church.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on November 29, 2012 9:10 AM.

God as a Superhuman: A (belated) Response to Jason Rosenhouse was the previous entry in this blog.

A Reply to Robert Asher is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter