Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

FL said: Not sure what you're talking about, ... FL

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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

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?

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.”

Carl Drews said:

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? :-)

Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.” The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.” “You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.” Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.” “If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.

FL said:

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!)

Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t. You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible. . . . If you fight science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.

eric said:

FL said:

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!)

You seem to have a problem using inferences like N1/N2 = N1₀/N2₀*e^{(lambda2-lambda1)*t}, solve for t. I agree, this means you're in rational trouble already.

Lying Coward For Jesus brayed:

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

FL said: 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.

Salvation does not depend on the age of the earth...

Looks like Fred Flintstone (AKA Floyd) is back trying to push his reality denial once again. Yubbba dubba doo Floyd. Is the earth flat Floyd, or is roundness just an inference? Does the sun go around the earth FLoyd, or is that just an inference as well? If the holey bible said that the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe it Floyd? Keep spouting your nonsense dipstick, everyone once can see you for the reality challenged scum bag that you are.

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

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): “[...] 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. [...]”

FL said:

Salvation does not depend on the age of the earth...

...Unless your Christian faith gets eroded

Too much of a coward to admit that the Bible never mentions “dinosaurs”?

FL said:

Too much of a coward to admit that the Bible never mentions “dinosaurs”?

Not at all. Doesn't say dinosaurs." Just wanted to put the point she was ducking -- and the point you naturally want to duck too -- up on the table for display. No problems with that, are there? FL

FL said: First Charles Darwin gave up on Genesis historicity, then he gave up on Old Testament historicity, then he gave up onthe Four Gospels / New Testament historicity...and with it, gave up on Jesus Christ. "Gradual Evolution", you might call it.

FL said:

Too much of a coward to admit that the Bible never mentions “dinosaurs”?

Not at all. Doesn't say dinosaurs." Just wanted to put the point she was ducking -- and the point you naturally want to duck too -- up on the table for display. No problems with that, are there? FL

FL said:

Salvation does not depend on the age of the earth...

...Unless your Christian faith gets eroded & corroded by un-met, un-responded challenges to Biblical authority and historical accuracy.

Nope, Robertson is in. He's become filthy rich while spouting Jesus. Actually BY spouting Jesus. That proves God likes him.

The formula is : be (or sound like) an evangelical + lie, cheat, or scam your way into ostentatious wealth (cheating Christians is OK, even felonies) = guaranteed heaven as a model evangelical, blessed by the lord.

FL said:

Too much of a coward to admit that the Bible never mentions “dinosaurs”?

Doesn't say dinosaurs.

FL said:

Salvation does not depend on the age of the earth...

...Unless your Christian faith gets eroded & corroded by un-met, un-responded challenges to Biblical authority and historical accuracy. Losing one's Christian faith over evolution, does NOT happen quickly (just ask Charles Darwin), and it's usually a cumulative, multifaceted thing rather any one knife in the back. But it does happen, and the denial of the very clear Literal 24-Hour-Days of Creation Week that is given in Genesis, DOES contribute to the overall slide, the overall constellation of circumstances. ... FL

Lying Coward For Jesus said:

Too much of a coward to admit that the Bible never mentions “dinosaurs”?

Not at all. Doesn't say dinosaurs." Just wanted to put the point she was ducking -- and the point you naturally want to duck too -- up on the table for display. No problems with that, are there? FL

As long as Floyd is going to be allowed to trash up these threads with his nonsensical brand of reality denial, perhaps he can answer a few questions:

1) DId dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

2) DId dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

3) If dinosaurs are alive today, where are they? How do you know? If dinosaurs are not alive today, what happened to them? How do you know?

4) Do you have any evidence for any of your answers other than "the bible says so"?

5) WIll you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

7) Why should anyone care what you believe about dinosaurs or anything else if you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence?

This appears to be a departure from what you’ve said in the past. If I am reading the above paragraph correctly, you are saying that simultaneous acceptance of evolution and Jesus Christ is possible, at least temporarily.

"I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy.

"Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution. I think they are deluded.

"I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen." --Richard Dawkins, April 2011 TV Interview.

Let’s take your Christian Poster friend as an example. First he accepts OEC. Then evolution. Then, pretend he got hit by a bus before evolving into a humanist. He’d be saved, right? In heaven, singing with the angels?

Floyd is lying again. He doesn't have any way of knowing what his imaginary friend and poster child believes about jebus. All he knows is that he accepts evolution, that is all. Anything else is just Floyd making up crap. Period.

Floyd has no business judging Pat Robertson or anyone else.

FL said: The poster... made the free-will choice to stop believing in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

FL said:

...faking knowledge about science.

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. FL

Lying Coward For Jesus said: (But don't worry, I'm keepin' an eye on you Stanton! One slip-up, and it's the Jolly-Roger for you!!) **** Anyway Eric, here's the facts:

"I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy.

"Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution. I think they are deluded.

"I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen." --Richard Dawkins, April 2011 TV Interview.

FL

Malcolm said:

FL said:

...faking knowledge about science.

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. FL

This woman tells Robertson that her kids have seen that reality doesn't match the bible. Flawed thinks that the best answer is to show them the bible doesn't even come close to being true. For some reason, this is supposed to help them choose the bible.

FL, wailing and gnashing his teeth, thinks that not believing (parts of) the Bible to be literal fact when he believes them to be literal fact, leads to atheism. It's a slippery slope, he laments.

The slippery-slope argument is much loved by authoritarians, because they cannot themselves conceive of a nuanced or graduated understanding, or of any intermediate position. Their black-and-white Universe cannot admit of such a thing. They think it's the same for everyone.

But FL is merely demonstrating the limitations of his own mind. He's an extreme authoritarian. This is how he thinks. This is your mind on fundamentalist religion.

FL said: ... This issue goes back to ATBC when I cited the Pope as an example of a Christian who accepts evolution. Still do, of course. There's also Stanton, SWT, Tenncrain, (and Nmgirl~~~for as long as she lasted!), as examples of Christians who accept evolution. Still do, of course. ... FL

As expected, Answers In Genesis (specifically, Dr. Tommy Mitchell), has now responded to Pat Robertson, and it's a VERY complete and total fisking. It's a point-by-point refutation de force (which honestly wasn't going to be a difficult task anyway).

Unfortunately that response probably isn't going to make it to NBCnews or Huffington Post or Daily Kos or Fox News. THEY understand the significance and impact of Robertson's denial of the Bible on the origins debate, and THEIR focus will be kept squarely on Robertson's mess, not on those resource-groups who can strongly analyze and dissect Robertson's claims in comparison with the actual Scriptures.

But that's okay. The important thing is that AIG did a first-rate, no-stone-unturned job of responding, and then they put that response on the table quickly where individual Christians can share it and offer it.

As that poor Christian mother (and many others) are finding out tonight, the battle to believe the Bible is essentially being fought one mind, one heart, one life at a time.

(And honestly, Christians can't rely on TV evangelists like Pat Robertson to do their Bible homework for them anymore. Sheesh.)

Meanwhile, let's share the AIG response-article right here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/11/30/pat-robertson

FL

FL said: (And honestly, Christians can't rely on TV evangelists like Pat Robertson to do their Bible homework for them anymore. Sheesh.)

Helena Constantine said:

FL said: ... This issue goes back to ATBC when I cited the Pope as an example of a Christian who accepts evolution. Still do, of course. There's also Stanton, SWT, Tenncrain, (and Nmgirl~~~for as long as she lasted!), as examples of Christians who accept evolution. Still do, of course. ... FL

Really? You consider the Pope to be a Christian? pretty hard to believe.

As expected, Floyd slurps up the drivel spooned out by the lying charlatans at Answers in Genitals. Honestly, christians could never rely on TV evangelists, funny how they never admitted it before.

DS said: As expected, Floyd slurps up the drivel spooned out by the lying charlatans at Answers in Genitals. Honestly, christians could never rely on TV evangelists, funny how they never admitted it before.

We have to believe you under pain of your Gay-Rape Fantasy For Jesus?

Just Bob said:

We have to believe you under pain of your Gay-Rape Fantasy For Jesus?

And you know it really is a homosexual sex fantasy, NOT a punishment/torture fantasy. The turd obsesses over a gay sex act made more pleasurable, or at least less painful, with the application of a lubricant. Now if it was really about torment, he might have posited uneased rape with, say, a pinecone or a cactus or something. Further insight into turd's anal sex fantasy can be gained by contemplating his choice of anal sex lubricant: a food product that he finds finger-lickin' good.

FL said: As expected, Answers In Genesis (specifically, Dr. Tommy Mitchell), has now responded to Pat Robertson, and it's a VERY complete and total fisking. It's a point-by-point refutation de force (which honestly wasn't going to be a difficult task anyway). FL

Historical science, on the other hand, is the sort of science used to explain our origins. Because we cannot return to the time of our origins to make actual observations and scientific tests, we must rely on a historical record describing that time. Scientists can either accept the biblical record of those unobservable events long past, or they can make unverifiable assumptions that reject the biblical history provided by God. In attempting to explain all that exists while rejecting God’s Word, those scientists are basically just telling stories about the past. They make assumptions about the unobservable past based on their own anti-biblical worldview and then use those assumptions to interpret the evidence (e.g., rock layers and fossils) that they observe in the present. For example, they find a fossil of an extinct creature and then make assumptions about how it lived, what it ate, how long ago it existed, etc. Millions-of-years interpretations of radiometric measurements rely on related anti-biblical assumptions.

Same old creationist nonsense. Ken Ham "were you there" dressed up in cheap tuxedo with food stains all over it. News flash Kenny boy, you weren't there neither. And since when is eyewitness testimony by a biased and untrained observer given more weight than than good forensic evidence, including independent data sets that converge on the same answer? Exactly why are assumptions "unverifiable", especially after they have been verified? And please explain to me what "anti biblical assumptions" are used in radiometric dating? Oh, you mean assuming that the bible might not have all the answers and we can learn something from actually studying nature. Seems like all the real christians using radiometric dating missed the memo somehow. Oh well, at least this guy didn't make the same mistake as Pat, assuming radio carbon dating somehow applies to the study of dinosaurs.

Just click your heels together three times and say "I believe", that'll sure get rid of all that nasty reality. What kind of brain dead retard buys into this pedantic drivel? Oh wait I know, never mind.

FL said: As expected, Answers In Genesis (specifically, Dr. Tommy Mitchell), has now responded to Pat Robertson, and it's a VERY complete and total fisking.

stevaroni said:

FL said: As expected, Answers In Genesis (specifically, Dr. Tommy Mitchell), has now responded to Pat Robertson, and it's a VERY complete and total fisking.

Yeah. Total. Let's review... Original issue: Woman calls in, says children and husband have issues with the way the Bible ignores the obvious reality of dinosaur bodies. Pat Robertson: Replies with a remarkably cogent answer about how religion cannot just ignore reality. Says science is good. Says we need to understand that religion cannot become the enemy of actual fact. Talks like adult. AIG fires back: Obviously, you should ignore reality, such as actual fossils you can touch. When the Bible and known reality conflict, assume science is wrong. Play convoluted inside-baseball tricks with Hebrew word "Yom". Oh, and believe or go to hell. Yeah. That's going to play well with little Jimmy. After all, children love to have their rational questions answered by unresponsive threats from authority. And anyway, it's not like children have any access to science and technology and the ability to evaluate the fact that this science stuff actually seems to work. It's not like they can call up Wikipedia on their smartphone or anything...

apokryltaros said: It is far more important to keep children stupid, fearful, and distrusting of science, because, even though Jesus never said so, Jesus, apparently hates and despises science and reality, and, above all, He apparently hates and despises children who can think for themselves without relying on nonsensical and reality-conflicting interpretations of the King James translation of the Bible.

Dear Phhht,

Barbecue sauce and hot sauce are two very different things. Many barbecue sauces have no spicy 'hot' component at all. Get your sauces straight. Sheesh.

Just ask the turd which he fantasizes about in his gay-rape scenario.

You know, I have to wonder if he's in the closet or what. Surely he's not openly gay, since his loving fellow evangelicals would shun him if he were. He could be the type that makes virulently anti-gay statements, while taking a 'wide stance' in the men's room stall, or hiring a male 'escort' to 'carry his luggage' on a trip.

But most likely he doesn't even realize or can't admit to himself that he has homosexual urges. Thus his fantasy involves seeing others engaging in gay sex in Hell. I wonder -- when his superego is caught off guard, does either the recipient or the devil wear the turd's face?

Calling Dr. Freud.

DS said:

apokryltaros said: It is far more important to keep children stupid, fearful, and distrusting of science, because, even though Jesus never said so, Jesus, apparently hates and despises science and reality, and, above all, He apparently hates and despises children who can think for themselves without relying on nonsensical and reality-conflicting interpretations of the King James translation of the Bible.

That's exactly why this crap backfires all the time. Young people look at the modern world that science has given them and realize that science works. If forced to choose between this world and fairy tales and nonsense, they usually choose reality and reason over lies and deceit. You can threaten them all you want, but those threats ring hollow when compared to the real threats that they face in the world every day. People like Floyd think they can scare others into denying reality. But intelligent people realize that reality denial comes with a very high price tag.

revealed science

1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.

Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t.

Carl Drews said: By extension, Pat Robertson is using science to interpret the Bible.

Mike Elzinga said: Thousands of scientists from different national, cultural, religious, and non-religious backgrounds arrive at the same scientific conclusions about nature despite their different backgrounds.

All this means is that even Pat Robertson knows when to stop lying about something.

Too bad FL does not.

dalehusband said: All this means is that even Pat Robertson knows when to stop lying about something. Too bad FL does not.

It's not any big deal -- the answer is already "No", that's clear enough -- but is anybody in position to answer AIG's response to Robertson, (either in part or in whole)?

DS said: As long as Floyd is going to be allowed to trash up these threads with his nonsensical brand of reality denial, perhaps he can answer a few questions: 1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know? 2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know? 3) If dinosaurs are alive today, where are they? How do you know? If dinosaurs are not alive today, what happened to them? How do you know? How many species were there? Where did they live? On what day of creation were they poofed? 4) Do you have any evidence for any of your answers other than "the bible says so"? 5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not? 6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know? 7) Why should anyone care what you believe about dinosaurs or anything else if you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence?

For 1), 2), and 3), the answer is watch The Flintstones. :p

Yubba dubba do!

DS said: Same old creationist nonsense. Ken Ham "were you there" dressed up in cheap tuxedo with food stains all over it. News flash Kenny boy, you weren't there neither. And since when is eyewitness testimony by a biased and untrained observer given more weight than than good forensic evidence, including independent data sets that converge on the same answer? Exactly why are assumptions "unverifiable", especially after they have been verified? And please explain to me what "anti biblical assumptions" are used in radiometric dating? Oh, you mean assuming that the bible might not have all the answers and we can learn something from actually studying nature. Seems like all the real christians using radiometric dating missed the memo somehow. Oh well, at least this guy didn't make the same mistake as Pat, assuming radio carbon dating somehow applies to the study of dinosaurs. Just click your heels together three times and say "I believe", that'll sure get rid of all that nasty reality. What kind of brain dead retard buys into this pedantic drivel? Oh wait I know, never mind.

FL said: It's not any big deal -- the answer is already "No", that's clear enough -- but is anybody in position to answer AIG's response to Robertson, (either in part or in whole)?

"Every molecular comparison of various life forms is a "repeat observation" of evolution." D. Thomas, Albq. Trib., Aug 31, 1996.

eric said: Its been done every time they bring up their 'historical science' claptrap. The extremely short version of the response is: 1. Scientists use the same tools and methods to study both past and present phenomena; AIG is making sh*t up when they claim there are two different types of sciences. There aren't.* 2. Even AIG doesn't take their propaganda seriously, since they are perfectly fine with forensics (just one example). Instead, it becomes transparently clear after minimal study time that the whole "historical sciences" thing is just them trying to claim an exception to the bits of Genesis they take literally. *I'd also argue that since c is not infinite, every study of a "present" phenomena is, in a quite literal sense, a study of a past phenomena.

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

Scientists use the same tools and methods to study both past and present phenomena; AIG is making sh*t up when they claim there are two different types of sciences.

FL said: In other words, DS, you are in no position to respond to AIG's refutation of Pat Robertson. You could be in such a position if you were interested, but you aren't. You know something about science, but you are honestly a Biblical Illiterate, and so you cannot respond to AIG (or even to Robertson) on that level. And you're even content to be that way, really. Meanwhile...

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

Just from my previous discussion of Scripture, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

Nope, because I know what 2 Tim 3:16 says, (I don't think you do). I also know that Jesus accepted the historical claims of Gen as literally true (Matt 19), so I follow Jesus. I also know what brand of sunglasses (presuppositions and assumptions) through which you're interpreting "the evidence". It's called materialism and atheism. Evidence is out there, we all see it, but what is the ~~interpretation~~ of that evidence, given that you're dealing with historical science and NOT experimental science? The answer to that one definitely depends on your sunglasses. Mine is Christianity and theism, yours is materialism and atheism. Mine says that science is not qualified to eliminate the biblical reports of literal supernatural miracles as actual history, but YOURS says the exact opposite. The problem is that Pat Robertson's answer to that Christian lady, made it sound exactly as if he's wearing the same anti-supernaturalist sunglasses as you (even though we know he's not.) He didn't even give any biblical support and rational assurance that other OEC's like Ross, Rana, Deem, Archer, etc would easily have given. FL

Classic FL.

9:41 - FL claims no one has ever addressed some argument of his (or AIG's, in this case).

10:16 - DS posts response (which FL ignored previously)

10:49 - eric posts response

11:16 - Dave Thomas posts response (with link - showing FL ignored it previously)

11:45 - FL shows up and says DS hasn't responded to his argument yet.

We are in a Mel Brooks movie. "What hump?"

There you have it folks, the bible says the earth is flat, Floyd says must be so. The bible says the sun goes around the earth Floyd nods his head. The bible says women are inferior, Floyd agrees. The bible says slavery is just finem, Floyd goes along. Any bullshit at all, don't matter to Floyd whether it rational or contradicted by real evidence, he don't give a rats ass. And he wonders why everyone thinks he's crazy.

eric said: Classic FL. 9:41 - FL claims no one has ever addressed some argument of his (or AIG's, in this case). 10:16 - DS posts response (which FL ignored previously) 10:49 - eric posts response 11:16 - Dave Thomas posts response (with link - showing FL ignored it previously) 11:45 - FL shows up and says DS hasn't responded to his argument yet. We are in a Mel Brooks movie. "What hump?"

FL said: In other words, DS, you are in no position to respond to AIG's refutation of Pat Robertson. You could be in such a position if you were interested, but you aren't. You know something about science, but you are honestly a Biblical Illiterate, and so you cannot respond to AIG (or even to Robertson) on that level. And you're even content to be that way, really. Meanwhile...

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

Just from my previous discussion of Scripture, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

Nope, because I know what 2 Tim 3:16 says, (I don't think you do). I also know that Jesus accepted the historical claims of Gen as literally true (Matt 19), so I follow Jesus. I also know what brand of sunglasses (presuppositions and assumptions) through which you're interpreting "the evidence". It's called materialism and atheism. Evidence is out there, we all see it, but what is the ~~interpretation~~ of that evidence, given that you're dealing with historical science and NOT experimental science? The answer to that one definitely depends on your sunglasses. Mine is Christianity and theism, yours is materialism and atheism. Mine says that science is not qualified to eliminate the biblical reports of literal supernatural miracles as actual history, but YOURS says the exact opposite. The problem is that Pat Robertson's answer to that Christian lady, made it sound exactly as if he's wearing the same anti-supernaturalist sunglasses as you (even though we know he's not.) He didn't even give any biblical support and rational assurance that other OEC's like Ross, Rana, Deem, Archer, etc would easily have given. FL

FL said:

Scientists use the same tools and methods to study both past and present phenomena; AIG is making sh*t up when they claim there are two different types of sciences.

Not only is THIS wrong, but it's even intuitively wrong.

You can buy little chemistry toy labs at the store for Christmas and teach the kiddies experimental science. Show them repeatable experiments, empirical observation.

The tykes catch the concepts in microseconds.

Dave Thomas said:

FL said: In other words, DS, you are in no position to respond to AIG's refutation of Pat Robertson. You could be in such a position if you were interested, but you aren't. You know something about science, but you are honestly a Biblical Illiterate, and so you cannot respond to AIG (or even to Robertson) on that level. And you're even content to be that way, really. Meanwhile...

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

Just from the previous responses in this thread, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

Just from my previous discussion of Scripture, you should already know my answer. But you don't.

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

Nope, because I know what 2 Tim 3:16 says, (I don't think you do). I also know that Jesus accepted the historical claims of Gen as literally true (Matt 19), so I follow Jesus. I also know what brand of sunglasses (presuppositions and assumptions) through which you're interpreting "the evidence". It's called materialism and atheism. Evidence is out there, we all see it, but what is the ~~interpretation~~ of that evidence, given that you're dealing with historical science and NOT experimental science? The answer to that one definitely depends on your sunglasses. Mine is Christianity and theism, yours is materialism and atheism. Mine says that science is not qualified to eliminate the biblical reports of literal supernatural miracles as actual history, but YOURS says the exact opposite. The problem is that Pat Robertson's answer to that Christian lady, made it sound exactly as if he's wearing the same anti-supernaturalist sunglasses as you (even though we know he's not.) He didn't even give any biblical support and rational assurance that other OEC's like Ross, Rana, Deem, Archer, etc would easily have given. FL

FL, you say you have answered these questions (see bold emphases above), but I have reviewed the entire thread, and can find NO CLEAR ANSWERS FROM YOU AT ALL. If I missed them, please reply by pointing to those posts, like I am pointing to this one of yours. Until you answer DS's very clear and reasonable questions, DIRECTLY (no copping out by saying "I answered that already"), every single post of yours will be immediately thrown to the bathroom wall, where its excretory essence will keep it clinging there. You have been Advised.

TomS said: If we were going to discount "historical" sciences because they study things which are distant in time, why not also discount the study of things which are distant in space, or too small to see with the naked eye, or too fast or too slow, or inaccessible for some reason or other?

Since Floyd can't possibly know what happened in the past, here are the questions again, along with several others he has been avoiding:

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

3) If dinosaurs are alive today, where are they? How do you know? If dinosaurs are not alive today, what happened to them? How do you know? How many species were there? Where did they live? On what day of creation were they poofed?

4) Do you have any evidence for any of your answers other than “the bible says so”?

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

6) Is Pat Robertson still a christian? Is Pat Robertson still going to heaven? How do you know?

7) Why should anyone care what you believe about dinosaurs or anything else if you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence?

8) And since when is eyewitness testimony by a biased and untrained observer given more weight than than good forensic evidence, including independent data sets that converge on the same answer?

9) Exactly why are assumptions “unverifiable”, especially after they have been verified?

10) And please explain to me what “anti biblical assumptions” are used in radiometric dating?

Carl Drews said: Pat Robertson said: revealed science

Pat Robertson said: Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.

but Noah’s ark and Moses’ tablets seem to have… er… disappeared.

As long as you are taking the time to answer all of my questions Floyd, here is one more for you. Do you really think that what you are doing here can be described as good christian behavior? You know asking snarky questions, then completely ignoring all of the answers, then coming back days later, not even bothering to check to see if anyone has responded and claiming the didn't, even though many actually did? Do you think it is proper to ignore all questions put to you, claim you answered them and go on demanding that others answer your questions when you refused to answer theirs? Is this the way jesus behaved? Is the the way you were taught to behave?

Paul said that he became all thing s to all men so hem might by all means save some. You are commanded to try to convert people FLoyd, by the very book you claim is always right. Yet you drive people away from your religion with your nonsense and word games and your fundamental dishonesty. For shame FLoyd, for shame. Learn some science, examine some evidence, admit that this is the correct way to study the natural world. Then maybe you might convince someone of something other than the rudeness of your behavior.

FL said: In other words, DS, you are in no position to respond to AIG's refutation of Pat Robertson. You could be in such a position if you were interested, but you aren't. You know something about science, but you are honestly a Biblical Illiterate, and so you cannot respond to AIG (or even to Robertson) on that level. And you're even content to be that way, really. Evidence is out there, we all see it, but what is the ~~interpretation~~ of that evidence, given that you're dealing with historical science and NOT experimental science? The answer to that one definitely depends on your sunglasses. Mine is Christianity and theism, yours is materialism and atheism. Mine says that science is not qualified to eliminate the biblical reports of literal supernatural miracles as actual history, but YOURS says the exact opposite. The problem is that Pat Robertson's answer to that Christian lady, made it sound exactly as if he's wearing the same anti-supernaturalist sunglasses as you (even though we know he's not.) He didn't even give any biblical support and rational assurance that other OEC's like Ross, Rana, Deem, Archer, etc would easily have given. FL

FL said:

Scientists use the same tools and methods to study both past and present phenomena; AIG is making sh*t up when they claim there are two different types of sciences.

Not only is THIS wrong, but it's even intuitively wrong. You can buy little chemistry toy labs at the store for Christmas and teach the kiddies experimental science. Show them repeatable experiments, empirical observation. The tykes catch the concepts in microseconds. Can't do those concepts with macroevolution, however. Can't do that with unobserved fake jokers like "apelike common ancestor." Can't avoid the sunglasses either. FL

And good news in another area:

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/voucher-victory-louisiana-court-strikes-down-private-school-aid-scheme

Louisiana voucher/creationism program loses in court.

Science-Hating Bigot For Jesus lied:

Scientists use the same tools and methods to study both past and present phenomena; AIG is making sh*t up when they claim there are two different types of sciences.

Not only is THIS wrong, but it's even intuitively wrong. You can buy little chemistry toy labs at the store for Christmas and teach the kiddies experimental science. Show them repeatable experiments, empirical observation. The tykes catch the concepts in microseconds. Can't do those concepts with macroevolution, however. Can't do that with unobserved fake jokers like "apelike common ancestor." Can't avoid the sunglasses either. FL

FL said: You can buy little chemistry toy labs at the store for Christmas and teach the kiddies experimental science. Show them repeatable experiments, empirical observation. The tykes catch the concepts in microseconds.

Since Floyd can’t possibly know what happened in the past...

1) Did dinosaurs exist in the past? Do they exist now? How do you know?

2) Did dinosaurs live before humans, at the same time as humans, or after humans became extinct? How do you know?

If dinosaurs are alive today, where are they?

If dinosaurs are not alive today, what happened to them? How do you know? How many species were there? Where did they live? On what day of creation were they poofed?

4) Do you have any evidence for any of your answers other than “the bible says so”?

5) Will you accept any evidence that contradicts what is claimed in the bible? Why or why not?

Nope, because I know what 2 Tim 3:16 says, (I don’t think you do). I also know that Jesus accepted the historical claims of Gen as literally true (Matt 19), so I follow Jesus. I also know what brand of sunglasses (presuppositions and assumptions) through which you’re interpreting “the evidence”. It’s called materialism and atheism. Evidence is out there, we all see it, but what is the ~~interpretation~~ of that evidence, given that you’re dealing with historical science and NOT experimental science? The answer to that one definitely depends on your sunglasses. Mine is Christianity and theism, yours is materialism and atheism. Mine says that science is not qualified to eliminate the biblical reports of literal supernatural miracles as actual history, but YOURS says the exact opposite. The problem is that Pat Robertson’s answer to that Christian lady, made it sound exactly as if he’s wearing the same anti-supernaturalist sunglasses as you (even though we know he’s not.) He didn’t even give any biblical support and rational assurance that other OEC’s like Ross, Rana, Deem, Archer, etc would easily have given.

7) Why should anyone care what you believe about dinosaurs or anything else if you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence?

8) And since when is eyewitness testimony by a biased and untrained observer given more weight than than good forensic evidence, including independent data sets that converge on the same answer?

9) Exactly why are assumptions “unverifiable”, especially after they have been verified?

10) And please explain to me what “anti biblical assumptions” are used in radiometric dating?

FL said: Btw, I ALREADY SAID what day of Creation Week they were created--the SIXTH day-are you unable to read at all? Too dense or something? If Dave wasn't pushing this thing I'd just let it all go, because your reading comp is way too low. You GOTTA be lying about being some kind of scientist.

You have NO evidence that dinosaurs were NOT created supernaturally, within literal 24-hour timeframes, just as described in the Bible

FL said: 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).

...Is anybody in position to answer AIG’s response to Robertson, (either in part or in whole)?

Just as soon as you give some answers, dipstick.

Lying Moron For Jesus babbled:

If dinosaurs are not alive today, what happened to them? How do you know? How many species were there? Where did they live? On what day of creation were they poofed?

The global Noahic Flood would be a good reason why they're not alive. And yes, the Bible says there was a global Noahic Flood, and Pat Robertson agrees with the Bible on that one. (Heh--deny THAT claim, DS!!) I don't know how many species, and you don't either.

Btw, I ALREADY SAID what day of Creation Week they were created--the SIXTH day-are you unable to read at all? Too dense or something? If Dave wasn't pushing this thing I'd just let it all go, because your reading comp is way too low. You GOTTA be lying about being some kind of scientist.

4) Do you have any evidence for any of your answers other than “the bible says so”?

Clear Answer: Nope, but -- watch out now DS -- that's more than sufficient to counter Pat Robertson's specific claims since HE also believes the Bible as infallible just like I do, and accepts direct supernatural creation of humans instead of evolutionary "revealed science" just like I do.

FL said: So when I asked,

...Is anybody in position to answer AIG’s response to Robertson, (either in part or in whole)?

DS repeated 7 questions at 9:57 am (notice that I ultimately answered more than the original 7) and replied,

Just as soon as you give some answers, dipstick.

Okay. I've done my part. 11 straight questions. DS, can you answer MY one question now? FL

(There were 10 'official' questions, but notice that Question #3 contains five or six questions, so I'm counting that as an extra Question.)

FL said: (There were 10 'official' questions, but notice that Question #3 contains five or six questions, so I'm counting that as an extra Question.)

DS said:

eric said: Classic FL. 9:41 - FL claims no one has ever addressed some argument of his (or AIG's, in this case). 10:16 - DS posts response (which FL ignored previously) 10:49 - eric posts response 11:16 - Dave Thomas posts response (with link - showing FL ignored it previously) 11:45 - FL shows up and says DS hasn't responded to his argument yet. We are in a Mel Brooks movie. "What hump?"

Well at least it's consistent with his "can't know anything about the past" scthick.

DS said: As long as you are taking the time to answer all of my questions Floyd, here is one more for you. Do you really think that what you are doing here can be described as good christian behavior? You know asking snarky questions, then completely ignoring all of the answers, then coming back days later, not even bothering to check to see if anyone has responded and claiming the didn't, even though many actually did? Do you think it is proper to ignore all questions put to you, claim you answered them and go on demanding that others answer your questions when you refused to answer theirs? Is this the way jesus behaved? Is the the way you were taught to behave? Paul said that he became all thing s to all men so hem might by all means save some. You are commanded to try to convert people FLoyd, by the very book you claim is always right. Yet you drive people away from your religion with your nonsense and word games and your fundamental dishonesty. For shame FLoyd, for shame. Learn some science, examine some evidence, admit that this is the correct way to study the natural world. Then maybe you might convince someone of something other than the rudeness of your behavior.

So FLoyd admits he has no evidence whatsoever and the bible doesn't say one word about dinosaurs. So he basically made the whole thing up. Amd no Floyd, the magic flood wasn't real, nor was the magic ark. You have no evidence, you lose again. No one cares if you think the bible is evidence, it ain't. Deal with it.

As for your bullshit about not knowing about the past, that is exactly what the AIG site that you linked to claimed. Maybe you better read over the bullshit you post before you post it. That's what you asked people to respond to, that's what they responded to. Nobody cares if you didn't read it yourself.

You can;t explain away all of the evidence as mere interpretation, that's just plain bullshit and you know it . Grow up already.

So that would be a no, you can't name a single assumption of radio carbon sating that's "anti biblical". Not surprising. All you can do is whine about sunglasses and bullshit like that. Grow up already. Radio carbon dating has been independently calibrated back to 50,000 years. All of the assumption have been tested and verified. I notice you didn't even bother to cite the relevant literature. Why is that Floyd?

Just go ahead denying reality and driving people away from your religion Floyd. FIne by me. You are no christian.

FL said:

Since Floyd can’t possibly know what happened in the past...

But I never claimed anything like that. You go check that, please.

YOUR stuff relies on the non-negotiable origins assumption "the present is the key to understanding the past",

And there's a second huge assumption involved: YOU assume that REASON can ultimately reveal the origins of the universe, earth, and humans. In contrast, the BIBLE's position is that human reason CANNOT ultimately figure out the real origins of the universe, earth, and humans -- all the more so since human minds are fallen.

You assume the supremacy of human reason. I assume the supremacy of God's Revelation.

We've been over this too many times for it to be interesting. So long as FL continues to insist - as he will forever - that Genesis 1-11 must be taken as literal fact, we can make no headway with him. All we can do is demonstrate that he's demented.

When a physical impossibility is demonstrated - like the multiple overlapping layers of physical impossibility in the flood stories - FL just invokes another miracle, or set of miracles. Any number of them, whether implied by the text or not. When physical evidence is cited, FL simply says that this is now, Genesis was then, the present can't illuminate the past, and that we're assuming. When the human roots of Genesis - the wealth of evidence that these texts, plural, were written by human beings using the ubiquitous narrative conventions common to all myth, allegory, legend and folktale - FL simply says that on the contrary God wrote it, and only apostasy and rejection of God causes anyone to say otherwise.

On the other hand, FL goes silent whenever a exegesic or theological objection is presented. For example, there is nothing in the Genesis texts that implies that they are literal, or written by God; a literal garden, literal tree, literal fruit or literal serpent are not necessary to a Christian understanding of orginal sin or the need for redemption; they are not required or implied by any of the Creeds; a literal reading of Jesus's words (the kind FL insists on elsewhere) will demonstrate that He did not say or imply that Genesis was to be taken literally. FL simply ignores this second class of objections.

Of course his first set of reactions show a superstitious, credulous and Dark Ages mind. But the second set is the real kicker. That mind is not merely dark - it's compelled. Why would anyone believe in a set of obvious impossibilities, when it simply isn't necessary?

I believe that for FL, it is necessary. He is psychologically compelled to cling to an absolute authority, simply because it is an absolute authority. His is a mind that can see black as white, up as down, right as wrong, good as evil and all vice-versa, according only to authority. He's perfectly happy to defend slavery, genocide, infanticide, massacre, and torture - eternal torture, yet! - so long as it's in his authority.

This is an extreme authoritarian mindset. FL would be terrifying, if he actually wielded power. He'd destroy the world in order to save it, and see no contradiction at all in it. Fortunately, he's just an impotent loony, a fragmented ranter on a website, a sort of museum exhibit of the mental aberrations characteristic of loopy fundamentalism.

The fact that he's here is actually comforting, in a way. He's here, spraying people who laugh at him, not building a creepy little sect with him as chief creep, wielding his longed-for absolute authority. Horrible things follow when that happens.

eric said:

FL said: You assume the supremacy of human reason. I assume the supremacy of God's Revelation.

We assume no such thing. We look at the past record of revelation vs. empirical investigation and we decide, based on their respective past records of success, that empirical investigation is the better bet if we want to do things like cure cancer and build a better mousetrap. But this is not an assumption, its a conclusion based on data. And our conclusion is not that reason is supreme, its simply the currently best known alternative. Maybe another methodology will come along tomorrow that will be able to find cures for cancer faster, cheaper, and easier. That would be wonderful! But until that happens, we'll stick with science and human reason as 'best available.' Nor do we force this conclusion on others. Its a free country. If you think revelation provides a superior methodology for discovering a cure for cancer, you are free to pursue it. You are free to try and convince venture capitalists to fund your research. We eagerly await your results. But until you actually have some (revelation is currently batting "0 for a lot in several thousand years"), we'll place our bet on the scientific method.

All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living (17) so that the man of God may be capable and equipped for good work of every kind.

The problem is always the same for every biblical literalist; YECs in particular. Given the thousands blood-warring sects within just Christianity alone, which sectarian dogma trumps all others?

Ken Ham’s “historical” versus “operational” science is simply an incompetent attempt at philosophy. The notion that we all have the same evidence but have different interpretations is pseudo-philosophy aimed at elementary school children, and failing even at that. Even different species of animals can agree on objective evidence.

Ken Ham can’t even philosophize at the level of a middle school student. And FL is a child compared to Ken Ham and his pretentiousness. He has absolutely no experience with objective knowledge because he exists inside a hermetically sealed bubble of his own fabrications.

The only thing that sectarians are telling us with this philosobabble is that they are asserting their own sectarian dogma first and that everything else must be bent and broken to fit. Any “interpretation” that doesn’t agree with their dogma is demonized as “unbiblical.” They refuse to acknowledge the long history of splintering sectarianism that tells all mature individuals that sectarians know nothing about deities and have nothing say about what others can know or think.

The zombie mind of the fundamentalist sectarian has not evolved since it when dead well over a hundred years ago; and its pompous pseudo-philosophers just keep getting more and more ridiculous. Proselytizing sectarianism is nothing more than grotesquely intolerant bigotry.

FL needs to go back to the Bathroom Wall. The bigoted stench belongs there.

Dave Luckett said: We've been over this too many times for it to be interesting. So long as FL continues to insist - as he will forever - that Genesis 1-11 must be taken as literal fact, we can make no headway with him. All we can do is demonstrate that he's demented. When a physical impossibility is demonstrated - like the multiple overlapping layers of physical impossibility in the flood stories - FL just invokes another miracle, or set of miracles. Any number of them, whether implied by the text or not. When physical evidence is cited, FL simply says that this is now, Genesis was then, the present can't illuminate the past, and that we're assuming. When the human roots of Genesis - the wealth of evidence that these texts, plural, were written by human beings using the ubiquitous narrative conventions common to all myth, allegory, legend and folktale - FL simply says that on the contrary God wrote it, and only apostasy and rejection of God causes anyone to say otherwise. On the other hand, FL goes silent whenever a exegesic or theological objection is presented. For example, there is nothing in the Genesis texts that implies that they are literal, or written by God; a literal garden, literal tree, literal fruit or literal serpent are not necessary to a Christian understanding of orginal sin or the need for redemption; they are not required or implied by any of the Creeds; a literal reading of Jesus's words (the kind FL insists on elsewhere) will demonstrate that He did not say or imply that Genesis was to be taken literally. FL simply ignores this second class of objections. Of course his first set of reactions show a superstitious, credulous and Dark Ages mind. But the second set is the real kicker. That mind is not merely dark - it's compelled. Why would anyone believe in a set of obvious impossibilities, when it simply isn't necessary? I believe that for FL, it is necessary. He is psychologically compelled to cling to an absolute authority, simply because it is an absolute authority. His is a mind that can see black as white, up as down, right as wrong, good as evil and all vice-versa, according only to authority. He's perfectly happy to defend slavery, genocide, infanticide, massacre, and torture - eternal torture, yet! - so long as it's in his authority. This is an extreme authoritarian mindset. FL would be terrifying, if he actually wielded power. He'd destroy the world in order to save it, and see no contradiction at all in it. Fortunately, he's just an impotent loony, a fragmented ranter on a website, a sort of museum exhibit of the mental aberrations characteristic of loopy fundamentalism. The fact that he's here is actually comforting, in a way. He's here, spraying people who laugh at him, not building a creepy little sect with him as chief creep, wielding his longed-for absolute authority. Horrible things follow when that happens.

Nah! As with all acolytes of a personality cult, FL imagines himself one day as its leader. Proselytizing to the damned are the “thorns” he bears in order to gain any hope of that achievement.

He won’t pass; it will go to someone else.

Anyway, enough of this. He belongs on the Bathroom Wall; feces and all.

So FLoyd admits he has no evidence whatsoever and the bible doesn’t say one word about dinosaurs. So he basically made the whole thing up.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action)

apokryltaros said: Then why do humans and apes share almost identical anatomy and almost identical genomes?

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#Basis

FL, as usual, obfuscates and denies. Does he think Paul wrote in English, or that the Koine can be translated by the simple transference of words?

The translation I offered is perfectly respectable. As specified, I quoted the Revised English Bible (1989), which is approved by most of the churches in Britain, including the Baptist Union, the Methodist Church, and the Church of Scotland (Presyterian).

But the precise details of translation are in this case irrelevant. No matter which translation is used, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say, does not mean, and does not imply that any scripture is to be taken literally. If it does not say that, then it is bootless to cite it as justification for taking all scripture literally.

Jesus did not say at Matthew 19:4, or at Matthew 24:37 or at Luke 10:13, that the Genesis stories were literal fact. He referred to them as stories. Again, to say that Jesus said that Genesis was to be taken literally, is to add to scripture and put words in Jesus's mouth. That's a first-class heresy.

I begin to incline to the theory that FL knows that he is a heretic in contumacy and apostasy, and he is actually here to alienate and scandalise Christians.

And speaking of questions, it looks like DS has kinda given up there.

I wrote half a booklet answering 11 of his questions, but he doesn't have enough biblical literacy to reciprocate.

And yes, I'm rubbing it in. He earned it.

But again, this is really about Pat Robertson, and specifically WHY he was wrong about what he said to that poor Christian lady. AIG has detailed the exact reasons why Robertson is wrong, at this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/11/30/pat-robertson#fnList_1_2

Again, you Pandas are NOT being asked to agree with the historical claims of Genesis. Sure, sure, you don't believe in things like a Supernatural-Creator-God, The-Bible-Is-Infallible, Creation-Miracles (like the Genesis origin of humans), the Fall, the Curse, the global Noahic Flood, etc. That's okay.

But there's the kicker: Pat Robertson DOES believe in ALL those things, and therefore all of the AIG article DIRECTLY impacts on him and his specific statements.

That's why, if you're gonna try to help ole Pat out (now that he gave you a free pass on everything!), you have to engage the AIG article's specific and detailed points of refutation against him.

FL :)

Robertson says that he believes science when confronted with the facts, and holds that the Bible's account and chronology isn't literally true. That is, of course, reasonable - so far as it goes, anyway. Why, yes indeed, that does mean that Genesis can't be read literally.

Naturally AiG has kittens. Their only response is the one they make: "The Bible is so true, is so infallible, is so literal. Is so! Is so! IS SO!"

Honest, reading that screed is like watching a toddler roll around on the floor screaming until he barfs.

He (Jesus) referred to them as stories.

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

FL's arguments are, and have always been, pointless. He would have a valid point if he could show that (1) the Bible is indeed the Word of God and (2) that empirical evidence in the universe is consistent with what we read in the Bible. Point 1 is completely unsupported (you cannot prove the Bible true by quoting the Bible) and point 2 has been completely disproved, so that should have ended the discussion YEARS ago. FL is merely handwaving and applying rhetoric, like con artists would do.

FL said:

He (Jesus) referred to them as stories.

Ummm, no. Not Matt. 19:4-6.

FL said:

So FLoyd admits he has no evidence whatsoever and the bible doesn’t say one word about dinosaurs. So he basically made the whole thing up.

Nope, I haven't made anything up. I said that that there's a clear inference that dinosaurs, being land animals, were created on the day when the Bible says the land animals were created -- Day 6 of Creation Week. The same 24-hour day day as the creation of humans. You've made no effort to refute that. Didn't say you had to agree with what the Bible says, but it would be nice to have sufficient horse sense to acknowledge what the Bible says. Do you? FL

FL said: And speaking of questions, it looks like DS has kinda given up there. I wrote half a booklet answering 11 of his questions, but he doesn't have enough biblical literacy to reciprocate. And yes, I'm rubbing it in. He earned it. But again, this is really about Pat Robertson, and specifically WHY he was wrong about what he said to that poor Christian lady. AIG has detailed the exact reasons why Robertson is wrong, at this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/11/30/pat-robertson#fnList_1_2 Again, you Pandas are NOT being asked to agree with the historical claims of Genesis. Sure, sure, you don't believe in things like a Supernatural-Creator-God, The-Bible-Is-Infallible, Creation-Miracles (like the Genesis origin of humans), the Fall, the Curse, the global Noahic Flood, etc. That's okay. But there's the kicker: Pat Robertson DOES believe in ALL those things, and therefore all of the AIG article DIRECTLY impacts on him and his specific statements. That's why, if you're gonna try to help ole Pat out (now that he gave you a free pass on everything!), you have to engage the AIG article's specific and detailed points of refutation against him. FL :)

FL has had to fall back to last Thursdayism.

When reality conflicts with “his interpretation” of the plainly read inerrant bible, it is because god used supernatural powers to make the evidence look the way it does.

This is the wicked-tricksy-false gollum version of god.

How very sad this must be for him. Every year his version of god gets more tricksy as the evidence accumulates.

FL also uses divine command theory to equate unconditionally loving and ethical guidance with god directed child slaughter, daughter slavery, rape, abortion, young woman murder, woman torture, sexism, etc.

Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘

Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”

Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘…Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Psalms 137:8-9 “…happy is…—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

Isaiah 13:15-16 “Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.”

Hosea 13:16 “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Not virgin upon wedding “...Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.”

Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

FLoyd wrote:

"Clear Answer: EVERYBODY, evolutionists and YEC and OEC and ID, believes that dinosaurs existed in the past and that they don’t exist now, and fossils prove there used to be dinosaurs. I believe the same."

So you can tell something about the past from science! AMazing. You should let the people at Answers in Genitals know Floyd, they say you shouldn't trust science you know. NOw Floyd, pay close attention, the same fossils tell us that dinosaurs lived from 225 million to 65 million years ago. They were terrestrial and laid eggs. There were thousands of species, perhaps as many as a million. They filled every niche from large grazer to browser to carnivore. They did not build the pyramids, they were not on the ark. You can tell all of this from fossils Floyd.

Now, since you have admitted that fossils are real, you have two choices. You can study geology and paleontology and learn some science, or can go on believing your holey book of myths and fairy tales. Modern society has decided which approach works best for understanding reality Floyd, time for you to catch up.

AIG says we can’t know anything about the past.

"First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millions of years from carbon dating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years."

Secular scientists interpret data from other radiometric dating methods to arrive at vast ages for the earth. However, these interpretations are based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions and the inconsistencies of radiometric dates have been dealt with extensively on our ministry website.

In attempting to explain all that exists while rejecting God’s Word, those scientists are basically just telling stories about the past. They make assumptions about the unobservable past based on their own anti-biblical worldview and then use those assumptions to interpret the evidence (e.g., rock layers and fossils) that they observe in the present.

FL said:

AIG says we can’t know anything about the past.

Would you kindly point us to the exact paragraph of the AIG's reply to Pat Robertson, which contains your statement? And btw, do you have any disagreement with the following from AIG:

"First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millions of years from carbon dating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years."

FL

FL said: And btw, do you have any disagreement with the following from AIG:

"First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millions of years from carbon dating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years."

Here's a recent Pandas Thumb thread where an article from Science on radio carbon dating is discussed:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/10/carbon-dating-t.html#comments

I guess Floyd missed the whole thread.

And FYI Floyd, it's not just "secular scientists" who don't use carbon dating to determine the age o the earth.

FL said: That's why, if you're gonna try to help ole Pat out (now that he gave you a free pass on everything!), you have to engage the AIG article's specific and detailed points of refutation against him.

Dave Luckett said: That's a series of interlocking lies, based on a real whopper - that evidence about the past can't be observed, because the past is unobservable. Ergo, we can't know about the past from physical evidence.

TomS said: What justification do(es Answers In Genesis) have for their pronouncements about what we can and cannot know? Are we just to take it on their authority?

Thing is that once FLoyd admitted that fossils are real he put the lie to all the AIG nonsense. Too bad he never bothered to read what they had to say either.

Fossils represent a record of the past history of life on earth, just like fingerprints or trace evidence, we can draw conclusions about the past from OBSERVING evidence in the present. It isn't a matter of interpretation, like all the bible crap, it'a a matter of facts and observations. As Tom pointed out, you can't really claim that this approach is invalid unless you are will ing to give up all of modern technology and knowledge. For some reason, some people are willing to do this just to be able to cling to their cherished myths. In the real world, most people have figured out that that is illogical and counter productive. Floyd needs to stop quoting liars and charlatans and believing false prophets.

Perseveration, time loops, Ground Hog Day, obsessive/compulsive tics, rocking to and fro while mumbling monotonous mantras, pacing in circles endlessly day after day, year after year, picking and picking and picking at the skin until it bleeds, reciting stories over and over and laughing in exactly the same way at exactly the same places.

These kinds of obsessions are recognized by nearly everyone as clear signs of mental illness. Anyone who as ever encountered one these sectarian fanatics up close can sense instinctively - even it they can’t put their finger on it immediately – that something is wrong with the person. This FL character is cycling endlessly through a set of memorized stories and believing that this is the world he lives in.

The story says that the demons harassing him are part of the story; CHECK. The story says that the demons think his story is childish and silly; CHECK. The story says that he is being persecuted and tormented for his childlike trust in the story; CHECK. The story says that the demons will do precisely what the demons are doing; CHECK.

The story says that the demons will howl and recoil from the story; CHECK. The story says that the story is absolutely true; CHECK. But how does the story know the story is true? Well, it says so; CHECK. The story says that all other interpretations of the story are deceptions; CHECK. The story says that there is only one way to read the story; CHECK. The story says that if you don’t believe the story, you will burn forever in excruciating torture, so you dare not do otherwise; CHECK.

This is the kind of brainwashing used to destroy the ability to reason, assimilate evidence and data, and distinguish between reality and fantasy. It typically destroys the mind of even a trained adult if it is administered under duress for sufficient periods of time.

Just think what it can do to the mind of a growing child. Beat the hell out of it from the time it begins to look at Mommy’s mouth and starts making babbling sounds. By the time that child reaches adulthood, there would be no possibility of its ever thinking again. Its only choice for the rest of its life is to submit totally and humbly to the authority figures who tell that story; all the while being thoroughly convinced that it will die in severe pain at the fierce hands of that authority if it rebels or questions the story with even a fleeting thought.

The early cultures of the Middle East figured this out centuries ago in order to manage growing populations crowded into smaller spaces called cities.

How many times does Panda’s Thumb have to go round and round and round with this character? It always, ALWAYS cycles obsessively and compulsively through the same crap in periods of days to a few weeks. The lies are always the same, the double-down, triple-down lies are always the same, the language is always the same, the taunting is always the same, the quote mines are always the same.

Just what the hell does it take to make a diagnosis? It doesn’t even require a psychiatrist; and it can be done from a mile away.

Take the crap over to the Bathroom Wall were the preoccupation with anal and groin phenomena are more appropriate.

Mike Elzinga said: Take the crap over to the Bathroom Wall were the preoccupation with anal and groin phenomena are more appropriate.

Dave Luckett said:

FL said:

He (Jesus) referred to them as stories.

Ummm, no. Not Matt. 19:4-6.

Yes, Matthew 19: 4-6. Nowhere does Jesus say "these stories are literal fact". To say Jesus said the stories are to be taken as literal history when Jesus did not say that is to put words in Jesus's mouth. FL adds to the words of scripture, and of Jesus himself. His pose of literal belief is nothing more than a sham, and he knows it.

DS said: Fossils represent a record of the past history of life on earth, just like fingerprints or trace evidence, we can draw conclusions about the past from OBSERVING evidence in the present.

eric said:

DS said: Fossils represent a record of the past history of life on earth, just like fingerprints or trace evidence, we can draw conclusions about the past from OBSERVING evidence in the present.

I agree that FL stuck his foot in it in saying he believes in dinosaurs, but I take a slightly different angle than you to it. In order to believe in dinosaurs, you have to assume those rock shapes are animal bones. You have to assume the bones were preserved by some chemical process. You have to assume they were deposited 'naturally' and not at the whim of some malicious deceiver. You have to assume big animal in the past had bones and that fossilization processes did occur. Now, none of those assumptions are particularly unreasonable. Unless you are the sort of person who claims that the present is no good guide to the past. If you have claimed that - or that "historical sciences" cannot draw inferences from "operational science," then you have screwed yourself. You can no longer rationally just make the assumptions I listed above. FL, and AIG, try and claim the present is not a guide to the past while using present data as a guide to the past. They merely carve out an unwarranted exception for specific tenants of their sectarian dogma.

"You have NO evidence that dinosaurs were NOT created supernaturally, within literal 24-hour timeframes, just as described in the Bible. THAT, is why. (Or plants. Or birds. Or humans.) Science has NOT ruled out the supernatural, and THAT is what Pat Robertson needs to hear. EVERY SINGLE PART OF the Genesis creation account requires a miracle, not just the portions that have a bearing on “Age of the Earth.”. Refusing to believe the literal 24-hour timeframes while claiming to believe the REST of the miraculous events reported, merely creates ADDITIONAL skeptical attacks based on the obvious inconsistency."

I have no evidence that there is not a magical unicorn living in a teapot somewhere in the rings of Saturn either

Science does not (and cannot) "rule out" the supernatural - a phenomenon attributed to the supernatural is at some level untestable (even if you find a natural cause for the phenomenon - it could be argued that it "just looks that way" and really is a miracle) that is why Science does not consider the supernatural when doing scientific inquiry - invoking the supernatural/miraculous is a "science stopper" and prevents further inquiry. - but FL is correct that the genesis story doesn't hold up unless you assume its ALL miraculous- that's the danger of Biblical literalism - once you try to use a religious/miraculous account as a substitute for verifiable fact -you open yourself up for all kinds of ridicule. (hence the warning by St Augustine 1500+ years ago)

by the way - "24hr days" in creation week and a 6000 year old earth - not supported by the majority of Christians

TomS said: What justification do they have for their pronouncements about what we can and cannot know?

The problem already exists by declaring that a “holy” book of stories tells us all about the past, yet at the same time declaring that “unbiblical” records don’t.

If one denies that “unbiblical” evidence in the presence cannot tell us about anything in the past – without making “unverifiable assumptions” – then the same holds for the ‘holy” book.

The “holy” book is assumed to be “holy” on some basis; and any basis either asserts the truth of the “holy” book – because the “holy” book has sentences that assert its own truth – or because of other writings that are asserted to verify the “holy” book.

Ham, FL, and all the other sectarians of this genre are saying the same thing; sectarian dogma about what is true or not true is not to be questioned under any circumstances.
They are simply trying to disguise fiat declarations of sectarian dogma with pseudo-philosophical rationalizations that they think makes it sound erudite and sophisticated.

These characters are so phony; and so stupid.

Pseudo-philosophy for small children; propagated by small, authoritarian minds that are even less mature. YEC fundamentalism went off the cliff long ago.

Get this FL idiot back to the Bathroom Wall. It needs a diaper change.

If one denies that “unbiblical” evidence in the presence cannot tell us about anything in the past – without making “unverifiable assumptions” – then the same holds for the ‘holy” book.

If one asserts that “unbiblical” evidence in the presence cannot tell us about anything in the past – without making “unverifiable assumptions” – then the same holds for the ‘holy” book.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: "You have NO evidence that dinosaurs were NOT created supernaturally, within literal 24-hour timeframes, just as described in the Bible. THAT, is why. (Or plants. Or birds. Or humans.) Science has NOT ruled out the supernatural, and THAT is what Pat Robertson needs to hear. EVERY SINGLE PART OF the Genesis creation account requires a miracle, not just the portions that have a bearing on “Age of the Earth.”. Refusing to believe the literal 24-hour timeframes while claiming to believe the REST of the miraculous events reported, merely creates ADDITIONAL skeptical attacks based on the obvious inconsistency." I have no evidence that there is not a magical unicorn living in a teapot somewhere in the rings of Saturn either Science does not (and cannot) "rule out" the supernatural - a phenomenon attributed to the supernatural is at some level untestable (even if you find a natural cause for the phenomenon - it could be argued that it "just looks that way" and really is a miracle) that is why Science does not consider the supernatural when doing scientific inquiry - invoking the supernatural/miraculous is a "science stopper" and prevents further inquiry. - but FL is correct that the genesis story doesn't hold up unless you assume its ALL miraculous- that's the danger of Biblical literalism - once you try to use a religious/miraculous account as a substitute for verifiable fact -you open yourself up for all kinds of ridicule. (hence the warning by St Augustine 1500+ years ago) by the way - "24hr days" in creation week and a 6000 year old earth - not supported by the majority of Christians

And again we beat FL's lame, worthless arguments and claims like they are the bones of a long decayed horse.

Can we just ban the @$$hole forever and be done with it? Six or seven years of that bastard's blaspheming is looooooooooooooooooooong enough!

dalehusband said: And again we beat FL's lame, worthless arguments and claims like they are the bones of a long decayed horse.

Actually, the reliable limit of carbon dating is only about 50,000 years and it hasn’t been reliably calibrated past that time yet. It isn’t used for dating fossils of dinosaurs, as I pointed out previously.

Can we just ban the @$$hole forever and be done with it?

...but FL is correct that the genesis story doesn’t hold up unless you assume its ALL miraculous- that’s the danger of Biblical literalism

Fossils represent a record of the past history of life on earth, just like fingerprints or trace evidence, we can draw conclusions about the past from OBSERVING evidence in the present.

I want you to actually type out your best description of our position, as you understand it.

The focus of historical research is on explaining existing natural phenomena in terms of long past causes. Two salient examples are the asteroid-impact hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs, which explains the fossil record of the dinosaurs in terms of the impact of a large asteroid, and the “big-bang” theory of the origin of the universe, which explains the puzzling isotropic threedegree background radiation in terms of a primordial explosion. Such work is significantly different from making a prediction and then artificially creating a phenomenon in a laboratory.

Scientists are well aware of the differences between experimental and historical science vis-a`-vis the testing of hypotheses. Indeed, it is sometimes a source of friction. Experimentalists have a tendency to disparage the claims of their historical colleagues, contending that the support offered by their evidence is too weak to count as “good” science. A telling example is the startling number of physicists and chemists who attack neo-Darwinian evolution on the grounds that it hasn’t been adequately “tested.”1 The most sweeping condemnation of historical science, however, comes from Henry Gee, an editor of the prestigious science journal Nature. In Gee’s words “they [historical hypotheses] can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. . . . No science can ever be historical” (2000, 5–8). In other words, for Gee, a genuine test of a hypothesis requires classical experimentation. --Carol Cleland, University of Colo. Boulder Philosophy of Science, 69 (September 2002) http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science.

Apparently, Robertson thinks that historical (origins) science and operational (experimental) science are one and the same. He fails to understand that the time of our origins—which is, incidentally, the beginning of the “time of the Bible,” not “before the time of the Bible”—is not available for scientific testing.

So what you're saying basically comes down to, "Pat has gone off message. what he should be saying is "Ignore reality! Listen to what the bible says!""

Malcolm said: So what you're saying basically comes down to, "Pat has gone off message. what he should be saying is "Ignore reality! Listen to what the bible says!""

Forgetful Floyd said: The age of the Earth is an inference (and if you have a problem with using inferences, you’re in rational trouble already!)

Malcolm said: So what you're saying basically comes down to, "Pat has gone off message. what he should be saying is "Ignore reality! Listen to what the bible says!""

Traces provide evidence for past events just as successful predictions provide evidence for the generalizations examined in the lab. Instead of inferring test implications from a target hypothesis and performing a series of experiments, historical scientists focus their attention on formulating mutually exclusive hypotheses and hunting for evidentiary traces to discriminate among them. The goal is to discover a “smoking gun.” A smoking gun is a trace(s) that unambiguously discriminates one hypothesis from among a set of currently available hypotheses as providing “the best explanation” of the traces thus far observed.

FL wants us to defend Pat Robertson? The loony who told the people of Dover, PA, that they better not ask God for help after they voted those two liars and frauds off the School Board? That prat?

And FL wants us to defend him, not on the basis of actual, you know, facts or evidence, but by interpreting Genesis to his, FL's, satisfaction? Say what?

This is loony tunes territory, and FL thinks we should dance to it. He's flat babbling crazy.

Asshole For Jesus brayed:

Can we just ban the @$$hole forever and be done with it?

Ahh, the Standard Evolutionist Solution to the Pat Robertson issue. If all else fails, just "Ban FL." Why? Because you're not able to defend Robertson from the obvious discrepancies exposed in the response he gave to that poor Christian lady. Good job Dale!

Dave Luckett said: FL wants us to defend Pat Robertson? The loony who told the people of Dover, PA, that they better not ask God for help after they voted those two liars and frauds off the School Board? That prat? And FL wants us to defend him, not on the basis of actual, you know, facts or evidence, but by interpreting Genesis to his, FL's, satisfaction? Say what? This is loony tunes territory, and FL thinks we should dance to it. He's flat babbling crazy.

Floyd lied:

"Good! So indeed Pat Robertson said something to that poor Christian lady that we can BOTH agree was incorrect. As AIG pointed out, Robertson was not only visibly wrong when it comes to the clear details of Genesis, but even in regards to the details of the “radio-carbon dating” he cited to that lady. Thank you for an honest answer, DS."

You really can't write a single sentence without lying can you Floyd? Pat never gave any dates at all. it's the lying scumbags at AIG, (you know the ones you quoted without ever reading), that made the claim. As usual they don't have a clue. You demolished their argument with your own nonsense single handedly. They have no credibility whatsoever. You can keep on quoting and lying all you want, but they are frauds and so are you.

"However, according to the Bible (I know you don’t believe the Bible BUT PAT DOES), the fossils can NOT tell you about the biological origins of plants animals and humans, nor when, nor how long it took."

You are lying again Floyd. I already told you what we learned from the fossils, you know, the ones you said you could tell something about the past from. Just keep lying to yourself asshole. No one cares how ignorant you are. And no one cares what the bible says either, it's not a science book, never was, never will be. Stop pretending asshole. And for the last time, you have no idea what I believe, so STFU up about things you know nothing about, asshole.

Any further responses by me to the lying asshole Floyd will be on the bathroom wall, where I can use the language I really want to to describe his lying bullshit. I suggest, as others have, a permanent banning, but if you can't do that, at least confine the lying prick to somewhere the kiddies are't exposed to his bullshit.

And we’ve already defended Pat Robertson, anyhow.

And we’ve already defended Pat Robertson, anyhow.

FL wants us to defend Pat Robertson? The loony who told the people of Dover, PA, that they better not ask God for help after they voted those two liars and frauds off the School Board? That prat?

He essentially said that one should defer to Science on matter that aren’t covered by the Bible

Extrication seems very likely, FL. Robertson is enough of an egoist to extract his finger, give it to babbling loons like you and go his own way. Maybe he'll write his own inerrant text and set up for a prophet. Stranger things have happened.

You have no idea how emotional I get at the sight of Pat Robertson getting ripped into by his everlovin' Biblical inerrantist buddies. In the old days, they'd have him to the stake or start a religious war over it. Don't it just bust your butt how that's not allowed in these godless times?

Seriously, it doesn't get better than this.

FL said:

He essentially said that one should defer to Science on matter that aren’t covered by the Bible

But in this case, the Bible clearly covers the question (even if you happen to disagree with the Bible's answer), of dinosaurs co-existing on the same day with humans, and even with the amount of time it took to create and populate the earth, which again has direct bearing on Pat Robertson's statements. So this time Robertson has painted HIMSELF into a corner. Extrication doesn't appear likely. FL

FL said:

Actually, the reliable limit of carbon dating is only about 50,000 years and it hasn’t been reliably calibrated past that time yet. It isn’t used for dating fossils of dinosaurs, as I pointed out previously.

Good! So indeed Pat Robertson said something to that poor Christian lady that we can BOTH agree was incorrect. As AIG pointed out, Robertson was not only visibly wrong when it comes to the clear details of Genesis, but even in regards to the details of the "radio-carbon dating" he cited to that lady. Thank you for an honest answer, DS. It's pretty safe to assume that you won't be able to specifically defend Robertson's statements against any OTHER portion of AIG's fisking article either. And yes, I'll be watching to see if you even dare to try. Honestly? I bet you will not. In fact ALL of you Pandas appear to have given up on defending Robertson's specific statements vis-a-vis the detailed criticisms of the AIG-Mitchell article. It's amazing to see you scoot away from his actual remarks. I guess you already know that what Pat Robertson said, IS TOTALLY incongruent with his publicly stated Bible-beliefs, Miracle-Beliefs, and Creationist-beliefs. (You could always ask Mike E for help with defending Robertson's actual statements, but you know THAT's a waste of time.) ****

Can we just ban the @$$hole forever and be done with it?

Ahh, the Standard Evolutionist Solution to the Pat Robertson issue. If all else fails, just "Ban FL." Why? Because you're not able to defend Robertson from the obvious discrepancies exposed in the response he gave to that poor Christian lady. Good job Dale! **** Meanwhile, Me-Yahoo-Com pointed out that:

...but FL is correct that the genesis story doesn’t hold up unless you assume its ALL miraculous- that’s the danger of Biblical literalism

Yes, that is the danger, Me-Yahoo-Com. But guess what? Pat Robertson is a biblical literalist just like I am! That's why the AIG article is so very devastating against him. Robertson has ALWAYS identified himself as being a biblical literalist, even now. Adam, Eve, Fall, Flood, Miracles (he even wrote a book about literal Miracles), the whole nine literal yards. So now Robertson has painted himself into a corner for PRECISELY the reason you provided -- "The genesis story doesn’t hold up unless you assume its ALL miraculous." Exactly. You nailed it. That's why your evolutionist brethren would rather "Ban FL" than try to defend Pat Robertson on this one. They know that Robertson has effectively TORPEDOED HIS OWN PERSONAL BIBLE BELIEFS on this one, and he can't even fix or "clarify" his own discrepancies on it. FL

So how come you can’t answer why, if the Bible does not mention either dinosaurs or the Age of the Earth, *** save for the most vaguest of inferences ***

Problem, FL: "inferences" are implicit, not explicit. There is no way to read an "inference" literally.

Since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name, nor does it include a value for the age of the Earth, then any statements about what the Bible says re age of the earth or existence of dinosaurs are a matter of subjective interpretation by fallible human individuals.

FL, you are entitled to your beliefs as to what Genesis means, but so is Pat Robertson. And Pat disagrees with you.

The real question is, why should we give your particular subjective interpretation of Genesis any more respect or attention than Robertson's opinion, or Alfred E. Neuman's opinion?

You're just a believer shouting on the internet that you're right. You haven't given us any actual reasons to prefer your own interpretation over anyone else's.

Robertson's point was that the age of the earth is NOT stated explicitly, and that Bishop Ussher's derivation was only his own interpretation of scripture.

Robertson says Ussher was wrong.

Robertson says FL is wrong.

Christians say FL is wrong.

That is all.

FL said:

So how come you can’t answer why, if the Bible does not mention either dinosaurs or the Age of the Earth, *** save for the most vaguest of inferences ***

So! After all that hemming and hawing and mysterious "we" business,

YOU are finally forced to fess up to that pesky little "sixth day" biblical inference! Now if we can just get Pat Robertson to do the same.

Dave Thomas said: Problem, FL: "inferences" are implicit, not explicit. There is no way to read an "inference" literally. Since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name, nor does it include a value for the age of the Earth, then any statements about what the Bible says re age of the earth or existence of dinosaurs are a matter of subjective interpretation by fallible human individuals. FL, you are entitled to your beliefs as to what Genesis means, but so is Pat Robertson. And Pat disagrees with you. The real question is, why should we give your particular subjective interpretation of Genesis any more respect or attention than Robertson's opinion, or Alfred E. Neuman's opinion? You're just a believer shouting on the internet that you're right. You haven't given us any actual reasons to prefer your own interpretation over anyone else's. Robertson's point was that the age of the earth is NOT stated explicitly, and that Bishop Ussher's derivation was only his own interpretation of scripture. Robertson says Ussher was wrong. Robertson says FL is wrong. Christians say FL is wrong. That is all.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 said: Oh, (FL is) saying that biblical literalists are inconsistent? No shit, sherlock. But you don't care about that, you knew that anyway, didn't you Flawed? You aren't here to advocate for biblical literalism you are here to drive more people away from the Cross.

just to be clear - no one (I believe) is defending Pat Robertson in general, many of the public posistions he's taken I've found to be reprehensible. I believe him to be an extremist and a dangerous influence in politics. The point (IMHO) is that even Pat Robertson says the AiG's posistion (young earth creationsism/ thier flavor of biblical literalism/ etc) is too extreme - then Ken Ham/AiG really looks batshit insane

FL said: So this time Robertson has painted HIMSELF into a corner. Extrication doesn't appear likely.

FL said:

Or maybe pat Robertson just understands the Bible better than you do, FL. Why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible more than his?

Because I can explicitly show from the Bible text where his given interpretation doesn't match up with the Scripture. We all have interpretations, but they have to match up with Scripture if we insist, as me and Pat does, that the Bible is infallible. If you can show where his does match up with Scripture, please do so. FL

FL said: Briefly, Eric said,

I want you to actually type out your best description of our position, as you understand it.

No, it's time for YOU to actually type out YOUR best description of the problem AIG is referencing on Robertson, and then actually SHOW that Robertson isn't indeed guilty of that problem.

A couple of my friends were discussing a diversity issue the other day. Ferris was having a bit of trouble understanding how to capitalize on differences among group members, especially when those differences are obvious and have historically been the basis for discrimination and other inappropriate behavior. My friend Josh explained it this way: "You've read about how Santa had Rudolph guide his sleigh when it was too foggy for the other reindeer to do so. This is an excellent example of how to capitalize on the full range of team members' abilities."

Question: Based on a literal reading of his statement, does Josh accept the existence of Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer as literally true?

Dave Luckett said: Extrication seems very likely, FL. Robertson is enough of an egoist to extract his finger, give it to babbling loons like you and go his own way. Maybe he'll write his own inerrant text and set up for a prophet. Stranger things have happened. You have no idea how emotional I get at the sight of Pat Robertson getting ripped into by his everlovin' Biblical inerrantist buddies. In the old days, they'd have him to the stake or start a religious war over it. Don't it just bust your butt how that's not allowed in these godless times? Seriously, it doesn't get better than this.

FL said:

Or maybe pat Robertson just understands the Bible better than you do, FL. Why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible more than his?

Because I can explicitly show from the Bible text where his given interpretation doesn't match up with the Scripture. We all have interpretations, but they have to match up with Scripture if we insist, as me and Pat does, that the Bible is infallible. If you can show where his does match up with Scripture, please do so. FL

FL said:

Or maybe pat Robertson just understands the Bible better than you do, FL. Why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible more than his?

Because I can explicitly show from the Bible text where his given interpretation doesn't match up with the Scripture. We all have interpretations, but they have to match up with Scripture if we insist, as me and Pat does, that the Bible is infallible. If you can show where his does match up with Scripture, please do so. FL

DS said:

FL said:

Or maybe pat Robertson just understands the Bible better than you do, FL. Why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible more than his?

Because I can explicitly show from the Bible text where his given interpretation doesn't match up with the Scripture. We all have interpretations, but they have to match up with Scripture if we insist, as me and Pat does, that the Bible is infallible. If you can show where his does match up with Scripture, please do so. FL

No one gives a shit about what the bible says.

You have no evidence, you lose.

SWT said: A couple of my friends were discussing a diversity issue the other day. Ferris was having a bit of trouble understanding how to capitalize on differences among group members, especially when those differences are obvious and have historically been the basis for discrimination and other inappropriate behavior. My friend Josh explained it this way: "You've read about how Santa had Rudolph guide his sleigh when it was too foggy for the other reindeer to do so. This is an excellent example of how to capitalize on the full range of team members' abilities." Question: Based on a literal reading of his statement, does Josh accept the existence of Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer as literally true?

Robertson would probably reply that he is not giving precdent to science because the findings of an old earth do not contradict scripture; if you think so, you are reading the bible wrong. For myself, I think this argument is subjective and cannot be resolved.

I do think that AIG’s claim is complete bullflop. I have described why I think its bullflop.

Apparently, Robertson thinks that historical (origins) science and operational (experimental) science are one and the same. He fails to understand that the time of our origins—which is, incidentally, the beginning of the “time of the Bible,” not “before the time of the Bible”—is not available for scientific testing.

FL said: It's not subjective at all...

So that would be a no Floyd, you haver no evidence at all, never did, never will. Got it.

No dinosaurs working in the Bedrock quarry. No dinosaurs building Stone Henge. No dinosaurs in Atlantis. No dinosaurs eating wooly mammoths. No dinosaurs attacking the Egyptians building the pyramids, or the guys building the tower of Babel, or the natives in North America, or the Aztecs or the Mayans. No dinosaurs on flying saucers or in time machines. No pictures, videos, written records anywhere, not even any cave drawings.

You do know that we can get DNA from extinct species like Neanderthals, right Floyd? You know the went extinct over 40,000 years ago, right. No Floyd, pay close attention, why do you suppose we don't have any dinosaur DNA? Why is that Floyd? Maybe it's the same reason that we can't date dinosaur remains using carbon dating? Do you suppose that's it Floyd?

Put down your bible, take a course in paleontology, learn some science, then piss off.

Oh, Floyd, once again I find myself dealing with another turd you have decided to leave on Panda’s Thumb. There is no real difference between Experimental Science and Historical Science. The only difference between the two is a method of methodology. You would know that if you actually read the paper you yourself sited. Carol Cleland actually states “it would be a mistake to conclude that hypotheses about the remote past can’t be “tested.”” Then she goes on to explain exactly how we would test Historical Science. Traces provide evidence for past events just as successful predictions provide evidence for the generalizations examined in the lab. Instead of inferring test implications from a target hypothesis and performing a series of experiments, historical scientists focus their attention on formulating mutually exclusive hypotheses and hunting for evidentiary traces to discriminate among them. The goal is to discover a “smoking gun.” A smoking gun is a trace(s) that unambiguously discriminates one hypothesis from among a set of currently available hypotheses as providing “the best explanation” of the traces thus far observed. And no, I don’t care what Roger “Bigfoot Boy” Patterson says historical science can, and indeed is, tested.

DS said: Put down your bible, take a course in paleontology, learn some science, then piss off.

phhht said: Since Josh doesn't assert the literal existence of Santa and Rudolph, I see no reason to think so. It's common to employ references to imaginary beings in metaphorical ways, as Josh does. After all, you don't tug on Superman's cape or pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger.

Come on Floyd we're all waiting for you to convince us with evidence. You know, a dinosaur with a spear point in him, or an arrow, a musket ball. a slug from a 45, anything really. How about a mass dinosaur grave full of half eaten dinosaurs with human teeth marks? How about a mass human grave with humans with dinosaur teeth marks? How about an appearance of a dinosaur on TV, you know maybe in one of those Geico commercials with that touchy Neanderthal guy. Maybe the dinosaur could play tennis with him.

Seems like the only species of dinosaur that ever existed is the suregladthehumansdidn'tsaurus.

Or maybe you should just watch Jurrasic park. You know the movie that showed what it would have been like if humans and dinosaurs lived together. Even with modern weapons and transportation the humans didn't do so well. Take a lesson FLoyd. this is the imaginary world you live in. Fred Flintstone and Jurrasic Park, yubba dubba do. Or maybe Barney is more your speed. Now there was a friendly dinosaur if there ever was one.

Now FLoyd, pay close attention, it's worse than you think. You see there was another dominant form of life that ruled the ancient earth. Thousands of species that all went extinct millions of years before dinosaurs ever evolved. Can you say trilobite Floyd? Look it up some time. Funny the bible doesn't mention anything about them either. Now why is that Floyd? Is your holey book full of holes?

DS said: Come on Floyd we're all waiting for you to convince us with evidence.

FL said:

It’s not subjective at all, at least not for anyone who has access to a Bible and can compare the actual Bible text to Robertson’s actual video statements. Same for me; just check my statements against what the Scripture clearly says. Remember, one of Robertson’s specific claims was that the BIBLE didn’t support a 6000 year old earth, so now he’s stuck with it. Rational comparisons with text can be made, using standard online Bible Study tools (English or Hebrew) that’s available to anyone. So things are rather easily compared and checked. He got it wrong. ...

FL

Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop [James] Ussher wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.

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.

You say this isn’t just subjectivity regarding the Bible. Fine. All you have to do is simply name the chapter and verse that explain the earth’s 6,000-year-age, or the existence of dinosaurs. If they are subjective, however - such as, for example, bishops estimating genealogies, or some vague crap about “beasts” - they will be bathroom walled as soon as I can get to it.

FL said: It's not subjective at all, at least not for anyone who has access to a Bible and can compare the actual Bible text to Robertson's actual video statements. Same for me; just check my statements against what the Scripture clearly says.

I do think that AIG’s claim is complete bullflop. I have described why I think its bullflop.

I know you see it that way; I read it previously. That’s why I threw in that published article from “Carol” which openly acknowledged that scientists (plural), including Henry Gee, clearly affirmed the existence of a real difference between historical and experimental (operational) science. [blah blah blah]

Also, the AIG article specified EXACTLY which part of Robertson's comments were impacted by this one distinction. Couldn't help but notice that you weren't able to extricate Robertson's specific statements and show that this distinction didn't apply to them.

And so now that I’ve described your argument, I again invite you to describe mine. Tell us, in your own words, why we think AIG’s two-science model is complete bullflop.

Just did. It's actually an arbitrary, ad-hoc, "Taint So" kind of thing you're doing.

Anyway, let's stop there.

Floyd just can't see the harm he is doing. He can't see that demanding that everyone interpret the bible the way he does is driving people away from his religion. He can't see that disagreeing with real bible scholars who have spent their whole lives studying the bible simply illustrates the vacuity of their claims of biblical infallibility, as well as his own. He can't see that lying and taunting and insulting and engaging in contemptible behavior is not being a good witness for his faith or his god. But most of all he can't see how denial of reality is causing a real crisis of conscience for many people. LIes and deceit are not a viable alternative to reality.

That's the whole point here. A woman was terrified that her family would lose their faith when confronted with reality. Floyd says, no problem, just lie to them, they'll fall for it. They will never demand evidence, they will be satisfied with lies and evasions and fairy tales. He can't seem to understand that the entire world has figured out that that approach is worthless. Most people are too smart to fall for that crap any more. Thus all the bluster and threats and lying and offensive behavior. He doesn't have the one thing he really needs, evidence. He refuses to even admit that it's possible to have evidence. He can't try to present evidence when he has already demonstrated that he doesn't understand what it is or why it's important. If he really believed all his own lies, he never should have admitted that dinosaurs existed in the first place. After all, that's just historical science and it doesn't really count. Ultimately, Floyd knows that he has already gone the way of the dinosaur, he just can't admit it.

Rando,

Thanks for your post about the lack of difference between Experimental and Historical science. I had not even heard of this particular assault on science from the creationists.

I thought you (all) might find it interesting that I noticed that I use these two methods interchangeably and had never noticed that they are actually two methods. Since they aren’t actually two methods I don’t feel bad about not noticing. But perhaps my example will show why they aren’t different at all.

We run expensive experiments. Since they are expensive we instrument them extensively and collect lots of data. One half Terra byte is a pretty common data set size for one experiment. So our most normal form of hypothesis testing is not to run another expensive test. Our most normal form of hypothesis testing is to ask ourselves what we would expect to see in the data that has already been collected. In looking through the traces that have already been left behind we are doing what Fl calls historical science. Eighty to Ninety percent of the time this data investigation is all that is required. Sometimes we feel that we need a confirming new experiment. So we effortlessly switch back and forth between doing new experiments or just reanalysis of historical data sets all in the same search. Anyway I found it interesting that creationists describe my work as using two completely distinct non-overlapping methodologies when I myself think of it all as one method which is of course one hundred percent overlapped.

I see in the news today that Marco Rubio is clarifying his statement about the age of the Earth, and that he knows that there is no scientific controversy about it being 4.5 billion years old, and that this does not conflict with his Catholic belief that God created the Earth.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: I wonder if Ichthyosaurs were poofed on the 6th day?

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/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_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 amphibians, and marine vegetation?

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!

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

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/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2169&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.

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?

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

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.

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.]

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

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.

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.

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.

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